Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: Councillor Busby declared a non-registrable interest in item 10 as a Board Member of Babergh Growth (Ltd,) which he had received a Dispensation for from the Monitoring Officer. |
|||||||||
BCa/22/1 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 APRIL 2022 PDF 238 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 4th April 2022 be confirmed and signed as a true record.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: There were no petitions received.
|
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: There were no questions received from Councillors.
|
|||||||||
MATTERS REFERRED BY THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY OR JOINT AUDIT AND STANDARDS COMMITTEES Minutes: There were no matters referred by the Overview and Scrutiny or Joint Audit and Standards Committees.
|
|||||||||
FORTHCOMING DECISIONS LIST Please note the most up to date version can be found via the website:
Minutes: There were no comments on the Forthcoming Decisions List.
|
|||||||||
Cabinet Member for Planning Additional documents:
Decision: This item is exempt from call-in under Grounds of Urgency, as agreed with the Chair of the Council.
It was RESOLVED: -
1. To respond to the consultation. 2. That the Assistant Director for Planning and Building Control, in collaboration with the Cabinet Members for Planning and the Leader of the Council consider any proposed amendments to the suggested response and be authorised to make amendments before submitting a response to the Government.
REASON FOR DECISION To ensure the comments of the councils are set out for consideration by National Grid in the further stages of the project. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: 2.1 To respond to the consultation with the response as set out in appendix a. 2.2 To respond to the consultation with proposed amendments to the responses set out in appendix a. 2.3 To not respond to the consultation. Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Arthey to introduce the report.
7.1 Councillor Arthey provided a brief summary of the item and proposed the recommendations in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Busby.
7.2 Councillor Ward advised Cabinet that he had invited Ward Members to present their responses to the Consultation at the meeting. He then read a response received from Councillor Carpendale:
Response received from Councillor Sue Carpendale
Please would you add my following comments to those that will be presented to Cabinet on this matter. I'm unable to be present. I can't offer you any expertise, but my comments reflect my own views and those of residents in my ward. I know that some of these residents will be making their own, very substantial and well-argued objections direct to the consultation. I am completely supportive of their objections. Thanks.
I attended the consultation event and exhibition at Holton St Mary on 17th May 2022, and requested further information, including a set of maps. The event was busy, with many people present. As one might have expected, I didn’t hear one positive comment.
The proposed corridor for these massive 50m pylons passes along the edge of my ward. Needless to say, nearby residents are horrified and alarmed by the prospect. However, the proximity of these pylons is not just an issue for people living close by. The maps illustrating the 180km pylon corridor from Norfolk to Essex demonstrate the appalling intrusion into the area, both visually and in terms of land use and disturbance. I do not believe that undergrounding a short section through the AONB is either sufficient or acceptable, given the impact on the environment, including wildlife and natural habitat.
I am wholly supportive of the lobby gaining traction, at levels from our regional MPs at Westminster through to local residents, that a supply network of this magnitude should be routed sub-sea and river in its entirety. If France can ship power to the UK across the channel, the technology clearly exists.
Furthermore, in view of the number of power cuts suffered as a result of weather-related events, and in a time of climate change when there is a likelihood of more frequent and severe weather events, it surely does not make sense to erect such an important, long term and strategically significant power supply in a manner which will not guarantee continuity of operation.
This proposal is a monstrous imposition on rural East Anglia and dismissive of alternative supply-route technologies.
7.3 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited Councillor Hinton to present his response to Cabinet:
7.4 Councillor Hinton thanked the Chair and continued:
This proposal is, as Councillor Carpendale has pointed out in her written submission, extremely intrusive across a wide swathe of countryside from Norfolk all the way down through into Essex. It chomps through parts of my Ward, and across Stour Vale, and will be extremely intrusive, more intrusive than the power network already in place. ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
|
|||||||||
BCa/22/3 COST OF LIVING REPORT AND ACTION PLAN PDF 716 KB Cabinet Member for Communities and Wellbeing Additional documents: Decision: It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 Agree the 5 Point Plan attached at Appendix One. 1.2 Delegate to the Assistant Director for Communities & Wellbeing in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities to keep this Plan under review and to update this in response to emerging need.
REASON FOR DECISION Provides assurance and confidence, ensuring that well established systems intra-connect to respond to the emerging needs of people through effective co-ordination and service delivery. The plan includes a range of measures that focus on providing advice and support, maintaining people’s good health, building on the investments the Council has already made since the launch of the respective Communities and Wellbeing strategies and bringing forward an initial suite of interventions that will help improve the system long term, including the appointment of a Cost-of-Living Co-ordinator. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: 2.1 To rely on just Government support and co-ordinate that activity and hope people can find their own solutions. 2.2 To pull together a bespoke plan that will provide residents and our workforce with assurance and confidence that they are not alone and that the District Council will utilise all levers available to connect systems to support people with advice and support on the cost of living issues. Alongside this, recognising that key to any recovery related to the emerging crisis is to maintain wellbeing under the principles of prevention, empowerment, self-enablement and activities that build community resilience, so that people at a locality level can support each other too. Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: 8.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Communities Councillor McLaren to introduce the report.
8.2 Councillor McLaren provided an overview of the report and proposed the recommendations, as detailed in the report.
8.3 Councillor McCraw seconded the recommendations.
8.4 The Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Osborne welcomed the report but asked that assurance was given that there would be no duplication of work, and that reports on monitoring progress would be brought to Cabinet on a regular basis.
8.5 The Cabinet Member for Communities assured Members that duplications would not occur and that quarterly reports would be presented to Cabinet.
8.6 Councillor Ward informed Cabinet that the East Public Sector Leaders Group had provided £1m funding for Suffolk Advice and Support Services, Local Welfare Support service and Food Banks.
8.7 Councillor Busby referenced food banks and enquired if the Council had a list of food banks published on its website.
8.8 The Corporate Manager – Communities detailed how work was being undertaken to support food banks across the District and the conversations being undertaken between officers and food bank providers.
8.9 Councillor Gould queried how the Council would be monitoring progress measures for food banks, many of which were operating on a grass root basis. She also asked that information about allotments were made available on the Council’s website.
8.10 Councillor McLaren responded that the action plan and the report was the first stage of this Action Plan, and the next stage would be to set out how to monitor progress.
8.11 Councillor Ward stated that the Action Plan was very comprehensive with regards to alleviating the cost of living crisis both in the short and long term.
8.12 Councillor McCraw declared that the action plan built on existing programmes and projects already in place. The Local Citizens Advice (LCA) in Sudbury and Ipswich coordinated local food banks. He continued that the additional officer to support work between the Council and the LCA was funded by the levelling up grants from Central Government.
8.13 A question from other members attending the meeting regarding any assistance the Council could provide in relation to food banks to any new groups starting up was to be responded to outside of the meeting by the Cabinet Member.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 Agree the 5 Point Plan attached at Appendix One. 1.2 Delegate to the Assistant Director for Communities & Wellbeing in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Communities to keep this Plan under review and to update this in response to emerging need.
REASON FOR DECISION Provides assurance and confidence, ensuring that well established systems intra-connect to respond to the emerging needs of people through effective co-ordination and service delivery. The plan includes a range of measures that focus on providing advice and support, maintaining people’s good health, building on the investments the Council has already made since the launch of the respective Communities and Wellbeing strategies and bringing forward an initial suite of interventions that will help improve the system ... view the full minutes text for item 8.
|
|||||||||
BCa/22/4 BABERGH FORMER HQ DEVELOPMENT SITE PDF 337 KB Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments
This item is exempt from call-in under Grounds of Urgency, as agreed with the Chair of the Council.
Grounds of Urgency are:
Significant inflationary pressures in the construction industry have resulted in a shortening of tender validity periods- to a period of a few weeks and sometimes only days, compared with several weeks, or months previously. The contractor’s price for phase 1 of the HQ redevelopment is valid until 10th June 2022 and therefore a decision needs to be made before this date to enable Babergh Growth to determine whether they can award the contract or not. Babergh Growth cannot award the contract until increased funding has been secured. Further delay to the award of contract in the current market would result in price increases. Decision: This item is exempt from call-in under Grounds of Urgency, asagreed with the Chair of the Council.
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 Approves the increase in peak funding threshold for Babergh Growth Ltd to £7m for use to deliver the redevelopment of the former HQ site in Hadleigh. 1.2 Authorises the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and the Leader, to negotiate and vary the necessary legal agreements between Babergh District Council and Babergh Growth Ltd to enable the delivery of housing on the former HQ site within Hadleigh.
REASON FOR DECISION To enable and support the delivery of housing within the district and support the economic prosperity of Hadleigh as a key market town. Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: The options that have been considered are: - 2.1 Option 1 – Freehold Disposalof the site. The Council could look to sell the HQ site on the open market with the benefit of planning consent, however the planning consent is due to lapse if not implemented by September 2022. Informal marketing advice has been received recently which identified a negative land value based on the current planning consent but suggests that a maximum gross capital receipt of circa £500,000 could potentially be achieved. It is likely that any third party would seek to increase the density of the scheme and to mitigate the costs of development, which could result in a less favourable scheme than currently consented. Whilst this option would enable the Council to receive a capital receipt this would need to be offset against development costs incurred by Babergh Growth to date (circa £320k) and any future control over the delivery of the site could only be gained through the Council’s regulatory powers. This would not guarantee that development would be forthcoming in the near future, as seen with other former HQ sites across the County. 2.2 Option 2 – Increase Peak Debt Threshold to align with current market conditions In December 2018, Cabinet and Council approved capital funding of £3.77m against the development capital expenditure costs of £12.8m. Current development capital expenditure following tendering the works is anticipated to be £11m for phase 1 and likely to exceed £12.8m for both phases due to significant price inflation in the construction market. Due to market changes it is no longer possible to deliver the development within the authorised peak debt threshold. The authorised peak debt threshold would need to increase to £7m to progress the scheme. Increasing the peak debt threshold would enable the build contract to be awarded for phase 1 before the expiry of the tender period, thus reducing further potential for price increases and a start on site to occur before the expiry of the planning in September 2022. Phase 1 is currently forecast to make a small loss (£250k) but potentially could break even if the construction contingency isn’t required. Phase 1 would provide 41 new homes. Phase 2 would be reviewed once phase 1 has progressed, ... view the full decision text for item 9. Minutes: 9.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward introduced the report on behalf of Councillor Busby.
9.2 Councillor Ward proposed the recommendations, as detailed in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Osborne.
9.3 In response to questions from other Members attending the meeting the Assistant Director – Assets and Investments, clarified that there had always been a Phase One and Phase Twoin the development of the sites. The refurbishment of the existing building continued to be Phase One and the new build formed part of Phase Two. There had been some change to the flood zones. Phase 2 had been sub divided into Phase 2a and Phase 2b. A viability study and further assessment would be undertaken before going forward with Phase Two. Appraisals had also taken into account the work intended for the site as this was a challenging site. With regards to the financial implications for Phase One, it had never been the aim to deliver this part of the scheme for profit and the projections were for the project to break even. However, the increase and availability of building materials should be taken into consideration. The existing development plans for Phase 2A was expected to deliver a profit to the Council. She reminded Members that the report being presented today was to bring Phase One of the development forward.
9.4 The Chair confirmed that the increase in the debt threshold was to enable the delivery of Phase One. The part of the development would either bring a modest profit or break even.
Note: The meeting was adjourned between 3:19 pm and 3:25 pm.
9.5 In response to questions from other Members attending the meeting Councillor Busby stated that the Council followed the lates and most up to date advice received for the Former HQ Site.
9.6 In response to further questions from other Members attending the meeting the Monitoring Officer informed Members that the decision was not ultra-vires, but an executive decision, and Cabinet was not limited to the amount of funding it could agree, as long as it was within the agreed budget which was set annually by Full Council. The Section 151 Officer had confirmed that the funding was within the agreed budget and therefore Cabinet could make this decision.
9.7 The Chair stated that the Grounds of Urgency for the decision had been approved to ensure that an agreement could be progressed to prevent an increase in cost for the development of the site. The deadline was Friday 17 June 2022.
9.8 Members debated the options in the report and agreed that Option 2 was consistent with the decision made by Full Council in 2018. The objectives remained the same for Babergh Growth Company, which was to minimise the losses to Babergh Council and if possible, gain a profit. However, the cost of material and work had increased in the past 3 years since the project began and there were challenges which had to be addressed on the site, including the listed buildings.
It was ... view the full minutes text for item 9.
|