Venue: Frink Room (Elisabeth) - Endeavour House. View directions
Contact: Alicia Norman - Committees Services
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTES Minutes: 25.1 Apologies were received from Councillor John Whyman and Councillor Brian Riley.
25.2 Councillor Lee Parker substituted for Councillor Whyman.
25.3 Councillor Michael Holt substituted for Councillor Riley. |
|||||||||
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Minutes: 26.1 None declared. |
|||||||||
BOS/23/11 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 MARCH 2024 PDF 105 KB Minutes: 27.1 Councillor Smith proposed that the minutes be approved and signed as a true record of the meeting.
27.2 Councillor Jamieson seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
The minutes of the meeting held on 18th March 2024 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 28.1 None received. |
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC To consider questions from and provide answer to members of the public on any matter in relation to which the Committee has powers or duties and of which due notice has been given in accordance with the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rules.
Minutes: 29.1 None received. |
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS To consider questions from and provide answer to Councillors on any matter in relation to which the Committee has powers or duties and of which due notice has been given in accordance with the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rules.
Minutes: 30.1 None received. |
|||||||||
BOS/23/12 CALL-IN PROTOCOL FOR BABERGH CABINET ON 8 APRIL 2024 PDF 103 KB Minutes: 31.1 Councillor Smith proposed that the call-in protocol as detailed in Paper BOS/23/12 be approved.
31.2 Councillor Holt seconded the proposal.
By a unanimous vote
The Call-In Protocol as detailed in Paper BOS/23/12 was approved.
|
|||||||||
BOS/23/13 CALL-IN OF THE DECISION MADE ON ITEM BCa/23/48 AT BABERGH CABINET ON 8 APRIL 2024 PDF 1 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: 32.1 The Chair outlined the scope of the call-in as detailed in the approved procedure.
32.2 The Chair invited the Monitoring Officer to address the Committee ahead of proceedings.
32.3 The Monitoring Officer outlined to Members that the original Cabinet decision did not breach budget or policy framework and therefore the matter could not be referred back to Council for final approval; the alternative options for the Committee were:
· Refer the matter back to the Cabinet for reconsideration, together with the observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Cabinet will then take a final decision and that decision cannot be called in.
or
· That the decision be upheld and implemented immediately.
32.4 The Chair invited the Lead Signatory, Councillor Dowling, to present his reasons for the Call-In.
32.5 The Lead Signatory made the following representation:
“Good afternoon, councillors, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to explain our grounds for requesting this review. We suggest that Cabinet ignored the substantial weight of legitimate concerns among the communities most directly affected by their decision (Hadleigh, Sudbury, Cornard and Lavenham). Consistently strong opposition to varying car parking charges as proposed was revealed in the council’s own ‘targeted engagement’ consultation, and was echoed in the petition organised by Cllr Clover; in the opinion surveys by Hadleigh and Sudbury councillors; and in the several letters sent in by town and parish councils. We believe that the principles of good decision-making have been breached because Cabinet did not give adequate consideration to views that run counter to the proposal at hand.
We want to divide up our allotted time so that we can cover:
· What the council’s own consultation revealed and what it failed to cover, which Cllr Hendry and I will speak on; · What councillors’ surveys in Hadleigh and Sudbury revealed, which Cllr Regester will speak on, and; · What we want to happen as a result of this review, namely a full, fair, and balanced reconsideration of the option to allow one hour free in all Babergh car parks, which you yourselves asked for in your meeting of 18 March. Firstly, what did the council’s engagement exercise reveal? I do think the survey itself was well designed to collect a range of possible responses via open-ended answers. The data collected were carefully and clearly analysed by the strategic policy team, and I’d like to compliment them on their work.
The problem lies in the fact that the report, and the ensuing decision made by Cabinet, chose to ignore the clear weight of counter-factual evidence that the survey revealed. To take the most obvious example, among the 88 responses received there were 42 mentions of the fear that varying parking charges would be detrimental to local economies. This is by far the most frequently mentioned item for Question 1, and was raised five times more often than the proposal’s chief rationale, that varying charges is necessary to cover costs and relieve financial pressures: the comparison of item weights is clearly set out in the ... view the full minutes text for item 32.
|