Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Otton, Councillor Whitehead and Councillor Whybrow.

There were none.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2018 were confirmed as a correct record.

None received.

The following questions were received:

Question 1

Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Jill Wilshaw

“What is the most recent estimate available for empty homes (all tenures) in the District, and what are comparable figures over the last 5 years?.”

Response from Councillor Wilshaw

“The following statistics are those that we have available, in relation to those properties that have been empty in excess of 6 months: 

May 2018: 302, 79 of which empty in excess of 2 years.

May 2017: 314, 79 of which empty in excess of 2 years.

May 2016: 270, 69 of which empty in excess of 2 years.

May 2015: 297, 88 of which empty in excess of 2 years.”

Question 2

Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor David Burn

“When will Council take any effective action to save Fisons Warehouse, bearing in mind that my questions to March Cabinet were either rejected as “a planning matter” or as “submitted too late – written answer to follow” which I cannot trace ever receiving, and that councillor Field’s question at June Council was rejected as not arising from the Leader’s report, while the emphasis of Council media statements has been on securing the perimeter of the site, not ensuring the survival of the magnificent listed building?”

Response from Councillor Burn

“The Council continues to work in both a proactive and robust way with the owners of the Fison’s building. There are two main issues the Council is dealing with, a sustainable planning proposal and the management of a potentially dangerous structure. The Council is currently in detailed discussion with the owners of the site on a revised pre-application proposal. The Council has also been undertaking significant action on an enforcement front. A detailed structural report has been commissioned and received.  The Council has taken legal advice and is progressing with actions against the owners of the site to ensure the building’s ongoing safety.”

Question 3

Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Suzie Morley

“Why has a proposed “Customer” Strategy come forward when:

• As long ago as 2011 over 60 members of Mid Suffolk and Babergh decided in a joint meeting to use the term “Citizens” in future mission statements etc
• There has been no consultation of all members regarding the strategy
• Research has repeatedly shown that residents respond significantly less positively to be called “customers” thus imposing greater demands on hard-pressed public bodies
• There are many more accurate terms to describe those who live and work in Mid Suffolk, depending on their particular interaction with the council’s staff
• The Council is not a business but uniquely an elected public body, answerable to its residents?”

Response from Councillor Morley

“Thank you for your question Cllr Matthissen.   I am not aware of the context or the discussions that took place some 7 years ago in respect of using the term ‘Citizens’.  We recognise that indeed, there are lots of different terms that describe those who live and work in Mid Suffolk and additionally who visit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

There were none.

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

www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/the-council/forthcoming-decisions-list/

The forthcoming decisions list was noted.

A concern was raised over CNL11, Local Development Plan, as originally it had been scheduled for April 2018.  It was hoped that the overall timing of the plan had not slipped.  Members noted the full report, including the timetable, would be presented at July’s Council meeting.

Members noted report MCa/18/09.

Councillor Horn, as the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Organisational Delivery, was happy to continue conversations on performance.  Councillor Eburne felt in future that it would be helpful to have the opportunity to discuss any concerns prior to the publication of the report.  This was agreed.

It was RESOLVED:-

1.1           That the Refreshed Customer Strategy be agreed.

1.2           That in consultation with the Cabinet Member and Lead Member, minor amendments to the Strategy be delegated to the Assistant Director for Customer Services to ensure the Strategy is kept up to date, and reflective of emerging strategies which overlap.

1.3           That an action and communication plan be developed, which will ensure the Customer Strategy is widely shared across the organisation and provides for an opportunity to engage with our staff, embedding a customer focused organisational culture.

Reason for Decision: To provide an updated and refreshed Customer Strategy that states the Council’s organisational aim to put the customer at the heart of the organisation, and by doing so, improves the Council’s ability to better deliver our customer need.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  To develop an alternative Public Access Strategy that does not focus on the Council’s customers.

Any Declarations of Interest declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

Councillor Morley, the Lead Member for Customer Service, introduced report MCa/18/10 and the Assistant Director for Customer Service gave an overview of the document.

Councillor Horn, the Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery, thanked the Assistant Director for Customer Service for an excellent document and moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Gowrley.

The use of the word “customer” was questioned due to there not being a choice in services, although the Council could be a customer focussed organisation.  There was a lack of context included in the report for the public to see.  It appeared there was only background information, rather than any form of consultation.  There was a concern as to whether the document gone through the “Plain English” group to ensure what it is trying to say was understandable?  Also, there did not appear to be any timescales listed within the strategy.

Members noted the Customer Strategy would ensure a consistent level of service delivery as being overarching.  It was acknowledged it would be useful to have further information about the background and challenges in terms of the context.  An action plan would be part of a further document and would be different across service areas.  Councillor Horn, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Organisational Delivery had consulted with his Babergh District Council Cabinet colleague, as well as speaking with Parish councillors, citizens and tax payers, of which he had received positive feedback.

Members were pleased that customers who did not use digital services had been recognised, as well as improving the skills of the customer services staff, in order for them to direct people more quickly.

Members considered this to be a good document, which covered all of the points required.  It was refreshing to see a more user-friendly presentation which caught the eye and encouraged people to read it.  The use of graphics was well chosen.  It acknowledged it would be an ongoing “live” document which would be reviewed, adapted and evolved over time as services continued to be developed.

By 6 votes to 1.

It was RESOLVED:-

(1)  That the Refreshed Customer Strategy be agreed.

(2)  That in consultation with the Cabinet Member and Lead Member, minor amendments to the Strategy be delegated to the Assistant Director for Customer Services to ensure the Strategy is kept up to date, and reflective of emerging strategies which overlap.

(3)  That an action and communication plan be developed, which will ensure the Customer Strategy is widely shared across the organisation and provides for an opportunity to engage with our staff, embedding a customer focused organisational culture.

Reason for Decision: To provide an updated and refreshed Customer Strategy that states the Council’s organisational aim to put the customer at the heart of the organisation, and by doing so, improves the Council’s ability to better deliver our customer need.

It was RESOLVED:-

1.1                That the findings of the Public Realm Member Advisory Task and Finish Group in respect of public conveniences be noted.

1.2               That the Joint Public Convenience Policy to guide the Council’s decisions about existing and future provision be approved.

1.3               That a Community Toilet Scheme be established.

1.4               That, where possible, third parties are encouraged to manage public conveniences currently in the ownership of Mid Suffolk District Council.

Reason for Decision: To put in place a policy to guide decisions about existing and future provision of public conveniences in Mid Suffolk.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: To withdraw funding from public conveniences owned by third parties.

Any Declarations of Interest declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

Councillor Burn, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment, introduced report MCa/18/11 and moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Brewster.

Members welcomed the report, but felt the bigger problem was business rates on public toilets, and as such Central Government should be lobbied on the issue.  The Community Toilet Scheme should be actively promoted, and community groups encouraged to take these on.

Congratulations were given to the Task and Finish Group, especially Councillor Maybury as the Chair, it was recognised they had done a lot of excellent work in a short space of time.

By a unanimous vote.

It was RESOLVED:-

(1)   That the findings of the Public Realm Member Advisory Task and Finish Group in respect of public conveniences be noted.

(2)  That the Joint Public Convenience Policy to guide the Council’s decisions about existing and future provision be approved.

(3)  That a Community Toilet Scheme be established.

(4)  That, where possible, third parties are encouraged to manage public conveniences currently in the ownership of Mid Suffolk District Council.

Reason for Decision: To put in place a policy to guide decisions about existing and future provision of public conveniences in Mid Suffolk.

It was RESOLVED:-

1.1                 That the comments made by Full Council on 19 June 2018 were considered and as a result no recommendations were made to the preferred option (Option 1) and development scheme.

1.2                 That Option 1 of Report MCa/18/12 be approved and responsibility be delegated to the Strategic Director, with responsibility for Assets and Investments, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments, to summit a full planning application for the redevelopment of the former Council HQ site and Hurstlea Road Carparks in Needham Market.

Reason for Decision: This option provides for the comprehensive and sympathetic regeneration of the site enhancing the significance and setting of the important listed building, and preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, whilst retaining an element of employment.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: Residential, Retail and Care Home.  Residential, Retail, Care Home and Community Space.

Any Declarations of Interest declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

Councillor Gowrley, the Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments, introduced report MCa/18/12 and moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Wilshaw.

A small change was made to the recommendation as 3.1 should read (Option 1), not (Option 2).

Members welcomed the proposal and felt the sooner the development took place the better.  The public now wanted to see something being done on the site.  They were keen that as many examples of energy efficiency methods as possible were included.  It should be an exemplar development of which the Council could showcase.

By a unanimous vote:

It was RESOLVED:-

(1)  That the comments made by Full Council on 19 June 2018 were considered and as a result no recommendations were made to the preferred option (Option 1) and development scheme.

(2)  That Option 1 of Report MCa/18/12 be approved and responsibility be delegated to the Strategic Director, with responsibility for Assets and Investments, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments, to summit a full planning application for the redevelopment of the former Council HQ site and Hurstlea Road Carparks in Needham Market.

Reason for Decision: This option provides for the comprehensive and sympathetic regeneration of the site enhancing the significance and setting of the important listed building and preserving the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, whilst retaining an element of employment.

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 items, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against each item.  The authors of the report proposed to be considered in Part II of the Agenda are satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

By a unanimous vote

It was RESOLVED:

That 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 items, it was likely there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against each item.  The authors of the reports proposed to be considered in Part II of the agenda were satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

The confidential minute of the 4 June 2018 meeting was confirmed as a correct record.