It was RESOLVED: -

That minutes of the meeting held on the 5 December 2022 be confirmed and signed as a correct record of the meeting.

None received.

None received.

No matters were referred.

Please note the most up to date version can be found via the website:

Forthcoming Decisions List » Babergh

The Forthcoming Decisions List was noted.

Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investments

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1       To recommend to Council that Option 3 (as set out in Appendix C of this report) be used as the basis for a revised (Working Age) Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2023/24.

REASON FOR DECISION

1.1           To increase the maximum reduction available to 100% and reduce the number of customers undergoing recovery processes.

1.2          To avoid unnecessary means testing and provide equitable access to CTR for all customers who receive welfare benefits.

1.3          To reduce the requirement for recalculation of awards for customers on UC with fluctuating earnings.

1.4          To ensure that no customer is disadvantaged on the introduction of the new CTR Scheme

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

1.1          Option 1

Renew the existing Working Age LCTR Scheme to allow an up to 100% maximum reduction for all households.

1.2          Option 2

Renew the existing Working Age LCTR Scheme to allow an up to 100% maximum reduction for all legacy benefit households and introduce a simplified scheme for UC customers that will allow ‘passported’ claims to be automated based on the UC financial data without additional verification. 

1.3          Option 4

Continue with the existing Working Age LCTR Scheme of up to 95% maximum reduction for all households

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

83.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investments to introduce the report.

83.2 Councillor Busby provided an introduction and proposed the recommendations as detailed in the report. Councillor Arthey seconded the recommendation.

83.3 Councillor McLaren asked for details on how many houses were working age but not employed, in comparison to those who were employed and received the benefits. The Shared Legal Service Manager responded that an answer would be provided outside of the meeting.

83.4 Councillor Osborne questioned whether the scheme had the agreement of other members of the partnership. The Interim Monitoring Officer confirmed that the scheme had been agreed by Mid Suffolk Council.

83.5 Councillor Busby queried whether other working adults were expected to contribute to Council Tax payments. The Shared Legal Service Manager responded that the incumbent scheme took nondependent contributions into account, and that working adults would be expected to contribute.

83.6 Councillor Ward queried whether there was a time limit on the scheme as it was a reaction to the cost of living crisis. The Director – Corporate Resources clarified that the scheme would be indefinite and kept under review for 2024/25. The Shared Legal Service Manager added that costs would be monitored by the Shared Revenues Partnership.

83.7 During the debate Councillor Osborne stated that the scheme had her whole approval.

83.8 Councillor McLaren suggested that an all-member briefing be held on the scheme.

By a unanimous vote.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1     To recommend to Council that Option 3 (as set out in Appendix C of this report) be used as the basis for a revised (Working Age) Council Tax Reduction Scheme for 2023/24.

REASON FOR DECISION

1.1 To increase the maximum reduction available to 100% and reduce the number of customers undergoing recovery processes.

1.2 To avoid unnecessary means testing and provide equitable access to CTR for all customers who receive welfare benefits.

1.3 To reduce the requirement for recalculation of awards for customers on UC with fluctuating earnings.

1.4 To ensure that no customer is disadvantaged on the introduction of the new CTR Scheme

Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investments

It was RESOLVED: -

That, the proposed Fees and Charges for 2023/24 as shown in Appendix A, be approved.

REASON FOR DECISION

To ensure that the Council achieves sufficient income and thereby reduces the subsidy on non-essential services which may compromise the Councils ability to fund statutory services.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

To make no change, leave them at the current year’s level.

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

84.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investments to introduce the report.

84.2 Councillor Busby provided an introduction and proposed the recommendations as detailed in the report. Councillor McLaren seconded the recommendation.

84.3 Councillor McLaren queried the cost of pavement licenses and how demand had changed since the Covid-19 pandemic. Councillor Busby responded that there had been a reduction in the number of licences issued, since the Covid-19 pandemic, however pavement licences were free during Covid-19.

84.4 Councillor Arthey queried whether the fees had also been agreed by Mid Suffolk Cabinet. Councillor Ward responded that Mid Suffolk had agreed their fees, however they were different to the Babergh ones.

84.5 In response to questions from other Members attending the meeting the Director - Corporate Resources clarified the charges for hedge cutting and that these charges had been benchmarked against those from other councils

84.6 During the debate Councillor McCraw advised that the fees and charges were in line with the Mid Suffolk charging structure, and many were statutory charges imposed by Government.

