Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 86.1 The Monitoring Officer granted a dispensation to all Councillors in regards to Papers BC/23/38 and BC/23/39.
86.2 There were no declarations of interests by Councillors. |
|||||||||
BC/23/35 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 JANUARY 2024 PDF 107 KB Minutes: 87.1 Councillor Maybury raised in respect of point 83.3, that it was Councillor Reece who had made comments about support for farmers and herself who had expressed sympathies to all affected by the recent flooding.
87.2 Councillor Holt raised in respect of point 80.11, that Councillor Ward was yet to provide Members with the accurate figures for deferred payments as promised.
It was RESOLVED:
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2024 be confirmed and signed as a true record. |
|||||||||
BC/23/36 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR AND LEADER PDF 51 KB In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/23/36 attached, detailing events attended by the Chair and Vice-Chair.
Minutes: 88.1 The Chair referred Members to Paper BC/23/36 for noting.
88.2 Councillor Ward, Acting Leader for Babergh District Council, made the following announcements:
Shortlisted for UK Council of the Year
I’m delighted to announce that Babergh and MS have been named a finalist for UK Council of the Year at the prestigious iESE Public Sector Transformation Awards 2024.
Although we have in the past won iESE awards in 2020, 2021 and last year, this is no mean feat and it is fantastic recognition for everyone's hard work, innovation and dedication. We face many challenges in local government, but our teams always step up to deliver for residents and communities.
The awards ceremony is on 6th March in London, and I am sure we all have our fingers crossed.
I would also like to congratulate our Building Control team, who have won a national industry award for their work on Black Pheasant Barn in Sudbury.
Deadline for locality awards
I am sure all councillors are aware, but I would like to remind you that we have until 22nd March to spend any remaining locality award budgets. Our websites contain guidance as to how locality funding can be spent, including the full eligibility criteria and a breakdown of eligible projects.
At the end of the financial year, our communications team will be doing a broad celebration of all the ways in which you all have helped communities using the awards.
Retrofit solutions conference
I would like to raise awareness of a free event focused on making Suffolk’s older homes more energy efficient, which takes place at The Hold in Ipswich on 6th March.
The Retrofit Solutions Conference is open to homeowners, landlords and building professionals. It will feature case studies and expert advice on providing innovative retrofit solutions to help increase energy efficiency in properties of all types.
You can sign up on the Green Suffolk website.
Holton Litter Pick
Finally, I just want to let you all know about the litter picking that residents of one of my parishes, Holton St. Mary, have been doing. They have compiled a full audit of everything they collected in 2023 and it is quite a haul: in total, they collected 3,320 litres of all sorts of rubbish, some quite revolting.
It is depressing to see the amount and also the nature of the litter discarded. However, it is also inspiring to know that the residents of Holton St. Mary really care about their community and are prepared to put in so much effort to keep it clean and tidy.
I am sure the problem is replicated in most of our communities and we must do all we can to help our residents combat this plague.
|
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES The Chair of the Council 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.
Minutes: 89.1 None received. |
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 68 KB The Chair of the Council, the Chairs 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: 90.1 The Chair invited Councillor Riley to ask his question.
Councillor Riley to Councillor John Ward, Acting Leader of the Council
What is the split between ourselves and Mid Suffolk for the cost of the chief executive e.g., salary, allowances, pension provision etc?
Response from Councillor Ward, Acting Leader of the Council
All officers work for both councils and apportionment is generally 50:50. Any exceptions to this are specified by service area in the Staff Cost Sharing Addendum to the Inter-authority Agreement. The splits are reviewed annually, based on demand during the year, to ensure that they remain correct.
Specifically, I can confirm that all SLT costs, including the chief executive, are split 50:50 between Babergh and Mid Suffolk.
This cost sharing is the principal benefit of our successful working together partnership, which is now in its 13th year of delivering valuable savings for both councils.
Supplementary question from Councillor Riley
The population of Babergh is 92,000 and the population of Mid Suffolk is 102,000. On the basis that we split Senior Leadership Team costs on a population basis, it means that Babergh are subsidising Mid Suffolk’s Senior Leadership Team costs by 11%.
On what basis do we have to split these costs down the middle when Mid Suffolk absorbs more of the time and energy than Babergh does and yet we are paying for it?
Response from Councillor Ward
I refute the assertion about the Senior Leadership Team - they work equally for both councils.
|
|||||||||
BC/23/37 EMPTY HOMES AND SECOND HOMES POLICY PDF 188 KB Cabinet Member for Housing Additional documents:
Minutes: 91.1 The Chair invited Councillor Carter, Cabinet Member for Housing, to introduce Paper BC/23/37.
91.2 Councillor Carter introduced Paper BC/23/37 to Members outlining its purpose and PROPOSED the recommendations as detailed in the report.
91.3 Councillor Derek Davis SECONDED the proposal.
91.4 Councillor Beer queried what a Class F Council Tax exemption was. The Shared Revenue Partnership Operations Manager responded that a Class F exemption was one that dealt specifically with properties undergoing probate.
91.5 Councillor Holt queried whether the upcoming regulations to cover exceptions to premiums was being introduced this year or in 2025. The Shared Revenue Partnership Operations Manager responded that the regulations would be introduced this year.
91.6 Councillor Jamieson questioned what provisions were in place for homes that were empty due to the owners being taken into long-term care. The Shared Revenue Partnership Operations Manager responded that there were appropriate exemptions within the policy that covered these situations.
91.7 Councillor Holt questioned whether the policy was being introduced to generate more income for the Council or for more houses to be put back on to the market for tenants. The Cabinet Member for Housing responded that the main aim of the policy was to bring more houses back into use.
91.8 Councillor Reece queried how it was determined that a property is a second home. The Shared Revenue Partnership Operations Manager responded that second homes are identified through the property not being designated as an owner’s primary residence and stated that these properties are usually fully furnished.
91.9 Councillor Maybury questioned whether delegated powers within the policy were awarded to the Director for Housing and the Cabinet Member, as stated in the recommendations, or the Section 151 officer, as stated in the report. The Shared Revenue Partnership Operations Manager responded that this was an error in the draft policy and that delegated powers were issued as per the recommendations.
91.10 Councillor Maybury further questioned whether other council tax payers would be funding these reductions and exemptions. The Shared Revenue Partnership Operations Manager responded that there was a discretion within the policy for exceptional cases where premiums were deemed not to be appropriate and that this was funded through the Council’s general fund when this specific clause was activated.
By a vote of 24 For and 5 Against
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That Council approve the empty homes and second homes premiums policy for 2024-25 attached in Appendix A of the report. 1.2 That Council delegate authority to the Director of Housing in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing to make technical amendments to the policy to ensure it meets the criteria set by Government and the Council.
|
|||||||||
BC/23/38 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 2024-2025 AND FOUR-YEAR OUTLOOK PDF 2 MB Cabinet Member for Finance
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, immediately after any vote is taken at a budget decision meeting of the Council the names of Councillors who cast a vote for the decision or against the decision or who abstained from voting shall be recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.
At its meeting on 8th February 2024, Cabinet considered Paper BCa/23/39, the General Fund Budget for 2024/25 and four-year outlook. Paper BC/23/38 now includes all the relevant updated information plus the tax base, precepts and council tax band information at parish level, together with the necessary recommendations.
Additional documents: Minutes: 92.1 The Chair invited Councillor Ward, Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments, to introduce Paper BC/23/38.
92.2 Councillor Ward introduced Paper BC/23/38 to Members outlining its purpose and PROPOSED the recommendations as detailed in the report.
92.3 Councillor Busby SECONDED the proposal.
92.4 The Chair invited Councillor Maybury, Leader of the Opposition, to make a representation to Paper BC/23/38.
92.5 Councillor Maybury spoke to Paper BC/23/38 and expressed her Party’s concerns about the figures contained in the report.
92.6 Councillor Holt questioned whether the Babergh Growth project should be postponed to ascertain a better understanding of its potential implications on the budget in upcoming years. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that any further postponement of this project would incur significant costs.
92.7 Councillor Maybury queried if the Council was putting money into the Quiet Lanes Suffolk project. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that this was not the case.
92.8 Councillor McLaren queried whether there was a succession plan programme in place to support internal recruitment and career development in relation to the vacancy management factor. The Chief Executive responded that this support was in place.
92.9 Councillor Riley questioned why expenditure for the Senior Leadership Team had increased. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that this increase was largely due to the increase in the Team’s salaries, as agreed by the Council in 2023, and that an imminent reduction in the size of the Team would result in savings.
92.10 Councillor Beer asked what the £12.3m spent on staff costs equated to in terms of percentage of total expenditure. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that this equated to 50%, a reduction of 1% from the 2023/24 budget.
92.11 Councillor Holt queried if there was assurance that CIFCO would be able to make their repayments for upcoming years. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that the CIFCO board had issued a guarantee that full repayments would be made annually.
92.12 Councillor Parker asked for clarification on the split between short and long term borrowing on CIFCO. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that this information would be provided outside of the meeting.
92.13 Councillor Parker also queried the Roadside Workspace Development and what this entailed. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that this was a postponed development in Hadleigh along the A1071.
92.14 Councillor Jamieson asked for reassurance that the problems faced when putting together the 2024/25 budgets would be identified and solved ahead of next year’s budget. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that work would be starting on the 2025/26 budgets immediately and that changes to how the budgets were pulled together were already being planned.
