57.1       Councillor Richardson declared a local non-pecuniary interest in Item 8, as a Ward Member for Thurston.

57.2       Councillor Whitehead declared a local non-pecuniary interest in Item 10, as Director for Gateway 14 Ltd.

It was RESOLVED: -

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 4 October 2021 be confirmed as a correct record.

None received.

None received.

There were no matters referred.

The Forthcoming Decision List can be viewed on the website on the following link:

Forthcoming Decisions List » Mid Suffolk

The Forthcoming Decisions List was noted.

Cabinet Member for Planning.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1      That the CIL Expenditure Programme (November 2021) and accompanying technical assessment of the CIL Bid – M21-03 and M19-06(forming Appendices, A and B) and which included decisions on these CIL Bid as follows be approved: -

Ringfenced and Local Infrastructure Fund

AMENDMENTS TO A PREVIOUS BID AGREED BY MID SUFFOLK CABINET ON 7th JUNE 2021

1.2          That this CIL Expenditure Programme which included the position in respect of approved CIL Bids from Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (including Cabinet decisions in June 2021) - (Appendix A Section B) together with details of emerging infrastructure /CIL Bids (Appendix A Section C) be noted and endorsed.

REASON FOR DECISION

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11 April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework was originally adopted in April 2018 and reviewed with amendments adopted on the 18 March 2019, 20 April 2020 and 23 and 25 March 2021. The CIL Expenditure Framework   requires the production of a CIL Expenditure Programme for each District which contains decisions for Cabinet to make or note on CIL Bids for CIL expenditure. These decisions relating to the expenditure of CIL monies form one of the ways in which necessary infrastructure supporting growth is delivered.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

There is a diverse spectrum of approaches to CIL expenditure across the country from Unitary Authorities who have absorbed CIL into their individual Capital Programmes to others who ringfence all funds to be spent locally. A range of different approaches was identified in Appendix A of the Framework for CIL Expenditure report provided to Cabinet’s on the 5^th and 8^th of February 2018 and discussed in full during the workshops with the Joint Member advisory panel. Members adopted the documents set out in paragraph 1.1 above by Council decision in April 2018 which were subsequently reviewed and adopted on the 19^th March 2019 (Babergh) and 18^th March 2019 (Mid Suffolk) and further reviewed and adopted by both Councils on the 20^th April 2020 and 23^rd March 2021 (Babergh) and 25^th March 2021(Mid Suffolk) respectively.

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None

Any Dispensation Granted: None

63.1        The Chair invited the Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Burn to introduce the report.

63.2         Councillor Burn provided the introduction and outlined the two CIL bids in the report. He introduced Suffolk County Council’s (SCC) Schools Infrastructure Manager and Schools Planning Manager to Cabinet.

63.3         Councillor Burn proposed recommendation 3.1 and 3.2 in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Fleming.

63.4         The Chair invited the Ward Member for Elmswell, Councillor Geake to make a representation to Cabinet.

63.5         Councillor Geake reiterated that the Parish Council, the Suffolk County Councillor and herself were against the proposal for Elmswell. She provided a summary of the attendance at the school and the circumstances surrounding school provision for Elmswell and Woolpit and the reasons for her objections to the development at Elmswell Primary School.

63.6         In response to Councillor Hadingham’s questions, the SCC Schools Infrastructure Manager and Schools Planning Manager detailed the issues for the development of the school site based on the projected increase in pupils attending the school in 2022. The neighbouring village of Woolpit would be able to provide school places for any future increases in the number of primary school children in Elmswell, once the new housing developments were completed. Currently no suitable sites had been made available for the development of a new school in Elmswell.

63.7         The Chair asked if any of the sites that had been identified in the emerging Joint Local Plan had been considered, to which the SCC School Planning Manager responded that there had been no sites offered to the SCC Educational Authority which had been large enough to accommodate a new school in Elmswell.

63.8         The SCC Schools Manager continued to respond to questions from Members on issues including expected increases in the number of pupils in both Elmswell and Woolpit, the current and future capacity of the school provision in both villages, the time scales for the building of a new school, and the implications of the land availability for sites.

63.9         The Schools Infrastructure Manager outlined the responses to the consultation and the support of the school Governors for the development.

63.10      Officers responded to questions from other Members attending the meeting including the combined capacity of Elmswell and Woolpit schools and the long-term cohesive strategy for both communities being served by three schools, plans for walking and cycling links between the two villages, and forecasts for pupils attending each school.

63.11      Members debated the issues including that the solution to provide additional school places was based on advice received from the Local Education Authority and was supported by the School in Elmswell, that the Community User agreement would be included in phase 3 of the bid progression, that the bid was supported by the school administration and Governors, the consequences of delaying the bid, and that the bid was based on technical advice from planning officers and SCC officers. In addition that the role of the Cabinet was not to decide where schools should be built but to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Cabinet Member for Planning

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1          That Cabinet noted the content of the report and Appendices A and B and that the content of Appendices A and B be submitted to the Government as Mid Suffolk s Infrastructure Funding Statement.

1.2          That the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (Appendices A and B) on the Council’s web site be approved.

REASON FOR DECISION

There are a number of different ways which Infrastructure is delivered following growth within each District. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11^th April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework was originally adopted in April 2018. It was reviewed with amendments; these were adopted on the 18^th March 2019 and the 20^th April 2020. This Framework requires the production of a CIL Expenditure Programme for each District at least twice a year containing decisions for Cabinet to make or note on CIL Bids for infrastructure. Section 106 monies are collected through the completion of legal agreements before planning permission is granted for development. These secure developer contributions or direct provision of infrastructure. These legal agreements control the amount of money to be received and the timing and nature of the infrastructure provision. Neighbourhood CIL is paid out twice a year by the 28th April and by the 28^th October to all Parishes with the exception of Parish meetings where these monies are held by the Councils for us to work with those Parishes to devise and implement infrastructure proposals. All Parishes need to make a yearly return to each Council on the expenditure of their Neighbourhood CIL and this should be published on their Parish web site. As part of the evidence supporting the development of a Joint Local Plan an Infrastructure Delivery Plan has been produced which is being updated. All of these measures and where appropriate, decisions form ways in which necessary infrastructure supporting growth in the Districts are delivered /or prioritised for the benefit of our communities

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

1.1          The need to produce an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) is prescribed by legislation through changes to the CIL Legislation in September 2019. The Government have been working on a template for a digital response with an ability to input back office data and for each Council to submit this using existing software (for Babergh and Mid Suffolk -this would be via Exacom). It is understood that there are over 100 Local Authority users of Exacom in the country and the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government have been working alongside users to develop a digital template to complete the IFS each year. This is still being developed/tested and some Local Authorities produced their own IFS for 2019 (when there was no legal requirement to do so) using their own individual style/approach. Over time the content of these Infrastructure Funding Statements are likely to develop into a focused digital submission to the Government.

1.2            Our approach at this  ...  view the full decision text for item 64.

1.1          The Chair, Councillor Morley read out a statement that Cabinet had agreed that this Infrastructure Funding Statement and all future Infrastructure Funding Statements would be circulated to all Members and published on the Council’s website in due course. Therefore, this item would not be presented to Cabinet.

1.1          The Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Burn provided an introduction for the item and outlined the requirements for the Infrastructure Funding Statement. He supported the decision that the Infrastructure Funding Statement should be forwarded to all Members in the future and published on the Council’s website.

1.2          Councillor Burn proposed the recommendations in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Gould.

1.3          It was RESOLVED: -

1.1             That Cabinet note the content of this report and Appendices A and B and that the content of Appendices A and B be submitted to the Government as Babergh’ s Infrastructure Funding Statement.

1.2             Cabinet’s agreement is also sought to the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (Appendices A and B) on the Council’s web site.

REASON FOR DECISION

There are a number of different ways which Infrastructure is delivered following growth within each District. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11^th April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework was originally adopted in April 2018. It was reviewed with amendments; these were adopted on the 18^th March 2019 and the 20^th April 2020. This Framework requires the production of a CIL Expenditure Programme for each District at least twice a year containing decisions for Cabinet to make or note on CIL Bids for infrastructure. Section 106 monies are collected through the completion of legal agreements before planning permission is granted for development. These secure developer contributions or direct provision of infrastructure. These legal agreements control the amount of money to be received and the timing and nature of the infrastructure provision. Neighbourhood CIL is paid out twice a year by the 28th April and by the 28^th October to all Parishes with the exception of Parish meetings where these monies are held by the Councils for us to work with those Parishes to devise and implement infrastructure proposals. All Parishes need to make a yearly return to each Council on the expenditure of their Neighbourhood CIL and this should be published on their Parish web site. As part of the evidence supporting the development of a Joint Local Plan an Infrastructure Delivery Plan has been produced which is being updated. All of these measures and where appropriate, decisions form ways in which necessary infrastructure supporting growth in the Districts are delivered /or prioritised for the benefit of our communities

The Leader of the Council.

It was RESOLVED: -

1.1           That the proposed areas of expenditure, with a total value of £5.138m and as set out at paragraph 4.5 of this report, be agreed in principle.

1.2           That authority be delegated to the relevant Assistant Director in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member to finalise the detail of the programmes of work and to make minor amendments if required.

1.3           That authority be delegated to the relevant Assistant Director in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and the Cabinet Member for Finance to agree the criteria for the allocation of new loans and grants.

REASON FOR DECISION

To enable the new and extended programmes of work to commence to support the delivery of the Council’s strategic objectives.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

To rely on existing levels of core funding to deliver these strategies.

Any Declarations of Interests Declared: Councillor Whitehead declared a local non-pecuniary interests as Director for Gateway 14 Ltd.

Any Dispensation Granted: None

Note: The meeting was adjourned between 11:50 am and 12:03pm.

65.1       The Leader of the Council, Councillor Morley introduced the Item and proposed recommendations 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 in the report.

65.2       Councillor Flatman seconded the recommendations.

65.3       The Chair invited the Cabinet Members for Communities, Housing, and Health and Wellbeing to provide introductions for their proposals in the Strategic Priorities.

65.4       The Chair provided an introduction on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Economic Growth, as he had forwarded apologies to the meeting.

65.5       The Chair invited questions from Cabinet Members and other Members attending the meeting.

65.6       In response to a question regarding the staff resources required to meet the projects set out in the Strategic Priorities, the Chief Executive stated that the report detailed the requirements for staff resources and that it varied whether recruitment for vacancies would for permanent or temporary arrangements. A breakdown of staff requirements for each Service Areas would be provided to Members after the meeting.

65.7       In response to questions from other Members attending the meeting the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing advised that the Youth Prescribing scheme would be made available through the integrated neighbourhood teams. The delivery plan would also include engagement with opposition members. The Holiday Scheme eligibility would in the first instance be based on those who received free school meals. The Department of Education provided funding for all other holiday schemes except for those provided in the half-term breaks, which the Council funded.

65.8       In response to questions in relation to the funding allocated for sustainable travel, the Assistant Director for Economic Development and Regeneration detailed the work of the Sustainable Travel Officer and stated that the funding supported this work with stakeholders such as Suffolk County Council and businesses.

65.9       The Strategic Director responded to a question in relation to members’ involvement in developing the proposals included in the Strategic Priorities. There would be opportunities at the upcoming All Member Briefings to provide input to the proposals and to discuss further.

65.10    Additional questions from other Members attending the meeting related to the funding allocation for the proposals, the timing for the expenditure of the funding and the previous exemplar scheme for construction of housing.

65.11    The Assistant Director for Housing stated that the housing developments were on HRA sites, and that it was pertinent to look at new technological developments, as they come forward, to improve energy performance in housing.

65.12    Members debated the issues including the impressive array of investments in action, that small sums of funding were important to smaller organisations, that non-permanent appointments should be made to time limited projects, and that the reserves were spent as a result of prudent savings and would be put to good use in the Community. 

65.13    In addition to the Council providing money for core funded services, the Council could also deliver the new services identified in the Strategic Priorities, these were funded from the reserves, recirculating loans and from external match funding. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.