The Chairman of the Council, Chairs of Committees and Sub-Committees and Portfolio Holders to answer any questions on any matters in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affect the District of which due notice has been given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.
Minutes:
Councillor Andrew Stringer to Councillor Fleming, Cabinet Member for the Environment
Given the justified public outcry of this Council cutting down three of the walnut trees planted by my former Head Teacher Mike Arbon in Walnut Tree Walk in Stowmarket, and the Council subsequently stating, incorrectly, that this was because Suffolk County Council Highways demanded their removal within 21 days. when will the Council offer an apology and admit it was wrong?
Councillor Fleming – Cabinet Member for the Environment
The District Council already have made a public statement in the EADT which makes it clear that the Council regrets the loss of the trees. I too personally regret the loss of 3 walnut trees which were cut down on Walnut Tree Walk following miscommunications and what appears to have been errors of judgement on site, the details of which have been publicly reported. Mistakes happen, as all of us know and this was one of them. Important lessons have been learned and measures are being put in place to avoid any similar error. As Cabinet Member for Environment including public realm, I am sorry that this happened and realise that the trees were planted by a former headmaster of the middle school, the Council intends to make amends by ensuring that healthy and well located replacement trees are planted as soon feasible as part of the agreed planning conditions.
Supplementary Question from Councillor Stringer to Councillor Fleming:
Can I thank Councillor Fleming for saying the word sorry in that speech publicly. That helps me certainly to draw a line and move on, which I really hope to do. Would Councillor Fleming agree whether it would be a good idea to rethink our proposals on the site we own in Walnut Tree Walk to make sure we are bringing back better than we are taking away and communicate that to the wider area, so we avoid these mistakes in the future.
Councillor Fleming – Cabinet Member for the Environment
I am not sure anything that I can say about this particular site will help avoid anything in the future, I think the new procedures will. However, this particular site is scheduled for redevelopment for housing and the road along the close where the trees were cut is unfortunately going to be widened. The trees that were cut down, would have had to have been cut down anyway and the planning application which was determined earlier last year passed muster with about four or five objections. The plans have already been approved as far as I understand. I don’t think there is anything I or anyone else can do to revisit planning conditions that have already been through the planning process.
Councillor Sarah Mansel to Councillor David Burn, Cabinet Member for Planning
The Healthy Homes Act calls for a set of Healthy Homes Principles to be made law and as such part of national planning policy. Since advising officers of this initiative in January we have not heard anything more. Will this Council support the Healthy Homes Act?
Councillor Burn – Cabinet Member for Planning
The homes we live in have a major impact on our health and wellbeing, and this Council is committed to delivering healthy new homes through our emerging Joint Local Plan.
The Town and County Planning Association’s important campaign, to introduce new legislation in the form of a Healthy Homes Act, includes laudable aims and objectives which we are already seeking to implement, insofar as is possible under current national policy.
It is not yet certain how the Government may seek to implement and standardise the principles proposed by the Town and County Planning Association, so we do not know what the design and cost impacts would be on development in our area. But I welcome the Town and County Planning Association’s efforts and this Council will continue to push for healthy new homes.
I will ask officers to monitor the progress of this campaign, and any subsequent Bill through parliament, in order that we can respond to changes at the national level and identify best practice for implementing the Joint Local Plan.
Supplementary question from Councillor Mansel to Councillor Burn:
I think it is very pleasing to hear from Councillor Burn that we are incorporating many features within the Joint Local Plan to make sure that the homes that are built in this district are as healthy as possible, but would it be possible for this Council to incorporate some of the exemplary features to ensure that healthy homes in some of our own developments in advance of it becoming adopted as law.
Councillor Burn – Cabinet Member for Planning
I think we presently do look to see how we can extend our implementation of these particular standards and we do try to optimise as much as possible. I think this will be, as design becomes more and more up to the forefront of planning which it is certainly going to do. I think I can reassure you that the likelihood is that the standards that we will be able to achieve inthe future will be higher but certainly it is a laudable aim and I share your hope for it.
Councillor Penny Otton to Councillor Suzie Morley, Leader of the Council
This council agreed to establish a youth council as part of the Green Liberal Democrats amendment in 2020.
This current year, as a result of the pandemic, has been extremely difficult for young people, physically and mentally. This youth council could help to establish just what the most important issues are for them and start to but in place some of those issues identified.
What has the council done to implement this commitment?
Councillor Morley – Leader of the Council
As part of the 2020/21 budget setting, the Green and Liberal Democratic Group presented 10 key proposals to the Administration. It was agreed that some of these proposals would be progressed when the Council approved the budget. The Administration places a great deal of importance in engaging all citizens in democracy, including young people, however it was felt that a youth council wasn’t the only option to achieve this. Therefore, officers have been working on research and a scoping document for a wider project on democratic engagement. This work has been delayed during the covid-19 pandemic as staff have been redeployed to priority response tasks but will recommence in May 2021.
I can assure you that I personally, and this administration, place the utmost importance on the wellbeing of all our citizens – you can see this from our vision and strategic priorities. We know from national statistics that this pandemic has had a particular effect on the mental health and wellbeing of younger people and we continue to work with our partners across the system to provide support for them.
Supplementary question from Councillor Otton to Councillor Morley:
I am disappointed to hear Councillor Morley’s response to this, I think it is very disappointing that we have had no indication of exactly what work has being done and I would hope that what she is saying is, that the proposal to implement a youth council has now been put on hold. I believe that we need to hear from her exactly what is being planned and to have details of any time scale of works that are planned to happen.
Councillor Morley – Leader of the Council
I have just said that it will recommence in May 2021 and I can’t say anymore than that at the moment.
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor David Burn, Cabinet Member for Planning
What information do you have to give confidence that our housing delivery and build pipeline will continue to justify a 5- year housing land supply?
Councillor Burn – Cabinet Member for Planning
Mid Suffolk District Council currently has a housing land supply of 7.67 years as shown in the Housing Land Supply Position Statement (October 2020). The Council also passed the Government’s annual Housing Delivery Test with a result of 103% for the 2020 Test, published in January 2021. We also maintain an up-to-date Housing Delivery Test Action Plan, which has been through Overview and Scrutiny.
The Joint Local Plan identifies a supply of development from April 2018 up to March 2037 and minimum housing requirement figures for those areas producing a Neighbourhood Plan. In order to maintain a consistent and favourable supply and delivery of development throughout the Plan period, the policies aim to identify and create flexibility for sufficient housing development, and a buffer of approximately 20% in the supply of new land has been identified.
I do carry concern around our land supply though and it is important that the Council continues to grant planning permissions that enable us to maintain and ‘top up’ supply.
Supplementary question from Councillor Matthissen to Councillor Burn:
I can’t see that we should continue to grant planning permissions when I think we have something like 7000 that we have already approved. It is encouraging that the delivery test was most recently ok, but we still need to know frequently how that is going, October is now four months away. Do we know that we are still at seven years three months when there has been a lot of stops and starts in the building industry?
Councillor Burn – Cabinet Member for Planning
We have no indication that the healthy 7.67 years have slipped significantly over the past 3 months and when we fix the five-year land supply figure we will not be recalculating it every month just to make sure we are still managing to stay on the right side of five years. I think we can be fairly confident that we are still well within that figure and regarding granting permissions, whilst we have a certain level of control over the development delivery of housing the greater part of that is held by the developers. So, we are entirely in their hands as to whether it is delivered by them, which is why it is important that we maintain a supply of permissions so that if any do drop of the end because they are not delivered in time and their permissions lapse, we maintain our numbers.
Councillor Daniel Pratt to Councillor Jessica Fleming, Cabinet Member for the Environment
How are other local authorities separating Tetrapak from other recyclate and why are we not doing the same at the MRF?
Councillor Fleming – Cabinet Member for the Environment
We stopped taking cartons/tetrapak’s when the current Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) contract began in May 2019. This contract does not include managing cartons/tetrapaks.
Some other local authorities are still accepting ‘cartons/tetrapaks’ through a mix of kerbside collections, HWRC’s and bring sites, however kerbside collections are being widely phased out.
If you go on the Tetra Pak UK company web page and ask where to recycle their product, you will be directed to a site in your area – in our case this is Stowmarket. You are not directed to your recycling bin! According to best information most local authorities in England are taking this approach and nor collecting at kerbside. Essex still accepts cartons/tetrapaks but this is a function of its waste contract obligations and infrastructure age, the cartons are considered to be ‘contaminants’. Most new waste recycling contracts exclude cartons/tetrapaks, and it is now illegal to include carton residues in recycled paper/ card for export.
Although Suffolk’s LAs collect them, it is not cost effective and Suffolk Councils pay to have them removed and shipped by ACE UK (a related organisation to Tetra Pak UK) to Warrington. There they are broken down and separated into fibre which can be incorporated into paper products and a plastic/ aluminium mix which is more problematic in terms of its reuse.
This is in contrast to other recyclable materials for which there is a positive market value and an income stream back to the Council.
In addition to cartons/tetrapaks, coffee pods pose a similar dilemma as they too are a composite material and although technically ‘recyclable’, are in effect a contaminant and are best disposed in the black bin or taken to a HWRC where there are special containers.
Councillor Daniel Pratt to Councillor Jessica Fleming, Cabinet Member for the Environment
Will you raise this issue with the Suffolk Waste Partnership and jointly investigate how other local authorities (and waste partnerships) are sorting Tetrapak material from other recyclate?
Councillor Fleming – Cabinet Member for the Environment
Yes, I am in discussion with the SWP about this problem. As I have said, cartons/tetrapaks are not welcome in any recyclable materials stream as they need special treatment. Other local authorities are seeking to avoid mixing them.
Overall, the Suffolk Waste Partnership and other local authority bodies nationally have raised the problem posed by composite materials such as this to Central Government which is in turn in discussion with the packaging container industry to seek ways to improve the capacity to recycle their products while retaining their usefulness.
Supplementary Question from Councillor Daniel Pratt to Councillor Jessica Fleming, Cabinet Member for the Environment
During the interim could MSDC provide more bring-bank locations to enable our residents to recycle Tetrapak in their own locality.
Councillor Fleming – Cabinet Member for the Environment
The Suffolk Waste Partnership did investigate whether it would be possible to introduce carton banks at other public locations (such as alongside bottle banks at Supermarkets and Village Halls).
There is currently only one provider of these banks in the UK (to the best of our knowledge) and unfortunately this option proved to be prohibitively expensive as a standalone service where the quantities being collected (in individual banks) are likely to be relatively small. It already is an added cost to transport the current quantity of tetrapaks from HWRCs to the single UK recycling facility.
We therefore concluded that this approach would not have provided value for money for Suffolk taxpayers.
Supporting documents: