Agenda and minutes
Venue: Teams Meeting
Contact: Committee Services
Media
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes:
There were no interests declared by Councillors. |
|||||||||||||
BC/20/15 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 10 NOVEMBER 2020 PDF 296 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That the Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 10 November 2020 be confirmed as a true record and signed at the next practicable opportunity.
|
|||||||||||||
BC/20/16 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 NOVEMBER 2020 PDF 324 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That with the following amendments the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 November 2020 be confirmed and signed as a true record at the next practicable opportunity.
Paragraph 33.10 be amended to read:- Councillor McCraw thanked the Corporate Manager for ICT for the presentation which had made the technical issues easy to understand. He thought that it was important to take care when creating the processes and that to be successful, IT being intuitive had to be key. He felt that it was good that the Council was not subservient to Suffolk County Council and that the Council had its own ICT Strategy.
|
|||||||||||||
BC/20/17 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND LEADER PDF 17 KB In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/20/17 attached, detailing events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Minutes: 38.1 The Chair referred to Paper BC/20/17, which was for noting.
38.2 She invited the Leader, Councillor Ward to make his announcement.
38.3 Councillor Ward made the following announcement:
This second COVID-19 wave was much worse than the first last Spring, Suffolk has been badly hit like all regions. Fortunately, all districts in the county, including Ipswich, were at last showing a steady and significant decrease over the past few days. The latest data from the Suffolk Corona watch site showed that in Babergh the infection rate is now 411.8 per 100,000. In total, there had been 3,137 confirmed cases and sadly 132 deaths since the pandemic began, although this latter number was the latest data from the ONS and was only up to 1st January. The Council must continue with the public awareness and messaging campaign and follow the lockdown rules. However, the vaccination programme was underway and accelerating which was good news.
The new Closed Business Lockdown Payment grants were now available, and payments had started for this and the tier 4 grants to qualifying businesses. The grant situation had become quite complex as there were several that continue to be available. Full details have been published on the Council’s website, including a comprehensive infographic describing them all. Before the debate for the petition that the Council had received from Hadleigh regarding short-term parking charges, he just wanted to address another petition that was received from Thomas Morelli in Sudbury. The constitution governed the rules to validate a petition to avoid fraud and unfortunately this petition, as submitted, contravened those rules. He knew that this had disappointed many people, including some Members, but the rejection of this petition on these grounds was consistent with the rejection of previous petitions for the same reason. If these rules were ignored, others would demand the same leeway and the petition scheme would collapse. However, this was a difficult and sensitive matter and it had been considered carefully how a reasonable way might be found in line with the constitution whilst also recognising the efforts that Mr. Morelli had gone to in capturing a section of public feeling on these issues. The Council did therefore invite him to speak today on the Hadleigh parking petition, but he declined. In respect of the Belle Vue land and house sale, Mr. Morelli’s petition’s request to delay consideration was consistent with the Council’s timeline as the matter would be considered by Cabinet on 11th March 2021. He would also like to explain some more about what was happening with the Sudbury Access Point. Firstly, the future of this had already been decided as an officer-delegated decision was made on 1st December and the details of this had been published on the Council’s website. Councillor Parker explained the situation very clearly in his email to all Members on 18th December 2020. The current Service Level Agreement with Sudbury Town Council was due to expire at the end of March 2021. The Town ... view the full minutes text for item 38. |
|||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 11, the Chief Executive will report the receipt of any petitions.
Minutes: There were no validated petitions received. |
|||||||||||||
PETITION FOR DEBATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME PDF 477 KB To report and debate the following Petition, containing at least 1000 valid signatures, in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme:
Free Parking Hadleigh
We the undersigned petition the Council to Maintain the free parking in all Hadleigh car parks.
It is now more essential than ever for the vitality and future of Hadleigh High Street to enable local and visiting shoppers to park free of charge. A number of new outlets have only just opened and to impinge businesses sustainability by the introduction of parking charges would be completely retrograde. Any decisions of this nature should only take place after the fullest public consultation.
Minutes: 40.1 The Chair read the Petition as detailed in the Agenda.
40.2 The Monitoring Officer outlined the process to be followed for the debate, detailed under Part B of Section 3.1 of the Petitions Scheme contained in the Constitution.
40.3 The Monitoring Officer advised Members that questions had been received from Hadleigh Town Council and a member of the public regarding the subject matter of the petition and the Chairman had agreed to vary the order of business on the Agenda to take these questions at the same time as the petition.
40.4 The Monitoring Officer also advised that as the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had recently considered the proposed Parking Policy report, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be invited to present any comments from the Committee which were relevant to the debate.
40.5 The Chair invited the petition organiser, Mr Laing, to present the petition.
Mr Laing made the following presentation:
Whilst other Councils across the Country are introducing periods of free parking to try and encourage footfall in the high street, this Cabinet, having established that the average parking time is 64 minutes, has cynically sought to charge after only 30 minutes. Babergh’s own Q and A page has a link to the Association of Town and City Management, to a report they clearly attach some weight to. From that report Rugby Council are working with retailers to shape parking. The retailers can issue permits to customers for 4 hours free parking. Another example, not from the report, Tees Valley has just these months introduced free parking for a minimum stay of two hours, up to a maximum of three hours. This policy to be in place for two years. Tees Valley’s Mayor has said that everyone across our region deserves a vibrant and thriving high street, that can still flourish in an age of online shopping. They are the life blood of our area and introducing free parking can help make them an even more dynamic and vibrate place to live and do business.
From the statutory guidance for Local Authorities on Enforcing Parking restrictions, the Secretary of State recommends that enforcement authorities, should consult locally on their parking policies when they appraise them, they should seek the views of people and businesses with a range of different parking needs, including the views of the police. The appraisal should take account of the impact on the local economy and the viability of local shops and high streets. To my knowledge none of this has happened.
The British Retail Consortium has warned of conditions getting worse for non-essential shops and the high street generally. Retail figures for 2020 are the worst on record except for food and online shopping. The Centre for Retail research has said that 2020 was the worst for high street job losses in 25 years.
This proposal in its present form fails. It fails for not engaging with town and parish councils. It fails for not engaging with local businesses ... view the full minutes text for item 40.
|
|||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 422 KB The Chairmen of Committees to answer any questions by the public of which notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 12.
Additional documents: Minutes: The questions had been dealt with under the Petition Scheme item. |
|||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES The Chairman of the Council, the Chairmen of Committees and Sub-Committees and Portfolio Holders to answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affect the District of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13.
Minutes:
There were no questions received. |
|||||||||||||
BC/20/18 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPORT PDF 480 KB Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes: 43.1 The Chair invited the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor McCraw to introduce Paper BC/20/18.
Councillor McCraw provided a summary of the past two Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings and informed Members that recommendations and the minute relating to the Representation on Outside Bodies were included in the Agenda for consideration. |
|||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET / COMMITTEES |
|||||||||||||
JAC/20/3 HALF YEAR REPORT ON TREASURY MANAGEMENT 2020/21 PDF 100 KB Co-Chair of Joint Audit and Standards Committee.
At its meeting on 30 November 2020, the Joint Audit and Standards Committee considered Paper JAC/20/3 – Half Year Report on Treasury Management 2020/21. The recommendations set out in the report were accepted.
It was RECOMMENDED TO BOTH COUNCILS: 1) That the Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2020/21 as set out in the report and Appendices be noted. 2) That it be noted that both Councils’ Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2020/21 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period. Note – It is a requirement of the Code of Practice on Treasury Management that full Council notes the Half-Year position.
Additional documents:
Minutes: 45.1 The Chair invited the Chair of the Joint Audit and Standards Committee, Councillor Hurren to introduce Paper JAC/20/3.
45.2 Councillor Hurren provided a detailed summary of the report and MOVED Recommendations 3.1 and 3.2 in the report.
45.3 Councillor Ward SECONDED the recommendations.
45.4 Councillor Lindsay queried the PWLB borrowing rate which had increased by 1% on the Council’s loans and whether the Council would be able to borrow from the Municipal Bonds Agency, set up by the LGA, which provided a lower borrowing rate.
45.5 Councillor Hurren asked that Councillor Lindsay raise this at the next Joint Audit and Standards Committee meeting.
45.6 The Assistant Director – Corporate Resources stated that the PWLB interest rate had reduced again by 1%, which made it a more competitive rate. Any borrowing from the Municipal Bonds Agency had been considered and came with conditions such as a joint liability clause, which the Council had to adhere to.
Note: Councillor Holt left the meeting at 7:48pm.
Note the meeting was adjourned between 7:49 pm. and 7:53 pm due to technical issues.
45.7 The recommendations were put to Members for voting.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
(1) That the Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2020/21 as set out in the report and Appendices be noted.
1.2 That it be noted that both Councils’ Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2020/21 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period.
|
|||||||||||||
BC/20/19 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE JOINT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE PDF 97 KB Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee
At its meeting on 23 November 2020, the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered Paper JOS/20/3 – Review of Outside Bodies.
The Committee’s Recommendations to Council are attached as Paper BC/20/19. Additional documents: Minutes: 46.1 The Chair invited the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor McCraw to introduce the recommendations from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee in Paper MC/20/19.
46.2 Councillor McCraw provided a summary of the reasons behind the recommendations, including that the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee had deemed that the Haven Gateway Partnership did not contribute any value to the Council, that the Member reporting template would be used at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s annual review of Outside Bodies and that Members had expressed that training opportunities should be provided to both new and existing Members.
46.3 Councillor McCraw PROPOSED Recommendations 1.1 to 1.6 which was SECONDED by Councillor Malvisi.
46.4 Councillor Arthey queried the removal of the Joint Waste Management Board as he thought it still met. However, Councillor Malvisi, who had been appointed to represent the Council at the above Outside Body, agreed with Councillor McCraw that it did not exist.
46.5 Councillor Ward asked that Members reconsidered Recommendation 1.2, as representation on the Haven Gateway Partnership would be beneficial to the Council due to the current discussions around free ports.
46.6 Councillor Jan Osborne asked for clarification of Recommendation 1.2 and if there were any financial issues to be contributed to the Partnership and where the organisation was based.
46.7 Councillor McCraw responded that he believed it was based in Essex.
46.8 Members debated the recommendations and Councillor Davis stated that having a seat on Haven Gateway Partnership was important, especially for the Council’s involvement with the free port in Felixstowe.
46.9 Some Members thought that representation on Haven Gateway Partnership had been useful in the past and others thought representation should only continue if there were current benefits for the Council.
46.10 The Chair suggested that Recommendation 1.2 was voted on separately from the rest of the recommendations.
46.11 Councillor McCraw the Proposer and Councillor Malvisi, the Seconder both approved of this suggestion.
46.12 Councillor Arthey clarified that the Joint Waste Contract Board did not require specific member representation and he agreed that the Joint Waste Management Board did no longer exist.
46.13 Recommendation 1.2 was put to Members for voting.
By 6 votes for and 21 votes against, 1 abstention.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the vote was lost.
46.14 The meeting had reached the guillotine deadline and the Chair asked for a proposer and seconder for the meeting to continue.
46.15 Councillor McCraw PROPOSED that the meeting continued, which was SECONDED by Councillor Malvisi.
46.16 Members approved by consensus and none spoke against the proposal.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the meeting continue beyond the guillotine deadline, until all business was concluded.
46.17 Recommendations 1.1, and 1.3 to 1.5 were put to Members for voting.
By 25 votes for and 1 vote against, 1 abstention.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the following appointments to Outside Bodies, no longer requiring representation, be removed from the appointments made, based on the information received. Babergh District Council
Babergh Domestic Violence and Abuse Forum
|
|||||||||||||
Chief Executive Additional documents: Minutes: 47.1 The Chair invited the Monitoring Officer to introduce Paper BC/20/20, which was for noting. The Monitoring Officer stated that the decisions had been taken to assist the Council to respond to the Covid-19 Pandemic. |
|||||||||||||
BC/20/21 STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN 2020-2025 PDF 147 KB Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments Additional documents: Minutes: 48.1 The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments, Councillor Busby to introduce Paper BC/20/21.
48.2 Councillor Busby provided a brief introduction and thanked the officers involved for the work undertaken.
48.3 Councillor Busby PROPOSED Recommendation 3.1, which was SECONDED by Councillor Ward.
48.4 Members had no questions and the Chairs invited Members to debate the report.
48.5 Members debated the issues including:
· That this was a timely report as there was a need for the Strategic Assets Management Plan (SAMP) · The SAMP would be used to support all the Council’s policies and projects. · That the SAMP was a continuous process and would be updated regularly. · That the Council owned 800 open spaces, some of them very small. · That some of these small spaces had been constrained by planning applications. · That now that the internal process was in place, Members hoped to see some management of public places.
48.6 Members thanked officers and commended the expertise that the Council had gained in producing the SAMP.
48.7 The Recommendation was put to Members for voting.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
That Council approves and adopts the SAMP for 2020-2025 (Appendix 1) including the Transactions and Community Transfer Policies set out in the SAMP as Appendices A and B.
|
|||||||||||||
BC/20/22 TIMETABLE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS 2021/22 PDF 114 KB Leader of the Council Additional documents: Minutes: 49.1 The Chair invited the Leader, Councillor Ward to introduce Paper BC/20/22.
49.2 Councillor Ward provided Members with a brief introduction and PROPOSED Recommendation 3.1 in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Malvisi.
49.3 Councillor Owen was concerned that there was only a Full Council meeting every two months.
49.4 The Monitoring Officer responded that there were seven Council meetings scheduled over a twelve-month period.
49.5 The Recommendation was put to Members for voting.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:-
That the draft Committee Timetable for 2021/22 be approved.
|
|||||||||||||
MOTION ON NOTICE |
|||||||||||||
Motion received from Councillor Ward To consider the Motion on Notice received from Councillor Ward:
This Council expresses alarm at the rise in antisemitism across the UK in recent years. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) guidelines on antisemitism, negotiated and agreed at an international level, were adopted by the UK Government in 2016. These guidelines define antisemitism thus:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
· Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. · Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. · Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. · Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust). · Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. · Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. · Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. · Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. · Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. · Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. · Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
This Council hereby adopts the above definition of antisemitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and adopted by the UK Government, and pledges to combat this anti-Jewish racism.
Proposer – Cllr John Ward Seconder – Cllr Jan Osborne Minutes: 50.1 The Chair invited The Leader, Councillor Ward to introduce his Motion.
50.2 Councillor Ward said that the District of Babergh had a long and proud association with the Jewish community and was a refuge for children fleeing persecution by Nazi Germany through the Kindertransport, who came to live with foster families in the district. Sadly, many of the 10,000 children who arrived in the UK were never reunited with their birth parents, who died during the Holocaust. A painful reminder of why tackling hate crime was so important and the potential consequences that could arise when it was allowed to go unchecked. On Wednesday, 27 January, the UK was marking Holocaust Memorial Day, and remembering the millions of people murdered during the Holocaust and in genocides that followed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kurdistan, and Darfur. This was a timely opportunity to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism – as part of the Council’s commitment to tackling hate crime in all its forms. This definition, which was adopted by the UK government in 2016, outlaws all forms of hatred towards Jewish people, including rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism.
50.3 By adopting this standard the Council would be sending a clear message that the Council was committed to identifying and stamping out antic Semitic abuse as well as supporting the Council’s equality objectives and providing residents and visitors reassurance of this commitment.
50.4 He urged all Councillors to support the Motion and send a clear message.
50.5 Councillor Ward MOVED his Motion, which was SECONDED by Councillor Jan Osborne.
50.6 Members debated the Motion and all Members agreed that all forms of genocide, hate crime, discrimination and racism should not be tolerated. Even if many people regarded this as a matter of fact, there was still hidden racism and discrimination in everyday life.
50.7 Members welcomed and supported the Motion and some Members shared personal experiences of genocide and racism.
50.8 Councillor Ward thanked Members for the good debate and valuable contributions.
50.9 The Motion was put to Members for voting.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED:-
This Council hereby adopts the above definition of antisemitism as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and adopted by the UK Government, and pledges to combat this anti-Jewish racism.
|
|||||||||||||
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS Minutes: There were no changes to placings. |