CMU19 – Cabinet Member for Assets and Investment
CMU20 – Cabinet Member for Communications
CMU21 – Cabinet Member for Communities
CMU22 – Cabinet Member for Economy
CMU23 – Cabinet Member for Environment
CMU24 – Cabinet Member for Finance
CMU25 – Cabinet Member for Housing
CMU26 – Leader & Cabinet Member for OD (Law and Governance)
CMU27 – Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
CMU28 – Cabinet Member for Planning
Minutes:
68.1 Councillor Ward introduced the reports from Cabinet Members and highlighted the key activities within each portfolio.
68.2 The Chairman then invited each Cabinet Member to introduce their report:-
68.3 CMU19 Councillor Lawrenson Cabinet Member for Investments (in the absence of Councillor Lawrenson written responses would be provided)
Q.1 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Lawrenson
At paragraph 3.3 on page 13 of the report CMU19 it talks about the plans for the headquarters site in Hadleigh as progressing well. Are councillors going to see some options for this site rather than a terms of ownership etc or is the Council going to plough ahead and do what the Cabinet thinks it is going to do?
Response
Written response to be provided.
Q2. Councillor Hinton to Councillor Lawrenson
Will councillorssee a business case as far as the increase in headroom for £4.8million is concerned in social housing provision?
Response: Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
The £4.8 million as you know was put in as a bid under the previous guidelines from central government and that bid was sent in by the end of September. As you know now, there has been an announcement that the cap has been lifted, so the Council will now have to put in a revised bid. The Council is awaiting the guidelines for that after 30 October 2018, which is when the cap has been lifted and from there officers and myself will be working together to see what bid we are going put forward to get some funding from the lifted cap.
Q.2 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
You talk there about funding as if it was a grant from central government. This increase in the headroom presumably is to allow us to borrow rather than to actually be given money so is it actually going to cost us something at some stage?
Response: Cllr Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
If you borrow money you always have to pay it back. Yes of course it will but it will be to the Council’s advantage. It means that that the Council can deliver more houses in the future, the Council had previously planned for 210 over the next 3 years. With the lifting of the borrowing gap the Council can now look to see how many it can deliver above that figure if indeed it can.
68.4 CMU19 Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
Q.1 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
On page 16 of the report the last bullet point. Key stories, Leaders Question Time. We heard from the Leader, Cllr Ward about the meeting in East Bergholt and the fact that there were a lot of people there and he went away with a list of questions/point to be looked at and also, would be talking to Councillor Dent of the Action group. Will the Cabinet Member confirm that the two local Ward Members will be kept informed as to what goes on there as well?
Response Cllr Grandon
Of course, all the Ward Members will be kept up to date. Any correspondence between myself and Peter Dent will be copied to you and Cllr Williams.
Q2 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
In relation to Page 16, paragraph 4 of the report the fourth bullet point relating to the Delphi Site, it talks about maintaining high skill employment, the high skills employment that we have there at the moment is delivering high precision engineering and as long as that workforce is engaged before they find alternative employment then that site may be able to be saved - would the Cabinet Member for Communications agree?
Response Cllr Grandon
Yes, I would agree but this isn’t the area that I would wish to comment on myself because I am more the person that can help with regard to the communications of such matters.
Q3 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
There was some controversy in the newspaper about the Long Melford Leader’s question time and how it was organised and there was not much known about the Great Cornard one before it actually took place, as the Cabinet Member for Communication can you ensure that there is good buy-in from the local community. Also it has always been the case that if another Councillor wanted to visit somebody else’s Ward, as a matter as courtesy not just democracy you would ring them up or something and make sure they knew about it first, can the Cabinet Member confirm this is happening? And finally, how popular is Leaders question time as the fact that there was a poor turnout in Lavenham, was because they were all on a gardening away day suggests perhaps it is not as popular as gardening?
Response Cllr Grandon
Firstly, on the first point that you made. As far as I am aware the dates are always announced in the town and parish briefings that are issued by communications. So, in that report that you get on a monthly basis it normally details the Leader’s meetings. This gives you an opportunity to tell your town and parish councils and for you to be aware yourself. Secondly, I must admit when the Leaders meeting came to Hadleigh it was a very busy day to. But you know luckily our communities are thriving, hopefully when our Leaders do their next meeting in your area or in the area, they will be key for people.
Q4 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
With regard to the ownership of the flagpole at Hadleigh, please can the Cabinet Member confirm whether she has actually spoken to Mr Holbrook yet and if so what was his response?
Response Cllr Grandon
The flag pole that is located outside the former headquarters was actually paid for by the council members at that time and the whole idea was led by Peter Holbrook, Cllr Peter Holbrook. After one of the Council meetings, some of the councillors suggested that perhaps the flagpole could now be donated to an organisation in Hadleigh. Hadleigh Sea Scouts were very keen to have it and on Cllr Bavington and Cllr Arthey’s suggestion, I contacted former Cllr Holbrook and he loved the idea of the flag pole potentially being donated to Hadleigh Sea Scouts. The Council is still looking at the idea because there are certain issues around it. But there is a strong possibility that Hadleigh Sea Scouts might get the flag pole that currently stands outside the former headquarters.
Q5 Councillor Beer to Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
Can you please give the latest update on the Cornard riverside path?
Response Cllr Jan Osborne
It is nearly completed and there is going to be a grand opening event sometime in November when obviously all the ward members will be invited. Relevant members of the public will also be invited. I did a site visit myself to have a look to see how it was progressing, because I think about a quarter of my emails are about the Bakers Mill bridge and what is happening to it and when is it going to happen. The person doing the construction work had said that there had been over 100 people visit the site to see what was happening and how it was progressing. So, there are a lot of people behind this.
Q6 Councillor McCraw to Councillor Grandon, Cabinet Member for Communications
I would like to return if I may to the Leader’s question time. This is partly a question of communications and partly a question for Leadership. I am very much in favour of these question times and I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort going to all my parishes. Telling them about the forthcoming Leaders question time at Brantham village hall rather. Publicising it heavily on Facebook only to discover at the very last moment that it had been cancelled and no communication had been received. Please can you make sure that any changes to the schedule is communicated to all ward councillors?
Response Cllr Grandon
I apologise for that Cllr McCraw, it was due to issues surrounding booking the venue and the fact that you weren’t informed was an oversight. I will make sure that won’t happen again.
68.5 CMU21 Councillor Maybury, Cabinet Member for Communities
Q1 Councillor Hurren to Councillor Maybury, Cabinet Member for Communities
Parish and Town liaison meetings mentioned in paragraph 3.3 of the report. Could you tell me, were these events well attended and how did they compare to past years please?
Response Cllr Maybury
Thank you for the question, I don’t know how they compared to last year because I haven’t been given the figures, so I will find out and come back to you.
Q2 Councillor Hurren to Councillor Maybury, Cabinet Member for Communities
Do you have the figures for the two events that have just passed?
Response Cllr John Ward
On this occasion, Cllr Maybury was not able to attend. I attended along with a number of officers. Both the one in Capel and the one in Pinewood had roughly the same sort of attendance, there were about 30 odd people there from various parishes. They listened attentively to what topics were discussed. There was some very good questions and I think they all left both events thinking that they were thoroughly successful. There was a good attendance at both of them and we hope that will continue at future ones.
Q3 Councillor Cresswell to Councillor Maybury, Cabinet Member for Communities
On Tuesday 9 October, you were representing this Council at a mental health event in Elmswell organised by several charities and one of these charities claimed that you made unacceptable comments and you said that you were misquoted. Could you please tell us what you actually did say?
Response Cllr Maybury
I refer to the statement I gave at the start of the meeting.
Q4 Councillor Cresswell to Councillor Maybury, Cabinet Member for Communities
Will that statement be made available to all members?
Response Cllr Maybury
Yes
68.6 CMU22 Councillor Simon Barrett, Cabinet Member for the Economy
Q1 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Simon Barrett, Cabinet Member for the Economy
On Paragraph 3.2 of the report it talks about Babergh working hard with Suffolk County Council and legal teams to ensure the smooth handover of ownership to Babergh District Council. This is of the South Suffolk business centre. How much is it going to cost Babergh to take over ownership of this facility and I thought that part of it was owned by us in the first place?
Response Councillor Simon Barrett
I think there is some confusion here. The South Suffolk Task Force is not to do with the Suffolk Business Centre. The South Suffolk Task Force is related to the Delphi Centre.
Q2 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Simon Barrett, Cabinet Member for the Economy
As this isn’t in your report please can you explain what this is about? The South Suffolk Task Force is obviously working with those other bodies to try and make sure that the Delphi Centre is disposed of in a reasonable way, so it has the least impact on our local economy and obviously impact on our high skills level, which I refer to Cllr Bavington’s concerns, which are duly noted. This is very much high priority to keep the skilled workforce together if we can and see if we can sell that as a going concern to another operator. That’s the first part. The second part, the South Suffolk Business Centre is obviously a totally different part of that.
Q3 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Simon Barrett, Cabinet Member for the Economy
How much is it going to cost us?
Response Councillor Simon Barrett
For the South Suffolk Business Centre, as far as I am aware it won’t cost us anything as it is 100% occupied.
Q4 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Simon Barrett, Cabinet Member for the Economy
Who owns it if we are working with Suffolk County Council.
Response Councillor Simon Barrett
The report is confusing because the South Suffolk Business Centre really has not got anything to do with the Delphi site. So, they should be separated. So, the South Suffolk Business Centre, is owned by Babergh District Council. We have the tenants in there and as far as I know it is pretty well occupied. There are starter units. I think this is an inaccuracy in the report, so I apologise for that.
Q5 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Simon Barrett, Cabinet Member for the Economy
If that is the case then perhaps there should be a new paragraph staring on line 1,2,3,4 where it says Babergh have been working hard with Suffolk County Council and the legal team to ensure smooth handover of ownership to Babergh, which implies we don’t own it. Now what don’t we own - South Suffolk business centre which is a bit further down that sentence or are we talking about some other sort of building that is floating around in the ethos somewhere?
Response Jonathan Stephenson, Strategic Director
To try to clarify this, with regards to South Suffolk Business Centre, as stated previously, it is owned by the Babergh District Council and previously this was leased to Suffolk County Council. The ownership is still with Babergh District Council, and now as I understand it, the lease has now transferred back to Babergh District Council.
Councillor Ward
The impact for us in the transfer of that back to Babergh is of course, we will be getting an increase in the rental income from the tenants so in actual fact it isn’t costing us anything, it is going to provide us with extra funds. Because it is fully occupied, and we will get the full benefit of all of the rental income.
68.7 CMU23 Councillor Campbell Cabinet Member for Environment
Q1 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Campbell
Just looking at page 25 of the report, paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. do not apply to Babergh District Council, neither does paragraph 3.16 on the following page. So perhaps we can have things that are relevant to Babergh in the next report, rather than a generality?
Chairman
Duly noted
68.8 CMU25 Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
Q1 Councillor Carpendale to Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
At a recent cabinet meeting, the member for housing sited several good examples of where the council has built social housing, would it be possible if we could have a list of where and how many, so we actually know where the council’s new social housing is.
Response Councillor Jan Osborne
Yes, I can provide that. It is actually provided in the quarterly monitoring report, the performance report. There is another one due out in November, but I will make sure that all councillors get this.
Q2 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
I would just refer to the bottom part of page 34 of the report. There are five outcomes that are aspired to and there are five outcomes that are going to have to be achieved by 2023. And in order to do that, there are 6 priorities identified. The one priority that has not got any identified outcomes is the mitigation of the impact of welfare reforms. So what is going to happen?
Response Councillor Jan Osborne
Can I suggest Cllr Bavington that you take a look at the preventing homelessness strategy? All the answers will be on there. If when you have read it you haven’t got the answer that you want, come back to me and I will provide it for you.
Q3 Councillor Busby to Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
With the homeless reduction strategy 2018 – 2023, we are going to go out for consultation for a period of 6 weeks. I would have thought it’s a strange consultation because I can’t see anybody disagreeing with the aims of this. What concerns me is I suspect if we look at our current strategy for ending homelessness or reducing homelessness. It is exactly the same. It is all well and good having strategies, but you have got to do something about it. How are you going to do that?
Response Councillor Jan Osborne
That is outlined in the strategy. The Council will be monitored by our success against preventing homelessness, that is the new rules of the preventing homelessness act and the Council will be judged on that. The Strategy details how we are going to deliver this and it is down to us as councillors to make sure it is not just a strategy that sits on the shelf, but that we monitor it and have a look at the outcomes to make sure that they are being delivered.
Q4 Councillor Beer to Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
On page 34, I was under the impression that Babergh has been trying to reduce the usage of bed and breakfast for homelessness. Is that going down? Do you know what the costs are or is it going up?
Response Councillor Jan Osborne
Unfortunately the charges at the moment are not going down, the new act has caused some issues and some problems. We are working hard to reduce that as of course we want to reduce the cost to the Council of bed and breakfast and obviously there is also the social impact that it has on our residents. We have already put in place The Foyer in Stowmarket. Even though it is in Stowmarket, we have access to that. Officers are also looking for another site in Sudbury for temporary accommodation, so that can reduce the cost of bed and breakfast. But it is all about preventing homelessness in the first place. And I have just previously said that is what we will be monitored on, not how many we put in bed and breakfast, not how many we put in temporary accommodation. But how many we help to support at the early stages to actually prevent them reaching that stage in the first place.
Q5 Councillor Arthey to Councillor Jan Osborne, Cabinet Member for Housing
I know that Cllr Osborne can refer us to the quarterly reports. But I just wondered since this is an update on page 38 about the new homes that the council will be building and that we will have 143 new builds by 2021/22 by then, have you a figure to date for new build?
Response Councillor Jan Osborne
32
68.9 CMU26 Councillor John Ward Leader and Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery, Law and Governance
Q1 Councillor Hinton to Councillor John Ward, Leader and Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery, Law and Governance
On page 41 it talks about the fact that we are having to produce two registers of electors. As we now know that the new boundaries for the wards in Babergh has been laid before Parliament. Any chance of us doing away with the relevant register of electors that is going to be proposed on 1st December to comply with statutory regulations and replace it with the one that was going to be the 1st February. It seems an awful waste to produce something nobody is going to use anyway. And then produce something else 2 months later?
Response Monitoring Officer
I quite agree with Cllr Hinton’s point that it is doubling procedures to do this twice, however because of the timing of when the order becomes implemented, we have to publish on 1st December and then publish again later for electoral purposes. The orders bring the new boundaries into effect for elections so until that time I still have to have a register that reflects the old boundaries.
Q2 Councillor Bavington to Councillor John Ward, Leader and Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery, Law and Governance
Is there any likelihood that you may be able to publish the new register before the 1st February and if possible will you try and do that?
Response Monitoring Officer
The 1st February is the earliest we can publish it on the new boundaries in order to have a register on the 1st March, which is used for nominations. So no we can’t publish it earlier than that.
68.10 CMU27 Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
Q1 Councillor Parker to Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
Under paragraph 3.2 Customer services - performance in quarter 2 continues to improve with customers waiting on average 1 minute and 30 seconds. What is your target for that? 1 minute and 30 seconds still seems like an extraordinarily long time. In most call centre services, you are looking to pick business up within 5 rings.
Response Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
We continue to monitor it and we continue to improve the targets. We are looking back on this in quarter two and I am delighted to say that in quarter three, we know already that it is down to less than a minute. So, we are continuing to slash it down. The target I guess would be 5 rings or people could pick up straight away. But that is going to take a lot of time and we are working to improve it and we are making continued improvements.
Q2 Councillor Simon Barrett to Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
Thank you for your input as the cabinet member to stabilize the Sudbury position, which was a little bit up in the air and we have now got a deal on the table, I believe. Which has duly been signed so we have a 12-month contract with Sudbury Town Council for the set down point. That is correct isn’t it? And that means we can go forward knowing that we are going to have that position.
Response Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
All creditfor that should go to Sarah Wilcock and her team. They do a fantastic amount of work, you know including bringing the customer access points to Hadleigh and to Shotley and to bring the abandoned calls down, so they have done great. Also with Sudbury your Town Clerk also worked extremely hard in negotiating that as well, as I know Councillors did. So thank you very much and I will take that back to our team as well.
Q3 Councillor Shropshire to Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
I am just looking at page 46, item 5.6. It has been greatly welcomed that the IT platform now opens at 8.30. I was just wondering whether there as any intention to perhaps have a day where it might stay open slightly later. There is a flat refusal for anyone to staff beyond 5 ‘o’clock, when I asked.
Response Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
I think the member makes an excellent point, and it is something that I believe, and I know the Senior Leadership Team and the Leader is working so that we have a better arrangement with Suffolk County Council because they run the IT desk. I don’t think it is ideal at the moment, I think we have got an awful lot of work to do to improve that and weekends as well, there are lots of things that still hasn’t been completely aligned from the previous agreements from when we made the move to Endeavour House and we have still got a long way to go to get things better.
Q4 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
On 4.3 regarding the end of term report for this administration. Will we be seeing some sort of timetable for when this is coming out including when the drafts are going to be available to be critique?
Response Councillor Davis, Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
The timetable was shown to Members that came to the end of term performance briefing, at the moment it is going through the editorial process with the Head of Comms, The Leaders and the Chief Executive and myself. So, we are still working towards it and I will let you know how and when this progresses to the next stage.
68.11 CMU28 Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
Q1 Councillor Bavington to Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
At the bottom of page 47, paragraph 3.2, it says the 5-year housing land supply has been challenged at the public enquiry relating to the Boxford appeal. My understanding of that was this is the 24 houses that we turned down and they were appealing because we didn’t have the 5-year land supply? Now we have got the 5-year land supply, I am struggling to understand what they are appealing about. Could you clarify that for me?
Response Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
As you may already know Mid Suffolk have already been challenged at a public enquiry, so in fact their 5-year supply is now no longer a 5-year supply. This Council is awaiting with considerable concern with regard to the Boxford appeal and a judicial review which follows fairly shortly afterward, in the area of East Bergholt again. It is obviously very important to see what in fact either the inspector or the judges will say on this issue, because at the moment, it looks as if we could have a situation where it could well be challenged and if it is challenged and we lose, then it is going to put us back into the situation where we no longer have a 5 year supply. As far as Boxford is concerned this was an appeal against a decision made against officer recommendation to approve. At that particular moment of course we did not have a 5-year housing supply. We now say we have and therefore that is why we are defending that particular position. The outcome from that appeal will be is expected any day and we do hope to have that decision within a very few days. It seems that inspectors are going backwards and forwards in making their decisions, so what appeared to be a decisive date when we declared we had 5-year land supply, is not necessarily being looked at that way by the inspectors. Because they are looking both sides of the line. The difficulty with the 5-year supply, is it is based on numbers, but it is also based on interpretation of those numbers. So, although we took the very finest legal advice we could before we declared that we had it, nevertheless the developers are all still banging away at the door on every appeal that is coming before us.
Q2 Councillor Hinton to Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
Are we advising new applicants for neighbourhood plans that their plans will need to be updated every two years?
Response Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
I don’t think I can respond to that, whatever plan you set up you would need to review it at regular intervals.
Q3 Councillor Parkerto Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
Please can you clarify, paragraph 3.3 says that their remains some vacancies in Development Management and the Planning Policy teams and the application caseload remains accordingly high. Consequently, this has been flagged as significant risk on the corporate risk register. So, which of those points remains a significant risk on the corporate register. And the fact that it remains a significant risk is quite severe in itself, so how long does it remain on the significant risk register and what is the plan to mitigate that risk going forward please?
Response Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning
As I think probably most Members know by now it is a merry go round in terms of recruitment to planning departments. It depends who is paying the most, who is offering the best opportunities in terms of jobs. We have looked very carefully at what we pay our staff in that particular department. We are being successful in recruitment as it says, clearly the performance is what is important which is in 3.1, and if we start dropping away there clearly there will be a problem. But we are determined to make sure we don’t have that problem, so I mean the fact that application case- loads remain high is a fact of life.
Supporting documents: