Agenda and minutes

The Mayor’s Chaplain, Reverend Canon Matthew Vernon, Sub-Dean of St Edmundsbury Cathedral, opened the meeting with prayers.

A minute’s silence was held in remembrance of the late Councillor Tim Marks.

The Mayor formally welcomed Jill Korwin to her first meeting of Council at St Edmundsbury. Ms Korwin had recently been appointed to the post of Director for St Edmundsbury Borough and Forest Heath District Councils.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2015 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2015 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor reported on the civic engagements and charity activities which he, the Mayoress, Deputy Mayor and Consort had attended since 15 December 2015.

He drew particular attention to the Chinese New Year event held on 8 February 2016 at The Apex and conveyed his sincere thanks to all those involved in its organisation.

To receive announcements (if any) from the officer advising the Mayor (including apologies for absence)

An apology for absence was received from Councillor David Roach.

The interim Service Manager (Legal) sought confirmation from Members that they had received the following papers:

• An addendum to Item 8, (A)(4) of Report No: COU/SE/16/002, Referrals Report of Recommendations from Cabinet: Third Generation Artificial Pitch Provision in Haverhill, (tabled at the meeting); and

• an amended version of Attachment A to Report No: COU/SE/16/003, Budget and Council Tax Setting 2016/2017 and Medium Term Financial Strategy (previously circulated by email).

All Members present confirmed receipt of the above.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary or local non pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when that item is reached and, when appropriate, to leave the meeting prior to discussion and voting on the item.

Members’ declarations of interests are recorded under the item to which the declaration relates.

Paper No: COU/SE/16/001

(Council Procedure Rules 8.1 – 8.3)  Members may ask the Leader questions on the content of both his introductory remarks and the written statement itself.

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. A supplementary question arising from the reply may be asked so long as the five minute limit is not exceeded.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, presented his statement as contained in Paper No: COU/SE/16/001.

In addition to his statement, Councillor Griffiths updated Members on:

(1)     Devolution: West Suffolk’s position and how this sat with other councils in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire and that an ‘Eastern Powerhouse’ could be created through effectively working together.  If not done so already, Members were encouraged to attend one of the devolution information events arranged by the LGiU, which were presently being held across Norfolk and Suffolk as attendance would assist with their necessary decision making at the appropriate time.

(2)     West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH): The second round of consultation closed on 19 February 2016 and respondents were thanked for taking part.  Following analysis of the responses and other connected issues, St Edmundsbury Borough and Forest Heath District Councils’ Cabinets would then recommend how to proceed.

(3)     Eastern Relief Road, Bury St Edmunds:  The final signature to enable completion of the necessary legal agreements for the Eastern Relief Road, was expected shortly.  Construction of this road was a major step forward for unlocking land for the creation of jobs, growth and housing for Bury St Edmunds which would benefit West Suffolk and the eastern region as a whole.

(4)     Budget 2016/2017 and Medium Term Financial Strategy:  Recognition was given to the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance; the Finance Team and staff  in general; and the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee for the enormous amount of work involved in achieving a sustainable budget for 2016/2017, which would be under consideration at Agenda Item 9.

In response to questions, Council was informed that:

(a)     Decisions taken on planning applications by the Development Control Committee were taken in accordance with planning regulations.  There was no requirement for Cabinet Members not to sit on Development Control Committees and should a Cabinet Member feel as individuals that they had pre-determined or were biased towards an application, it was the responsibility of that Member to be mindful of public perception and decide whether they should partake in the debate on any given application.

(b)     Councillor Griffiths agreed that the message regarding the differences between the services provided by the county, borough and town/parish councils was a difficult issue to effectively communicate, and information detailing the financial split on council tax bills attempted to avoid the confusion. 

(c)     A suggestion regarding the feasibility of a ‘Western Relief Road’ could be brought to the attention of the Highway Authority and other partners.

(d)     Officers were investigating the reasons for the apparent dysfunctionality of the West Suffolk website which temporarily prevented respondents from completing the questionnaire relating to second round of consultation on the WSOH. 

(e)     Improvements to transport links between Cambridge and Haverhill and more infrastructure in general in that locality was supported.  Working with the Highway Authority, the Local Enterprise Partnerships and other partners through prospective devolution, it was hoped that through a combination of funding and focus, aspirations for that area would be delivered. 