92.15 Councillor Clover queried the reasons for a decrease in planning income. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that there had been a reduction in the number of major developments being brought ... view the full minutes text for item 92.
|
|||||||||
BC/23/39 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (HRA) 2024/25 BUDGET PDF 386 KB Cabinet Member for Finance
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.3, immediately after any vote is taken at a budget decision meeting of the Council the names of Councillors who cast a vote for the decision or against the decision or who abstained from voting shall be recorded in the Minutes of that meeting.
At its meeting on 8th February 2024, Cabinet considered Paper BCa/23/40, the Housing Revenue Account Budget for 2024/25. Paper BC/23/39 includes all relevant updated information and includes the necessary recommendations.
Minutes: 93.1 A short break was taken between 7:10pm and 7:23pm before the commencement of Paper BC/23/39.
93.2 The Chair invited Councillor Ward, Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments, to introduce Paper BC/23/39.
93.3 Councillor Ward introduced Paper BC/23/39 to Members outlining its purpose and PROPOSED the recommendations as detailed in the report.
93.4 Councillor Saw SECONDED the proposal.
93.5 Councillor Maybury requested clarification on recommendation G. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets, and Investments responded that the PWLB loan was due to be repaid in 2024/25 and that the recommendation referred to agreeing to repay this rather than taking out a new PWLB loan and refinancing.
93.6 Councillor Hendry asked if the Cabinet Member for Housing could provide the Council with assurance that an increase in rent would come hand-in-hand with improvements to services and repairs of properties. Councillor Carter, Cabinet Member for Housing, responded that the condition of current housing stock was poor due to years of systemic underfunding and that this increase in rent would be put directly into improving the condition of these houses as a top priority.
93.7 Councillor McLaren questioned what support was in place for tenants that are not in receipt of Universal Credit and fall outside the safety net. The Director for Housing responded that the Council employed financial inclusion officers who were assessing tenants’ situations and were able to assist with budgeting.
93.8 Councillor Maybury queried how many properties currently had an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of E or below. The Director for Housing responded that as part of the energy retrofit programme the plan was to retrofit 100 properties with around 170 properties in Babergh currently receiving an EPC rating of E or below.
93.9 Councillor Maybury further questioned if the Government were still planning on removing leaseholds. The Director for Housing responded that this was not the case.
93.10 Councillor Beer requested the average timeframe between a tenant reporting an issue in their property and the completion of any necessary repairs. The Cabinet Member for Housing responded that she did not have this figure to hand but that a recent change of contractors would mean that repairs would happen quicker with the aim of a reporting to completion timeline being 14 days maximum.
93.11 Councillor Holt questioned what was constituting the high costs of roofing under planned maintenance and response. The Director for Housing responded that the housing department has a 30 year plan of proposed works and that there was a significant amount of aged roofs needing immediate repair that needed to be spread across the first 5 years of the delivery of this plan.
93.12 Councillor Holt further questioned how many properties currently had storage heaters. The Director for Housing responded that this figure would be identified and communicated outside of the meeting.
93.13 Councillor Holt requested for councillors to receive frequent updates about the properties in their wards scheduled for repairs and the proposed timescales for completing these.
93.14 Councillor Maybury asked if future reports ... view the full minutes text for item 93.
|
|||||||||
BC/23/40 JOINT CAPITAL, INVESTMENT AND TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 2024-2025 PDF 1 MB Co-Chair of Joint Audit and Standards Committee
At its meeting on 29th January 2024, Joint Audit and Standards Committee considered Paper JAC/23/19, the Joint Capital, Investment and Treasury Management Strategies. Paper BC/23/40 now includes all the relevant updated information, together with the necessary recommendations.
Additional documents: Minutes:
94.2 Councillor Saw introduced Paper BC/23/40 to Members outlining its purpose and PROPOSED the recommendations as detailed in the report.
94.3 Councillor Regester SECONDED the proposal.
94.4 Councillor Riley questioned if the £5.15m increase in the Council’s Capital Financing Requirement was linked to the development at Corks Lane. The Corporate Manager for Finance, Commissioning, and Procurement responded that the Capital Financing Requirement relates to the level of indebtedness that the Council has and is forecasted to hold and that it is a function of how much the Council wishes to borrow through the capital programme.
94.5 Councillor Holt queried how much interest would be paid on the £9.2m loan to Babergh Growth for the delivery of houses at Corks Lane in Hadleigh. The Corporate Manager for Finance, Commissioning, and Procurement responded that there was currently a 5.06% interest rate on any borrowing as advised by Arlingclose.
