In addition to any announcements made at the meeting, please see Paper BC/18/30 attached, detailing events attended by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
Minutes:
81.1 The Chairman introduced his report for noting and added that he and the Vice Chair had carried out fourteen functions since the last Council meeting, which had been a hectic schedule but very worthwhile.
81.2 The Chairman then invited the Leader to present his report.
81.3 The Leader updated Council on the question and answer sessions that had been held out in the district. The final four question and answer sessions had been held in Lavenham, Pinewood, Capel and Brantham. These all followed a familiar theme with planning enforcement and highways’ issues being at the fore. As a result of the meetings, the Leader had met with the Suffolk County Council Cabinet Member for Highways and the Highways Department, and had been able to provide a lot of background information to parishes about how applications were assessed and the national criteria that applied when assessing the impact of development on highways, along with the Suffolk County Council’s speed limit policy and National Sources for Traffic Speed and Accident Data.
81.4 The Leader and Deputy Leader had also been asked about the Council’s call centre performance and the availability of face to face services, both of which were a focus for continual improvement.
81.5 The Leader reported that attendance at those meetings had been variable. Where the attendance had been poorest it was planned to arrange another meeting, it was also intended to accept East Bergholt’s invitation for a return visit in the New Year.
81.6 The Leader also provided Council with an update concerning activities resulting from the Council’s adoption of the mental health motion at the Council meeting in October. Cllr Osbourne had been appointed as the Member Champion and the Assistant Director for Planning for Growth and the Assistant Director for Corporate Resources had been appointed as the lead officers. Training and other activities had also been carried out to support this.
81.7 The Leader commented on the proposals for the Sudbury Bypass. The Leader was disappointed that the cost benefit ratio for a Sudbury Bypass was now much lower due to a greatly reduced assessment of the benefits suggested by the new modelling criteria, meaning it was not a viable and affordable option at this time. However, building a bypass remained a firm aspiration as it was strongly believed that the benefits would increase quickly as Sudbury continued to grow. A bypass was very much part of Babergh’s Sudbury vision for prosperity and the Leader was pleased that the study suggested that improvements to traffic flow in the town could be achieved in the short term through changes to key junctions. The Council would work with Suffolk County Council to prioritise these and take them forward for Sudbury. It was estimated that delivery of these improvements would cost in the order of £10m and options would now be explored in more depth to enable funding to be sought for the scheme. The Leader would be making an application to Suffolk Public Sector Leaders for some of the money originally allocated to the bypass report to be redirected towards these improvements.
81.8 The Leader informed Council that he had recently visited the Royal Mail’s delivery office in Hadleigh, to see first-hand the operation of delivering Christmas post and to pass on early Season’s Greetings to the staff. The Leader had found it very interesting seeing how smoothly the whole thing works and the banter and camaraderie amongst the staff was excellent.
81.9 Lastly the Leader told Council that the Electoral Changes’ Order for Babergh has made it’s passage through parliament so the elections in May next year would be based on the new 32 wards.
81.10 Councillor Bavington asked about the attendance at the question and answer sessions and what was classed as good attendance and what was classed as poor attendance?
81.12 In response the leader informed Council that the attendance at East Bergholt (157 members of the public) was good compared to Long Melford (0 members of the public) was poor.
81.13 Councillor Hinton asked the Leader if he felt that the attendance of the meetings was anything to do with the reliance on the Parish Councils to promote them?
81.14 In response the Leader informed Council that they had not just relied on parish councils to promote the question and answer sessions and had arranged for leaflets to be printed and distributed. The sessions were also promoted through the press, so a variety of means had been used, however there had been lessons learnt through this process and improvements would be put in place going forward.
81.15 Councillor Hurren asked that with the Sudbury by pass not going ahead in the near future whether the possibility of a park and ride service for Sudbury could be explored.
81.16 The Chairman thanked the Leader for his report.
Supporting documents: