Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda and minutes

Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions

Contact: Committee Services 

Items
No. Item

44.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Green, Councillor Humphreys, Councillor Kearsley, Councillor Killett, Councillor Jewson, Councillor Levantis and Councillor Storey.

45.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS

Minutes:

45.1 There were no declarations of interest.

46.

MC/18/16 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26 JULY 2018 pdf icon PDF 370 KB

Minutes:

46.1 Councillor Eburne requested that the wording in Minute 40.8 be amended from why just one aspect of Lord Oakshott’s report was included but why several aspects of other reports were not included because there had been lots of different reports from different committees on this subject.

 

It was Resolved:

 

That subject to the amendment above being added to Minute 40.8 the Minutes be approved as a true record.

47.

MC/18/17 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS pdf icon PDF 23 KB

Minutes:

47.1 The Chairman introduced his report and highlighted that the latest engagement in Hadleigh had been attended by the Vice Chairman instead of him.

 

47.2 The Chairman thanked everyone who had attended his Civic Service and reception for their support and informed Council that he had received an enormous amount of compliments from the people who had attended. £375 had been raised for the Chairman’s charities.

 

47.3 Finally, the Chairman informed Council that there was going to be a memorial service for Lord Blakenham on 22nd November 2018 at 11.00am in St Martin’s in the Field Church, in Trafalgar Square. The Chairman would be attending to represent the Council and he understood members from the opposition were also attending. The Chairman went on to say that he was pleased Mid Suffolk would be well represented as Lord Blakenham was an excellent councillor and well respected in this area. 

 

48.

MC/18/18 LEADER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS pdf icon PDF 245 KB

Minutes:

48.1 The Leader introduced his report and highlighted a small error on paragraph 6 of the report namely that it should read that the Constitution Working Group held its second meeting on 2nd September 2018.

 

48.2 Councillor Mansel asked the Leader given that there will be fewer Members after the elections in May next year, the pool of available substitutes who’ve had the correct training for regulatory committees will be smaller, would it not be preferable if Members were able to substitute from outside their political groups, because it doesn’t look so good to the public if decisions are made with fewer than the required Members who should be on that committee.

 

48.3 In response the Chief Executive stated that if the Committee was one of the committees that by law had to be politically proportionate, then it was not possible to substitute from outside of that particular political party so in those circumstances it wouldn’t be possible. If it was one of the committees, and there were very few, but if was one of the committees where political proportionality was not required then absolutely that was possible to do. To clarify this the Chief Executive would ask the Monitoring Officer to provide a written briefing note for all councillors that would set out clearly what the position was.

 

48.4 Councillor Stringer asked the Leader that as the Council was now in receipt of quite a few planning applications from areas in villages that over a year ago tried to allocate land in the new local plan and those applications were deemed sustainable by the parishes but not now by officers, when was the Local Plan timetable coming to some kind of fruition for those sites to be adjudicated?

 

48.5 In response Councillor Horn, Cabinet Member for Planning confirmed that the Local Plan timetable would be brought forward as already timetabled. With regard to the specific sites and their allocation, if a site was not allocated in the Local Plan it did not mean that it could not be brought forward for development. Councillor Horn requested that if Councillor Stringer had a specific case could he raise it with him outside of the meeting.   

 

49.

TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, The Chief Executive will report the receipt of any petitions. There can be no debate or comment upon these matters at the Council meeting.

Minutes:

49.1 There were no petitions received.

50.

QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES

The Chairs of Committees to answer any questions from 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 11.

Minutes:

50.1 There were no questions received.

51.

QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES

The Chairman of the Council, 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 12.

Minutes:

51.1 The following questions were received in accordance with Council procedure rule 12: -

 

Question 1:

Councillor Penny Otton to Councillor Nick Gowrley Leader of Mid Suffolk District Council

 

In its briefing paper “The future relationship between the UK and the European Union” the LGA has highlighted areas of concern for local government, stating “the onus will be on councils and their partners to provide evidence on the likely impact locally on any Brexit decision, whatever it may be”. What have the Suffolk and even regional public sector leaders and partners been doing to prepare for any forthcoming scenario?

