Agenda and minutes

The Mayor’s Chaplain, the Very Reverend Canon Mark Hackeson of St Edmunds’ Church, opened the meeting with prayers.

A minute’s silence was held in remembrance for the late former Councillors Phillip French and Allan Jones; and also for the late Jo Cox MP.

(Council Procedure Rules Section 10)

Council Procedure Rule 10.1(o) of the Constitution allows a motion to be moved to suspend a particular Council procedure rule.

Given the public interest shown in a number of the items listed on this Council agenda, Council is asked to consider suspending Council Procedure Rule 6 of the Constitution, which sets out the procedure for Public Question Time (PQT).

Contrary to Procedure Rule 6, it is proposed that two separate sessions of PQT of up to a maximum of 30 minutes each to be provided for:

(a)     members of the public to specifically address Council on Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016 - West Suffolk Operational Hub; and

(b)     following an adjournment and consideration of the Leader’s Statement, other questions to be put by members of the public on the remaining agenda items or other work of the Council.

Should two separate sessions of Public Question Time be provided, the procedure rules set out in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.9 of Council Procedure Rule 6 would still need to be followed and applied to either the first or second session, as appropriate.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that:

(1)     in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1(o), Council Procedure Rule 6 be suspended to enable two separate sessions of Public Question Time (PQT) of up to a maximum of 30 minutes each to be provided, in accordance with (a) and (b) above; and

(2)     the procedure rules set out in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.9 of Council Procedure Rule 6 be followed and applied to either the first or second session, as appropriate.

Council considered a narrative item which sought to suspend Council Procedure Rule 6 of the Constitution.

Council Procedure Rule 6 set out the procedure for Public Question Time (PQT).  Given the public interest shown in a number of the items listed on the Council agenda, it was proposed that this particular Procedure Rule be suspended to enable two separate sessions of PQT of up to a maximum of 30 minutes each to be provided for:

(a)     members of the public to specifically address Council on Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016 – West Suffolk Operational Hub; and

(b)     following an adjournment and consideration of the Leader’s Statement, other questions to be put by members of the public on the remaining agenda items or other work of the Council.

On the motion of Councillor John Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Frank Warby, and duly carried it was

RESOLVED: That

(1)     in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1(o), Council Procedure Rule 6 be suspended to enable two separate sessions of Public Question Time (PQT) of up to a maximum of 30 minutes each to be provided, in accordance with (a) and (b) above; and

(2)     the procedure rules set out in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.9 of Council Procedure Rule 6 be followed and applied to either the first or second session, as appropriate.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on:

(a)     23 February 2016

(b)     19 April 2016 (Extraordinary Meeting)

(c)     19 May 2016 (Annual Meeting)

(Copies attached)

The minutes of the meetings held on 23 February, 19 April (Extraordinary meeting) and 19 May 2016 (Annual meeting) were confirmed as correct records and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor reported on the civic engagements and charity activities which she and her Consort, and the Deputy Mayor and Mayoress had attended since the Mayor’s election on 19 May 2016.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Terry Buckle, Bob Cockle, Jeremy Farthing and Karen Richardson.

The interim Service Manager (Legal and Democratic Services) then drew attention to the advice he had previously circulated regarding the potential declaration of disclosable pecuniary or local non-pecuniary interests that Members may or may not have when considering Agenda Item 11, Referral from Democratic Renewal Working Party: 23 May 2016 – Community Governance Review. 

No indication was given to show that Members were not fully conversant with the advice provided.  

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.

The Leader of the Council will provide a verbal statement.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, provided a brief verbal introduction to the debate on the forthcoming consideration of Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016 West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH).  His written statement, containing references to other Council matters, was to be presented under Agenda Item 9.

Councillor Griffiths gave thanks to those that had responded to the WSOH consultation; members of the public in attendance at the meeting; the WSOH project team; other officers and councillors across St Edmundsbury Borough, Forest Heath District and Suffolk County Council. 

In response to a question, Councillor Griffiths informed that the former Padley Poultry factory site was indeed sited on Mildenhall Road and not Northern Way, as had been indicated on Map 24 and various other references within Appendices B and C attached to Report No: CAB/SE/16/024. 

