Agenda, decisions and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2015 (copy attached).

The public and exempt minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

At each Cabinet meeting, up to 15 minutes shall be allocated for questions from and discussion with, non-Cabinet members.  Members wishing to speak during this session should if possible, give notice in advance.  Who speaks and for how long will be at the complete discretion of the person presiding.

No non-Cabinet Members in attendance wished to speak under this item.

Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question or statement of not more than three minutes duration relating to items to be discussed in Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered within three minutes, the person who asked the question may ask a supplementary question that arises from the reply.

A person who wishes to speak must register at least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start. 

There is an overall time limit of 15 minutes for public speaking, which may be extended at the Chairman’s discretion.

Mr Adrian Graves of Great Barton, asked a question connected with the nature, content and volumes of waste streams to be handled through the Waste Transfer Station element of the proposed West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH), regardless of its ultimate location. 

In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that due to the detailed nature of his question which sought a significant amount of specific and factual information, he would supply Mr Graves with a written reply.

In response to Mr Graves’ supplementary question, Councillor Griffiths, Leader of the Council, agreed that significant development, transport, infrastructure and policy changes that affected the lives of people living in and around Bury St Edmunds needed to be considered within the context of their impact on each other and should not be dealt with on a piecemeal basis.  Councillor Griffiths added that this view extended to working with partners in both the public and private sector on such issues affecting those within West Suffolk, Suffolk and across boundaries. 

Ms Sarah Bartram of Fornham St Martin asked a question in connection with the pre-planning application consultation for the WSOH.   

In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that the Council was not obliged to publish every public response to the pre-application consultation in full as the it was not a planning application.  Responses to the consultation, which had been undertaken by the partner councils in their role as scheme developers to encourage community engagement and involvement to help shape and inform the preparation of any future planning application, were summarised and published on the WSOH website.

Mr John Corrie of Bury St Edmunds, asked a three-fold question in connection with the draft Masterplan for the South East Bury St Edmunds strategic development site.

In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth stated that the consultation on the draft Masterplan had been undertaken by the developers and they had accorded with common practice and not published the responses to the consultation in full; however, it could be evidenced that changes had been made to the draft in response to the consultation. A Gypsy and Traveller site had been recommended to be reinstated in the draft Masterplan which was contained in the original draft; however, a Masterplan was illustrative only and could be modified through any future planning applications. There were no immediate plans to relocate the lorry park.

Mr Howard Quayle of Fornham St Martin, asked a question on the budget and detailed expenditure to date for the West Suffolk Operational Hub project. 

In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that the current budget and a detailed breakdown of expenditure would be provided in a written reply.

Mr Clive Harridge, a representative of Hopkins Homes and Pigeon Investments and developers for the South East Bury St Edmunds strategic site, provided a statement on the draft Masterplan they had prepared for that location.  Issues addressed included: the consultation process; the developers’ intention to remove reference  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/050 TO FOLLOW

Cabinet Member: Peter Stevens      Lead Officer: Mark Walsh

RESOLVED: That

(1)     the contents of Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, be noted;

(2)     approval is given for a further six-week period of public pre-application consultation that will give an opportunity for suggestions for alternative sites and provide information for public scrutiny including the:

(i)      case for a shared waste hub;

(ii)      site selection criteria;

(iii)     process of site selection;

(iv)    sustainability appraisal; and

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That

(3)     funding of £220,000 (£112,000 FHDC and £108,000 SEBC), as detailed in Section 3 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, be approved, and for this to be allocated from the respective Council’s Strategic Priorities and Medium Term Financial Strategy reserve to enable the project to progress.

N.B. Council approval is needed for (3) above before (2) can be implemented.           

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/050 (previously circulated), which sought approval for a further period of pre-planning application consultation and also to recommend to full Council, the approval of a further total allocation of £220,000 (£112,000 FHDC and £108,000 SEBC) funding to enable the project to progress.

Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including that a second six-week pre-application consultation was planned which would make further documents available for public scrutiny.  These documents included a sustainability appraisal, the case for co-locating facilities into a single site, site selection criteria and the process of site review and selection. This background detail would provide further opportunity for interested parties to consider putting forward credible, available alternative sites.

Councillors Beccy Hopfensperger and Sarah Broughton, Ward Members for Fornham and Great Barton Wards respectively, both addressed the Cabinet on the proposals.  Both welcomed the additional period of consultation; however concern was expressed that the Hollow Road Farm site remained identified in the report as the ‘preferred’ location, and therefore they hoped that the analysis of the outcomes of the new consultation and any potentially credible sites would genuinely be considered.  The topic of Report No: CAB/SE/15/051, considered next on the agenda was also considered to be inter-linked and how the implications of those changes, if approved, would impact on the operation of the proposed WSOH.

Recognition was given to separating the pre-application consultation and any planning application for a specific site, emphasising that they were two distinctly separate elements to the project. The Cabinet acknowledged that due to the significance of this project for West Suffolk, it was fundamental that the best possible, available, cost effective and efficient site was selected.  Should the full site selection criteria and other documentation as set out in the recommendation be made public, people would have a greater understanding of the process undertaken to conclude a preference.  If an alternative, credible, available site was identified through the new consultation, this would be investigated further. 

RESOLVED: That

(1)     the contents of Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, be noted;

(2)     approval is given for a further six-week period of public pre-application consultation that will give an opportunity for suggestions for alternative sites and provide information for public scrutiny including the:

(i)      case for a shared waste hub;

(ii)      site selection criteria;

(iii)     process of site selection;

(iv)    sustainability appraisal; and

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That

(3)    funding of £220,000 (£112,000 FHDC and £108,000 SEBC), as detailed in Section 3 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, be approved, and for this to be allocated from the respective Council’s Strategic Priorities and Medium Term Financial Strategy reserve to enable the project to progress.  

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/051 TO FOLLOW

Cabinet Member: Peter Stevens      Lead Officer: Mark Walsh

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That

(1)     the exclusion of food/kitchen waste from the brown bin scheme - to commence following procurement of the new treatment contract, be agreed;

(2)     a subscription charge of between £35 and £50 per year for the brown bin service, as detailed in Section 1.4.3 to 1.4.8 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/051, be introduced; and

(3)     a future report be received outlining the results of the procurement exercise and the Suffolk Waste Partnership’s agreed actions to deliver recommendations 1 and 2 above.

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/051 (previously circulated), which sought approval for changes to the current brown bin collection scheme in West Suffolk, which was in response to revisions to the organic waste service provided across Suffolk.

The report provided background information and how the Suffolk Waste Partnership, which co-ordinated, managed and integrated waste collection and disposal services across the county, had been considering options for the future of organic waste service for the past 2-3 years, including the reasons for this change.  Specific options for the future of West Suffolk’s brown bin scheme and the implications relating to each were considered in detail.  Option 3 was the preferred option of officers, which would be to introduce an annual subscription charge and exclude food/kitchen waste, which would potentially generate an income to ensure that the service was cost neutral.  The justification for the proposal was provided in the report.

Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet.  He explained that the service would be provided on an opt-in basis at a cost of approximately £1.35 per collection, which was value for money when compared to the cost of a bulky goods collection at £35 a time. 

The Cabinet acknowledged that this was difficult decision to make; however if the scheme was to continue in its current format, West Suffolk would be faced with an estimated budget increase of approximately half a million pounds per year in comparison to current costs.  If not implemented, savings would therefore need to be found from elsewhere with potential impacts on services across the two West Suffolk councils.

Members also recognised that it was not conducive to  potentially increase Council Tax by approximately 6% to continue the existing service.  Such an increase would command a referendum and consideration would therefore need to be given to the potential cost implications of that.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: That

(1)    the exclusion of food/kitchen waste from the brown bin scheme - to commence following procurement of the new treatment contract, be agreed;

(2)    a subscription charge of between £35 and £50 per year for the brown bin service, as detailed in Section 1.4.3 to 1.4.8 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/051, be introduced; and

(3)    a future report be received outlining the results of the procurement exercise and the Suffolk Waste Partnership’s agreed actions to deliver recommendations 1 and 2 above.

(Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.)

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/052

Chairman: Diane Hind          Lead Officer: Christine Brain

The Cabinet received and noted Report No: CAB/SE/15/052 (previously circulated), which informed the Cabinet of the following items discussed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 22 July 2015:

(1)     Review of Car Parking;

(2)     Dog Fouling in West Suffolk;

(3)     On-Street Parking – Skyliner Way, Bury St Edmunds: Update;

(4)     Directed Surveillance Authorised Applications (Quarter 1) – Verbal Report; and 

(5)     Work Programme Update. 

Councillor Diane Hind, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including that a Member of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee would also be appointed to the Review of Car Parking task and finish group. 

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, stated that he had vehemently supported the Council’s bids for funding from the On-Street Parking Account, which included £25,000  to implement verge parking in Skyliner Way, Bury St Edmunds.