 

Answer:

As Councillor Otton may be aware the LGA are running a series of workshops across the country to enable Councils to provide such evidence to the LGA.  The East of England LGA are also regularly publishing briefing notes as to the potential implications of Brexit. In addition, the Suffolk Public Sector Leaders have made Brexit a standing item on our agendas, and senior officers across Suffolk are working together to carefully consider the potential impacts for Suffolk and the public sector.  More locally, as part of our corporate risk management, our officers have similarly begun to consider the more local implications for Mid Suffolk and Babergh.  As you will appreciate however there is significant uncertainty at the national level at present regarding Brexit and so it is not possible to implement any definitive plans at this stage.    

 

Supplementary Question

Thank you. I’m obviously pleased that the public sector leaders do have Brexit as a standing item but I’m afraid Cllr Gowrley I am disappointed with your answer because we would like to have had a few more details. Obviously as you have said this is not the time for implementation, but I felt, and I was hoping that you would be able to tell us what the main areas of concern are and what these plans involve in particular on the impact to the local economy.

 

Answer

I do take the point but it  is really difficult to plan for something when you don’t know what you’re planning for and until we get some idea from national leaders it is almost impossible to answer that question other than trying to be aware of it and if anything comes out we try to think about it and what the implications might be and as soon as anything definitive is known we will come back to council and we will tell them what we will be doing to address this.

 

Question 2:

Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Derrick Haley Chair of Mid Suffolk District Council

Will you arrange the issue within a week of each Council, to Members and Officers (not public), draft action minutes with a column showing responsibility for actions, supplementary answers and similar follow through?

 

Answer:

Thank you, Councillor Matthissen, for your suggestion. I have been advised by the Monitoring Officer that the Governance Team are working on improving the turnaround time for the production of minutes so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CABINET / COMMITTEES

53.

JAC/18/3 JOINT ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT - 2017/18 pdf icon PDF 738 KB

At its meeting on 30 July 2018, the Joint Audit and Standards Committee considered Paper JAC/18/3 – Joint Annual Treasury Management Report 2017/18.

 

The recommendations set out in the report were accepted.

 

It was RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

 

(1)            That the Treasury Management activity for the year 2017/18 be noted.  Further, that it be noted that performance was in line with the Prudential Indicators set for 2017/18.

 

(2)            That it be noted that Mid Suffolk District Council Treasury Management activity for 2017/18 was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy, and that, except for one occasion when the Council exceeded its daily bank account limit with Lloyds by £79k, as mentioned in Paragraph 4.7 of Paper JAC/18/3, the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period.

Note – It is a requirement of the legislation that the Annual Treasury Management Report is submitted to the Full Council for noting.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Muller introduced the report and MOVED the recommendations in the report which Councillor Morley seconded.

 

53.2 In his introduction Councillor Muller informed Council that the report had

been presented and discussed at the Joint Audit and Standards Committee meeting on 30 July 2018. There were no changes to the report as a result of that meeting. The report covered the year to 31 March 2018 and provided details of the performance and effects of decisions taken throughout the year.

 

53.3 Councillor Muller went on to say that the report also demonstrated that the Councils performance was in line with the Prudential indicators set for 2017/18 and was in accordance with the approved Treasury Management Strategy. Apart from one occasion when the council exceeded its daily bank account limit with Lloyds by £79,000 as mentioned in paragraph 4.7 of report JAC18/3. the Council had complied with all treasury management indicators for that period.

 

53.4 Councillor Otton asked a question relating to the Funding Circle and asked whether the Council should feel concerned or optimistic about their investment?

 

53.5 In response the Section 151 Officer stated that the Council had taken a decision in the last financial year not to put any more funding into the Funding Circle. As illustrated in the Treasury Management six monthly report, the Council was seeing some failures and some losses and were not achieving the rate of return, Funding Circle had also changed the basis of which you could invest with them, which would mean that the Council would have to take significantly more risk than it actually wanted to. The position that the Council was currently in was that it was letting the existing loans run their life course and the Council would not be putting any further money in, so over a period of time would be withdrawing from the Funding Circle.

 

53.6 Councillor Otton sought assurance that the Council was not put at any risk and it would be monitoring performance.

 

53.7 In response the Section 151 Officer stated that the Council could not actually do anything about the loans that had already been made as those loans had been made to external companies, so at this point in time the Council were just letting their loans run until they ended.

 

53.8 Councillor Hadingham raised concerns about the rise in Council debt of £40m and asked if the operational boundary would increase from its current level of £140m.

 

53.9 In response the Section 151 Officer informed Council that there were two reasons for the increase, firstly, CIFCO the capital investment company, the Council was putting £25m into the Company to purchase commercial properties and also with the planned figures that the Council had, it was starting to build in some assumptions around Gateway 14 and the investment that was needed to be made there. The operational boundary was reviewed each year in line with the actual borrowing increasing so yes.

 

53.10 Councillor Wilshaw queried why the actual debt was £40m different from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

54.

MC/18/19 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPORT pdf icon PDF 241 KB

Minutes:

54.1 Councillor Welham introduced his report and referred to the review of the Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership, the two chairs had invited members of both councils to that meeting because it was felt it was of importance to every ward member. The Chair of Scrutiny was disappointed that only three councillors had turned up who were not members of scrutiny and felt it was a lost opportunity to hear from senior officers of all the members of the partnership. However, Councillor Welham informed Council that his next report to Council would cover the main aspects of that review.

 

54.2 Councillor Otton queried what the areas were that needed further attention following the review of pre-application fees?

 

54.3 In response the Chair of Scrutiny stated that they were mainly around the area of when an agent or a householder asks for some advice and asks for a site visit, there has sometimes been a delay in the information getting back to the person who has asked for that advice, but also, and of more concern, some of the people who responded to the survey said that the advice that they were given on site was different from the advice that they were given when they had the letter detailing that advice. And through mentoring and training we believe that, that problem can be solved.

 

54.4 The Chairman thanked the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny for his update.

 

 

55.

MC/18/20 LOCALISM ACT 2011 - APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT PERSONS pdf icon PDF 203 KB

Monitoring Officer

Additional documents:

Minutes:

55.1 On the proposal of Councillor Gowrley and seconded by Councillor Flatman

 

By unanimous vote

 

It was Resolved:-

 

That the four individuals included in Appendix A of the report be appointed as the Council’s Independent Persons pursuant to section 28(7) of the Localism Act 2011 for a term of two years with an option to extend the appointment for a further two years.

56.

MC/18/21 TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 65 KB

To agree the Timetable of Meetings for 2019/20

Minutes:

56.1 The Corporate Manager presented the draft timetable to Council and requested that Councillors with any amendments to the timetable write to her and she would review those requests, any amendments would be brought back to the next meeting.

 

56.2 Councillor Field asked if it would be possible to incorporate the committee dates into members calendars.

 

56.3 In response the Corporate Manager for Democratic Services confirmed that the Committee Team were looking at this and it hoped to role out a solution shortly.

57.

COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS

Minutes:

57.1 There were no changes to placings.

58.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC (WHICH TERM INCLUDES THE PRESS)

To consider whether, pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public should be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during this/these item(s), it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the/each item.

 

The author(s) of the report(s) proposed to be considered in Part II of the Agenda is/are satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

 

PART 2

Minutes:

58.1 After discussion Council AGREED not to exclude the press as they felt there was no confidential information contained in the Minutes.

59.

MC/18/22 CONFIRMATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL MINUTE OF THE MEETING HELD ON THE 26 JULY 2018

Minutes:

59.1 Councillor Brewster drew attention to a grammatical error in Minute 42.1 which should read JLL not JAL.

 

It was Resolved:

 

That subject to the grammatical errors being corrected the Minutes be approved from the meeting held on 26th July 2018.