Venue: Teams Meeting
No. | Item | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Minutes: Councillor McLaren declared a local non-pecuniary interest in Item 8, in her role as a member of the Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership.
Councillor Grandon declared a local non-pecuniary interest in the Item 13, as one of the bidders for the project was known to her.
|
|||||||||
JOS/20/16 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 DECEMBER 2020 PDF 165 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2020 be approved and signed at the next practicable opportunity.
|
|||||||||
JOS/20/16 TO CONFIRM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 FEBRUARY 2021 PDF 165 KB Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2021 be approved and signed at the next practicable opportunity.
|
|||||||||
TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL'S PETITION SCHEME Minutes: None received.
|
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC To consider questions from and provide answers to members of the public on any matter in relation to which the Committee has powers or duties and of which due notice has been given in accordance with the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedures Rules. Minutes: None received.
|
|||||||||
QUESTIONS BY COUNCILLORS To consider questions from and provide answers to Councillors on any matter in relation to which the Committee has powers or duties and of which due notice has been given in accordance with the Committee and Sub-Committee Procedure Rules. Minutes: None received.
|
|||||||||
Members are asked to review the activity of the Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership. Additional documents:
Minutes:
45.1 The Chair welcomed the attending Members of the Western Suffolk Community Safety Partnership (WSCSO) and invited the Chair WSCSP, Councillor Spicer to make an introduction to Members.
45.2 Councillor Spicer outlined her role in the WSCSP and that she was one of two Suffolk County Council representatives, the other being Councillor Jack Owen. The Partnership was not just a statutory partnership but worked on what was relevant for the area. The strength of the Partnership was that partners were involved from across a wide area.
45.3 There were some challenges for Babergh and Mid Suffolk, as the policing boundaries did not match the area of the two Districts, and substantial parts of Babergh were within what people perceived as Ipswich. However, the future of community safety relied on working together in the partnership and she thanked the Councils’ representatives Councillors Mansel and Davis for their contributions.
45.4 She explained that the term ‘Criminal Exploitation’ was a new umbrella term covering gangs and county lines. She continued that national data showed that violence against women and girls had increased considerably during the Covid-19 lockdown and that the Partnership was supporting the victims and ensuring that refuges were provided to those fleeing violence. Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) was part of the WSCSP statutory duty and the DHR panel reviews all cases and progresses any actions from these reviews. She outlined the work undertaken for Hate Crime and Prevent and that much of the work was focused on awareness amongst the public and specifically young persons. The feedback received from schools and colleges indicated that it was working well. She ended her introduction by adding that modern day slavery, which was not included in the paper, needed to be looked at in its entirety and that the police had set up a team to address the issues nationally.
45.5 The Chair invited the Corporate Manager for Communities, Vicky Mosley to introduce Paper JOS/20/17.
45.6 The Corporate Manager – Communities provided an update on the work of the WSCSP during the past year and the challenges facing community safety during the Covid-19 pandemic. She listed the five priority areas of focus and explained that the performance was tracked using a three-year action plan, broken down into five themes: awareness, communication, training and education, projects and community resilience. She then detailed how each area was addressed and how projects were progressing despite the lockdowns and the restrictions imposed on the services due to Covid-19.
45.7 Councillor Davis, the Babergh representative on WSCSP, outlined further the work undertaken by the Partnership’s action plan for the top priority areas, and that strategies such as Violence Against Women and Girls, Men and Boys had enabled the development of programmes for officers and Members on topics such as criminal exploitation, disrupting exploitation, hate crime training and domestic abuse training. Other areas included the development of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) plan and the way these were dealt with including access to information on the website and the way ASB ... view the full minutes text for item 45.
|
|||||||||
FORTHCOMING DECISIONS LIST To review the Council’s Forthcoming Decisions List and identify any items to be brought before the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Please note the most up to date version can be found via the Website:
Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Forthcoming Decisions List be noted.
|
|||||||||
JOS/20/18 BABERGH OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PLAN PDF 446 KB To agree the Work Plan Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan be noted.
|
|||||||||
JOS/20/19 MID SUFFOLK OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PLAN PDF 448 KB To agree the Work Plan Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Mid Suffolk Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan be noted.
Councillor Welham handed over the Chair to Councillor McCraw for the next Agenda Items.
Note: the meeting was adjourned between 11:45 am and 11:55 am. |
|||||||||
BOS/20/6 TO CONFIRM THE BABERGH MINUTES FROM THE MEETING HELD ON 15 FEBRUARY 2021 PDF 251 KB Only Babergh Members can vote on this item. Minutes: It was RESOLVED: -
That the Babergh minutes of the meeting held on the 15 February 2021 be approved and signed at the next practicable opportunity.
|
|||||||||
CALL-IN OF BABERGH CABINET DECISION 11 MARCH 2021 This item is for Babergh Committee Members only |
|||||||||
PROTOCOL FOR CALL-IN PROCEDURE PDF 70 KB To follow
Members are asked to approve the Call-in Protocol.
Minutes: 51.1 The Chair informed Members that the Call-in Procedure had been agreed with the Lead Signature and had been tabled to Members.
51.2 Councillor McCraw proposed that the Protocol for the Call-in Procedure be approved, which was seconded by Councillor Gould.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
That the Protocol for the Call-in Procedure be approved.
52.3 The Chair detailed the Call-in process and the papers attached to the Agenda. He then outlined the scope of the Call-in based on the points set out in the Call-in Procedure.
52.4 Members considered and agreed the scope of the Call-in.
52.5 The Chair proposed that if no one spoke the scope be approved by consensus.
It was RESOLVED:-
That the scope as detailed in the papers be agreed.
|
|||||||||
Decisions made by Cabinet on 11 March 2021 in respect of the following report was called in for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny Procedure Rules as detailed in the Constitution, Part 3: Scrutiny Procedures Rules, Sections 12 to 15.
Regeneration of Belle Vue Site in Sudbury, Report BCa/20/44
The Call-in Notice, Cabinet Decision Notice, Cabinet report and related minute is attached. The Lead Member and Lead Officer are invited to attend to respond to any questions. Additional documents:
Minutes: 52.1 The Chair invited the Lead Practitioner, Councillor Owen, to present her reasons for the Call-in.
52.2 The Lead Practitioner presented the following reasons:
We have called in the decision BCa/20/44 relating to the Belle Vue regeneration that was heard at the Cabinet meeting on the 11 March 2021. There were a number of reasons for requesting this decision to be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The first reason for the call in is because as a Council Member I was able to attend the closed session discussion and I was expecting that each bid would be discussed, and the score reviewed against each other. Only bids B and F were discussed, and they did not go through the scoring and concentrated on the preferred bid B. I had assumed that they would have started with reviewing the scoring matrix and how the scores were decided. The process felt very rushed and needed more time. There were no discussions about who had come up with the system and how it had been weighted and scored. And if six bids came in, then six bids should have been discussed. It should have been clear why the other bidder’s bids were not chosen. Based on these points and that some of the scores did not make sense we believe that the bidding process should be restarted. We believe there should be a clear understanding and agreement of the scoring before any bids are considered. We do not understand why the scoring matrix could not have been made open as to how it was calculated and weighted. The scoring matrix should have had the details of bidders removed so that this could have been made open and transparent. This would have helped to show how the Cabinet came to their decision. This could also help future bids, including community bids, to understand the requirements that Babergh are looking for to get the best bids in. There was also a lack of clarity around some key areas that we do not feel have been properly considered and decisions have been made with insufficient information. We understand that Babergh have to follow a legal process for the disposal of the open space. The Officers advised Members to weigh up the balance of the loss of open space against wider benefits. There was no clarification on what open space in Appendix A was being lost. It was advised that the process has been followed by advertising in the newspaper for a minimum of two weeks and it referenced Appendix A which is the red outlined land. However, there was no assessment provided on how much of the land Babergh considered to be public open space in Appendix A. There was also a discussion about an extra five metres of land wanted by the house bidder. It was unclear if this land was to be given or sold to the bidder. And there would be further loss of open space that would need to be ... view the full minutes text for item 52.
|
|||||||||
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/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. Minutes: The Committee did not go into closed session.
|
|||||||||
APPENDIX D (CONFIDENTIAL) - MARKETING SUMMARY AND EVALUATION TABLE |