Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
Contact: Committee Services
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 74.1 Councillor Eburne declared an interest as a Director of Freeport East.
74.2 Councillor Pratt declared an interest as an employee of Stowmarket High School.
74.3 Councillor Davies, Councillor Winch, Councillor Matthissen and Councillor Lay declared an interest as Board Members for Mid Suffolk Holdings Ltd.
74.4 Councillor Stringer and Councillor Lay declared an interest as Directors of Gateway 14. |
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/29 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 NOVEMBER 2023 PDF 93 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:-
That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2023 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/30 CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS PDF 57 KB Minutes: 76.1 The Chair referred to Paper MC/23/30 for noting.
|
|||||||||||||||
LEADER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS PDF 56 KB Minutes: 77.1 The Chair invited Councillor Mellen to make the following announcements.
1. Update on Government payments after Storm Babet
It is three months since Storm Babet had a devastating impact on our communities. With several storms and heavy rainfall events since, for many residents and businesses the recovery is still ongoing.
Following the storm, the Government announced flooded households could apply for up to £500 to help with costs, and businesses could apply for up to £2,500. I am happy to be able to update councillors today, and I can confirm that all these grants have now been paid out. There are more than 300 households and nearly 40 businesses who have received the recovery funding.
Our officers worked to get these grants to those impacted as quickly as possible, working closely with Suffolk County Council as the lead local flood authority. I would like to thank everyone involved in this process.
Debenham was one of the worst affected communities in Suffolk, so I am very pleased that tomorrow a flood forum will be held in the Debenham Community Centre, where residents will be able to hear from, and speak to, the Environment Agency, Suffolk County Council, our officers and others. I think this will be a very useful event, I am planning to attend to see how it goes, and I am grateful to Councillor Davies as the ward councillor for Debenham for making this event happen.
2. Living Well in Winter grants
I am pleased to report Mid Suffolk has provided grants under the ‘Living Well in Winter’ scheme to 14 projects in the district.
The grant was introduced last year to support VCFSE organisations (Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprises) in providing new accessible spaces and activities, or to expand upon existing projects, in order to provide warm spaces and help tackle social isolation.
I’d like to thank all of the people who make projects like these happen in our communities. We hope that this extra funding will go a long way to supporting the wellbeing of residents during the colder months and help people to forge new connections within their communities.
3. Tribute to Charlie Flatman
Finally, I was sorry to learn of the death of Charles Flatman, who served as ward councillor for Eye between 1993 and his retirement in 2017, but represented the town at either town, district or county level for a total of 43 years.
He sat on various committees over the years, including environmental health, housing and local economy committees. During his tenure he was also heavily involved in bringing forward Eye Community Centre, working with the town's cricket club, and the reopening of the Queen's Head pub.
Charlie served his community with dedication and distinction, and I am sure all members will join me in sending our condolences to his family and friends.
|
|||||||||||||||
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: 78.1 None received. |
|||||||||||||||
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: 79.1 None received. |
|||||||||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES The Chair 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: 80.1 None received. |
|||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET / COMMITTEES |
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/31 HALF YEAR REPORT ON TREASURY MANAGEMENT 2023/24 PDF 599 KB Joint Chair of Joint Audit and Standards Committee
At its meeting on 27 November 2023, the Joint Audit and Standards Committee considered Paper JAC/23/12 – Half Year Report on Treasury Management 2023/24.
Paper MC/23/31 now includes all the relevant updated information, together with the necessary recommendations.
Note – It is a requirement of the Code of Practice on Treasury Management that full Council notes the Half-Year position.
Minutes: 82.1 The Chair invited John Matthissen, Joint Chair of the Joint Audit and Standards Committee to introduce the report.
82.2 Councillor Matthissen proposed recommendations 3.1 and 3.3 as set out in the report. Councillor Patchett seconded this motion.
82.3 Councillor Caston asked for clarification on paragraph 1.6 in appendix C of the report. Councillor Matthissen outlined that as the value of investments go up and down in value over time, any losses on these investments did not need to be declared until they were sold.
82.4 Councillor Whitehead queried the £2 million limit within the Council’s bank accounts and whether this should extend to the companies owned by the Council. The Senior Financial Accountant responded that whilst this was not required under current legislation, it was best practice to increase disclosure in relation to Gateway 14.
82.5 Councillor Winch questioned how interest rates were modelled. The Senior Financial Accountant responded that advice was sought from external experts who provide the worst case, best case, and expected scenarios which forecasting is based on.
82.6 During the debate Councillor Caston outlined that the report was useful to see what was going on in the Council and highlighted how successful the CIFCO investment had been.
82.7 Councillor Matthissen stated that points made at the meeting would be taken into consideration when setting the strategy for 2024/25.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the Treasury Management activity for the first six months of 2023/24 as set out in this report and Appendices be noted. 1.2 That it be noted that Mid Suffolk District Council’s treasury management activity for the first six months of 2023/24 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, as mentioned in Appendix C, paragraph 4.1, the Council has complied with all the Treasury Management Indicators for this period.
|
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/32 MID SUFFOLK PLAN PDF 439 KB Leader of the Council Additional documents: Minutes: 83.1 The Chair invited Councillor Mellen, Leader of the Council, to introduce the report.
83.2 Councillor Mellen proposed the recommendations as set out in the report. Councillor Stringer seconded this motion.
83.3 During the debate Councillor Mansel welcomed the plan and the thread of sustainability throughout, and she praised the process for including communities.
83.4 Councillor Whitehead welcomed the plan and the extensive consultation, but raised concern about putting environmental sustainability and social justice at the centre of everything and outlined that this should have limits.
83.5 Councillor Hicks supported the plan and highlighted that cross-party working would be required for the benefit of residents.
83.6 Councillor Eburne outlined that the word corporate had been removed from the plan as the Council’s purpose was to serve residents. She added that the plan was straightforward in what the Council wanted to achieve and would ensure that communities thrived.
83.7 Councillor Walters stated that environmental policies were crucial for the undertaking of the plan.
83.8 Councillor Willshere praised the amount of consultation work that had gone into the plan and commented that she would like to see the impact going forward.
83.9 Councillor Stringer outlined that the plan was an entirely new document and not a refresh of the previous corporate plan.
83.10 Councillor Mellen thanked Members for their comments and support for the plan.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED:
To accept the recommendation from Cabinet to adopt the Mid Suffolk Plan, setting out the vision, approach and strategic priorities for Mid Suffolk District Council for 2023-2031 (Appendix A).
|
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/33 POLLING DISTRICT REVIEW PDF 122 KB Electoral Registration Officer Additional documents:
Minutes: 84.1 The Chair invited the Corporate Manager – Electoral Services to introduce the report.
84.2 Councillor Mellen proposed the recommendations as set out in the report. Councillor Whitehead seconded this motion.
84.3 Councillor Mansel queried why Elmswell had two unequal groups of 25 and 2537 who used the same polling station and why this was spilt. The Corporate Manager – Electoral Services responded that during the administration of an election the Returning Officer can split a polling station into different polling places, and these would be evenly distributed at the time of an election.
84.4 During the debate Councillor Row raised concern about the accessibility of polling stations and how all polling stations may not be accessible by foot which may discourage voters and encourage car use.
84.5 Councillor Carter stated that not having an accessible route to polling stations for some residents was a missed opportunity.
84.6 Councillor Penny thanked the officers for putting environmental considerations as part of the decisions as it would decrease travel to polling stations.
84.7 Councillor Mellen outlined that the Council wanted to remove as many barriers as possible for those who wanted to vote in person, and ensured people had the best opportunity to vote.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED:
That the Polling Districts and Polling Places as listed in Appendix A to this report be agreed.
|
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/34 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL PDF 127 KB Independent Remuneration Panel Minutes: 85.1 The Chair invited Councillor Mellen, Leader of the Council, to introduce the report.
85.2 Councillor Mellen introduced the report and proposed the recommendations. Councillor Stringer seconded this motion.
85.3 During the debate Councillor Hicks stated that he disagreed with the proposal as Councillors were elected to read papers.
85.4 Councillor Mansel welcomed the Special Responsibility Allowance as training was a requirement to sit on the committee and named substitutes provided a consistency of membership and continuity in the committee, especially in cases where applications are deferred.
85.5 Councillor Bradbury stated that he supported the proposal and added that site visits were also part of the role and could be time consuming.
85.6 Councillor Winch outlined that the principle of named substitutes has been established and that the work involved justified the allowance.
85.7 Councillor Caston stated that he was against the proposal as there were few times where there would not be sufficient time ahead of the meeting to read the agenda. Additionally, if there was an allowance it should be per meeting not an annual allowance.
85.8 Councillor Stringer outlined that named substitutes was an outcome of the peer review and would be a valuable insurance policy for the planning committee and set out the expectation that papers would be read.
85.9 Councillor Mellen highlighted that being a named substitute meant being readily available for meetings, and being trained and familiar with cases and the allowance recognised the commitment of this.
By 27 votes for and 3 against.
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That Council agrees to adopt a special responsibility allowance for the named substitutes for Planning Committee. a) That the Special Responsibility Allowances (SRA) be set at:-
1.2 That the Special Responsibility allowance for the named substitutes take effect from 26th October 2023. 1.3 That the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any necessary amendments to the Members Allowance scheme following approval of the recommendations.
|
|||||||||||||||
Chief Executive
Additional documents: Minutes: 86.1 The Chair gave an overview of the report and proposed the recommendation. Councillor Whitehead seconded the motion.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED:
That Council noted the decisions taken under delegated powers by the Chief Executive as detailed in Appendix A.
|
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/36 STOWMARKET HEALTH, EDUCATION AND LEISURE FACILITIES (SHELF) PDF 194 KB Cabinet Members for Thriving Towns & Rural Communities and Environment, Culture & Wellbeing Additional documents:
Minutes: 87.1 The Chair invited Councillor Weller, Cabinet Member for Environment, Culture & Wellbeing, to introduce the report.
87.2 Councillor Weller proposed the recommendations as set out in the report. Councillor Davis seconded the motion.
87.3 Councillor Hicks questioned where the project was in relation to commitment from health. Councillor Weller responded that this did not relate to package 1, however the Council was in dialogue with health for upcoming packages.
87.4 Councillor Hardingham questioned whether there were any alternatives to artificial pitches. Councillor Weller responded that the 3g pitch was what the Football Foundation would provide funding for, additionally, 5g pitches were a new science and there was currently little clarity on maintenance costs. Also, the pitch provided the needs of the community without incurring an additional cost to the Council.
87.5 Councillor Mansel questioned what the timescales between package 1 and package 2 would be. Councillor Weller responded that due to the reliance on grant funding availability the timeline was uncertain, however it would happen under the current administration.
87.6 Councillor Mansel further questioned whether there would be improvements to the car park, including EV charging points, under the scheme. Councillor Weller responded that this would not be under package 1, however this would be considered under a future package.
87.7 Councillor Carter questioned whether the pitch could be delayed until a more environmentally friendly pitch had undergone testing. Councillor Weller responded that the cost for the 3g pitch had already been budgeted. The Director – Economic Growth and Climate Change added that whilst there were pilots for 5g pitches undergoing tests there were not any more being accepted whilst this was under review in relation to health and safety and maintenance.
87.8 Councillor Walters questioned what infrastructure for connectivity would be put in place. The Regenerations Project Manager responded that there would be improvements to the route 51 cycle route through Stowmarket, additionally discussions around parking at peak times and with local bus providers were ongoing.
87.9 Councillor Marriott questioned why an artificial pitch had been chosen. Councillor Weller responded that as the pitch would be needed for extended periods throughout the year it needed to be durable, and an artificial pitch was in line with the offerings of other local authorities.
87.10 During the debate Councillor Pratt stated that he was in full support of the project as the current facilities were in poor condition and this was a good investment in the community which would encourage young people to engage in sports.
87.11 Councillor Lawrence welcomed that the Council had done financial balances between 5g and 3g pitches and similar considerations of financial costs should be used when considering third parties in the future.
87.12 Councillor Mansel highlighted that this was a step in the right direction, however the rest of the community such as young adults and young families needed to be considered, and collaborative working with sports providers on inclusion of all abilities was a necessity.
87.13 Councillor Willshere stated that the scheme was a ... view the full minutes text for item 87.
|
|||||||||||||||
MC/23/37 SKILLS & INNOVATION CENTRE ON GATEWAY 14 PDF 238 KB Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resilience Additional documents: Minutes: 88.1 The Chair invited Councillor Winch, Cabinet Member for Housing and Property to introduce the report.
88.2 Councillor Mellen proposed the recommendations as set out in the report. Councillor Davis seconded this motion.
88.3 Councillor Lawrence questioned how an operator would be decided. Councillor Winch responded that an operator would be sought as soon as possible and would have references checked ahead of being decided.
88.4 Councillor Hicks queried what research had been done on similar centres to gage what demand would be. Councillor Winch outlined that officers had visited other innovation centres in the area and had found that office space had been utilised more than training facilities. The Director – Economic Growth and Climate Change added that officers had a dialogue with operators of innovation centres in the East and had a Head of Innovation as a critical friend. Additionally, there would be a small void within the centre in order to allow for movement and flexibility for operators.
88.5 Councillor Linder referred to the green roof and questioned how durable this would be. Councillor Winch outlined that whilst the green roof had not been decided on, research on maintenance would be undertaken before this went ahead.
88.6 During the debate Councillor Matthissen outlined that the centre would help generate a pool of people within the district with desirable skills.
88.7 Councillor Caston stated that he supported the scheme but raised concerns about the use of reserves to fund the project.
88.8 Councillor Carter outlined the need for the skills centre to be accessible.
88.9 Councillor Eburne highlighted that this was an investment in Mid Suffolk and would benefit young people and adults retraining in areas where there are gaps in skills.
88.10 Councillor Patchett was in support of the centre and suggested that ESG principles be used in the design of the building.
88.11 The Chairman advised Members that in accordance with the Council Constitution, Rule 9, the meeting was approaching the Guillotine rule deadline. Councillor Mellen proposed that the meeting be extended until the business of the meeting had been completed. Councillor Caston seconded this motion.
By a majority vote for.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the meeting continue beyond the guillotine deadline, until all business was concluded.
88.12 Councillor Pratt outlined that the building would meet green standards of excellence and would both create a bridge in the skills gap and would create jobs and could attract other businesses to Gateway 14.
88.13 Councillor Whitehead raised concern on paragraph 6.9 of the report stating that the scheme was not financially viable.
88.14 Councillor Winch highlighted that that whilst the centre would be funded by reserves, this would be paid back once companies joined the Gateway 14 site.
88.15 Councillor Hicks stated that he had confidence in the Freeport East board and the technical skills they had to scrutinise potential skills providers.
88.16 Councillor Mellen outlined that he had visited other sites in rural locations that were successful, and the opportunity for the skills and innovation ... view the full minutes text for item 88.
|
|||||||||||||||
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 these item(s), it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against each item.
The author(s) of the report(s) proposed to be considered in Part 2 of the Agenda are satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Part 2 Minutes: The meeting was not required to go into closed session. |
|||||||||||||||
RESTRICTED APPENDICES - STOWMARKET HEALTH, EDUCATION AND LEISURE FACILITIES (SHELF) Cabinet Members for Thriving Towns & Rural Communities and Environment, Culture & Wellbeing
Minutes: The meeting was not required to go into closed session.
|
|||||||||||||||
RESTRICTED APPENDICES - SKILLS & INNOVATION CENTRE ON GATEWAY 14 Leader and Cabinet Member for Performance and Resilience
Minutes: The meeting was not required to go into closed session.
|
|||||||||||||||
RE-ADMITTANCE OF THE PUBLIC (WHICH TERM INCLUDES THE PRESS) Minutes: The meeting was not required to go into closed session.
|
|||||||||||||||
COUNCILLOR APPOINTMENTS To agree the following appointments:
Suffolk Enhanced Bus Partnership Teresa Davis Rowland Warboys Minutes: 93.1 Councillor Hicks left the meeting at 20:18pm
93.2 Councillor Mellen proposed the appointments as set out in the agenda. Councillor Eburne seconded this motion.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
That Councillor Teresa Davis and Councillor Rowland Warboys be appointed to Suffolk Enhanced Bus Partnership
|
|||||||||||||||
MOTIONS ON NOTICE |
|||||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR OVERETT Background Information Community Rail Partnerships are a fundamental strand of the Government’s Community Rail Strategy which, supported by the rail industry, aims to engage local communities in the development and promotion of local and rural railway routes and stations.
Each Community Rail Partnership (CRP) is an association comprised of the railway industry, councils, and local voluntary sector, whose focus is on a specific railway line. Its objectives are to increase passenger numbers along a particular line, to engage with local communities, and to support social and economic development, especially leisure and tourism. Sustainable travel and climate objectives are a key element in everything a CRP achieves.
The cost to MSDC would be a contribution of £1000 per year per Mid Suffolk station (£4000 per annum in total), with other councils, all of whom have indicated their support in principle, expected to contribute the same. Greater Anglia will contribute significant funds of £20 to £25K, meaning that there are real opportunities to make a significant difference all along the line. This may include partnerships to support mental health and to tackle exclusion and loneliness, and initiatives such as arts projects, events, themed day trips during school holidays, and station improvements such as murals and floral displays. Suffolk County Council has agreed fund in line with their support for other CRPs and to host a part-time member of staff to drive this work forward.
Proposal This Council resolves to work to set up a Mid Anglia Community Rail Partnership encompassing the rail stations of Thurston, Elmswell, Stowmarket and Needham Market.
This Council agrees to contact Greater Anglia to progress this Partnership as soon as possible.
Proposer: Cllr Jen Overett Seconder: Cllr David Bradbury
Appendix · In 2017 Greater Anglia published proposals for CRPs covering all its local services. The first of these was in Norfolk around 25 years ago, and of the nine now in place, the most local is the East Suffolk Line along the Ipswich to Felixstowe and Ipswich to Lowestoft routes. In summary, most of Greater Anglia’s rail services have now got a CRP, and the Ipswich to Cambridge line is one of the last that hasn’t. · The Ipswich to Cambridge line includes the stations of Needham Market, Stowmarket, Elmswell, Thurston, Bury St Edmunds, Kennett, and Newmarket. Our officers have been in touch with Ipswich Borough Council, West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire District Councils, Suffolk County Council and Cambridge City Council and all are supportive. The Mid Anglia Rail Passengers Association (MARPA), who are strong advocates for a CRP, have approached Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority and we understand that they agree such an initiative would be useful.
Minutes: 95.1 Councillor Overett PROPOSED the Motion which asked the Council to set up a Mid Anglia Community Rail Partnership encompassing the rail stations of Thurston, Elmswell, Stowmarket and Needham Market. And that The Council agreed to contact Greater Anglia to progress this Partnership as soon as possible.
95.2 Councillor Bradbury SECONDED the Motion.
95.3 Councillor Mansel praised the motion and outlined that whilst the service had improved, the timing of services was not ideal.
95.4 Councillor Row supported the motion and highlighted that the train line was used by a diverse group of people and welcomed engagement with these groups.
95.5 Councillor Eburne thanked Suffolk County Council for their support on Community Rail Partnerships and praised the engagement across the district to optimise the service for residents.
95.6 Councillor Carter highlighted that the partnership could increase accessibility and could improve the interconnectivity to health and socialisation services for residents.
95.7 Councillor Willshere stated that she hoped that the partnership could help improve safety within stations.
95.8 Councillor Overett concluded that whilst the Community Rail Partnership was not a quick fix for issues, it would increase the Council’s voice and the voice of local communities.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
This Council resolves to work to set up a Mid Anglia Community Rail Partnership encompassing the rail stations of Thurston, Elmswell, Stowmarket and Needham Market.
This Council agrees to contact Greater Anglia to progress this Partnership as soon as possible.
|
|||||||||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE MOTION ON NOTICE RECEIVED FROM COUNCILLOR WELLER
1) This Council recognises the excellent response to floods associated with Storms Babet, Ciaran and Henk within our communities. Only collaborative efforts of communities and statutory agencies provide immediate interventions to critical and widespread incidents such as those experienced in recent months. Rectifying longer term disruption to residents and businesses must be a shared responsibility of this Council and partner agencies.
2) That the Chair on behalf of the Council be requested to write to all parish councils to call on them to assess flood risk in their communities and develop a local flood resilience plan supported by professional expertise with assistance from the Council as necessary, and that;
3) The Council calls on Suffolk County Council and the Environment Agency to accelerate the recovery phase of repairs and urgently addressing the infrastructure maintenance backlog.
4) Concurrent with the above, the Council calls on Suffolk County Council, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Natural England to focus attention on both natural flood alleviation measures and structural remedial activity to mitigate future risk of flooding to property and essential infrastructure. These approaches should be managed and a balance struck to ensure maximisation of environmental benefit and limitation of carbon intensive solutions (e.g. mechanical flood defences) to only those areas where the former is impractical or ineffective.
5) It will be vital to bring together technical expertise (hydrology and ecology) along with local knowledge of landowners and their representative bodies (e.g. National Farmers Union, Country Landowners Association and Nature Friendly Farming Network) and third sector partners (e.g. The Pickerel Project and River Waveney Trust).
Proposer: Cllr Tim Weller Seconder: Cllr Andrew Mellen
Minutes: 96.1 The Chair invited Councillor Weller to introduce and PROPOSE his Motion as detailed in the tabled papers.
96.2 Councillor Mellen SECONDED the Motion.
96.3 Councillor Patchett supported the motion but outlined that it could go further in holding agencies to account.
96.4 Councillor Mansel questioned whether the motion went far enough in encouraging the flood authority to consider the impact of storms in the future, especially in relation to planning applications.
96.5 Councillor Linder raised concern that the phrasing of the motion was coercive to parish councils and could put a strain on their resources.
96.6 Councillor Matthissen proposed the following amendment to the motion: This Council calls on parish and town councils to actively participate in assessing flood risk in their communities and to work collaboratively with officers to develop or enhance all of their local community emergency response plans (not just in response to flooding). Councillor Carter seconded this proposal.
96.7 Councillor Weller and Councillor Mellen accepted the amendment.
96.8 Councillor Lawrence outlined that he did not support the motion as the production of local flood resilience plans had not been costed for parish councils.
96.9 Councillor Pratt outlined that whilst there would be a cost in developing plans, they were worth doing as they could improve safety for residents and reduce the impact of flooding.
96.10 Councillor Stringer outlined that due to resource issues in the County Council and the Environment Agency plans would be beneficial in order to identify areas where there are issues and identify solutions.
96.11 Councillor Whitehead raised concern that parish councils may not be receptive to developing plans.
96.12 Councillor Weller highlighted that grassroot and community solutions in relation to flooding could be undertaken by communities without great expenses, and that collaborative working with the County Council and Environment Agency was a necessity to solve flooding issues.
96.13 Councillor Mansel left the meeting at 21:05 pm.
96.14 Councillor Lawrence left the meeting at 21:07 pm.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
1) This Council recognises the excellent response to floods associated with Storms Babet, Ciaran and Henk within our communities. Only collaborative efforts of communities and statutory agencies provide immediate interventions to critical and widespread incidents such as those experienced in recent months. Rectifying longer term disruption to residents and businesses must be a shared responsibility of this Council and partner agencies.
2) This Council calls on parish and town councils to actively participate in assessing flood risk in their communities and to work collaboratively with officers to develop or enhance all of their local community emergency response plans (not just in response to flooding), and that;
3) The Council calls on Suffolk County Council and the Environment Agency to accelerate the recovery phase of repairs and urgently addressing the infrastructure maintenance backlog.
4) Concurrent with the above, the Council calls on Suffolk County Council, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and Natural England to focus attention on both natural flood alleviation measures and structural remedial activity to mitigate future risk ... view the full minutes text for item 96.
|