Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 66.1 There were no declarations of interests by Councillors. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
MC/22/26 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27 OCTOBER 2022 PDF 154 KB To follow Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 October 2022 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
MC/22/27 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS PDF 18 KB Minutes: 68.1 The Chair referred Councillors to paper MC/22/27 for noting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
LEADER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Minutes: 69.1 Councillor Morley made the following announcements:-
The death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak after exposure to mould in his family's flat in Rochdale was a tragedy, and I am sure all members will join me in expressing our sympathies to his family.
This sad case has rightly put the standard of social housing in the spotlight. In the last week, housing secretary Michael Gove has written to all housing providers in England, including Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils, calling for an urgent assessment of homes to provide reassurance over standards.
But we didn't wait for this Government letter in order to act, we had already begun initiating work to address this. Members will be aware we initiated a full diagnostic review of building services earlier in the year. This picked up the need to increase our input into resolving issues around mould and damp. We have acted on these recommendations.
This year, for example, we have trained more people to deliver damp and mould treatment and employed a Damp Specialist Surveyor. We are also recruiting another surveyor to increase capacity.
The wellbeing of our tenants has always been a priority and following this case I can promise members we will redouble our efforts to ensure the quality of all our homes so that such a tragedy can never happen here. I have spoken to our new Housing Director, Deborah Fenton, who has updated me on all the actions already taken this year to resolve any damp and mould issues, and further measures planned. We are also progressing well with our Stock Condition Survey and are developing and costing a retrofit programme. The housing directorate will also be developing a performance framework to be presented to Cabinets and the Tenant Board every quarter, helping both members and tenants hold us to account.
This work is just a part of what we are doing to ensure our homes are fit for the future.
Since our last full council meeting, an historic county deal for Suffolk has been announced by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt. This is the first county deal of its kind in the country, and if agreed, will deliver decades of significant additional investment into local priorities. It will give Suffolk greater decision-making powers around the likes of transport, infrastructure and skills.
As you know, Suffolk’s public sector leaders – including from Mid Suffolk and Babergh – and MPs have been working collaboratively on this for some time. It has been a great example of Suffolk working together for the benefit of residents and businesses.
The chancellor said Suffolk would get a directly elected mayor. But I want to clarify that Suffolk is actually pursuing a model where the Leader of Suffolk County Council is directly elected by the people of Suffolk. It will not be an elected mayor, and the current leader/cabinet model will be retained. The proposed change would not add any new levels of bureaucracy nor create any new offices.
I will keep you informed about the county deal ... view the full minutes text for item 69. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, 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: 70.1 None Received. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 60 KB The Chairman of the Council 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 12. Minutes: Question 1
Mr Pyle to Councillor Gould, Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments Given that on the 9th November 2022 a development control committee refused permission for a single house in Elmswell because it was to built on Public Open Space (POS), how is it possible that Mid Suffolk Cabinet continue to plan for 50 houses on 9 acres of POS on the other side of the village?
Response from Councillor Richardson, Cabinet Member for Economic Growth, on behalf of Councillor Gould, Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments
I am not party to the specifics of the case that you refer to, although I am reliably informed that the planning committee report concluded that insufficient information had been provided by the applicant in that case to determine whether the proposal accorded with the National Planning Policy Framework. As each planning case is considered on its own merits, I don’t think it is appropriate to compare sites in this way particularly as the formal status of these sites differs within our emerging local plan.
As Members will be aware the Council is considering the delivery of an exemplar sustainable residential development in Elmswell of approximately 50 homes on a site which is within the Councils ownership at Church and School Road, though it is still in its early days in terms of shaping this proposal further. The first community engagement event took place last week which provided significant feedback for further consideration, and we are very grateful for the high level of attendance and engagement from the community within Elmswell and there will be further engagement in this regard and any scheme will in due course be considered by the planning authority and assessed accordingly.
Supplementary Question
Given the positive discussion with Elmswell Parish Council about the possibility of a new primary school on the site why has this option been dropped?