84.7 Councillor Osborne raised concerns that large item collection fees might encourage fly tipping if residents are unable to afford the charges.

84.8 Councillor Malvisi highlighted that a trial amnesty had been undertaken in Sudbury to help combat fly tipping and ways to implement these schemes was being explored.

84.9 Councillor Ward emphasised that the fees and charges were now within the budget calculations.

By a unanimous vote.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1 That, the proposed Fees and Charges for 2023/24 as shown in Appendix A, be approved.

REASON FOR DECISION

To ensure that the Council achieves sufficient income and thereby reduces the subsidy on non-essential services which may compromise the Councils ability to fund statutory services.

Cabinet Member for Housing

It was RESOLVED: -

To approve the Tenancy Policy (Appendix A)

REASON FOR DECISION

The Tenancy Policy meets the requirements of the Regulator for Social Housing, providing information for tenants to understand how their occupation of Council homes will be managed.

Consistent with the current political agenda for social housing the Tenancy Policy prioritises long-term security of tenure for tenants over tenancies of a fixed length.  This will allow tenants and their families to create a home in Council properties and build thriving and diverse communities in our housing estates.

In the time elapsed since their introduction, fixed term tenancies have been proven to be a largely ineffective in providing their anticipated benefits of reducing housing waiting lists.  Managing and administering Flexible fixed term tenancies has proven to be costly and time consuming for landlords, and unsettling for tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants and those suffering with mental illness.

The Councils will create a new, separate policy which will support efficient use of the Councils’ housing stock by encouraging tenants to downsize.  Such policy is included in the Homes and Housing Strategy (objective 2g) and may include provide financial incentives, advice and practical support to tenants who are under-occupying their homes to assist and encourage them to free-up larger homes for families.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

2.1             At an ‘Early Warning’ Cabinet Briefing on 26^th September 2022, Cabinet members considered the following fundamental decision in the Tenancy Policy:

2.2             Option 1: to continue the current practice of granting Secure Tenancies which provide long-term security of tenancy, or;

2.3             Option 2: to grant Flexible (fixed term) Tenancies which only provide security for a short period of time (typically 5 years).

2.4             In light of the changes in Government agenda and the Housing Sector in recent years (please refer to explanatory note in Appendix B), and mindful of Government’s intention to abolish fixed-term tenancies in private and social housing by 2030, Cabinet members voted in favour of Option 1, for Secure Tenancies to remain the primary form of tenancy for Council tenants.  The Tenancy Policy has therefore been created to confirm and clarify the Councils’ current practice of providing and managing tenancies.

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

85.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Housing to introduce the report.

85.2 Councillor Osborne provided a brief introduction and proposed the recommendations as detailed in the report. Councillor McCraw seconded the recommendation.

85.3 Councillor McLaren questioned whether the inspection from the Housing Regulator had an impact on resources within the housing team. Councillor Osborne responded that there was currently no impact on the resources however this would be greater if there was a fixed term. The Director – Housing added that existing resources had been used on challenges within building services.

85.4 In response to questions from other members present at the meeting the Director for Housing outlined that research on flexible tenancies showed that they did not work as tenants, instead Babergh were focused on lifetime tenancies, as they allowed for creating places and communities.

85.5 During the debate Councillor McCraw observed that many councils that implemented flexible tenancies have reverted back to fixed term tenancies, and that flexible tenancies could be abolished by 2030.

85.6 Councillor Osborne added that flexible tenancies had been proven not to work in practice and it could be expensive for tenants, who moved between properties.

85.7 Councillor McCraw stated that he was pleased to hear tenants would be engaged with further on the downsizing policy.

By a unanimous vote

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1To approve the Tenancy Policy (Appendix A)

REASON FOR DECISION

1.1The Tenancy Policy meets the requirements of the Regulator for Social Housing, providing information for tenants to understand how their occupation of Council homes will be managed.

1.2Consistent with the current political agenda for social housing the Tenancy Policy prioritises long-term security of tenure for tenants over tenancies of a fixed length. This will allow tenants and their families to create a home in Council properties and build thriving and diverse communities in our housing estates.

1.3In the time elapsed since their introduction, fixed term tenancies have been proven to be a largely ineffective in providing their anticipated benefits of reducing housing waiting lists. Managing and administering Flexible fixed term tenancies has proven to be costly and time consuming for landlords, and unsettling for tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants and those suffering with mental illness.

1.4The Councils will create a new, separate policy which will support efficient use of the Councils’ housing stock by encouraging tenants to downsize. Such policy is included in the Homes and Housing Strategy (objective 2g) and may include provide financial incentives, advice and practical support to tenants who are under-occupying their homes to assist and encourage them to free-up larger homes for families.

Corporate Manager – Governance and Civic Office

It was RESOLVED: -

That Cabinet approves the Scrutiny/Cabinet protocol attached.

REASON FOR DECISION

To promote a culture of accountability, openness, and transparency within Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils, recognising scrutiny as a key enabler within that culture. 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

The proposal to formulate a Scrutiny/Cabinet Protocol was an action from the Corporate Peer Review and is considered best practice by the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

86.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Corporate Manager – Governance and Civic Office to introduce the report to Cabinet and provide an overview of the recommendations.

86.2 Councillor Ward proposed the recommendation as set out in the report. Councillor McLaren seconded the recommendation.

86.3 Councillor Busby questioned what would be done differently. The Corporate Manager – Governance and Civic Office responded that monthly meetings would be held with the Leaders and Overview and Scrutiny Chairmen, which had been formalised to ensure there was  a good working between Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Additionally, recommendations from the Committee were being tracked to show where value has been added.

86.4 Councillor McLaren queried whether there was anything in place to ensure that training for committee members was kept up to date. The Corporate Manager – Governance and Civic Office responded that a modular training programme was being developed.

86.5 In response to questions from other members present at the meeting Councillor Ward clarified that it was down to the Council to  ensure that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee carried out their role and function.

86.6 During the debate Councillor McCraw welcomed the protocol and was pleased with the recommendation tracking process.

86.7 Councillor Ward highlighted that it was important for the Committee to be able to undertake their work effectively, and that promotion was needed for public engagement and for a broader understanding of the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

86.8 Councillor Malvisi stated that she supported the protocol and that it provided a clearly defined structure.

By a unanimous vote.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1That Cabinet approves the Scrutiny/Cabinet protocol attached

REASON FOR DECISION

To promote a culture of accountability, openness, and transparency within Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils, recognising scrutiny as a key enabler within that culture.

Cabinet Member for Customers, Digital Transformation and Improvement

It was RESOLVED: -

That members of Babergh and Mid Suffolk Cabinets are asked to note the progress so far to improve strategic risk management and agree the new draft risk management policy and strategy which aligns with the Orange Book.

REASON FOR DECISION

Babergh and Mid Suffolk Cabinets are responsible for Strategic Risk Management and approval of the joint Risk Management Policy and Strategy.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

The Councils could have maintained the existing responsibility for risk rather than integrate it with performance and improvement, but it was felt this would not drive the improvement required or maximise the opportunities to join up with a new corporate approach.

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

87.1 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Customers, Digital Transformation and Improvement Councillor McCraw to introduce the report

87.2 Councillor McCraw provided an overview of the report and proposed the recommendation as detailed in the report. This was seconded by Councillor McLaren.

87.3 Councillor McLaren questioned how this would be made meaningful to staff and board members. Councillor McCraw responded that risk management was going to be embedded in the culture of all the directorates, additionally the Joint Audit and Standards Committee would monitor the progress. The Corporate Manager Policy, Performance, Risk and Improvement added that officers were working with the Senior Leadership Team, Cabinet, and the Joint Audit and Standards Committee in the first instance, and that work was being undertaken with Corporate Managers to identify where risk could  be integrated into service planning.

87.4 Councillor McLaren asked for clarification on the Council’s Whistle-blower policy. The Corporate Manager Policy, Performance, Risk and Improvement responded that there was a corporate whistleblowing policy that was available to staff on the intranet. The Deputy Chief Executive added that for any reports of whistleblowing there would be a full investigation.

87.5 Councillor Ward welcomed the report and stated that it was necessary to have the strategy to guide decision making, and help mitigate risk on complex matters.

By a unanimous vote.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1That members of Babergh and Mid Suffolk Cabinets are asked to note the progress so far to improve strategic risk management and agree the new draft risk management policy and strategy which aligns with the Orange Book.

REASON FOR DECISION

Babergh and Mid Suffolk Cabinets are responsible for Strategic Risk Management and approval of the joint Risk Management Policy and Strategy.

Cabinet Member for Finance, Asset and Investments

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1          Delegate authority to the Director of Assets and Investments in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Assets & Investments to agree the detailed terms of the letter of comfort and headlease in accordance with this report.

