Agenda and minutes

On opening the meeting the Chairman took the opportunity to make specific welcome to David Collinson who had recently joined the West Suffolk Councils as Assistant Director for Planning and Regulatory Services. 

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 April 2017 and the Annual Council meeting held on 10 May 2017 (copies attached).

The minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 April 2017 and the Annual Council meeting held on 10 May 2017 were unanimously accepted as an accurate record and were signed by the Chairman.

Report No: COU/FH/17/011

The Chairman reminded Members that those engagements listed within the itinerary up to 10 May 2017 had been undertaken by the previous Chairman, Councillor Carol Lynch.

The Chairman also made specific reference to the funeral of District Councillor Bill Sadler which took place on 1 June 2017 (as set out within Report No: COU/FH/17/011).  She informed the meeting that it had been incredibly well attended with Forest Heath Councillors having formed a guard of honour outside the church in honour of their past colleague.

The report was noted.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Bloodworth, Carol Lynch, Christine Mason, Robin Millar and Reg Silvester.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary interest not entered in the Authority's register or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda (subject to the exception for sensitive information) and to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on an item in which they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

The following Councillors declared non-pecuniary interests in Agenda Item 9. ‘Community Governance Review’ (Report No: COU/FH/17/014) as Members of the Parish/Town Councils that the report proposed Parish boundary changes in respect of:

·         Councillor Andrew Appleby (Newmarket Town Council)

·         Councillor Ruth Bowman (Mildenhall Parish Council)

·         Councillor Simon Cole (Exning Parish Council)

·         Councillor Roger Dicker (Kentford Parish Council)

·         Councillor Andy Drummond (Newmarket Town Council)

·         Councillor Nigel Roman (Mildenhall Parish Council)

Report No: COU/FH/17/012

Council Procedure Rule 8.2 states that ‘the Leader of the Council will introduce the statement and members may ask the Leader questions on the content of both his/her introductory remarks and the written report. All questions will be answered immediately by the Leader or by the relevant Cabinet Member if the Leader refers any question to him or her, unless sufficient information to give an answer is not available. In these circumstances the member asking the question will receive a response in writing within five working days of the Council meeting at which the question was asked.’

8.3 - A total of 30 minutes will be allowed for questions and responses. There will be a limit of five minutes for each question to be asked and answered. The member asking the original question may put a supplementary question arising from the reply so long as the five minute limit is not exceeded.

The Leader presented his statement to the meeting, as set out in Report No: COU/FH/17/012.

The report was noted.

Council Procedure Rule 6 Members of the public who live or work in the District are invited to put one question of not more than five minutes duration.  A person who wishes to speak must register at least fifteen minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start.*

(Note: the maximum time to be set aside for this item is 30 minutes, but if all questions are dealt with sooner, or if there are no questions, the Council will proceed to the next business.)

Each person may ask one question only.  A total of five minutes will be allowed for the question to be put and answered.  One further question will be allowed arising directly from the reply provided that the original time limit of five minutes is not exceeded.

Written questions may be submitted by members of the public to the Service Manager (Democratic Services) no later than 10.00am Tuesday 13 June 2017.  The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.*

*For further information, see the Public Information Sheet attached to this agenda.

Agenda Item 9. Community Governance Review (Report No: COU/FH/17/014)

Councillor Bill Rampling, Chairman of Moulton Parish Council, addressed the meeting in respect of the above item and specifically Issue No. 3: Kentford/Moulton.

He reiterated Moulton Parish Council’s response, as set out in the report, in that the Parish Council wholeheartedly supported Option 2.

Councillor Rampling also advised the meeting that residents in the additional residences that would be affected by the proposals in Option 3 had voiced objection to this option; due to the historic links they had with Moulton and their wish to remain part of this Parish (and not Kentford).

On conclusion, the Chairman thanked Councillor Rampling for his comments and agreed to take them on board when considering the item in question, later in the meeting.

Referrals from Extraordinary Joint Cabinet: 30 May 2017

(There are no direct referrals emanating from the Extraordinary Joint Cabinet meeting held with St Edmundsbury Borough Council on 30 May 2017.  Reference to the consideration of matters held at that meeting on ‘A Single Council for West Suffolk – Draft Business Case’ is contained within the separate report (No: COU/FH/17/013) at Agenda Item 8 on this Council agenda.)

Referral from Extraordinary Joint Cabinet: 30 May 2017

‘A Single Council for West Suffolk – Draft Business Case’

The Chairman advised Members that they were simply asked to note this item which was the subject of the following report on the agenda.

Report No: COU/FH/17/013

Prior to considering this item, a short supplementary paper was tabled and the Chairman allowed the meeting a few minutes in which to peruse this.

The Leader was then invited to present the report which sought consent of the Council to jointly (with St Edmundsbury Borough Council) undertake a public engagement exercise on the option of a single district-level council for West Suffolk.

The Leader advised the meeting that a new single council would bring real and lasting benefits to all residents in the area.  It would give West Suffolk greater ability to deliver services vital for communities, whilst at the same time driving forward ambitious opportunities for the area.

The Leader spoke on increased resilience and being better placed in which to respond to challenges as a new single council.

A number of Members spoke on this item, primarily in relation to concerns regarding future Ward sizes and the number of Councillors who would be representing communities.

The Leader explained that all Members would have opportunity to have input in the process and it would be down to Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury to shape the new council, in consultation with Parishes, community groups etc.  He advised that the figures set out in Report No: COU/FH/17/013 were purely indicative.

A question was also raised as to whether the Mildenhall Hub would still go ahead if a new single council was formed.  The Leader assured the meeting that the project would still progress in partnership with those agencies who were also included within the proposed scheme.

Councillor Lance Stanbury also spoke in favour of a new single council and made reference to the longstanding successful partnership arrangement between Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury.

Councillor Stanbury explained that the proposal was a tremendous opportunity which would create greater resilience and a stronger unified voice to deliver services at a local level.  And he highlighted the importance of the role of the Future Governance Member Steering Group.

It was proposed by the Leader, seconded by Councillor David Bowman and with 20 voting for the motion and with 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED:

That:-

1.   Council agreed in principle that the draft business case, attached as Appendix A of Report No: COU/FH/17/013 and inclusive of the tabled supplementary document, demonstrated that that a single district-level council for West Suffolk represented the most effective governance arrangements moving forward;

2.   The draft business case be tested through an engagement exercise with the public and other key stakeholders in accordance with the approach set out in Paragraph 1.2 of Report No: COU/FH/17/013;

3.   The detailed considerations required in forming a single council would continue to be assessed by the Future Governance Member Steering Group set up for the purpose; and

4.   A further report would be presented to both Councils at their meetings in September 2017 containing the final business case and incorporating the outcomes of the engagement exercise.

Report No: COU/FH/17/014

The Chairman advised the meeting that at the final stage of Forest Heath’s Community Governance Review, Report No COU/FH/17/014 set out the results of consultation on the final recommendations from the Council meeting in February 2017. 

The recommendations from the February meeting were to be tested in the consultation, and Council was able to change them if they considered there was sufficient evidence to do so.

The Chairman also advised that, as in February, the three ‘Issues’ would be taken separately, as three separate debates, so that Members could take part in each if they wished.  A separate motion would need to be proposed, seconded and voted upon for each.

The Director was then invited to introduce each item and to explain the options open to Members to take. 

Issue No. 1: Exning/Newmarket

Whether or not (and how) Exning Cemetery should be transferred from Newmarket Parish to Exning Parish by way of a minor boundary change.

Councillor Andy Drummond moved that Option A: Adopt the Recommendation, be approved.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Simon Cole and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

1a.     That, as set out in Appendix A to Report No: COU/FH/17/014, the final recommendation for Issue No. 1: Exning/Newmarket be adopted as the outcome of this CGR, and the boundary between the two parishes be amended accordingly, as set out in the consultation map within Appendix A.

Issue No. 2: Mildenhall/West Row

Whether or not (and how) the existing Parish of Mildenhall should be divided to create two parishes, each with its own parish council: a smaller Parish of Mildenhall and a new Parish of West Row.

Councillor Lance Stanbury spoke in relation to this Issue and questioned whether sufficient evidence had been provided to adequately demonstrate the need within West Row for this proposed change.

Prior to making a decision, Councillor Stanbury suggested that it might be useful to know the definite view of Mildenhall Parish Council taking into consideration the results of the public consultation, which the Parish would not have known when they made their response. 

To this end Councillor Stanbury proposed (new) Option C: the final decision for Issue No 2: Mildenhall/West Row be deferred until the July 2017 meeting of Council to allow Mildenhall Parish Council to clarify its formal response in the light of the results of the formal consultation process.  And this was duly seconded by Councillor Louis Busuttil.

In response to questions and comments on this Issue from Members, the Chairman clarified that the proposed deferment would be undertaken in accordance with the existing terms of reference for the CGR.

Upon putting the motion to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

1b.   That, in accordance with the existing terms of reference for the review, the final decision for Issue No 2: Mildenhall/West Row be deferred until the July 2017 meeting of Council to allow Mildenhall Parish Council to clarify its formal response in the light of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 238.

Report No: COU/FH/17/015

Councillor Lance Stanbury, Cabinet Member for Planning and Growth, presented this report which sought Council’s ratification of the letter of objection previously sent to the Department of Transport, as contained in Appendix B of Report No: COU/FH/17/015, making an objection to Network Rail’s proposed closure of the stop, look and listen at grade pedestrian crossing at Weatherby, Newmarket.

On the motion of the Cabinet Member, seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond, and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That the Council ratified the letter of objection previously sent to the Department of Transport dated 4 May 2017, as contained in Appendix B of Report No: COU/FH/17/015, therefore making a valid objection to Network Rail’s proposed Transport and Works Act 1992 (Suffolk Level Crossing Reduction) Order.

The Council is asked to nominate one Member and one substitute Member to serve on the County’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. These Members should ideally be from the District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, although this is not essential as the necessary training will be given by the County Council.

The Committee on 6 June 2017 will consider nominations for a representative and a substitute Member for 2017/2018.   The current members on this joint body are Councillor Christine Mason as the nominated representative and Councillor John Bloodworth as the nominated substitute.

The Council is RECOMMENDED that Councillor (to be reported verbally *) be nominated as the District Council’s representative and Councillor (to be reported verbally) as the nominated substitute Member on the Suffolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2017/2018.

*  Nominations to be verbally reported by the Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny as a result of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting being held after the Council agenda has been published.

The Council was asked to nominate one Member and one substitute Member to serve on the County’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

Councillor Simon Cole advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had, at their meeting on 6 June 2017, nominated Councillor John Bloodworth as the full Member and Councillor Christine Mason as the substitute Member for 2017/2018. 

 Councillor Cole then formally moved the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, this was duly seconded by Councillor Rona Burt and with the vote being unanimous, it was 

RESOLVED: 

That Councillor John Bloodworth be nominated as the District Council’s representative and Councillor Christine Mason as the nominated substitute Member on the Suffolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2017/2018. 

Report No: COU/FH/17/016

Councillor David Bowman, Chairman of the West Suffolk Joint Standards Committee presented this report which sought Council approval to appoint the Independent Persons for West Suffolk, to operate until 1 July 2017.

Councillor Bowman explained that Mr Arnold Barrow had been operating as one of the West Suffolk Independent Persons since 2014 and it was proposed to reappoint him for a further term.

The other Independent Person who was appointed in 2014 alongside Mr Barrow no longer wished to continue in the role.  Hence, a recruitment process had been undertaken, as a result of which Mrs Zoe Finn was recommended for appointment.

On the motion of Councillor Bowman, seconded by Councillor Nigel Roman and with 19 voting for the motion and with 2 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED:

That:-

1.   Mr Arnold Barrow be reappointed as an Independent Person until 1 July 2019; and

2.   Mrs Zoe Finn be appointed as an Independent Person until 1 July 2019.

Questions to Chairmen on the business transacted by their Committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council:

Development Control Committee                  3 May 2017

                                                                    7 June 2017

Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee 25 May 2017

Overview and Scrutiny Committee                6 June 2017

There were no questions to Chairmen of other Committees.

The Council will consider any urgent question on notice that were notified to the Service Manager (Democratic Services) by 11.00am on the day of the meeting.

There were no urgent questions on notice.