Response from Councillor Richardson
The question of the primary school has been discussed at Cabinet both early this month and last year as well, the issue being, and members will be aware of the difficulties associated with HRA ownership of land, but for simplicity the actual site itself is owned by the Housing Revenue Account which for legal reasons is a separate ringfenced entity from Mid Suffolk’s otherwise General Fund. What this means in practice is that for any disposal of the land for purposes not for housing purposes we would need to prove that there is no way the land could facilitate housing, and there was no need for housing within a particular area. Now, given that Elmswell is designated as a core village within the emerging local plan, given that it’s a highly sustainable village, given the amenities that are present, and that it’s got excellent transport connections, we cannot prove either of those two criteria and the decision ultimately would have to go to the Secretary of State for approval provided we didn’t meet either of those conditions and unfortunately in this particular instance we can’t ... view the full minutes text for item 71. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES PDF 57 KB 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 13. Minutes: Question 1
Councillor Mellen to Councillor Morley, Leader of the Council
Councillor Morley as leader of the Council has welcomed the announcement of a devolution deal for Suffolk with a directly elected council leader. What level of involvement will other councillors in this authority have in agreeing this change to Suffolk’s governance?
Response from Councillor Morley, Leader of the Council
Any change to a directly elected Leader for Suffolk County Council is a Governance change for Suffolk County Council and Mid Suffolk District Council would not be involved in that.
Supplementary Question
Do you agree that there is a lack of clarity in the current information in the public domain about how this new role will work.
Response from Councillor Morley
Yes, I do. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS Minutes: 73.1 There were no changes in placings. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
MOTIONS ON NOTICE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR MORLEY Introduction to the Model Debate Not Hate campaign motion The Model motion is a template that councillors and councils can use to publicly demonstrate their commitment to improving the quality of public and political debate and challenging abuse and intimidation of people in public life by signing up to the LGA Debate Not Hate campaign.
Councils that have passed a motion should email debatenotehate@local.gov.uk to be added to the public list of organisations supporting the campaign. Councils who’ve signed up will receive more information of how councils can support the campaign and improve support for councillors in their local area. Councillors can find more information on the Debate Not Hate campaign website. Model Debate Not Hate motion: The intimidation and abuse of councillors, in person or otherwise, undermines democracy; preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election, and undermining public life in democratic processes.
This council notes that increasing levels of toxicity in public and political discourse is having a detrimental impact of local democracy and that prevention, support and responses to abuse and intimidation of local politicians must improve to ensure councillors feel safe and able to continue representing their residents.
This council therefore commits to challenge the normalisation of abuse against councillors and uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all it does. The council further agrees to sign up to the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign. The campaign aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate and improve the response to and support for local politicians facing abuse and intimidation.
In addition, the council resolves to:
· Write to the local Member of Parliament to ask them to support the campaign · Write to the Government to ask them to work with the LGA to develop and implement a plan to address abuse and intimidation of politicians · Regularly review the support available to councillors in relation to abuse and intimidation and councillor safety · Work with the local police to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting threats and other concerns about the safety of councillors and their families · Take a zero-tolerance approach to abuse of councillors and officers
Proposer: Cllr Suzie Morley Seconder: Cllr Andrew Mellen
Minutes: 44.1 Councillor Morley PROPOSED her motion which was a template that councillors and councils could use to publicly demonstrate their commitment to improving the quality of public and political debate and challenging abuse and intimidation of people in public life by signing up to the LGA Debate Not Hate campaign.
44.2 Councillor Mellen SECONDED the motion and expressed his support.
44.3 Members debated the motion, discussing the effect of social media, the role of good communication, the role the Communications team could play in factual correction of comments, the effect on Parish Councillors, and the importance of encouraging more diversity in the Council.
It was RESOLVED:
This council notes that increasing levels of toxicity in public and political discourse is having a detrimental impact of local democracy and that prevention, support and responses to abuse and intimidation of local politicians must improve to ensure councillors feel safe and able to continue representing their residents.
This councils therefore commits to challenge the normalisation of abuse against councillors and uphold exemplary standards of public and political debate in all it does. The council further agrees to sign up to the LGA’s Debate Not Hate campaign. The campaign aims to raise public awareness of the role of councillors in local communities, encourage healthy debate and improve the response to and support for local politicians facing abuse and intimidation.
In addition, the council resolves to:
· Write to the local Member of Parliament to ask them to support the campaign · Write to the Government to ask them to work with the LGA to develop and implement a plan to address abuse and intimidation of politicians · Regularly review the support available to councillors in relation to abuse and intimidation and councillor safety · Work with the local police to ensure there is a clear and joined-up mechanism for reporting threats and other concerns about the safety of councillors and their families · Take a zero-tolerance approach to abuse of councillors and officers.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR MELLEN Residents of our district are rightly concerned about water quality and the impact of regular wastewater discharges, which can include untreated sewage, into our local rivers and the impact of this on wildlife and on human health.