(Council Procedure Rules Section 6) Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question of not more than five minutes duration.

(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 and Elections) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 22 February 2016. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.)

The following question was put and answered during this item:

1.  Colin Hilder of Fornham St Genevieve, asked a question in connection with planning enforcement issues.  Whilst it was positively acknowledged that progress had recently been made in the number of enforcement cases being resolved, Mr Hilder considered the Council should be more transparent and follow other councils’ practice, and publish full details of outstanding enforcement and s106 Agreement cases on the Council’s website on a quarterly basis.  Mr Hilder then drew attention to Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) operating sites and that the Council should comment on applications for the licensing of HGV operating sites, as facilitated by the Traffic Commissioner, and recommend appropriate environmental conditions to instigate a degree of control over the number of HGVs operating in the locality. 

In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth stated that significant progress had been made on resolving enforcement cases and he would support the publication of successes in this area in order to deter future breaches of conditions and planning regulations.  Compliance with the Data Protection Act was of utmost importance and St Edmundsbury Borough Council’s interpretation regarding the level of personal data able to be published under the Act appeared to differ from other councils’ understanding, and this would be looked into to see if any changes should be made regarding the publication of such cases.  

In respect of responding to applications for the licensing of HGV operating sites, resources were being looked into to devote to this; however, the potential cost implications would need to be taken into consideration before making any commitment to this.

To receive a verbal report of the Chairman of the Mayoral Advisory Committee.

The Chairman of the Mayoral Advisory Committee, Councillor Ian Houlder, reported informally that the Committee had recommended that:

·         The present Deputy Mayor, Councillor Julia Wakelam be nominated for the office of Mayor of St Edmundsbury for the 2016/2017 civic year; and

·         Councillor Terry Clements be nominated for the office of Deputy Mayor of St Edmundsbury for the 2016/2017 civic year.

The elections of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for 2016/2017 would be held at the Annual Meeting of the Council on 19 May 2016.

Both Councillors Wakelam and Clements were delighted to accept their respective nominations and thanked Members for their support.

Report No: COU/SE/16/002

Council considered the Referrals report of Recommendations from Cabinet and Democratic Renewal Working Party contained within Report No: COU/SE/16/002.

(A)    Referrals from Cabinet: 9 February 2016

1.       Annual Treasury Management and Investment Strategy Statements 2016/2017

Approval was sought for the Annual Treasury Management and Investment Strategy Statements 2016/2017.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management required that, prior to the start of the financial year Council should formally approve an Annual Treasury Management and Investment Strategy, setting out the Council’s treasury management policy and strategy statements for the forthcoming year.

Members were informed that no major changes had been made to the Strategy or Code of Practice since they were last approved by Council in February 2015.

On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, and duly carried it was

RESOLVED: That

(1)     the Annual Treasury Management and Investment Strategy Statements 2016/2017, as contained in Appendix 1 to Report No: TMS/SE/16/002, be adopted; and 

(2)     the Treasury Management Code of Practice 2016/2017, as contained in Appendix 2 to Report No: TMS/SE/16/002, be approved.

2.       Budget and Council Tax Setting 2016/2017 and Medium Term Financial Strategy

The recommendations arising from this report were considered separately under Agenda Item 9 (Minute 132 refers).

3.       Enterprise Zones: Update

Approval was sought for a number of recommendations associated with accepting the allocation of Enterprise Zones at Haverhill Research Park and 14 hectares of land at Suffolk Business Park, Bury St Edmunds.

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Enterprise Zone (EZ) bids made by the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (which included 14 hectares of Land at Suffolk Business Park) and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership (which included Haverhill Research Park) had been successful.  The Cabinet report (CAB/SE/16/006 refers) provided details of the demonstrable benefits of this status; however, there remained a number of financial implications that needed to be worked through, particularly in respect of associated prospective business rates income and business rates retention. As the exact position regarding these matters was at present unclear from Government, delegated authority was being sought by Council for Cabinet to manage specific details to support the development of the EZs.

Whilst support was generally shown for the allocation of EZ status for the two sites, some reservation was expressed regarding the lack of clarity from Government on funding for the schemes, including the role of the Local Enterprise Partnerships in the allocation of future business rates income, and whether any subsidy to businesses located in the EZs would be expected of the taxpayer in the future. It was also felt that consideration should also be given to enabling a level of Member scrutiny on the proposed business cases before decisions on these were taken by Cabinet. 