94.6 Councillor Riley queried what factors were driving the increase in outstanding borrowing forecasted over the next 3 years. The Corporate Manager for Finance, Commissioning, and Procurement responded that the main factors were more investments in the capital programme, financing existing debt, or more short term borrowing to keep the Council liquid.
94.7 Councillor Holt commented that future reports should include Babergh information only and not incorporate Mid Suffolk figures and projects.
By a vote of 24 For and 5 Against
It was RESOLVED:
That the following be approved
1.1 The Joint Capital Strategy for the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, including the Prudential Indicators, as set out in Appendix A. 1.2 The Joint Investment Strategy for service and commercial investments for the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, as set out in Appendix B. 1.3 The Joint Treasury Management Strategy for the period 2023/24 to 2027/28, including the Joint Annual Investment Strategy as set out in Appendix C. 1.4 The Joint Treasury Management Indicators as set out in Appendix D. 1.5 The Joint Treasury Management Policy Statement as set out in Appendix G. 1.6 The Joint Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement as set out in Appendix H. 1.7 The amendment to the 2023/24 Joint Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement, also set out in Appendix H. 1.8 That the key factors and information relating to and affecting treasury management activities set out in Appendices E, F and I be noted. 1.9 That Workshops to inform and guide the evolution of the Councils investment portfolio be scheduled.
|
|||||||||
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: 95.1 The Chair informed Members that a validated petition had been received and would be debated on as per the Council’s petition scheme. |
|||||||||
PETITION FOR DEBATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME To report and debate the following Petition, containing at least 1000 valid signatures, in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme:
COUNCIL CAR PARK CHARGES We the undersigned petition the Council to NOT TO CHANGE the current free parking arrangements provided in council run car parks in Sudbury, Hadleigh and Lavenham. The introduction of extra car parking charges would further reduce the number of customers, employees and viability of retail businesses in the above town centres. Consequently business rate income will reduce as will retail choice offered resulting in less footfall. No economic assessment has been carried out in a rural area where car usage is essential as no reliable public service transport network is available. Only 14% of households do not have a car and many of those will be town dwellers.
Minutes: 96.1 The Chair read out the following petition as detailed in the agenda which received 8,758 validated signatures:
“We, the undersigned, petition the Council to NOT TO CHANGE the current free parking arrangements provided in council run car parks in Sudbury, Hadleigh, and Lavenham.
The introduction of extra car parking charges would further reduce the number of customers, employees, and viability of retail businesses in the above town centres. Consequently business rate income will reduce as will retail choice offered resulting in less footfall. No economic assessment has been carried out in a rural area where car usage is essential as no reliable public service transport network is available. Only 14% of households do not have a car and many of those will be town dwellers.”
96.2 The Monitoring Officer advised members of the Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee to exercise caution when speaking on this petition so as not to pre-determine themselves and find themselves exempt on being able to participate in any future items on car parking charges that may come before their committees.
96.3 The Chair outlined the process to be followed for the debate, detailed under Part B of Section 3.1 of the petitions scheme in the constitution.
96.4 The Chair invited Councillor Clover, the petition organiser, to present the petition to Council. Councillor Clover made the following presentation:
“The decision to raise a petition for no change to Babergh car park charges was prompted by a number of reasons.
1) A decision to implement car park charges was taken by the previous rainbow coalition and without this petition district council members, both new and old, would not be allowed to debate and scrutinise this proposal. At face value, this would appear undemocratic.
2) The power to implement this decision rests solely with the Cabinet and the Director of Operations, again undemocratic, given the issue at hand.
3) The refusal by cabinet to have any assessment on the impact this decision would have on our local economies, the lifeblood of our town centre communities.
4) No explanation as to why the cost relating to car parks has risen from £185k in 20/21 to £427k in 23/24.
5) The fact that the £427k cost figure appears to be a guesswork figure and does not account for some of the £300k business rates that will be returned within that figure.
Now that the budget has balanced, isn’t there even less need for car park charges?
Also ‘why should the cabinet leaders be seeking to introduce car park charges without having accurate financial information for a proper informed decision to be made?’
Cabinet leaders have said charges will have no impact, they are going to happen and decreasing traffic increases footfall and spend. There is no evidence to back these statements.
Deloitte and other expert analysts report that free parking is the most critical deciding factor in determining where shoppers shop and that car park charges can reduce car visitors by up to 30%.
The petition has ... view the full minutes text for item 96.
|
|||||||||
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS PDF 64 KB Minutes: By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That Council endorses the following changes to the Suffolk Police and Crime Panel Terms of Reference:
1) that a requirement be added at Section 5 b) of its Panel Arrangements that Independent Co-opted Members of the Panel must live or work in Suffolk. |
|||||||||
MOTIONS ON NOTICE Minutes: 98.1 None received. |