Subject to approval of the recommendations contained in Agenda Item 1 above, members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question of not more than five minutes duration on Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016, West Suffolk Operational Hub. A person who wishes to speak must register at least fifteen minutes before the scheduled meeting start time of 6pm.

(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 on Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016, West Suffolk Operational Hub.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 (Legal and Democratic Services) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 27 June 2016.. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.)*

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

The following questions were put and answered during this first session of Public Question Time.

1.  Adrian Graves of Great Barton,asked why, having undertaken a second period of consultation within which the Council had asked for potential sites for a West Suffolk Operational Hub to be put forward, a new criterion (traffic) had been added and sites had been scored against the site selection criteria, that it chose to dismiss sites which he considered to be compelling, viable alternatives that would cost less to implement?

In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that each alternative site suggested was investigated and scored against the site selection criteria.  The options assessment was also

re-scored to take into account the new traffic criterion.  The detailed, objective research had clearly shown that Hollow Road Farm was the best option for a West Suffolk Operational Hub which would future-proof waste services for the growing population.

2.  Phillip Reeve, Chairman of Great Barton Parish Council, referred to a perceived lack of passion towards protecting the well-being of the communities most closely affected by the proposal; the credence of the Sustainability Appraisal at Appendix C attached to Report No: CAB/SE/16/024; and asked a question regarding a viable (in his opinion), alternative site that had been suggested north of Symonds Farm which had not been assessed, and how he felt that 6.5 hectares of, what he considered to be, prime agricultural land at Hollow Road Farm should not be destroyed when sites that had been put forward had not all been assessed.

In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that he had a duty to represent those that lived and worked in west Suffolk together with those in his own ward, which he did with a passion, as well as being passionate about providing the best waste services now and into the future.  In respect of the potential loss of agricultural land -  if a West Suffolk Operational Hub was to be sited at Hollow Road Farm, page 44 of the Identification and Assessment of Potential Options and Sites (IAPOS) report at Appendix B attached to Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 set out the planning policy sequence that needed to be taken into account before land was to be selected for development.  Should Council approve the recommendations contained in Report No: COU/SE/16/007 (re-produced from Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/024), a detailed planning application would be prepared for consideration by the Development Control Committee and it would be its decision regarding whether the Hollow Road Farm site was an acceptable location.

3.  Mike Collier, Chairman of Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council, expressed concern regarding the potential increase in vehicle movements in the vicinity of Hollow Road Farm should the decision be taken to proceed with siting a West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) in this location.  Mr Collier specifically asked whether the Councils [St Edmundsbury Borough, Forest Heath District and Suffolk County Councils] could confirm that the results of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Report No: COU/SE/16/007

(Councillors Tony Brown, John Burns, Terry Clements, Beccy Hopfensperger, David Nettleton and Sarah Stamp declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Suffolk County Council and remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/007, which sought approval for several recommendations referred from Cabinet to enable the progression of the West Suffolk Operational Hub project.

The Service Manager (Legal and Democratic Services) firstly provided guidance to Members before their consideration of the item in connection with avoiding the perception of pre-determination and/or bias towards the proposal.  Members were reminded that the planning aspects of this item were not under consideration by Council, and guidance was particularly directed at Members that also sat on the Development Control Committee (DCC) and, specifically Cabinet Members that were also Members of DCC, regarding potential issues they should consider given their positions.

On 14 June 2016, the Cabinet had considered Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 during joint informal discussions with Forest Heath District Council’s Cabinet.  For ease of reference, this report was attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: COU/SE/16/007; however due to the number of pages contained in Appendices A, B and C to that report, these were not attached but were available to view online. The appendices were:

Appendix A: Consultation Report

Appendix B: Identification and Assessment of Potential Options and Sites (updated since the first round of consultation)

Appendix C: Sustainability Appraisal (updated since the first round of consultation)

Upon consideration of the report and its recommendations at that meeting, and given the significance and public interest in the item, the Cabinets had resolved to waive their executive decision making powers and made all five recommendations contained in the report subject to full Council approval.

Both St Edmundsbury Borough and Forest Heath District Councils’ Cabinets unanimously agreed to support the recommendations contained in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 (and for reference purposes those in Forest Heath Cabinet Report No: CAB/FH/16/023), and these were now recommended to both Councils for approval.

Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that following concerns raised during the first consultation on this project, a commitment had been made to re-consult.  A new consultation was subsequently carried out between 8 January and 19 February 2016, which included placing documentation that had supported the development of a WSOH in the public domain for scrutiny and comment, and also that suggestions for alternative sites to locate a potential WSOH had been sought.

Councillor Stevens acknowledged the extensive work undertaken by respondents to produce the quality of comments received during the second round of consultation, and he thanked those that had responded accordingly. 

He then summarised the detail of the report and its appendices, which had concluded that:

(1)     With significant housing growth in west Suffolk over the next 20 years or so with an estimated increase of more than 22% (from around 75,000 to 92,000 households), this would place increased demand on waste and street services. The current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

Paper No: COU/SE/16/008

(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 written statement, as contained in Paper No: COU/SE/16/008.

As Councillor Griffiths had already provided his introductory remarks earlier during Agenda Item 6, he had nothing further to add to his written statement.

No questions were asked on this occasion.

Subject to approval of the recommendations contained in Agenda Item 1 above, Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to, with the exception of Agenda Item 8 above, put one question of not more than five minutes duration on the items contained on this Council agenda, or any other subject matter relating to the work of the Council. A person who wishes to speak must register at least fifteen minutes before the scheduled start time following the adjournment of this meeting of 7.30pm.

(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 (Legal and Democratic Services) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 27 June 2016.. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.)*

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

(During the Question put by Parish Councillor Phillip Reeve, Chairman of Great Barton Parish Council, which referred to Appendix B: Issue 3 (Vision 2031 Strategic Site 'North East Bury St Edmunds'), Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this matter as her husband owned an area of land located within this strategic site allocation.  Councillor Broughton left the meeting during the speech made by Councillor Reeve on this particular issue and returned upon his conclusion.)

The following questions were put and answered during this second session of Public Question Time.

1.  Nathan Loader of Kedington Parish Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 13, Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Haverhill’ and asked a question in connection with Kedington Parish Council’s and other local respondents’ representations submitted during the consultation on the above Issue of the CGR, that the green buffer zone around Calford Green should not to be encompassed in to Haverhill Parish.

In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council provided detailed background to the legislation for CGRs and how they should be conducted.  The Boundary Commission’s guidance was clear that the decision on a parish boundary could be based on a number of local factors, often requiring a subjective view to be reached.  As there had been no consensus on this matter, the Democratic Renewal Working Party had considered the conflicting consultation responses of those in Kedington and from Haverhill Town Council, and had recommended that, as it was part of the masterplan for the growth site, the proposed parkland was most closely associated with the new development which, in CGR terms, would be in Haverhill Parish.  Members would carefully consider these recommendations during the debate of the Issue under Agenda Item 9.

Councillor Griffiths also reiterated that in planning terms, the proposed park land was intended to act as a buffer between settlements, which it would continue to do so, whatever the outcome of the CGR and the parish in which it would be designated.

2.  Colin Poole, Clerk to Haverhill Town Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 13, Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Haverhill’ and Issue 14, ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’.  He firstly expressed support for the recommendations of the Democratic Renewal Working Party (DRWP) in connection with Issue 13 and provided feedback on the position of Kedington Parish Council; and subsequently asked that, providing reasons why, the Council should not accept the recommendation of the DRWP in respect of Issue 14. If resolved, the existing boundary would be retained, which would mean Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park) would remain in Withersfield Parish, whereas the Town Council felt Hanchett End was more closely associated with Haverhill Parish.

In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council acknowledged Mr Poole’s comments and stated they would be noted during the debate on the issues when the agenda item was reached.  He also referred to his previous response to Parish Councillor Loader in connection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 169.

Report No: COU/SE/16/009

(Councillors Patrick Chung, Robert Everitt, Wayne Hailstone, Diane Hind, Paul Hopfensperger, Joanna Rayner, Richard Rout, Andrew Speed, Clive Springett, Peter Thompson, Frank Warby and Patsy Warby  declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Bury St Edmunds Town Council.  Councillors Tony Brown, John Burns, Jason Crooks, Paula Fox, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, David Roach, Barry Robbins and Anthony Williams declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Haverhill Town Council.  Councillor Tony Brown declared a local non-pecuniary interest as a Member of Suffolk County Council for Haverhill East and Kedington Division. All of the aforementioned Members remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)

(Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in Appendix B: Issue 3 (Vision 2031 Strategic Site 'North East Bury St Edmunds') as her husband owned an area of land located within this strategic site allocation.  Councillor Broughton left the meeting during the consideration of and voting upon this particular Issue.)

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/009, which sought approval for several recommendations emanating from the meeting of the Democratic Renewal Working Party held on 23 May 2016, following phase 2 of the consultation on the Community Governance Review (CGR).

Councillor Patsy Warby, Chairman of the Democratic Renewal Working Party, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the initial evidence gathering, which had formed the first phase of the review, had taken place between September and November 2015 to inform the Council’s recommendations, and these had been agreed by Council in December 2015.   Phase 2, and the final consultation stage, was the publication of those recommendations, and the consultation had run from February 2016 to April 2016. The Working Party had made recommendations on each Issue, which were summarised in the various appendices attached to the report, as follows:

Appendix A:  statutory final recommendations affecting all Issues.  These were generic and were required to be adopted under the CGR legislation.

Appendix B:  After two stages of consultation, this appendix contained 10 Issues where there was still no consensus.  The final recommendations of the Working Party were presented, together with a short summary setting out its reasoning.  Members also noted that, in light of consultation evidence, and as detailed in this appendix, the Working Party had recommended that the Council did not adopt two of the final recommendations agreed in December 2015, which were in connection with Issue 14, Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’ and Issue 19, Elm Farm and associated cottages, Assington Green, Stansfield.

Appendix C:  final recommendations in respect of 13 Issues, of which no new and/or significant issues were raised during the phase 2 consultation.

Appendix D:  updates on Issues which were determined at the Council meeting in December 2015 (for noting only). This included the impact of the CGR on the Borough and County Council’s electoral arrangements and the timing of any Electoral Review for the Borough Council. 

Subject to the Council’s decisions upon whether to implement changes associated with the respective Issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

Report No: COU/SE/16/010

(Councillors Tony Brown, John Burns, Terry Clements, Beccy Hopfensperger, David Nettleton and Sarah Stamp declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Suffolk County Council and remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/010, which sought endorsement of the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution Agreement, support for the Governance Review and agreement for a Scheme of Governance to be published for public consultation, as set out in the following appendices attached to the report:

Appendix A: Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution Deal Agreement

Appendix B: Norfolk and Suffolk Governance Review

Appendix C: Norfolk and Suffolk Scheme of Governance

After extensive negotiations between Government and the Norfolk and Suffolk Leaders, a proposed Devolution Agreement had been developed.  Council was required to assess whether to endorse the Devolution Deal Agreement at Appendix A and authorise the Leader to sign it.

Council was also asked to support the Governance Review and agree the publication of the Scheme of Governance.  This would allow the Council to report to the Secretary of State such views to inform his decision on the Devolution Deal and the Scheme for the Mayoral Combined Authority. 

The Devolution Agreement attached to the report was just the start of the Devolution process. Greater Manchester, the model for a number of the Devolution Deals, had now agreed the content of its fourth Deal and in April 2016 took on responsibility for the Health budget in the area. Members noted there was significant potential to extend the range of responsibilities, powers and funding in the coming months and years and endorsement of the report and its appendices sought to put into place the mechanisms to deliver increased local leadership for public services and greater autonomy over the levers for growth in this area. 

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including firstly drawing attention to the following two changes to the report (which would also be considered by all authorities across Norfolk and Suffolk):

(a)     As a direct consequence of the EU Referendum result and following discussions with HM Treasury, paragraph 12 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Devolution Agreement (which related to the management of EU funding) at Appendix A was no longer valid.  This would not impact the Governance Review or Scheme of Governance; and as this was a corrective change, neither would it affect the recommendations contained in Report No: COU/SE/16/010.  This paragraph would therefore be removed from the version of the document, which if endorsed, was required to be signed by the Leader of the Council.

(b)     The third bullet point at paragraph 4.4 of Report No: COU/SE/16/010, should be amended to read, ‘a guaranteed £225m annual transport budget for the next five four years’.

Councillor Griffiths added that the decisions taken at this meeting were not the final decisions and did not legally commit the Council to participating in a Combined Authority, as detailed in Section 8 of the report. The final decision about whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

Further to Report No: COU/SE/16/007, due for consideration under Agenda Item 8 on this Council agenda, which specifically refers to the referral of recommendations from Cabinet on the West Suffolk Operational Hub, Report No: COU/SE/16/011 has been produced to enable Council to consider the remaining referral of recommendations from Cabinet since the extraordinary meeting of Council on 19 April 2016.

Council considered the Referrals report of Recommendations from Cabinet contained within Report No: COU/SE/16/011.

Council noted that the referral on the West Suffolk Operational Hub had already been considered under Agenda Item 8 above.

(A)    Referrals from Cabinet: 24 May 2016

There were no referrals from the Cabinet meeting held on 24 May 2016.

(B)    Referral from Cabinet: 14 June 2016

1.       Guildhall Project, Bury St Edmunds

Approval was sought for the principle of making a bridging loan to enable the progression of conservation works at the Guildhall.

In March 2013, the Council joined a consortium with the Guildhall Feoffment Trust and the Bury St Edmunds Heritage Trust Limited to pursue a major refurbishment project for the Guildhall, with the additional long-term aim of making the Guildhall an independent and sustainable community enterprise.  This joint venture was defined by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was approved and signed in 2013 between the three parties, and contained provisions for the asset management of the Guildhall and its companion property, 79 Whiting Street for the duration of the project. 

On 14 June 2016, the Cabinet authorised officers to update the MoU and Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/028 provided further details of the basis upon which the MOU was required to be updated, as detailed in paragraphs 1.5 and 1.8 of that report, which was in response to the evolvement of the refurbishment project and the greater certainty given regarding the granting of Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) funding.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that in May 2016, the project was awarded a grant of £669,000 from the HLF for the refurbishment.   Details of the type of conservation work to be undertaken were summarised in the Cabinet report.  A condition of the HLF grant was that the necessary match-funding must be assembled by October 2016 and, if it were, works could start at that time, with a targeted completion date of summer 2018.   The Heritage Trust was now seeking the balance of that match-funding, from a variety of sources. 

The Borough Council entered into the project with the partners in 2013 on the basis that the taxpayer would not be required to provide direct capital support.  However, a potential short-term scenario had been identified whereby committed sources of match-funding assembled in the coming months were not technically available to the Trustees to spend by the HLF funding deadline in autumn 2016 (for instance if committed from a 2017/18 budget).  The Trustees had therefore requested that, if there was reasonable certainty the match-funding would be achieved, the Council would, as a fall-back option, consider offering them a bridging loan, if required, this autumn to guarantee the project would go ahead.   This would achieve the objectives of the MOU and address the largest project risk, which was the loss of the HLF grant.

Further details regarding proposed terms for granting a loan were provided in the Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/028, together with the possibility  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172.

Paragraph 7.5.1 of Article 7 of the Council’s Constitution requires that ‘The Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee must report annually to the full Council on their workings and make recommendations for future work programmes and amended working methods if appropriate’.

Report No: COU/SE/16/012

Council is asked to NOTE the content of Report No: COU/SE/16/012.

Council received and noted the Annual Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committees, previously circulated as Report No. COU/SE/16/012.

Article 7 of the Council’s Constitution required that ‘the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee must report annually to the full Council on their workings and make recommendations for future work programmes and amended working methods if appropriate.’

Councillor Diane Hind, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.  Councillor Sarah Broughton, Chairman of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee, added her comments regrading the specific work of her Committee.

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

For 2016/2017, the Committee has re-nominated Councillor Paul Hopfensperger to sit on this joint body, and nominated Councillor Margaret Marks asthe substitute Member.

It is RECOMMENDED to Council that Councillor Paul Hopfensperger be nominated as the Borough Council’s representative and Councillor Margaret Marks as the substitute Member on the Suffolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for 2016-2017.

Council considered a narrative item which sought the appointment of a representative and a substitute Member from the Borough Council to serve on Suffolk County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

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

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Paul Hopfensperger be appointed as the Borough Council’s nominated representative, and Councillor Margaret Marks as the substitute Member, on the Suffolk Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee for 2016/2017.

Report No: COU/SE/16/013

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/013, which sought approval for a number of amendments to the Council’s Constitution, as recommended by the Joint Constitution Review Group and the Mayoral Advisory Committee.

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Joint Constitution Review Group had recommended some amendments to Part 3 and Part 4 the Constitution, as set out in Appendices A to F.  The Group had also recommended that Procedure Rules for the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel should also be included in the Constitution, and these were contained in Appendix G.

Appendix H (which was a duplicate of Appendix A to Report No: MAC/SE/16/003)  provided proposed changes to the Mayoralty Protocol for incorporation into Part 5 of the Constitution, as recommended by the Mayoral Advisory Committee.  The proposed changes were in relation to the Council’s financing of twinning events.

In response to questions, Councillor Houlder informed Council that:

(a)     the Borough Council would welcome involvement from Bury St Edmunds Town Council (and other partners) regarding future support for twinning events; and

(b)     a written response would be provided regarding the breakdown of the Civic Regalia and Insignia budget for 2016/2017.

On the motion of Councillor Houlder, seconded by Councillor Frank Warby, and duly carried it was

RESOLVED: That

Recommendations from the Joint Constitution Review Group:

6 June 2016

(1)     The revised wording in the St Edmundsbury Borough Council Constitution, be approved in relation to:

(a)     Part 3 – Functions and Responsibilities: Section 2 – Responsibility for Council Functions

(i)      A – Development Control (as set out in Appendix A to Report No COU/SE/16/013

(b)     Part 3 – Functions and Responsibilities: Section 4 - Scheme of Delegation to Officers

(i)      Head of Human Resources, Legal and Democratic Services (which relates specifically to the delegations of the Service Manager (Legal and Democratic Services) and the Elections Manager) (as set out in Appendix B to Report No COU/SE/16/013).

(ii)      Head of Operations (as set out in Appendix C to Report No COU/SE/16/013).

(iii)     Head of Planning and Growth (which relate specifically to the Officer delegations within the Planning and Development Matters) (as set out in Appendix D to Report No COU/SE/16/013).

(c)     Part 4 – Rules of Procedure

(i)      Council Procedure Rules (as set out in Appendix E to Report No COU/SE/16/013).

(ii)      Committee Procedure Rules (as set out in Appendix F to Report No COU/SE/16/013).

(2)     To note the inclusion in the St Edmundsbury Borough Council Constitution of the Procedure Rules for the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel (as set out in Appendix G to Report No COU/SE/16/013).

Recommendations from the Mayoral Advisory Committee:

31 March 2016: Mayoralty Protocol – The Financing of Twinning Events

(1)     The adoption of the practices outlined in (a) to (g) below, be approved; and

(2)     the changes required to the Constitution, working practices and the Mayoralty Protocol as a consequence of the recommendations be made as detailed and tracked on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Owing to illness, Councillor Terry Buckle has been unable to attend Council meetings since 23 February 2016.  Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that failure to attend for six consecutive months will lead to a Councillor ceasing to be a member of the authority unless, before the end of that six-month period, the authority approves the reason for non-attendance.  In this case, if Councillor Buckle continues to not attend Council meetings, the six consecutive month period will expire on 23 August 2016.  

Council is RECOMMENDEDto approve the non-attendance of Councillor Terry Buckle at meetings for a period in excess of six consecutive months by reason of ill health, in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, and that the situation be reviewed at the next ordinary meeting of Council on 27 September 2016.

Council considered a narrative item, which sought approval for a dispensation to be granted for the non-attendance of Councillor Terry Buckle at meetings for a period in excess of six consecutive months.

Owing to illness, Councillor Buckle had been unable to attend Council meetings since 23 February 2016.  Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 provided that failure to attend for six consecutive months would lead to the Councillor ceasing to be a member of the authority unless, before the end of that six-month period, the authority approved the reason for non-attendance.

On the motion of Councillor John Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder and duly carried it was

RESOLVED:

That the non-attendance of Councillor Terry Buckle at meetings for a period in excess of six consecutive months be approved, by reason of ill health, in accordance with Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, and that the situation be reviewed at the next ordinary meeting of Council on 27 September 2016.

Members are invited to ask questions of committee Chairmen on business transacted by their committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 23 February 2016.

Council considered a narrative item, which sought questions of Committee Chairman in business transacted since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 23 February 2016, as outlined below:

 No questions were asked on this occasion.

The Council will consider any urgent questions on notice that were notified to the Interim Service Manager (Legal and Democratic Services) 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.