As more new homes are built and the district’s population rises, the release of sewage into rivers is no longer an emergency-only situation occurring as a result of severe storms, but in some locations has become a regular occurrence even in moderate rainfall. Here is a summary of combined storm overflow discharges at four sites across the district in 2021:
Source: The Rivers Trust (analysis of Anglian Water data)
Discharges of sewage can alter the delicate nutrient balance of streams and rivers, causing negative impacts on wildlife and the whole ecosystem. Wild swimmers are known to bathe at several sites in Mid-Suffolk and in streams and rivers which flow out of the district, including the Blackbourne, the Gipping and the Waveney, and discharges upstream heighten the risk of illness in river users.
Anglian Water is a statutory consultee to major planning applications, but its response relates to whether it has network capacity, rather than whether it has treatment capacity. We believe Anglian Water needs to be encouraged to consider its sewage treatment capacity in the light of rising numbers of homes and businesses in the district.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. Ask the chair of the scrutiny committee to invite senior officers of Anglian Water plus senior representatives from the relevant internal Drainage Boards, Natural England and the Environment Agency to attend a meeting to answer questions on the current levels of untreated sewage discharges to waters in Mid Suffolk.
2. Ensure that in gathering evidence for future iterations of the local plan the council consider the cumulative impact of sewage when deciding the overall level of housing and other development. The council notes that decisions about allocations in the Joint Local Plan will be guided by an updated Water Cycle Study. This should take into account the impact of combined sewer overflow discharges on watercourses and the capacity of waste water treatment works to process anticipated new foul drainage.
3. Ask Anglian Water, from this date onwards, in its planning consultation responses for major development, to identify which treatment works will be managing the sewage and what their capacity is to treat additional volumes of effluent; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers, and if it does have this information to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
4. Request that planning officers, from now onwards, include in all reports relating to major development a specific section on the impacton watercourses, including the potential for the development to result in untreated sewage outflow into watercourses (i.e. cumulative impact), ... view the full agenda text for item 76. Minutes: 76.1 Councillor Mellen PROPOSED his Motion which sought to address some of the issues arising from the impact of regular wastewater discharges into local rivers and the effect of this on wildlife and human health, by resolving to publicly scrutinise the issues at a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, giving due consideration to the cumulative impact of sewage when making decisions regarding allocations in the Joint Local Plan, and requesting that Planning Officers include details on the impact on watercourses in all reports relating to major developments, or to identify where this information is not available.
76.2 Councillor Fleming SECONDED the motion, commenting that the motion recognised the concerns of the general public regarding water quality, and laid out how the Council address these concerns.
76.3 Members debated the motion on issues including: the impact of permeable surfaces on surface water drainage, the benefits of the proposed changes to the planning system.
76.4 Councillor Richardson proposed an amendment to the motion requesting that in addition to any proposed changes to the planning system, the Council lobby local MPs and Ofwat to express concerns over water quality and the desire to see improvements.
76.5 The amendment was accepted by the Proposer and Seconder.
76.6 Members continued to debate the motion on issues including: the comments currently received from consultees regarding planning applications, the work undertaken by the Suffolk Drainage Board to raise awareness of the issues, the role the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could play, the negative effect on residents, the environments, ecosystems, and other factors leading to river pollution.
It was RESOLVED:
This Council resolves to:
1. Ask the chair of the scrutiny committee to invite senior officers of Anglian Water plus senior representatives from the relevant internal Drainage Boards, Natural England and the Environment Agency to attend a meeting to answer questions on the current levels of untreated sewage discharges to waters in Mid Suffolk.
2. Ensure that in gathering evidence for future iterations of the local plan the council consider the cumulative impact of sewage when deciding the overall level of housing and other development. The council notes that decisions about allocations in the Joint Local Plan will be guided by an updated Water Cycle Study. This should take into account the impact of combined sewer overflow discharges on watercourses and the capacity of waste water treatment works to process anticipated new foul drainage.
3. Ask Anglian Water, from this date onwards, in its planning consultation responses for major development, to identify which treatment works will be managing the sewage and what their capacity is to treat additional volumes of effluent; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers, and if it does have this information to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
4. Request that planning officers, from now onwards, include in all reports relating to major development a specific section on the impacton watercourses, including ... view the full minutes text for item 76.
|