The Chairmen of Committees to answer any questions by the public of which notice has been given no later than midday three clear working days before the day of the meeting in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 12.
Minutes:
181.1 A question had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.
181.2 Mr Lamming was in attendance and asked the following question:
The undated Report BC/19/20 from the Leader of the Council (“Renaming Babergh District Council”) for consideration at an extraordinary meeting of the council convened for 22 October 2019 at 6.30 pm states (paragraph 3.1): “It is proposed to change the name of the district from “Babergh” to “South Suffolk” and that “If the name is changed the formal name of the council would be “The District Council of South Suffolk” though it will be usually rendered as “South Suffolk Council”. The recommendation (at para 2.1) is: “Pursuant to Section 74 Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) to change the name of the district from “Babergh” to “South Suffolk” from 1 April 2020.” However, a report in the East Anglian Daily Times on Tuesday 15 October (page 4) states that “the council’s leaders have opted to cancel the meeting and push back the debate to give councillors more time to consider it.”
In the light of the above, please:
(i) Name the councillors who ‘considered [it] relevant and timely to now replace the name of Babergh with “South Suffolk”’ (see report, para 3.5) and identify the meeting (or meetings) at which the decision to propose the name change was made, stating where the minutes or record of such meeting(s) can be accessed;
(ii) State how many representations respectively (a) for, and (b) against the proposal have been received, and where they can be accessed;
(iii) State whether any detailed assessment was made of the financial costs of the proposed ‘rebranding’, specific to this council, and how it is proposed such costs would be financed.
Response Councillor Ward
(i) This first question really concerns how policy ideas arise and get developed and there are various informal mechanisms and forums for this prior to them being submitted formally to either Cabinet or Council as appropriate for debate and voting. Specifically, in this case I originally raised this idea during an informal Cabinet discussion on 22 July 2019. The topic of discussion was the future branding for Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils. I therefore took the opportunity to initially sound out my Cabinet colleagues about the idea of changing the name of Babergh District Council. As this idea received in principle, indicative support from the Cabinet, officers were tasked to draft a relevant report. As such a change requires two-thirds of Councillors present at an Extraordinary Council meeting to approve it, the report has not been taken to any other committee. There are no minutes / records of the Cabinet’s discussions on 22 July 2019.
(ii) We have received 8 formal responses (5 from residents / parishes within Babergh) raising concerns about pronunciation, proposed name, history, costs and consultation. An anonymised summary of these can be produced on request. One of these (a parish council) wasn’t against the proposal but wanted more information and another missed the point entirely, thinking the proposal was to change the spelling of Babergh. I and other members have received a few emails as well. I have also had a mix of positive and negative comments from my parish councils – about 50:50. Whilst we always consider feedback, this doesn’t and cannot determine policy as it inevitably only comes from small number of residents and it is usually only those who strongly oppose something who contact us. I will say at this point that the comments in the responses received and, in the media, concerning costs and history have come from people who clearly know little of either. And I have done the research.
(iii) There is no more detailed financial assessment of the cost beyond what is contained in the original report but, based on experience elsewhere, it can be kept very low. We are in contact with and learning from authorities who have done this. We will not change things that don’t need changing immediately and only do it as things reach end of life and need replacing.
181.3 Mr Lamming asked a supplementary question:
Would you in fact not consider that the public ought to be formally consulted to the name change and in view of your answer for part three that ‘we will not change things that do not need replacing only do it as things reach end of life and need replacing’. Would you then accept that that there will be no need to change the name of this Council unless and until it is involved in some form of local reorganisation involving another council?
181.4 Councillor Ward responded to the first part of the question relating to public consultation and said that Councillors were elected to represent members of the public and could consult through their local ward members.
181.5 In response to the second part of the question Councillor Ward stated that local government reorganisation was not currently under consideration in the County and would require the cooporation of other districts and the County Council itself.
181.6 Mr Lamming then asked a second question to the Chair of the Planning Committee:
What were the costs (a) incurred by the Council, and (b) ordered to be paid by the Council to the claimant, in the following legal cases:
(i) The successful judicial review challenge by Mr Clive Gare to the grant of planning permission by the Council on 7 February 2018, against the advice of its officers, for a housing development in the village of Hartest, the grant of permission being quashed by the High Court by a consent order made on 15 June 2018 on the basis of the Council’s concession on the face of the order that it had failed to supply adequate reasons;
(ii) The second successful challenge by Mr Gare, R (Gare) v Babergh District Council [2019] EWHC 2041 (Admin), to a subsequent grant of planning permission by the Council on 18 December 2018, again against the advice of its officers, for the said development (judgment 26 July 2019), the basis for quashing the permission again being the Council’s failure to give reasons for its decision, and a “failure to determine whether or not, and the extent to which, the development proposal complie[d] with the development plan”?
Response Councillor Beer
The Council’s full in-house costs are not possible to quantify.
Whilst we could provide details of the number of officer hours spent on the matter for our in-house legal team the time spent by our planning team is not recorded and the reality is that the officers involved would have been employed by the council in any event. If not doing work on these claims, officers would have been working on other council business.
In terms of advice and representation by Counsel we incurred £3700 costs (net of VAT) in relation to claim (i) of June 2018 and £13,450 (net of VAT) in relation to claim (ii) of July 2019. Our own incidentals i.e. travel to court for claim (ii) amounted to £294.70.
The Council was ordered to pay to the claimant costs of £12,141.88 in relation to claim (i) and £30,000.00 in relation to claim (ii).
181.7 Mr Lamming asked a supplementary question:
181.8 While it is entirely proper for a planning committee in an appropriate case to make decision contrary to the advice of its officers and in indeed often members of the public from the local area, what lesson has the Planning Committee learnt from this costly exercise, and the figures that Mr Beer has provided amounted to just under £60,000; what steps has been or are being taken to seek to ensure that such a challenge against a council decision cannot succeed in the future.
181.9 Councillor Beer responded that the Members of the Planning Committee took planning applications very seriously and they were well aware that costs could go considerably high, but they were dutybound to act in the best way they feel they should. He hoped that the lesson learnt by the Planning Committee Members and all Members of the Council was to be sure that the decision made was correct and that Members had the evidence to justify their decision.
Supporting documents: