Agenda and minutes

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

The Mayor welcomed Councillor Trevor Beckwith to his first meeting of Council following his recent election to the Moreton Hall Ward.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 27 September 2016 and 21 November 2016 (extraordinary meeting) (copies attached).

The minutes of the meetings held on 27 September 2016 and 21 November 2016 (extraordinary 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 last ordinary meeting of Council held on 27 September 2016.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jason Crooks, Jeremy Farthing and Susan Glossop.

(Councillor Peter Thompson was absent and did not at any point join the meeting during the proceedings.)

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 interest are recorded under the item to which the declaration relates.

Paper No: COU/SE/16/020

(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/16/020.

In addition to his statement, Councillor Griffiths formally welcomed Councillor Trevor Beckwith to the meeting; and as this was the last meeting of Council in 2016, he formally acknowledged the work of the Mayor, fellow Councillors and staff undertaken through the year.  He particularly paid tribute to Marianne Hulland, Service Manager for Strategic Communications, who was shortly retiring from the organisation.

In response to a question, Councillor Griffiths stated that while the Council had and continued to work successfully with Abbeycroft Leisure to provide improved leisure services throughout the borough, there were presently no plans to provide a 50 metre length swimming pool at Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre. 

(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. 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 10.00 am on Monday 19 December 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.

No members of the public in attendance wished to speak.

Report No: COU/SE/16/021

Council considered the Referrals report of Recommendations from Cabinet contained within Report No: COU/SE/16/021.

(A)    Referrals from Cabinet: 18 October 2016

1.       Arrangements for Appointment of External Auditors

Approval was sought for a preferred option for making appropriate arrangements for the appointment of external auditors.

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

On the motion of Councillor Houlder, seconded by Councillor Sarah Broughton, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

That Option 3, to ‘opt-in’ to the sector led body (Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited (PSAA)) for the independent appointment of the Council’s External Auditor, beginning with responsibilities for the financial year 2018-2019, as set out in Report No: PAS/SE/16/021, be approved.

(B)    Referrals from Cabinet: 1 November 2016

1.       Investing in our Leisure Provision in West Suffolk and Establishing a Long Term Strategic Partnership Approach and Reduced Management Fee with Abbeycroft Leisure

(Councillor Terry Clements declared a pecuniary interest as a Board Member of Abbeycroft Leisure Trust; and due to the nature of his businesses recorded on his Register of Interests, Councillor Richard Rout also declared a pecuniary interest as he was in competition with Abbeycroft Leisure. Both Members left the meeting during the consideration of this particular referral.)

Approval was sought for the creation of a strategic investment fund of £5m across West Suffolk (£3.5m FHDC and £1.5m SEBC) and a specific investment in Skyliner Sports Centre, Bury St Edmunds.

Council noted that the Cabinet had previously approved recommendations relating to the longer term strategic approach to leisure provision in West Suffolk through the future development of a leisure partnership agreement for consideration by St Edmundsbury Borough Council (SEBC) and Forest Heath District Council (FHDC); and a separate investment of £240,000 (ex VAT) into equipment for the Skyliner Sports Centre from the Council’s previously approved capital invest to save fund. 

Councillor Joanna Rayner, Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.  In response to a question, Councillor Rayner explained that the proposed investment fund would be available for schemes across West Suffolk to provide new capacity or upgraded sports and leisure facilities.  The total of £5m (£3.5m FHDC and £1.5m SEBC) would be created within each Council’s capital programmes, and funded from each Council’s strategic priorities and medium financial strategy reserve; however they would remain two separate ‘pots’.  Funding would be allocated from the respective authority’s pot depending on which borough/district the proposed future scheme was located.

On the motion of Councillor Rayner, seconded by Councillor Clive Springett, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

That

(1)     the creation of a strategic investment fund of £5m, as set out in Section 3 of Report No: CAB/SE/16/055,  be approved, funded from the strategic priorities and medium term financial strategy reserve, across West Suffolk (£3.5m FHDC and £1.5m SEBC) with delegated authority given to Cabinet (for sums of £500,000 or more), and delegation to the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture, in conjunction with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 210.

Report No: COU/SE/16/022

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/022, which sought approval for a new Scheme of Members’ Allowances for St Edmundsbury Borough Council.

The West Suffolk Joint Independent Remuneration Panel (the Panel), was appointed for a four-year term from 1 June 2016, and consisted of the following four members:

Sandra Cox; Karen Forster; Clive MacLeod and John (Don) Watson.

Karen Forster was subsequently elected Chairman of the Panel by its own members.

The Panel had previously noted and agreed its Terms of Reference, as outlined in section 2 of the report, and that the Members’ Allowances for both St Edmundsbury Borough Council (SEBC) and Forest Heath District Council were to remain as two separate schemes in their own right.  The Panel had also been appraised of the full range of roles covered by Members in carrying out their duties as District/Borough Councillors in relation to the current Scheme of Members’ Allowances applicable to each respective authority.

Attached to Report No: COU/SE/16/022 were the following appendices:

Appendix A:          The complete list of 35 recommendations put forward by the Panel.

Appendix B:          The Panel’s financial proposals, which set out the current allowances paid; the proposed allowances and the variance for each allowance.

Appendix C:          The proposed revisions to the existing SEBC Members’ Allowances Scheme, shown as tracked changes.

A revised version of Appendix B was tabled at the meeting, which showed an amended calculation relating to the number of Cabinet Members.  The financial proposals had previously illustrated a calculation based on a maximum of seven Cabinet Members (not including the Leader and Deputy Leader); however, a maximum of eight Cabinet Members, plus a Deputy Leader may be appointed by the Leader if required, and therefore the figures were amended to reflect this.  

Karen Forster, Chairman of the Panel, was in attendance and presented a brief overview of the Panel’s deliberations, conclusions and the process undertaken that had led to the significant number of detailed recommendations contained in the report.  Mrs Forster thanked her fellow Panel members, the co-operation of Councillors that had supplied information or had been interviewed as part of the process, together with acknowledging the valuable assistance of the Monitoring Officer and the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny).

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, commended the Panel for its extremely comprehensive review.  However, given the number of detailed recommendations proposed by the Panel, it was felt that the item should be deferred to allow more time to consider these recommendations and other matters raised in the report.

Written comments already made since the publication of the report had been noted by the Panel and Members were asked that should the matter be deferred then any further comments should be emailed to the Head of HR, Legal and Democratic Services by 6 January 2017, which would then be presented to the Panel for consideration before the matter would be reconsidered by Council on 21 February 2017.

The majority of Members considered this was a sensible approach and noted that the current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 211.

Members are invited to ask questions of committee Chairmen on business transacted by their committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 27 September 2016.

(The question asked of Councillor Jim Thorndyke was in connection with planning rules regarding the conversion of agricultural barns for residential use.  Councillor Terry Clements had previously had a planning application for the conversion of an agricultural barn located within his property boundary, which was determined by the Development Control Committee.  He declared a pecuniary interest in relation to this and left the meeting during the consideration of this particular question.)

Council considered a narrative item, which sought questions of Committee Chairmen on business transacted since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 27 September 2016, as outlined below:

In response to a question put to Councillor Jim Thorndyke, Chairman of the Development Control Committee (DCC) in relation to planning rules connected with the conversion of agricultural barns for residential use, Councillor Thorndyke stated that a written response would be provided.

However, it later transpired that this matter was not related to an agenda item from one of the DCC meetings listed above and so should have been addressed separately to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth. The question would however, still be answered in writing.

(Councillors Frank and Patsy Warby left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.)

Councillor David Nettleton has given notice under paragraph 9.1 of the Council Procedure Rules of the following motion:

St Andrews Car Park, Bury St Edmunds

‘The St Andrews short-stay car park is half-empty Monday to Friday, whereas the long-stay section is often close to capacity. The reason is that the current pricing policy encourages shoppers to occupy spaces in the long-stay section intended for town centre workers. By making minor adjustments to the tariffs in both sections of this car park, a more even spread of parking can be achieved for the benefit of our customers and without compromising income streams designed to meet revenue budget targets previously agreed by the Council. The anticipated date of implementation is Monday 3 April 2017.

I therefore propose that the tariffs are revised to the following:(changes highlighted in bold):-

Short-stay section: 30 minutes 60p: 1 hour £1.10 (no change to either): 3 hours £2. At present, there is a 2 hour option at £2 and a 3 hour option at £2.70. Our customers clearly don’t like paying more than £2 for a short-stay of up to 3 hours in this car park, as the number of events per tariff band indicates.

Long-stay section: Daily £4(up from £3). The current difference between 3 hours in the short-stay section and the daily tariff is 30p. The proposed difference would be £2. A few shoppers will pay but the majority will migrate to the short-stay section. Weekly Tickets £10 (down from £11.50) Low Emissions £8 (down from £10). Many shop and office workers are not highly paid but they are key to the continued success of the town centre economy. Weekly tickets are 24/7. There are no changes planned for tariffs in either section at weekends.

In addition, I propose restoring the pedestrian path between the residential streets of Bishops Road/Blomfield Street and the Springfield/Tayfen area beyond, which was arbitrarily truncated last summer without consultation with either local ward members or the community which it served as a link to Wilko and the arc shopping centre.Most importantly, open discussions with West Suffolk College and Suffolk County Council to accommodate students Monday to Friday during term time in the long-stay section. Here also, the implementation date would be Monday 3 April 2017.’

Paragraph 9.5 of the Council Procedure Rules states:

‘Any motion under paragraph 9.1 of these Rules, on being moved and seconded, will usually, without discussion, be referred to the appropriate forum for consideration. The Mayor may, if he/she considers it appropriate, allow the motion to be dealt with at the meeting at which it is moved and seconded provided that the motion, if carried, would not involve the Council in expenditure not included in the Council’s approved revenue or capital budget.’

Councillor David Nettleton had given notice under paragraph 9.1 of the Council Procedure Rules of the following motion:

St Andrews Car Park, Bury St Edmunds

‘The St Andrews short-stay car park is half-empty Monday to Friday, whereas the long-stay section is often close to capacity. The reason is that the current pricing policy encourages shoppers to occupy spaces in the long-stay section intended for town centre workers. By making minor adjustments to the tariffs in both sections of this car park, a more even spread of parking can be achieved for the benefit of our customers and without compromising income streams designed to meet revenue budget targets previously agreed by the Council. The anticipated date of implementation is Monday 3 April 2017.

I therefore propose that the tariffs are revised to the following:(changes highlighted in bold):-

Short-stay section: 30 minutes 60p: 1 hour £1.10 (no change to either): 3 hours £2. At present, there is a 2 hour option at £2 and a 3 hour option at £2.70. Our customers clearly don’t like paying more than £2 for a short-stay of up to 3 hours in this car park, as the number of events per tariff band indicates.

Long-stay section: Daily £4(up from £3). The current difference between 3 hours in the short-stay section and the daily tariff is 30p. The proposed difference would be £2. A few shoppers will pay but the majority will migrate to the short-stay section. Weekly Tickets £10 (down from £11.50) Low Emissions £8 (down from £10). Many shop and office workers are not highly paid but they are key to the continued success of the town centre economy. Weekly tickets are 24/7. There are no changes planned for tariffs in either section at weekends.

In addition, I propose restoring the pedestrian path between the residential streets of Bishops Road/Blomfield Street and the Springfield/Tayfen area beyond, which was arbitrarily truncated last summer without consultation with either local ward members or the community which it served as a link to Wilko and the arc shopping centre.Most importantly, open discussions with West Suffolk College and Suffolk County Council to accommodate students Monday to Friday during term time in the long-stay section. Here also, the implementation date would be Monday 3 April 2017.’

Councillor Nettleton presented his motion, which was duly seconded by Councillor Bob Cockle.

Under Paragraph 9.5 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Mayor considered that if carried, the motion would involve the Council in expenditure not included in the Council’s approved revenue or capital budget, and therefore the matter should be referred without debate to the appropriate forum, which in this case was the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(Councillor Bob Cockle left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.)

The Council will consider any urgent questions on notice that were notified to the Service Manager (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.

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 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.

As the next item on the agenda was exempt, on the motion of Councillor Anthony Williams, seconded by Councillor John Griffiths, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded during the consideration of the following item because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present during the item, 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 the item and, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(At this point, the Mayor’s Chaplain, the Very Reverend Canon Mark Hackeson left the meeting.)

Exempt Appendix 1 to Report No: COU/SE/16/021

Council considered the remaining Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet, as contained in Exempt Appendix 1 to Report No: COU/SE/16/021.

(C)    Referral from Cabinet: 8 December 2016

7.       Exempt: Investing in our Commercial Asset Portfolio (para 3)

Approval was sought for delegated authority to be given to progress an addition to the Council’s commercial asset portfolio, together with associated funding required.

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council. 

Following a detailed discussion, the majority of Members supported the recommendations as proposed in the exempt report.

On the motion of Councillor Pugh, seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

The decision is contained in the exempt version of these minutes.