Venue: King Edmund Chamber, Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich. View directions
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: 70.1 Apologies for absences were received from Councillors Davis and Maybury.
|
|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 71.1 There were no declarations of interests. |
|
BCa/18/41 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 OCTOBER 2018 PDF 283 KB Minutes: 72.1 Councillor Lawrenson referred to bullet point 67.13 and said that he would like it to be noted that his argument had been stronger and included more details. He felt this was not reflected in the minute and that he would be referring to this during the committee meeting.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 October 2018 be confirmed as a correct record.
|
|
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: 73.1 There were no petitions received. |
|
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS Minutes: 74.1 There were no questions received.
74.2 Councillor Barrett asked if he could raise a question regarding the press release from Suffolk County Council for the Sudbury bypass. He wished that the SCC had alerted Councillors to the release being issued. Councillor Lawrenson agreed with Councillor Barrett. The Leader said he would be discussing this issue with the Leader of Suffolk County Council.
|
|
MATTERS REFERRED BY THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY OR JOINT AUDIT AND STANDARDS COMMITTEES Minutes: 75.1 There were no matters referred by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or the Joint Audit and Standards Committee. |
|
BCa/18/42 FORTHCOMING DECISIONS LIST PDF 749 KB Please note the most up to date version can be found via the website: https://www.babergh.gov.uk/the-council/forthcoming-decisions-list/
Minutes:
76.2 Members debated the impact of the decision by Suffolk County Council of not to developing a Sudbury Bypass and it was generally agreed that this would have a significant impact on the congestion problems in the town and the development of Chiltern Woods. This would also change some of the contend of the Joint Local Plan.
76.3 Councillor Barrett though that a long-term project on how to solve the traffic congestion around Sudbury should be debated by the Council.
76.4 Councillor Ridley suggested that the Cabinet invited Robert Hobbs – Corporate Manager – Strategic Planning to discuss further.
76.5 Members agreed that planning for the future and the impact of the infrastructure on housing developments and commercial activities should be understood to ensure that the infrastructure was fit for purpose.
76.6 The Forthcoming Decisions List was noted.
|
|
BCa/18/43 GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL MONITORING 2018/19 - APRIL TO AUGUST 2018 PDF 513 KB Cabinet Member for Finance Decision:
Minutes: 77.1 Councillor Ward – Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the report, which was an update from the first quarter of the current financial year. He then drew Members’ attention to the following:
· The strategic response was summarised in the 5 key actions in paragraph 4.1.
· General Fund Revenue Account: · The key variations on expenditure and income compared with the budget was identified and presented in the table in paragraph 5.8 · There was a favourable variance of £639k, which was an improvement of £862k. This was largely due to a one-off additional benefit of £722k from the business rates retention pilot, over and above the growth funds allocated to the Council and set aside for earmarked schemes, as agreed by Cabinet last month. · There was an improvement of £233k in the position for CIFCO. · There was an improvement in planning income, partly offset by the cost of additional professional ecology and landscape consultancy. · There now existed an adverse variance of £54k for housing solutions, which was a movement of £185k. · NOTE: that the variance total in paragraph 5.8 on page 18 was correct; but that the table total on page 26 had not been updated.
· Transformation Fund · The current Transformation Fund projects was listed in appendix B. · The table in paragraph 5.10 indicate an improvement in the balance. for the transformation fund at the end of the year, which was now expected to be £285k, enough to cover the outstanding commitments.
· MTFS Update · An update to the MTFS was to be provided as part of these monitoring reports. · The cumulative funding shortfall over the four years from 2019/20 to 2022/23, was currently standing at just under £1.2M (line 41 of appendix B on page 32). Note that this includes the minimum NHB and was in excess of £2M without that.
· Capital Programme · There was a favourable variance of £6.8M anticipated for capital expenditure and the reasons for this were summarised at paragraph 5.19. · The capital programme was set out in appendix E.
77.2 Councillor Barrett congratulated the Finance Team for the positive update.
77.3 Councillor Lawrenson agreed and said there had previously been excess funds available to the Council but that these had been used on various projects and not on infrastructure projects. He suggested that this new excess fund was used to grow the economy in areas such as Sudbury. He said that the Council had to rely on Suffolk County Council (SCC) to fulfil the demands for hospital, highways etc. and SCC had failed to deliver. Sudbury needed to take control of its own area. Carparking could raise a substantial amount of money, which together with Business Rates and CILL could raise an substantial amount.
77.4 Councillor Lawrenson continued and said that the Council needed to put money aside to invest in Sudbury, and that there was a need for better infrastructure to get people into the town. He felt that SCC had failed to invest in key infrastructure for the area.
77.5 He suggested a fund ... view the full minutes text for item 77. |
|
Cabinet Member for Housing Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That thepotential orlikely variationsin relationto theHRA bothRevenue andCapital comparedto theBudget be noted.
1.2 That,subject toany furtherbudget variationsthat ariseduring therest ofthe financialyear, theshortfall infunds of£425k, referredto insection 5.5of the report,be noted.
1.3 That the revised 2018/19 Capital Programme referred to in Appendix A and section 5.9 of the report be approved.
Reason for Decision: To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position of both the HRA and Capital Budgets.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: a) Transfer funds of £425k from the Strategic Priorities reserve to support the deficit. b) At this early stage in the year, make no recommendation for the transfer of funds from reserves.
Any Declarations of Interest declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None Minutes: 78.1 Councillor Jan Osborne – Cabinet Member for Housing, began by informing Members that the HRA was forecasting a deficit of £181k as at the end of August 2018, which was an adverse variance of £425k for the year. The main reasons for this variance were:
78.2 The variances were explained in more detail in the table in bullet point 5.6
78.3 Capital was anticipated to show a favourable variance of £132k due to the reallocation of the Capita Support team’s salaries to revenue.
78.4 Further work would be undertaken following the recent announcement that the HRA Debt Cap would be abolished on the of 29th October. The outcome of this would be reported as part of the 2019/20 budget report.
78.5 Councillor Osborne MOVED recommendations 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 on page 39, which was seconded by Councillor Barrett. By a unanimous vote It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the potential or likely variations in relation to the HRA both Revenue and Capital compared to the Budget be noted. 1.2 That, subject to any further budget variations that arise during the rest of the financial year, the shortfall in funds of £425k, referred to in section 5.5 of the report, be noted. 1.1 That the revised 2018/19 Capital Programme referred to in Appendix A and section 5.9 be approved. REASON FOR DECISION To ensure that Members are kept informed of the current budgetary position for both the HRA and Capital Budgets.
|
|
Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery Additional documents:
Decision: It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the contents of the report, supported by Appendix A and B, be approved.
Reason for Decision: To provide assurances that risk management processes in place are robust and effective.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: Risk management as an activity must accomplish the following tasks: identify concerns; identify risks and risk owners; evaluate the risks as to likelihood and consequences; assess the options for accommodating the risks and prioritise the risk management. efforts.
Any Declarations of Interest declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes: 79.1 The Corporate Manager introduced the half year Significant Risk Register and a summary of the work of the Audit and Risk Management Services team during the first half of the year to Cabinet.
79.2 The current Risk Register had 28 risks. 17 scored as medium, 9 as high and 2 as very high. Since the Register was last reported to Cabinet (March 2018) 2 new risks had been added to the Register:
o Gateway 14 – this new risk relates to Mid Suffolk DC only.
o Agile working arrangements – this risk was formerly 5e covering both public access and agile worki8ng arrangements and had now been split.
79.3 Consideration to a new risk for Brexit was ongoing and it was understood that it was a Countywide consideration to this and an update would be provided to Cabinet when it became available.
79.4 All Service areas now had a service risk register.
79.5 The Corporate Manager said that the Assistant Directors should by now have contacted their respective Cabinet Members to update them on the risks.
79.6 Councillor Lawrenson commented that he had not received any information regarding the Risk Register for the Assistant Directors.
79.7 Councillor Barrett referred to risk 1b and said that that currently the Judicial Review for the Appeals were causing problems for the Council and would have an impact on the significant Risk Register operations. The Corporate Manager responded that currently Tom Barker – Assistant Director – Planning and Communities was managing this on the Operational Risk Register.
79.8 Councillor Ridley provide Members with an update of the recent judicial reviews including the Worsley Grange, which he considered a success. He informed the Cabinet that Boxford had been dismissed at the Planning Inspector.
79.9 Councillor Jan Osborne referred to 2b and said that the narrative would have to change as a result of the recent developments of Sudbury bypass, which would have an impact on the economic development in the area.
79.10 Councillor Lawrenson asked if big developers had an advantage over smaller developers, as a result of Government policy for affordable housing. He felt that big developers’ avoidance of including affordable housing in their developments remained a problem for the Council. He asked if the Council had any influence over this, as he was concerned that this in some way exploited the residents in Babergh. He considered this a risk to the residents of Babergh and asked that this was noted in the minutes.
79.11 Councillor Ridley responded there was a robust consultation with developers and that this included affordable housing, but it was a matter of frustration that it was not possible to single out one developer over another.
79.12 Councillor Ward ask Councillor Ridley to raise the issue with either the Planning or Housing Departments.
79.13 Councillor McCraw quired risk 5J and asked why it was considered a risk if the Council did not adopt a new development model. This indicated that the Council would not be financial sustainable if ... view the full minutes text for item 79. |
|
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 this item, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the item. The author of the report proposed to be considered in Part 2 of the Agenda is satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
PART II Minutes: By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
That pursuant to Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the business specified in the report on the grounds that if the public were present during that item, it is likely that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.
|
|
BCa/18/46 PART II - BABERGH MID SUFFOLK BUILDING SERVICES (BMBS) BUSINESS PLAN 2017 - 2023 Minutes: Councillor Barrett MOVED the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Grandon.
By 6 votes to 0, 1 abstention
It was RESOLVED: -
That Part 2 of Report CAB81 be noted and endorsed
|