Agenda and minutes

The Mayor’s Chaplain, The Reverend Canon, Ian Finn, Rector of St Mary’s Church, Haverhill opened the meeting with prayers.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2018 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor reported on the civic engagements and charity activities which she, and the Deputy Mayor and Mayoress had attended since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 25 September 2018.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Trevor Beckwith, Simon Brown, Tony Brown, Jason Crooks, Paula Fox, Wayne Hailstone, Jane Midwood, Joanna Rayner, Barry Robbins, Sarah Stamp and Frank Warby.

Councillor Anthony Williams was also unable to attend the meeting.

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/18/020

(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 Leader’s Statement as contained in Paper No: COU/SE/18/020.

The Leader responded to a range of questions relating to:

(a)     The rise in tourism in West Suffolk: that in Bury St Edmunds in particular, the Council would need to find solutions to mitigate the impact of the rise in tourism which had placed a greater demand on parking and increased traffic generation.  It was however, applauded that despite in times of austerity, the Council had continued to invest in leisure and cultural services, and this had contributed to the rise in tourism figures;

(b)     Housing Provision in West Suffolk: It was suggested that investment in social housing should be back on the Council’s agenda.  This was agreed in principle and the Council very much wished to progress investment in housing provision, and the recent highly successful Housing Conference confirmed the Council’s commitment to supporting housing delivery in West Suffolk.  Affordable and social housing was an important part of this, and the Council was working in partnership with Housing Associations to bring forward proposals;

(c)     Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE)’s Boundary Review of the district wards for the new West Suffolk Council: Particular reference was given to the new warding arrangements for Abbeygate and Minden Wards in Bury St Edmunds; and the town wards in Haverhill.

Written replies would be provided to questions relating to monies allocated to private landlords from council taxpayers, and in connection with the statements made under (c) above.  The responses would be circulated to all Members for their perusal.

(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 29 October 2018. 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 question was put and answered during this item:

Mr Cliff Waterman, of Bury St Edmunds asked a question in connection with Chancellor Philip Hammond’s Budget announcement regarding the Government’s proposal to increase funding for the Housing Infrastructure Fund and whether the Council had previously received funding from the first round of this Fund. If so, Mr Waterman wished to know the quantity of additional homes built as a result; and the amount of funding the Council would bid for in the second round and the number of homes that could be expected to be built during the second time around.

In response, Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, Portfolio Holder for Housing, stated that no money had been granted in the first round of bidding for the Housing Infrastructure Fund as the Council did not at that time, have schemes that met the Fund’s criteria.  Work would be undertaken with Suffolk County Council to ascertain whether the criteria would be met to enable bidding to take place during future rounds.  Funding had however, been granted from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Land Release Fund, which contributed towards the provision of 79 homes for the St Olaves Road scheme in Bury St Edmunds.

The Council actively sought to apply for funding for housing schemes where possible.

Mr Waterman asked a supplementary question, which was in connection with the reasons for not meeting the criteria during the first round of bidding to the Housing Infrastructure Fund.  In response, Councillor Mildmay-White, stated that the Council did not have a so-called ‘oven-ready’ scheme.  The Government required quick results and no scheme was ready at that time to present to them, which was one of the reasons for applying to an alternative funding source for the St Olaves Road scheme.

No further questions were asked by members of the public present.

Report No: COU/SE/18/021

Council considered the Referrals Report of Recommendations from the Joint Executive (Cabinet) Committee contained within Report No: COU/SE/18/021.

(A)    Referral from Joint Executive (Cabinet) Committee: 2 October 2018

1.       West Suffolk Gambling Act 2005: Statement of Policy 2019-2022

          Approval was sought for the adoption of a revised joint West Suffolk Councils’ Statement of Policy in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005.

The current West Suffolk policy expired on 30 January 2019 and a revised version had been consulted on with statutory consultees.  This would then require review in 2021 for re-adoption by January 2022.

Councillor Susan Glossop, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Joint Executive (Cabinet) Committee had recommended some changes to the revised policy as set out in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of Report No: COU/SE/18/021, and therefore these proposed amendments had been incorporated into the documents and attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the Council report for Council’s consideration and adoption.

Forest Heath District Council was due to consider the same referral report at its meeting on 21 November 2018.

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

RESOLVED:

That the revised West Suffolk Gambling Act 2005: Statement of Policy for the period 2019-2022, as contained in Appendices 1 and 2 to Report: No: COU/SE/18/021, be adopted.

Report No: COU/SE/18/022

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/18/022, which sought approval for the adoption of the Outline Business Case, a budget for the next stage of the project and authority for some associated immediate actions for the Western Way Development in Bury St Edmunds, including an outline business case for the replacement of the Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre.

The following documents were attached to the report:

·         Main Outline Business Case for the Western Way Development and its five appendices:

Appendix 1: Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre outline business case

Appendix 2: Organisational Overview

Appendix 3: Benefits Appraisal

Appendix 4: Zoning Diagrams

Appendix 5: Plans and Visualisations

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the proposed Western Way Development was a nationally ground-breaking investment in public services, skills and jobs.  As an outline business case, it did not contain detailed plans and figures and the intention at this meeting was to support the concept, and test whether there was sufficient confidence in the scheme to progress to the next stage.

Reference was particularly given to:

(a)     the fact that should the recommendations contained in Report No: COU/SE/18/022 be approved, a final business case was anticipated to be presented to West Suffolk Council in 2019 with, subject to approval of the final business case, a planning application being submitted later that year, with a view to phase one being completed by 2023;

(b)     the aspirations of the revised masterplan for the site that was adopted in 2016;

(c)     the concept drawings and use of the existing frame and concrete pad of the depot/DHL distribution building, which would provide an affordable and flexible model for the emerging final uses of the site under either the proposed baseline model or the target model detailed in the Outline Business Case;

(d)     the case for investment (working with partners and external funders) in better facilities, better public services, new jobs and student accommodation and that in order to deliver the wider benefits, the final business case would need to propose the delivery of a break-even scheme for the Council in terms of whole-life costing; 

(e)     that, whilst the Outline Business Case addressed the project in estates terms, other savings and benefits were likely to emanate from how the development would improve people’s lives;

(f)      the opportunity to replace, update and relocate the Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre to an alternative position within the Western Way Development site (as set out in Appendix 1);

(g)     the allocation of a total budget of £1.5 million to enable the preparation of the final business case, which would be subject to external funding partner contributions being obtained, with the Council contributing up to a maximum of £900,000 as developer and landowner (which would be transferable if the final business case was not adopted);

(h)     the proposal to work with County Highways to produce a new transport assessment, which would address proposals to mitigate increased traffic generation in the locality.  This would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 401.

Members are invited to ask questions of committee Chairmen on business transacted by their committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 25 September 2018.

Council considered a narrative item, which sought questions of Committee Chairmen on business transacted by their committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 25 September 2018, as outlined below:

No questions were asked of the above Chairmen.

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 had been received.

To consider whether the press and public should 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 this 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.

As the next item on the agenda was exempt, it was proposed, seconded and

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 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 the item and, in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Exempt Report No: COU/SE/18/023 TO FOLLOW.

Council considered Exempt Report No: COU/SE/18/023, which sought approval for a potential investment in the Council’s commercial asset portfolio.

The Council had the opportunity to purchase property in Bury St Edmunds as a commercial investment. If it were to proceed, the purchase would be made from the Council’s Investing in Growth fund and would provide a revenue return to help meet the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) targets for 2018/19.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including providing background to the proposal; the details of the Council’s provisional offer; the financial case for making the investment; and the potential wider place-shaping and strategic value.

Councillor Griffiths then moved approval of the recommendations set out in the exempt report, which was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.

At this point, on the motion (non-closure) of Councillor Terry Clements, seconded by Councillor Paul Hopfensperger, and duly carried, it was

RESOLVED:

That standing orders be suspended to allow Members to speak more than once during the debate.

A detailed discussion was held where a number of concerns about the proposal were expressed.

Following due consideration, Councillor Griffiths, as proposer, sought to withdraw the substantive motion. Councillor Houlder agreed to withdraw the seconding of the motion. No further motions were proposed.

With no substantive motion to consider, no vote was taken and the Mayor concluded business.