1.2           Delegate authority to the Directors of Assets and Investments and Finance in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Assets & Investments and Finance to review the final IFRS16 calculation and implement the headlease in accordance with this report.

REASON FOR DECISION

To bring forward the development of the new health centre and subsequent capital receipt.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

1.3           Option 1 - Do Nothing

1.3.1     This will result in the sale and development of the land as a Health Centre not proceeding. The current sub-standard and dated facilities will be retained and used to best effect. This option has previously been discounted by Cabinet as Sudbury has an urgent need for improved medical facilities in the town.

1.4          Option 2 - Assura accept a shorter lease commitment from the HHGP

1.4.1     Assura are committed to delivering this development and have invested significant time and finances into progressing the scheme for in excess of 8 years.

1.4.2     Reducing the lease term from 25 years to 15 years creates a development with negative viability which Assura is unable to pursue. This is therefore not a viable option.

1.5          Option 3 - A headlease is entered into by NHS/ ICB with sub lease to HHGP

1.5.1     HHGP are prepared to commit to a 15-year lease, however for the development to be viable a longer 25-year lease commitment is required. A third party, with a substantial covenant, could therefore enter into an agreement to take a headlease for a term of 25 years simultaneous to a 15-year sublease being granted to HHGP.

1.5.2     The obvious third party to take a headlease in this situation would be part of the NHS. This has been explored by NHS organisations however primarily for accounting (namely the NHS adopting IFRS16 from 2022) and lack of appropriate policy reasons this cannot be progressed at the current time. The transition from CCGs to ICBs will enable ICBs to hold property assets in the future, which the CCGs were prohibited from doing, however whilst this is now permitted by legislation the policy framework is still to be developed nationally. 

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

88.1 The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Finance, Assets and Investments to introduce the report.

88.2 Councillor Busby provided an introduction and proposed the recommendations as detailed in the report. Councillor McCraw seconded the recommendation.

88.3 The Chair invited Councillor Simon Barrett to provide background information to the Cabinet in his capacity as previous Ward Member for the site.

88.4 Councillor Busby queried how many leases of existing sites were under 10 years. Daniel Turner - NHS Suffolk Representative responded that for the existing premises the lease was approximately under 10 years.

88.5 Councillor Ward questioned why the Integrated Care Board (ICB) could not take the head lease themselves. Peter Wightman - NHS Suffolk Representative responded that the NHS had entered into a capital allocation programme, which was for a 10-year lease.

88.6 Councillor Osborne queried how potential issues in recruiting and maintaining staff would be dealt with. Peter Wightman - NHS Suffolk Representative responded that there was a statutory duty from the NHS to provide healthcare, and recruitment issues could be mitigated by bringing in staff from other practices until a long-term solution was found.

88.7 Councillor Malvisi questioned why doctors were only willing to sign a 15-year lease. Peter Wightman - NHS Suffolk Representative responded that as capital came from the insurer, doctors were not liable for the lease as this fell to the NHS. Additionally, a lack of confidence in NHS and their contract setting terms had meant that 25-year contracts were not desirable.

88.8 Councillor Busby questioned the break clause in relation to a new tenancy and   whether the Council as head lease holder, would be able to renegotiate their portion of the lease.  The Director – Assets and Investment responded that the 25-year lease in place with the owner of the building would remain the same, and a new sub-lease could be negotiated with an incoming tenant under similar terms and conditions of the previous lease. Additionally, there was a clause that allowed the lease to be terminated by the Council should the rent no longer be reimbursed by the NHS.

88.9 During the debate Councillor McCraw highlighted that as the site was a purpose-built health centre it was likely that in 15 years’ time there would still be the need for healthcare provision in Sudbury and Great Cornard, and that there was little risk that the services of the centre would change.

88.10 Councillor Osborne stated that she was torn on this scheme as Babergh District Council were not a healthcare provider. Additionally, whilst the risk was minimal, other councils had rejected similar schemes. However, voting for the scheme was the right thing to do.

88.11 Councillor Arthey had considered Councillor Simon Barrett’s previous statement however, he stated that in order to support the communities’ things needed to change. Additionally, in future there might be provision issues due to CIL payments.

88.12 Councillor Ward stated that this was a difficult decision, however due to the issues around the length of the lease and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

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 2 of the Agenda is/are satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments

The meeting did not require to enter a closed session.

It was RESOLVED: -

That the confidential minutes of the meeting held on the 5 December 2022 be confirmed and signed as a correct record of the meeting.