Agenda and minutes

(Contrary to information published on the agenda, the meeting was not opened with prayers as the Mayor’s Chaplain was unfortunately unable to be present.)

A minute’s silence was held in remembrance for the late former Borough Councillors Colin Muge and Derek Redhead.  

Councillor Max Clarke, newly elected Member for St Olaves Ward, was formally introduced and welcomed to his first meeting of Council.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2018 (copy attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor reported on the civic engagements and charity activities which he and the Mayoress, and the Deputy Mayor and her Consort had attended since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 20 February 2018.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jason Crooks and Anthony Williams.

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.

Whilst officers’ attendance was not usually recorded in the minutes, Members noted that any officers of the Leadership Team present at the meeting would leave the room whilst Agenda Item 9, ‘Senior Pay’ was under consideration.

Paper No: COU/SE/18/008

(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 Leader’s Statement as contained in Paper No: COU/SE/18/008.

Following the publication of the agenda and papers, a minor amendment had been circulated which indicated that the late former Councillor Muge had actually represented Sextons Ward in Bury St Edmunds, which later became part of Minden Ward.

In addition to his written statement, Councillor Griffiths drew attention to matters in connection with the following:

(a)     options for proposed new ward boundaries for West Suffolk; and

(b)     the review of the senior pay banding and a potential amendment to one of the recommendations in Report No: COU/SE/18/011 to align its implementation with the review of the pay structure for the entire workforce planned to take effect from 1 April 2019 (see minute 343 below).

In response to questions, Council was informed that:

(a)     it was disappointing that there had been a lack of discussion or consultation with Suffolk district/borough councils regarding Suffolk County Council’s (SCC) intention of commissioning a unilateral review of the county’s local government by ResPublica.  It was acknowledged that SCC should be working more closely with district/borough councils to achieve better outcomes for residents.  This may include SCC delegating duties to district/borough councils, such as highway issues, to assist improved delivery of services. The Suffolk Public Sector Leaders’ Group was addressing this and similar matters with the Leader of Suffolk County Council.

(b)     It was agreed that it could be confusing to residents regarding different Council responsibilities for services and it was important to communicate these responsibilities in the most effective way possible.

(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 23 April 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 questions were put and answered during Public Question Time:

1. Ian Steel, Chairman of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the proposed options for the West Suffolk Council Electoral Review, with particular reference to the boundary options for Rougham Ward, as set out in Option A, and for Moreton Hall, as set out in Option E and F1 of Report No: COU/SE/18/010, to be considered later at agenda item 8.

Mr Steel expressed concern that the parish of Rushbrooke with Rougham would be divided into two should the proposed Option for Rougham Ward be accepted by the Council and subsequently, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).  This option would be a two-Member ward comprising councillors that may have an affiliation towards a mix of rural and urban or solely urban issues (emanating from the neighbouring Moreton Hall Ward); however, Mr Steel considered Rushbrooke with Rougham parish should not be divided and should retain its present status within a rural ward.

In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, stated that the LGBCE encouraged the Council to submit as many options as possible, including consultation responses received from the various organisations and interested parties, which included those from Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council and those from within the neighbouring Moreton Hall ward, both ‘sides’ of which had provided strong cases. Any subsequent comments made in addition to these before the submission deadline of 4 May 2018 would be included.  This was therefore the planned approach of the Council.

Emphasis was placed on the fact that the LGBCE’s work to create boundaries for the new Council would not change the boundary between the Bury St Edmunds parish and the Rushbrooke with Rougham parish.  Following the Borough Council’s Community Governance Review undertaken in 2015/2016 which reviewed all parish boundaries, there were no plans to revisit potential changes to the parish boundary between Rushbrooke with Rougham parish and Bury St Edmunds parish.  However, Councillor Griffiths explained that district warding might divide a parish, where the LGBCE considered it necessary, in order to reflect community identity and effective local government.

No supplementary question was asked.

2. Peter Langdon, Vice- Chairman of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the same subject matter as Mr Steel.  He firstly wished to express, in his opinion, some inaccuracies in the submissions contained in Report No: COU/SE/18/010, before questioning the option of dividing of Rushbrooke with Rougham parish set out in Option A. 

In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, reiterated the issues outlined to Mr Steel above, including emphasising that Mr Langdon’s comments would be included as part of the Council’s submission to the LGBCE.

No supplementary question was asked.

3. Cliff Hind, Chairman of Moreton Hall Residents’ Association asked a question in connection with the proposed options for the West Suffolk Council Electoral Review, with particular reference to the boundary options for the Moreton Hall Ward. He objected to the option  ...  view the full minutes text for item 340.

Report No: COU/SE/18/009

Council considered the Referrals Report of Recommendations from Cabinet contained within Report No: COU/SE/18/009.

(A)    Referrals from Cabinet : 27 March 2018

1.       Tackling Rogue Landlords: Civil Sanctions Policy

Approval was sought for new officer delegations associated with the Housing Standards - Civil Sanctions Policy.  Approval of the policy itself was given by Cabinet on 27 March 2018.

Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, Portfolio Holder for Housing, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including responding to a question associated with the apparent specific behaviour of landlords in Haverhill. Whilst the concerns were noted, it was important to acknowledge that agencies and organisations must work together to rectify specific problems, as the incidences described were largely the result of anti-social behaviour rather than poor management of housing standards. 

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

RESOLVED:

That the new delegations regarding the enforcement powers described within the Housing Standards – Civil Sanctions Policy contained in Appendix A to Report No: CAB/SE/18/021,be incorporated into the Scheme of Delegation, contained in Part 3 of the Constitution, to enable these housing standards civil sanctions to be enforced.

(B)    Referrals from Extraordinary Cabinet : 17 April 2018

1.       Investing in the Regeneration of Bury St Edmunds Town Centre: 17-18 Cornhill

Approval was sought for a preferred option and policy approach for the future of 17-18 Cornhill, Bury St Edmunds, and the necessary funding required to deliver the preferred option.

An addendum to Report No: COU/SE/18/009, which together with its recommendations on the above report which had been considered following the publication of the agenda and papers for this meeting, contained corrections to typographical errors contained within Report No: CAB/SE/18/027.  Recommendation (3) was amended to read:

Approve £8.4m£8.24m capital budget (includes £1.68m purchase and redevelopment budget), funded through the Investing in our Growth agenda fund, in line with paragraph 1.9.

For completeness the table in paragraph 1.9.2 of the Cabinet report was also amended as shown in the addendum to Report No: COU/SE/18/009.

Members noted the background to the Council’s acquisition of 17-18 Cornhill, including that the purchase had accorded with the adopted Local Plan (Vision 2031) and the aspirations of the Bury St Edmunds Town Centre Masterplan. 

Since the acquisition in December 2016, the Bury St Edmunds Town Centre Masterplan Advisory Group, which comprised Members (including the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth), officers and stakeholders had explored and agreed objectives for the site and these informed future detailed design work.  A project team was established to develop the objectives, which included appointing external expertise relative to the project, as set out in Section 1.6 of the Cabinet report. 

A detailed options appraisal was undertaken and this was now presented for consideration, as summarised in Section 1.8 of the Cabinet report.  The options were:

Option 1:     ’Do nothing’

Option 2:     Resell to the market (following the purchase of the site in December 2016)

Option 3:     Refurbishment of the existing site

Option 4:     Redevelopment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 341.

Report No: COU/SE/18/010

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/18/010, which presented proposed options for the warding boundaries for the new West Suffolk district.

Following the distribution of the agenda and papers, the following typographical amendments were circulated:

Paragraph 2.6.2 of the above covering report, as shown in bold:

2.6.2  The options in Appendix A have been subject to consultation with the Future Governance Steering Group. The FGSG recommended that all options should be submitted to MHCLG for consideration, and that:

a) The “other options” for the rural wards should include the potential of moving Icklingham to the Manor Ward, albeit recognition should be given that the current proposal – including Icklingham in a Risby Ward – follows the A1101 giving a natural community cohesion corridor;

b) Option C for Brandon should be the preferred option in light of the feedback received from local members at the Councillors drop-in session;

c) Option H for Haverhill should be a preferred option in light of feedback from the consultation;

d) Option I for Mildenhall should be a preferred option as it reflects the views of the recent Mildenhall Parish Council meeting; and

e) Option K for Newmarket should be a preferred option (reflecting the views of Newmarket Town Council)

In addition, the following amendment to the table in Appendix A: Option A – Rural Wards, as shown in bold:

Ward No: 17

Risby Ward

No. of electorate: 1938 2237

%Away from Average:minus 5.74% +8.80%

Councillor Carol Bull, Chairman of the Future Governance Steering Group introduced this item and provided some background.  As there were several issues and Options to consider, the Mayor then invited the Service Manager (Democratic Services) to set out how the debate would be handled, which included inviting the Director and Electoral Services Manager to speak during the item to provide background to the particular Option under consideration and assist with any questions Members may have.

The Service Manager (Democratic Services) duly set out the procedure to be followed and the Mayor then asked Members to turn to the Options in Appendix A, which were intended to be considered individually, starting with Option A for the Rural Wards.

The Electoral Services Manager provided background and the debate proceeded with comments made from the following Members:

(a)     Councillor Mary Evans:  Expressed concern regarding the reduction in the overall number of West Suffolk councillors from 72 to 64 and the option presented to abolish Hundon Ward. Councillor Evans identified that community links were not established between some of the smaller villages within the draft proposals.

(b)     Councillor Sara Mildmay-White: Was not in agreement with Option A, but agreed with Option B, which would be considered later. She added that Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council would submit its own response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).

(c)     Councillor Peter Stevens: Agreed with this Option for Cavendish Ward for his reasons given.

(d)     Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger: Two of the three villages within the existing Fornham Ward had expressed concern to her regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 342.

Report No: COU/SE/18/011

(Councillor Simon Brown declared a local non-pecuniary interest as his son was an employee of the West Suffolk Councils within a pay banding below Leadership Team level, and remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.  No officers of the West Suffolk Councils’ Leadership Team were present for this item.)

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/18/011, which sought approval for the amendments to the proposed salary range for the Leadership Team, with effect from 1 April 2018.

The salary bands of the top three pay tiers (Leadership Team) of the Councils were determined by the band of the Chief Executive, calculated as a percentage of the highest salary band.  Approval would, therefore, also, increase the pay bands of the two Directors and the six Assistant Directors, who comprised the Councils’ Leadership Team.   The proposed pay bands to be amended were set out in paragraph 1.2.1 and it had been recommended that the new bands became effective from 1 April 2018.

The Mayor welcomed Karen Points to the meeting, former Assistant Director (Human Resources, Legal and Democratic Services), having recently left the West Suffolk Councils for employment with Abbeycroft Leisure. Mrs Points was invited to partake in the discussions to answer technical questions on behalf of the Leader of the Council.

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including reiterating his intention to amend one of the recommendations to make the pay bands for the top three pay tiers effective from 1 April 2019 to align with the review of the rest of the workforce, which was intended to be implemented from that date, as alluded to earlier in the meeting (see minutes 339 and 340).

A detailed discussion was held and the majority of Members acknowledged the quality of the existing Leadership Team in post, agreed the pay banding should be reviewed and the proposed increases were justifiable to ensure the West Suffolk organisation continued to attract and retain a high calibre workforce; however the rationale for deferring the implementation date to 1 April 2019 was given as follows:

(a)     it would align with and enable a broader review of the payline for the entire workforce to be facilitated in 2018/2019;  and

(b)     it was appropriate to combine implementation with the creation of West Suffolk Council.

Some Members expressed concern that other public sector workers outside the organisation, albeit below the top three tiers of management level, had not received comparable increases in their salaries and therefore the proposed changes to the Leadership Team’s pay bands should not be supported.

Councillor Griffiths moved the following recommendation, as amended from the report, which was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton:

That Council:

(1)    approves the proposed salary range for the Joint Chief Executive of the West Suffolk Councils and the subsequent amendment to Leadership Team pay bands, as set out in Section 1.2 of Report No: COU/SE/18/011, subject to deferring implementation until 1 April 2019; and

(2)    notes that the Pay Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 343.

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

The Chairman of the Mayoral Advisory Committee, Councillor Carol Bull, reported that the Committee had recommended that:

•        The present Deputy Mayor, Councillor Margaret Marks be nominated for the office of Mayor of St Edmundsbury for the 2018/2019 civic year; and

•        Councillor Patrick Chung be nominated for the office of Deputy Mayor of St Edmundsbury for the 2018/2019 civic year.

The elections of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for 2018/2019 would be held at the Annual Meeting of the Council on 17 May 2018.

Both Councillors Marks and Chung were delighted to accept their respective nominations and thanked Members for their support.

The present Mayor, Councillor Terry Clements, was also thanked for his valuable contribution to the mayoralty during the 2017/2018 year.

(Note: Subject to the creation of West Suffolk Council in April 2019, the Deputy Mayor for 2018/2019  is unable to be nominated for the office of Mayor of St Edmundsbury in 2019/2020.)

Members are invited to ask questions of committee Chairmen on business transacted by their committees since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 20 February 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 20 February 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 on notice had been received.

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 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.

See minute 348 below.

Exempt Report No: COU/SE/18/012

Council received and noted Exempt Report No: COU/SE/18/012, which reported details of a matter where it was necessary to implement the Cabinet’s Special Urgency provisions and exercise the Chief Executive’s urgency powers.

As no details of a specific nature were requested to be raised, the meeting remained in public session.

The matter related to the Cabinet endorsing the exercising of the Chief Executive’s urgency powers to negotiate at auction, the purchase of the freehold of 20 High Street, Haverhill, which was scheduled to be auctioned on 28 March 2018 (the day after the Cabinet meeting).  A successful purchase would provide the Council with a property offering both strategic and investment potential. In the short to medium term the property would provide an income from the current tenant (Iceland Foods Ltd), whilst in the longer term there would be the opportunity to help shape the High Street and improve pedestrian circulation and connectivity in the retail core.  It also supported the aspirations of the Haverhill Town Centre Masterplan and accorded with the West Suffolk Growth Investment Strategy.

Exempt Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/18/026 provided further details of the proposal and Exempt Report No: COU/SE/18/012 provided further details of the reporting of the implementation of the Cabinet’s Special Urgency provisions and the exercising of the Chief Executive’s urgency powers.  As the purchase was successful within the allocated budget and the completion date had passed, both these reports were now available in the public domain as the exemption due to commercial sensitivity no longer applied.