CMU10 – Leader and Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments
CMU11 – Leader, Cabinet Member for Assets and Investments and Cabinet Member for Customers, Digital Transformation & Improvement (Law and Governance)
CMU12 – Cabinet Member for Communities
CMU13 – Cabinet Member for Customers, Digital Transformation & Improvement
CMU14 – Cabinet Member for Economic Growth
CMU15 – Cabinet Member for Environment
CMU16 – Cabinet Member for Finance
CMU17 – Cabinet Member for Housing
CMU18 – Cabinet Member for Planning
Minutes:
80.1 Councillor Hadingham, the Chair of the Council, explained that questions had been received prior to the meeting for the Cabinet Members’ Reports and that it was her intention to limit the discussion to thirty minutes. She would therefore draw the questioning to a close after 30 minutes had elapsed, if the item had not already been concluded.
80.2 The Chair invited Councillor Morley, the Leader, to introduce the item.
80.3 Councillor Morley explained that following discussions with Councillor Eburne and Councillor Field, it had been agreed that going forward Cabinet Members’ reports were to be presented quarterly to Cabinet. The Performance Monitoring reports would also be expanded, as these often held the responses to the questions raised for the Cabinet Members reports. Therefore, this was the last time that Cabinet Members’ Reports would be presented to Council.
80.4 CMU10 Cabinet Member Report for Assets and Investments
80.5 Councillor Eburne referred to Report CMU10 in relation to Mid Suffolk Growth Ltd. and asked if the £1M set aside to mitigate for commercial risk was sufficient.
80.6 Councillor Whitehead said that funding to mitigate for commercial risk for sites being developed in the District, was prudent until the Council received an income from the borrowing provided to these developments.
80.7 The Chair of the Council advised Members that the questioning would follow the tabled papers and asked Councillor Welham to ask his questions.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU10 be noted.
80.8 CMU11 Cabinet Member Report for Customers, Digital Transformation and Improvements (Law and Governance)
80.9 There were no questions for the report.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU11 be noted.
80.10 CMU12 Cabinet Member Report for Communities
Councillor Keith Welham to the Cabinet Member for Communities
Could we be given more information on the Active Schools project including:
Which schools are taking part?
Which aspects of the project are they involved in?
Is there direct involvement in the project from officers and members?
How is the project funded?
Response
Information was provided to you in July of last year shortly after the project was launched, and there is a reference in paragraph 3.9 of my report, but I’m pleased that you have given me the opportunity to provide further detail.
Within Mid Suffolk, Gislingham Primary School has had an initial meeting as have St Botolph’s in Botesdale and Cedars Park Primary. Thorndon have been in touch to express interest. The furthest ahead are Freeman and Abbots Hall Primary schools in Stowupland and Stowmarket who both have action plans in place.
The project is focused on helping these schools increase physical activity among their students. Council Officers have contacted schools directly to encourage their involvement and explain the role of Active Suffolk, who have been commissioned to deliver on behalf of the Council.
The project is jointly funded through funding from Public Health and directly from the Council’s Communities budget.
In response to Councillor Welham’s further question, Councillor Flatman responded that Active Suffolk had been commissioned by Mid Suffolk District Council to provide extra funding to schools for provision of sports activities including everyday activities for a period of three years. Mid Suffolk District Council had allocated £50K for this project.
Councillor Keith Welham to the Cabinet Member for Communities
Could we have an update on the proposed Park Run in Stowmarket, please? Have negotiations on use of the land for the Chilton Fields route been completed? Or has another route been considered?
Response
Public Realm Officers have taken the lead on this project and met with Councillor Mansel last week.
All Saturday morning users of Chilton Fields have now been contacted seeking confirmation that the proposed timing would not conflict with any existing activities on the site (including football, rugby and cricket clubs). Each of these groups have been advised that Cllr Mansel would be Event Director and that all of the parkrun volunteers are keen to look at and address any potential issues (ie bottle neck points) by walking the route as part of the site meeting. Cllr Mansel had also made all groups aware that she was in discussion with other local sites about potential local parking for parkrun participants nearby, but not at Chilton Fields as parking is one of the concerns raised.
A face to face meeting is being set up with the clubs in the next 3 weeks.
Councillor Keith Welham to the Cabinet Member for Communities
Could we have an update on the Leisure Strategy please, in particular the strategy for providing leisure services in remote areas?
Response
The Leisure, Sport and Physical Activity Strategy (LSPAS) delivery has focussed on redeveloping and refurbishing the Council’s own main leisure centres, in Stowmarket and Stradbroke. These are Invest to Save projects that, when complete, will generate annual revenue savings to the Council, an element of which will be used to establish resourcing within the Communities team to develop the proposed outreach programmes.
Negotiations are currently underway with Everyone Active, to agree not only the redevelopment/refurbishments of the leisure centres, but also to consider their proposals to provide a community outreach resource. The detail of their proposals is now being considered to establish their delivery programme, which is a new role for them and currently due to commence from the start of their new contract in October 2020 (subject to the relevant approvals).
Another important project supporting provision in more remote areas is the Active Wellbeing project referred to in paragraph 3.8 of my report. Delivery in Mid Suffolk has been focused around Fressingfield and Stradbroke, Debenham and Eye. The information provided within the report in answer to this question but impact is being monitored and further information is available here: https://www.activesuffolk.org/awsbandm.
Councillor Flatman welcomed Vicky Mosley, the new Corporate Manager for Communities.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU12 be noted.
80.11 CMU13 Cabinet Member Report for Customers, Digital Transformation and Improvements
80.12 There were no questions for the report.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU13 be noted.
80.13 CMU14 Cabinet Member Report for Economic Growth
80.14 There were no questions for the report.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU14 be noted.
80.15 CMU15 Cabinet Member Report for Environment
Councillor Andrew Mellen to Cabinet Member for the Environment
In the process of scoping for a new waste depot site, has Gateway 14 been considered as a potential location?
Response
We are currently looking at 3 sites, which includes Gateway 14.
Councillor Mellen asked a supplementary question as follows:
The Gateway 14 project would be an opportunity to integrate energy generation and to trial new technologies such as hydrogen generation with solar PPVs and wind powers to power waste vehicles as had been trialed elsewhere in the country.
Councillor Flatman agreed and that she was hoping for inspirational innovative projects to come forward for this site, maybe even aspire to include hydrogen powered batteries.
Councillor Andrew Mellen to Cabinet Member for the Environment
Noting that in Paragraph 3.15, Mid Suffolk’s membership of the Suffolk Climate Change Partnership has resulted in a number of properties benefiting from the “solar together Suffolk” bulk-buying scheme, will there be a further round of this scheme in 2020? Can the portfolio holder request a widening of the scheme in 2020? Can the portfolio holder request a widening of the scheme to include solar hot water panels as well?
Response
A further round of the scheme was currently running. Full details are available at www.solartogether.co.uk/suffolk/home. Each scheme had run from September through to March. So, the current round ended on 17 January 2020. She has spoken to the Solar Together and it was expected that the next round would run in August 2020.
Any future rounds would be along a similar timetable starting Autumn 2020. That said, the take up had been much lower this time round and it might not be viable for the suppliers/installers the next time – it all depended on prevailing market conditions. The Partnership would review the market over the summer before deciding whether to run a third round in the Autumn.
Solar thermal (hot water) panels had not been included by Solar Together but if there was enough interest around the country then this might be offered later but was not offered currently.
Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE to the Cabinet Member for Environment
As most Councillors will be aware, the Forestry Commission runs tree planting grant schemes and the Government also has an Urban Tree Challenge Fund.
Please can you reassure me that the Climate Emergency Task Force is fully considering the issue of tree coverage in Mid Suffolk and how best to identify land suitable for tree planting and then fund the planting of more trees.
Response
The Task Force take tree planting seriously and was committing to improve tree coverage over the District. The Council was aware of the grant schemes and funding available and was looking to access these to support our initiatives. Officers were currently assessing the criteria of these funds to see how they can be utilised in Mid Suffolk. The Council was in the second year of a very successful Tree for Life initiative with the collection event taking place tomorrow and currently undertaking an exercise to ensure the mapping system was up to date. Once this was complete, an assessment of what land was available would be conducted. Work would be undertaken with with Town and Parish Councils to understand their appetite around tree planting and to support them. Further emerging tree planting initiatives will be discussed at the next Task Force Meeting.
Councillor Barry Humphreys MBE to the Cabinet Member for the Environment
Since the creation of the ETG, what projects have been started and what projects do you have in mind for the immediate future?
Response
Projects had not been started yet, the purpose of the Task Force purpose was to identify projects and get funding for them. All projects which required funding had to be approved by Cabinet.
The projects so far discussed by the Task Force were energy, building design and biodiversity. In February the Task Force would be discussing transport and waste.
Groundwork Suffolk had commissioned a baseline survey of emission in Mid Suffolk. Work was also being conducted in corporation with Suffolk County Council and a company called Ricardo. They were conducting a county wide survey of emissions. They were looking at Scope 1-2-3 emissions to address high areas of emission, once data became available the Task Force would be concentrating on a couple of areas for attention and investment.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU15 be noted.
80.16 CMU16 Cabinet Member Report for Finance
Councillor John Matthissen to the Cabinet Member for Finance
Response
In 2019 I was appointed as a Trustee of the Suffolk Pension Fund to represent the district and borough councils. In that regard I represent not only Mid Suffolk but also West Suffolk, East Suffolk, Babergh and Ipswich. The Suffolk Pension Fund exists to pay the pension benefits for over 65,000 members from over 300 separate employers in the Fund. The Pension Fund Committee invests just over £3billion of pension fund monies and has a fiduciary duty to protect and target an approximate risk adjusted investment return. As a defined benefit scheme any shortfall arising from performance and in funding has to be met by employers and therefore ultimately the risk and any additional cost is that of our council taxpayers.
The Committee invests the money in a wide range of asset classes and with a diverse set of investment managers to discharge its fiduciary duty. The Committee has appointed two active equity managers to outperform their respective equity indexes by selecting and holding shares which they believe will outperform. That process involves them taking into account all information available including climate change. The Committee also invests in equities through passive investment funds which invest in all shares in a given index to guarantee returns in line with that market. Recently the Committee transferred just under 40% of its passive equity investments into a climate aware passive fund without altering the expected investment return. I feel this demonstrates the Committee’s commitment to taking climate change into account whilst still firmly meeting its fiduciary duty responsibilities.
Both through its investment managers and by its membership in the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, the Committee engages with all the companies in which it directly invests to improve environmental, social and governance practices. Such dialogue includes how those companies will adapt to the effects of climate change.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU16 be noted.
80.17 CMU17 Cabinet Member Report for Housing
Councillor Sarah Mansel to the Cabinet Member for Housing
The proportion of universal credit recipients who have alternative payment agreements has risen in the last 6 months from approximately 58% to over 70% (from section 3.12). Am I correct that this method is used only to clear rent arrears? Is there anything we as a council can do to ensure that this figure does not continue to rise and to help those claimants manage their budgets?
Response
Alternative Payment Arrangements, or APA’s, have increased in line with the number of our tenants who are in receipt of Universal Credit and are in rent arrears. As the rollout of Universal Credit continues, we would also expect to see an increase in the number of APA’s.
APA’s can be used for tenants who are not in rent arrears, for example, where there are addiction problems, mental health issues, learning difficulties, or they were previously homeless. However, we normally only request an APA if a tenant is in arrears, and the decision will follow a discussion with the tenant.
Once an APA is in place, the rent account will be regularly reviewed, and contact made with the tenant. As the tenant gets close to clearing their arrears, we would discuss with them ending the APA. Some tenants may feel confident that they will be able to manage once the arrangement comes to an end, but others may prefer to continue for a time.
Regarding budgetary support for claimants, when a tenant first moves onto Universal Credit their work coach will refer them for budgeting support. The Income Officers will also discuss this with the tenant and can make further referrals if required. This might be to teams within the Council, such as the Tenancy Support Officers, or to external organisations such as Citizens Advice, Step Change or Home Group.
The Income Team have also started calling all new tenants within the first two weeks of their tenancy. This has allowed us to identify issues much earlier and provide support before rent arrears become unmanageable. The benefits of this approach include the opportunity to build rapport with new tenants, making sure that tenants know who to go to if they get into difficulties with their rent, and assisting with Universal Credit claims.
Councillor Sarah Mansel to the Cabinet Member for Housing
Are there any future plans to provide more properties for the 'staying close' project with SCC?
Response
The Council is working closely with Suffolk County Council to understand all of their housing requirements, not only for Staying Close but also for other client groups, including those with specialist accommodation needs, such as Learning Disabilities. We have a meeting scheduled to discuss what their needs are and agree what is feasible for Mid Suffolk to assist with. It is important we work closely with SCC, particularly around our Corporate Parenting responsibilities, but we also need to balance the demand through the Housing Register and those households currently placed in Temporary Accommodation.
Councillor Sarah Mansel to the Cabinet Member for Housing
What is the timeline for presenting the business case for the joint venture building services programme to Cabinet or Council?
Response
The Assistant Director for Housing responded that the timeline was being created and that a report would be presented to Cabinet in June.
Councillor Matthissen to Cabinet Members for Housing and Planning
Councillor Matthissen withdrew his question.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU17 be noted.
80.18 CMU18 Cabinet Member Report for Planning
Councillor Keith Scarff to Cabinet Member for Planning
As a Member of the joint Council Planning Charter Review Group, which has only met once on August 6th, can you advise as to progress on this issue? My understanding was that officers would be looking at a merging of the two separate planning charters and reporting back to the review group with a draft combined Charter so that Members could comment as the next stage in the process.
Response
Since the original meeting in August significant work has been undertaken to review the Charter taking into account examples of best practice from other local authorities. As such a draft has now been completed and has been sent to the Cabinet Members for planning for comments before it is presented to the Working Group. It has taken longer than anticipated to conduct this work due to the General Election where Democratic Services Officers worked to help ensure the election ran smoothly.
With regards to the proposed visits these were also delayed by the election as the other Democratic services teams were heavily involved in the election and advised that they could not facilitate a visit to showcase their best practice.
However, the Democratic Services team are currently organising the visits to other Councils and Members will be invited to these shortly. Once these visits have taken place a formal meeting of the working group will be organised.
I will be meeting with my fellow portfolio holder on 11 February along with the Monitoring Officer and Chief Planning Officer to review their progress on this and to discuss the potential to agree common ground in relation to key topics within the Charter in order to assist the prompt work of the review group.
Councillor Eburne asked if there was enough support for the work for the neighbourhood plans, especially as the Joint Local Plan were completed and many Neighbourhood Plans would require reviewing. She asked if the Planning department had enough staff to support the reviewing of Neighbourhood Plans.
The Cabinet Member for Planning referred to the Assistant Director to respond to the question.
The Assistant Director for Sustainable Communities clarified that there were enough resources for the Neighbourhood Plans to be progressed. It was the role of the officers to provide support, and this was embedded in the entire planning policy team.
It was Resolved: -
That Report CMU18 be noted.
80.19 The Chair informed Members that the 30 minutes had passed but that she would allow further questions from Members.
80.20 Councillor Mansel asked the following questions of Cabinet Members for Planning and Environment:
· The Agenda for the upcoming Planning Referral Committee was over 1000 pages long, and she was concerned of the large task to read the agenda. She asked if it was possible to be provided with more time in the future allow Members to work through large Planning Agendas.
· Manufacturing was encouraged to use a new compostable packing material to allow consumers to cut down on waste, However, Mid Suffolk did not have the facilities to provide composting for this material on an industrial scale, and she asked if the Council was to make any provisions for this in the future.
80.21 The Cabinet Member for Planning asked if the Chair of Development Control B Planning Committee would like to respond to Councillor Mansel’s first question.
80.22 Councillor Guthrie, agreed that it was extremely difficult with the large agendas but explained that the statutory requirement for the publication and distribution of agendas only allowed for one week (five working days) prior to the Committee. Members of the Planning Committee were diligent and would work through the agenda in the time provided. However, she would raise this issue with the Chair of Development Control A Committee and officers.
80.23 The Cabinet Member for the Environment responded to Councillor Mansel’s second question and said that she had responded to this question previously. The Waste service was provided by West Suffolk Council, who would be able to provide an answer to this complicated question. As this was not within the Council’s responsibility the questions could not be answered by this Council.
80.24 Councillor Otton asked the Cabinet Member for Environment if she could provide a clarification of the National Waste Strategy referred to in Paragraph 3.3 in her report.
80.25 Councillor Fleming responded that a consultation on the National Waste Strategy was underway and that the Government was consulting on how waste was to be managed to make it more consistent nationally. The Council would have to make some important decisions for the recommendations to be included in the response to the consultation.
80.26 Councillor Otton referred to the Five-year Housing Land Supply on page 61, and asked the Cabinet Member for Planning, if the Council was now dismissing the Five-year Housing Land Supply as it seemed that some planning applications were approved despite the Five-year Housing Land Supply of 5.67.
80.27 Councillor Burn responded that it was a complicated matter and asked the Chief Planning Officer, if he would be able to provide a short response.
80.28 Philip Isbell, the Chief Planning Officer, explained that originally the Five-year Housing Land Supply carried weight at Planning Committee but that this had recently changed in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Planning Strategy was not up to date, which enabled developers to come forward with development schemes, which could not be refused by the Planning Committee. Further training would be provided to all Members in due course.
80.29 Councillor Otton then referred to the recent scrutiny of the Local Citizens Advice. She asked if the Leader was fully aware of the conditions imposed for a possible reduction of funding for the Local Citizens Advice (LCA) and the possible reduction of the Local Citizens Advice (LCA) offices.
80.30 Councillor Morley, the Leader, responded that the Cabinet had agreed to provide £86,000 to the LCAs in the District and there had not been any conditions applied to the funding.
80.31 In response to Councillor Otton’s question, Councillor Morley advised Members that she could not answer for Suffolk County Council’s decisions for the LCAs.
80.32 Councillor Field commented that to read 1000 pages would take approximately 15 – 30 hours, which was a challenge as there was often complicated and technical details to consider. However, Members owed it to their residents be diligent, when reading planning agendas and he felt that the Planning Committee Members were committed to the task.
Supporting documents: