Agenda, decisions and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

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 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.

There were no members of the public in attendance.

Report No:   CAB/SE/17/046

Portfolio Holder: John Griffiths        Lead Officer: Ian Gallin

RESOLVED:

That:

(1)     the decision of the Council meeting of 26 September 2017 to submit the business case for a single Council for West Suffolk to the Secretary of State for consideration, as contained in Report No: COU/SE/17/013, be endorsed; and

(2)     delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make minor amendments to the business case as requested by the Secretary of State to obtain his support for the proposal.

(Section 14.4 of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules of the Constitution states that:

‘A decision will be urgent if any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or public interest.’

This decision is considered to be urgent and in accordance with the aforementioned rules, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee has both agreed that the decision proposed is reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency, and therefore should be exempt from call-in.  This matter has already been reported to Council (see Report No: COU/SE/17/013), together with the reasons for the urgency, which in summary relates to the tight timeframe that is being worked to.)

The Cabinet considered Report No: CAB/SE/17/046, which principally sought endorsement of a decision made by Council in relation to approval of the business case for a Single Council for West Suffolk.

At the meeting of Council held earlier the same evening, the recommendation for the final business case for a Single Council for West Suffolk to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Local Government, was considered and approved.

However, the Department for Communities and Local Government had confirmed that it would not accept the business case unless it was accompanied with an executive decision; further, failure to do so could increase the risk of challenge. Thus, the Cabinet was asked to independently assess the business case and determine whether it supported and approved the submission of the business case to the Secretary of State.

Delegated authority was also sought to the making of minor amendments to the business case.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council drew relevant issues to the attention of Cabinet. 

RESOLVED:

That:

(1)     the decision of the Council meeting of 26 September 2017 to submit the business case for a single Council for West Suffolk to the Secretary of State for consideration, as contained in Report No: COU/SE/17/013, be endorsed; and

(2)     delegated authority be given to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make minor amendments to the business case as requested by the Secretary of State to obtain his support for the proposal.

(Section 14.4 of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules of the Constitution states that:

‘A decision will be urgent if any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or public interest.’

This decision was considered to be urgent and in accordance with the aforementioned rules, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had both agreed that the decision proposed was reasonable in all the circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency, and therefore should be exempt from call-in.  This matter had already been reported to Council (see Report No: COU/SE/17/013), together with the reasons for the urgency, which in summary related to the tight timeframe that was being worked to.)