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/053

Cabinet Member: Ian Houlder          Lead Officer: Liz Watts

The Cabinet received and noted Report No: CAB/SE/15/053  (previously circulated) which provided an outline of the issues discussed by the Anglia Revenues and Benefits Partnership Joint Committee at its meeting held on 10 June 2015.

On 10 June 2015, the Anglia Revenues and Benefits Partnership Joint Committee considered the following substantive items of business:

(1)   Fraud;

(2)   2014-15 Year End Out-turn and Approval of the Small Bodies Return;

(3)   Performance Report;

(4)   ARP Website;

(5)   ARP Risk Register;

(6)   Bailiff Update;

(7)   Arp Trading Company Restructure;

(8)   Welfare Reform; and

(9)   Forthcoming Issues.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet.

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/054

Chairman: Sarah Broughton            Lead Officer: Christine Brain

The Cabinet received and noted Report No: CAB/SE/15/054 (previously circulated), which informed the Cabinet of the following items discussed by the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee on 30 July 2015.  The first four items were considered jointly with Forest Heath’s Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee:

(1)     Balanced Scorecard and Quarter 1 Performance Report 2015-2016;

(2)     West Suffolk Risk Management Approach and Principles;

(3)     West Suffolk Strategic Risk Register Quarterly Monitoring Report – June 2015;

(4)     Work Programme Update;

(5)     Annual Performance Report for The Apex;

(6)     Financial Performance Report (Revenue and Capital) Quarter 1 – 2015-16; and

(7)     Annual Treasury Management Report 2014-2015 and Investment Activity 1 April – 30 June 2015.

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Chairman of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee, drew relevant items to the attention of the Cabinet, including that separate reports would be considered next on this Cabinet agenda in respect of  Items (2) and (7) above.

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/055

Cabinet Member: Ian Houlder          Lead Officer: Rachael Mann

RESOLVED:

That the West Suffolk Risk Management Approach and Principles, attached at Appendix 1 and the Supporting Flowchart attached at Appendix 2 to Report No: PAS/SE/15/018, be adopted.

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/055 (previously circulated), which sought approval for the West Suffolk Risk Management Approach and Principles.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including that the document, which was attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: PAS/SE/15/018, was a new positive approach to risk based on context, proportionality, judgement and evidence based decision-making that was considered on a case by case basis.

Appendix 2 was a flowchart which provided a summary of the various tools and documents that supported this evidence-based approach.  It was these documents and tools that would enable the Council to achieve a learning culture which supported staff and Members, enabling managed risk-taking through positive relationships.

The Performance and Audit and Scrutiny Committee had scrutinised both Appendix 1 and 2 in detail and made a recommendation of adoption, which was supported by the Cabinet.

RESOLVED:

That the West Suffolk Risk Management Approach and Principles, attached at Appendix 1 and the Supporting Flowchart attached at Appendix 2 to Report No: PAS/SE/15/018, be adopted.

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/056

Cabinet Member: Ian Houlder          Lead Officer: Rachael Mann

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Annual Treasury Management Report for 2014-2015, attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: TMS/SE/15/004, be approved.

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/056 (previously circulated), which sought approval for the Annual Treasury Management Report for 2014-2015.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including that the Annual Treasury Management Report for 2014-2015, which was attached at Appendix 1 to Report No: TMS/SE/15/004, summarised the interest earned during 2014-2015 on the various treasury investments held by the Council; investment activity during the year and the investments held as at 31 March 2015.

Overall investment activity for 2014/2015 was outlined in Report No: CAB/SE/15/056, including that the average rate of return on investments was 0.75% against a budgeted rate of return of 1.5%.Investment activity from 1 April to 30 June 2015 was also noted.

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Chairman of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee highlighted that whilst it was disappointing that investments did not average a budgeted return of 1.5%, this was consistent with national local authority investment performance.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Annual Treasury Management Report for 2014-2015, attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: TMS/SE/15/004, be approved.

(Councillor Sarah Broughton left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.)

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/057 TO FOLLOW

Cabinet Member: Alaric Pugh Lead Officer: Steven Wood

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/057 (previously circulated) which presented the recommendations of the Sustainable Development Working Party emanating from its meeting on 3 September 2015.

On 3 September 2015, the Sustainable Development Working Party considered the following substantive items of business:

(1)     Haverhill Town Centre: Masterplan;

(2)     North-East Haverhill: Masterplan; and

(3)     South-East Bury St Edmunds Strategic Site: Masterplan.

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including that the first two Masterplans were inter-dependent for the future growth of the town; and following a detailed discussion at the meeting of the Sustainable Working Party, it had been recommended to reinstate the site for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as originally proposed in the earlier draft Masterplan.

The Cabinet was satisfied that all three documents had been subject to robust consultation processes and accorded with the Vision 2031 Development Plan document and the Council’s Protocol for Preparing Masterplans.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Masterplan for Haverhill Town Centre, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/007, be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Masterplan for Haverhill Town Centre, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/007, be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Masterplan for North East Haverhill, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/008, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Masterplan for North East Haverhill, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/008, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Masterplan for the South East strategic land allocation, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/009, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance, subject to the reinstatement of the site of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as originally proposed in the earlier draft Masterplan.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

That the Masterplan for the South East strategic land allocation, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/009, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance, subject to the reinstatement of the site of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as originally proposed in the earlier draft Masterplan.

Cabinet Member: Jo Rayner            Lead Officer: Mark Walsh

Summary and Reason for Recommendation:

Ground Works: Priors Play Park

Section 4.3 of the Contract Procedure Rules state: Between £50,001 and the EU Threshold any exemption must be approved by the Officer and Head of Service in consultation with the Head of Resources and Performance. The Officer must produce evidence to support the request for any exemption. The Head of Service shall prepare a report for the next Cabinet to support the action taken. The exemption, being a Contracting Decision, the reason for it (together with support evidence) shall be forwarded to the Head of Resources and Performance.

This exemption was exercised on 10 August 2015 for a contract to the value of £81,837 to T Farrow Construction for the installation of a retaining wall and ground works associated with the relocation of a multi-use ball court on the Priors Estate, Bury St Edmunds.  Three quotes were received via the online Suffolk Sourcing System, all of which were competitive thus demonstrating value for money.  As the quotes received were above £50,001 an exemption was requested from the Head of Resources and Performance to enable the appointment of T Farrow Construction.

The exemption was made on the basis that there was:

·      Unforeseen works where delay will adversely impact on the service delivery of the council.

Delays in procuring this first stage element of the project (the Priors Estate Play Area refurbishment) will result in significant delays in the installation of the new play area and associated fencing works, which have already been procured using an approved framework contract and quotation system.

Recommendation:

The Cabinet is requested to NOTE this exemption to the Contract Procedure Rules.

The Cabinet received and noted a narrative item which provided an exemption to the Contract Procedure Rules of the Constitution, relating to the undertaking of ground works in preparation for the installation of new play equipment on the Priors Estate, Bury St Edmunds.

Councillor Joanna Rayner, Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet.

The exemption, as set out in the agenda, was duly noted by the Cabinet.

To consider the most recently published version of the Cabinet’s Decisions Plan

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/058

Cabinet Member: John Griffiths      Lead Officer: Ian Gallin

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/058 (previously circulated), which was the Cabinet Decisions Plan covering the period September 2015 to May 2016.

Members took the opportunity to review the intended forthcoming decisions of the Cabinet; however, no further information or amendments were requested on this occasion.

Report No:   CAB/SE/15/059

Cabinet Member: Ian Houlder         Lead Officer: Rachael Mann

RESOLVED:

That the write-off of the amounts detailed in the exempt appendices to Report No: CAB/SE/15/059, be approved as follows:

(1)     Exempt Appendix 1: Council Tax totalling £4,143.55; and

(2)     Exempt Appendix 2: Housing Benefit Overpayments £2,517.50

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/15/059 (previously circulated) which provided the collection data in respect of Council Tax and National Non-Domestic Rates and sought approval for the write-off of debts as contained in the Exempt Appendices.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the attention of the Cabinet, including the current collection performance, as set out in Section 3 of the report.

RESOLVED:

That the write-off of the amounts detailed in the exempt appendices to Report No: CAB/SE/15/059, be approved as follows:

(1)     Exempt Appendix 1: Council Tax totalling £4,143.55; and

(2)     Exempt Appendix 2: Housing Benefit Overpayments £2,517.50

To consider whether the press and public should be excluded during the consideration of the following items because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt categories of information as prescribed in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and indicated against each item and, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

See minute 116 below.

Exempt Appendices to Report No:       CAB/SE/15/059

Cabinet Member: Ian Houlder         Lead Officer: Rachael Mann

The Cabinet considered Exempt Appendices 1 and 2 to Report No: CAB/SE/15/059 (previously circulated), however no reference was made to specific detail and therefore this item was not held in private session.

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2015 (copy attached.)

No reference was made to specific detail of the exempt minutes, therefore this item was not held in private session. 

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 23 June 2015 were confirmed as a correct record under Minute 101 above and signed by the Chairman.