In response, Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Report No: COU/SE/16/003

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/003 which presented the proposals for Budget and Council Tax Setting in 2016/2017 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 

Attention was firstly drawn to the amended version of Attachment A, which had been previously circulated by email, as referred to in Minute 126 above.  The costs had now been shown with internal recharges removed in order to give greater clarity on support services.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that Report No: COU/SE/16/003 set out details of the Council’s proposed revenue and capital budgets for 2016/2017.  The Cabinet had been required to consider the 2016/2017 budget for the authority and had recommended to Council a proposed council tax increase of 1.952%, which equated to an increase in £3.42 for an average Band D property, to help fund this budget.  The council tax precept for St Edmundsbury Borough Council (SEBC) in 2016/2017 would therefore be £178.65 for an average Band D property.

The Council continued to face considerable financial challenges as a result of uncertainty in the wider economy and constraints on public sector spending.  In this context, and like many other councils, difficult financial decisions were needed to be made.  The Council had however, an excellent track record of achieving substantial year-on-year budget savings and generating new income.

Budget pressures included:

(a)     increased demand in key services such as Housing Benefits and Housing;

(b)     inflationary costs and employer’s pension liabilities;

(c)     increase in business rate appeals; and

(d)     changes to Government policies, including the Local Government finance settlement. The Council had seen a 67% cumulative cut in Revenue Support Grant (RSG) funding over the three years from 2013/2014 to 2015/2016 with a cut of 49% for 2016/2017.  

Financial uncertainty continued beyond 2016/2017, namely:

(a)     A Business Rate 100% Retention Scheme was expected by 2020, however, detail was yet to be forthcoming on how this would be implemented.

(b)     The Government had announced a four year RSG to cover the period up to 2019/2020; however, details regarding qualification and the associated risks were unclear.   Further cuts were expected in subsequent years with an expectation that there would be no RSG available to the borough by 2019/2020. 

(c)     A number of consultations would be undertaken in 2016, including the future of New Homes Bonus and changes to the Local Government finance system, therefore the outcomes and implications of these were not yet known.

(d)     The Council Tax Freeze Grant, which incentivised councils to freeze their council tax levels had not been included in the settlement for 2016/2017 onwards.

The above increased the risk of uncertainty but may provided opportunities to influence the future financial situation, such as by behaving more commercially.

Councillor Houlder continued and thanked Members of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee for their scrutiny of a number of proposals that had been worked on to bridge the approximate budget gap of £1.9 million for 2016/2017.  All staff and Members alike were then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Report No: COU/SE/16/004

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/004, which sought approval for a number of recommendations for amendments to the St Edmundsbury Borough Council (SEBC) Constitution.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the proposed amendments had been jointly considered with Members of Forest Heath District Council (FHDC) that sat on the informal Joint Constitution Review Group, which would help ensure both SEBC’s and FHDC’s Constitutions remained aligned where possible.  The proposed amendments largely sought to clarify some operational anomalies.

On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, and duly carried it was

RESOLVED:

That the following amendments to the St Edmundsbury Borough Council Constitution be approved:

(1)     Part 3 - Functions and Responsibilities; Section 2 – Responsibility for Council Functions; C. Other Committees; C.4 - West Suffolk Joint Emergency Planning Panel;C.6 - West Suffolk Joint Health and Safety Panel;C.7 - West Suffolk Joint Staff Consultative Panel

(a)       That Sections C.4, C.6 and C.7 be amended, for reasons of clarity, to reflect the position with regard to the public access to these meetings and that the following wording be incorporated within these Sections:

“These meetings are not governed by the normal Access to Information rules (The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012) in both Councils.”

(b)   That additional wording be included on the agenda papers for these Panels to confirm that these meetings are not open to the public and that any recommendations which arise from these meetings will be reported onto Cabinet/Council, where required to do so.

(2)     Part 4 - Rules of Procedure – Council Procedure Rules; Section 6 – Public Question Time

That an additional new paragraph 6.2 be added to Section 6 - Public Question Time as follows:

6.2     A person who wishes to speak must register at least fifteen minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start.  This can be done online by sending the request to democratic.services@westsuffolk.gov.uk or telephoning 01284 757120/01638 719363 or in person by telling the committee administrator present at the meeting.

(3)   Part 4 - Rules of Procedure – Committee Procedure Rules; Section 11 – Public Speaking

That additional paragraphs 11.5 and 11.6 be added to Section 11 – Public Speaking, as follows:

11.5       These public speaking rules do not apply to meetings of the Development Control Committee, as the Committee has its own authority to determine from time to time, its own arrangements for public speaking on applications, and which matters are to be included within those arrangements (see Part 3 – Functions and Responsibilities; Section 2 – Responsibility for Council functions; A - Development Control; paragraph 4.2 and as set out in the 'Guide to Having a Say on Planning Applications' )

11.6   These public speaking rules do not apply to meetings of the Licensing and Regulatory Committee, when the Committee sits as a hearing, in which case the Hearing Procedure Rules will apply (Part 3 –  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Report No: COU/SE/16/005

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/005, which sought approval for the proposed calendar of meetings for 2016/2017.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that other meetings not listed in the Council’s Constitution and those arranged on an ad-hoc basis would be scheduled throughout 2016/2017 and Members would be advised of these separately.

On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Robert Everitt, and duly carried it was

RESOLVED:

That the Calendar of Meetings for 2016/2017, attached as Appendix A to Report No: COU/SE/16/005, be approved.

(Subsequent to the meeting, it transpired that the meeting of the Sustainable Development Working Party (SDWP) arranged for 20 September 2016 ‘clashed’ with a meeting of Joint FHDC/SEBC Cabinet, and therefore following approval of the SDWP on 17 March 2016, the SDWP meeting was rearranged 22 September 2016 at the later than usual time of 6.00 pm)

Following the recent sad death of Councillor Tim Marks,  this has resulted in a vacancy arising for a representative from the Borough Council to sit on Suffolk County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee. 

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

Given the willingness of Councillor Paul Hopfensperger to sit on this joint body and there being no further nominations, on 13 January 2016, the Committee nominated him for the interim period until its meeting in June 2016 when the Committee will seek to nominate a representative for the full 2016/2017 municipal year.

It is RECOMMENDED that Councillor Paul Hopfensperger be nominated as the Borough Council’s representative on Suffolk County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee for the interim period until a Member, and if required, a substitute Member, are nominated for the full 2016/2017 municipal year by the Borough Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Council in June 2016.

Council considered a narrative item, which sought approval for a nominated Borough Council representative on Suffolk County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that following the recent sad death of Councillor Tim Marks, a vacancy had arisen for a representative from the Borough Council to sit on Suffolk County Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee. 

On the recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Council was asked to nominate one Member and, if required, one substitute Member to serve on this joint body. No substitute member had however, been nominated on this occasion.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had nominated Councillor Paul Hopfensperger to sit on the Health Scrutiny Committee for the interim period until its meeting in June 2016 when the Committee, in accordance with usual practice, would seek to nominate a representative for the full 2016/2017 year.

On the motion of Councillor John Griffiths seconded by Councillor Diane Hind, and duly carried it was

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Paul Hopfensperger be nominated as the Borough Council’s representative on Suffolk County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the interim period until a Member, and if required, a substitute Member, are nominated for the full 2016/2017 municipal year by the Borough Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Council in June 2016.

Members are invited to ask questions of committee Chairmen on business transacted by their committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 15 December 2015.

Council considered a narrative item, which sought questions of Committee Chairman in business transacted since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 15 December 2015, as outlined below:

 No questions were asked on this occasion.

The Council will consider any urgent questions on notice that were notified to the Service Manager (Democratic Services and Elections) by 11am on the day of the meeting.

No urgent questions on notice had been received.

Part 4, Access to Information Procedural Rules, of the Constitution (paragraph 18.3) requires the Leader of the Council to submit quarterly reports to the Council on the Executive decisions taken (if any) in the circumstances set out in Rule 17, Special urgency in the preceding three months.

Accordingly, the Leader of the Council reports that no executive decisions have been taken under the Special Urgency provisions of the constitution.

Council received and noted a narrative item, as required by the Council’s Constitution, in which the Leader of the Council reported that at the time the Council agenda was published, no executive decisions had been taken under the special urgency provisions of the Constitution.