Agenda and minutes
Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds, IP33 3YU
Contact: Claire Skoyles: Democratic Services Officer
Email: claire.skoyles@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Note: **Please note that this meeting is in place of the meeting originally arranged for Tuesday 17 September 2019
Items
No. |
Item |
23. |
Minutes PDF 117 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
16 July 2019 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July
2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the
Chair.
|
24. |
Chair's Announcements PDF 43 KB
To receive announcements (if any) from the
Chair.
A list of civic events/engagements attended by
the Chair and Vice-Chair since the last ordinary meeting of Council
held on 16 July 2019 are attached.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Chair reported on the civic engagements
and charity activities which he and the Vice-Chair had attended
since the last ordinary meeting of Council on 16 July 2019.
Special thanks were conveyed to Councillor
Richard Alecock who had attended the
West Suffolk Skills Share Fair on behalf of the Chair on 16 August
2019.
|
25. |
Apologies for Absence
To receive announcements (if any) from the
officer advising the Chair (including apologies for absence).
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors Tony Brown, Simon Brown, Terry Clements, Jason Crooks,
Andy Drummond, Mary Evans, Beccy Hopfensperger, Paul Hopfensperger,
James Lay, David Palmer, Andrew Smith, Peter Thompson and Frank
Warby.
Councillor John Augustine was also
unfortunately unable to attend the meeting.
|
26. |
Declarations of Interests
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.
Minutes:
Members’ declarations of interest are
recorded under the item to which the declaration relates.
|
27. |
Leader's Statement (Paper No: COU/WS/19/005) PDF 90 KB
Paper No: COU/WS/19/005
(Council Procedure Rules 8.1
– 8.3) The Leader will submit
a report (the Leader’s Statement) summarising important
developments and activities since the preceding meeting of the
Council.
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.
Minutes:
Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the
Council, presented his Leader’s Statement as outlined in
Paper No: COU/WS/19/005.
The Leader drew attention to a number of items
summarised in his Statement, including commending the work of the
West Suffolk Rural and Environment and Climate Change Taskforces,
both of which had made good progress since their inceptions in May
2019. He also made reference to the proposed approval of the
Western Way Development (WWD) business case and the adoption of the
Forest Heath Local Plan, both of which were to be considered later
on the agenda at this Council meeting.
If approved and subject to planning consent,
the WWD was considered to be a nationally ground-breaking step
forward in how public and private organisations could successfully
work together. At the core of the project was the proposed benefits
to the community by providing greater access to services and
improved leisure facilities, whilst aiming to achieve better
outcomes for health, education and employment.
If the Forest Health Local Plan was adopted,
this would provide greater certainty over proposed development
across West Suffolk (as the former St Edmundsbury’s Local
Plan had been adopted some time ago), meaning growth would be
managed in an appropriate way, thus assisting with providing
guidance for developers as part of the planning
process. Adoption would also support
the development of the new Local Plan for the whole of the West
Suffolk district, the early stages of which had already
commenced.
Since the publication of his Statement,
Councillor Griffiths was pleased to report that many of West
Suffolk’s towns, country parks and open spaces had won Anglia
in Bloom awards. These accolades
positively complemented the Green Flag awards received in the
summer 2019 and was testament to all those involved with their
upkeep.
The Leader responded to a range of questions
relating to:
(a) the lobbying of West
Suffolk’s MPs to address and help reduce
homelessness. West Suffolk’s team
were commended for their sterling work in reducing homelessness and
government would continue to be lobbied to seek additional funding
to support their efforts; and
(b) figures quoted in paragraph 8
and 9 the Statement relating to the performance of Toggam Farm
Solar Farm were gross figures; however emphasis was placed on
recognising that the Council had one of the largest field based
solar farms in the country which was not only contributing to a
carbon emission reduction for the district but was generating a
significant income for the Council.
|
28. |
Public Participation
(Council Procedure Rules Section
6) Members of the public who live or work in the District may
put questions about the work of the Council or make statements on
items on the agenda to members of the Cabinet or any Committee.
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/statements are dealt with sooner, or if there are no
questions/statements, the Council will proceed to the next
business.)
Each person may ask one question or make one statement only.
A total of five minutes will be allowed for the question to be put and
answered or the statement made. If a question is raised, one
supplementary question will be allowed provided that it arises directly from the reply and the overall time limit of
five minutes is not exceeded.
If a
statement is made, then the Chair may allow the Leader of the
Council, or other Member to whom they refer the matter, a right of
reply.
Written
questions may be submitted by members of the
public to the Monitoring Officer no later than 10.00 am
on Wednesday 18 September 2019. The written notification should
detail the full question to be asked at the meeting
of the Council.
Minutes:
The following members of the public spoke
under this agenda item:
1. Richard Hallewell of a residence located within the
district, asked a question in connection with whether the
Council should agree to the establishment of a Citizens’
Assembly so that the creation and implementation of climate related
policy should be separated from all political and commercial
agendas.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader
of the Council welcomed those seated in the public gallery to the
meeting, adding that the Council shared their concerns regarding
climate change and the adverse impacts on the environment and
biodiversity.
He stated that in order for the Council to
make an informed decision on whether to agree to supporting a
Citizens’ Assembly, he would refer the matter to the
Environment and Climate Change Taskforce to consider as part of its
remit.
In a supplementary statement, Mr Hallewell stated he would be pleased to work with
the Taskforce to provide further information on this matter.
2. Julia Wakelam of Bury St Edmunds,
made a statement in connection with the climate crisis she
considered the world was currently facing. Ms Wakelam welcomed the Cabinet’s recommendation
for the Council to declare a climate emergency and supported the
establishment of the Environment and Climate Change Taskforce and
its proposal to work with stakeholders. However, Ms Wakelam expressed concern that whilst such
commitment had been demonstrated by the Council, it needed to
ensure measurable actions emanated from that commitment. She
considered that the Council should aim for the district to be
carbon neutral by 2030 and provided examples of how this could be
achieved. Ms Wakelam referred to the motion put by Councillor
Diane Hind to the former St Edmundsbury Borough Council in December
2017 which looked to improving air quality by requesting that
anti-idling zones be introduced outside schools etc. She felt that
action taken to tackle this specific issue could have been taken
more quickly.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader
of the Council, drew attention to the range of actions that had
already been taken to address adverse environmental impacts,
including actions taken to improve air quality, and the measurable
outcomes that had been achieved by taking such action. He acknowledged that more could be done and
expected the Environment and Climate Change Taskforce to look in
depth at the various issues that were contributing to climate
change and the impact on the environment, and West Suffolk’s
role to help mitigate the effects.
3. Robert Possnett of a residence located within the
district, asked a question in respect of whether the Council
supported the Global Strike that was expected to be held on Friday
20 September 2019.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader
of the Council stated that he was not in a position to have a fully
informed view on the matter; however, he supported the initiative
to mitigate the effects of climate change that were within the
powers of the Council to make a difference.
In response to a supplementary question,
...
view the full minutes text for item 28.
|
29. |
Referrals Report of Recommendations from Cabinet (Report No: COU/WS/19/006) PDF 188 KB
Report No: COU/WS/19/006
(A) Referral
from Cabinet: 23 July 2019
1.
Proposal to Establish a West Suffolk Environment and Climate Change
Taskforce - Proposed Declaration of a Climate Emergency
Portfolio Holder: Cllr
John Griffiths
(B)
Referrals from Cabinet: 10 September 2019
1.
Annual Treasury Management Report 2018/2019 (FHDC)
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
2.
Annual Treasury Management Report 2018/2019 (SEBC)
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
3.
Treasury Management Report – June 2019
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
4.
Single Issue Review (SIR) of Core Strategy Policy CS7: Planning
Inspector’s Report and Adoption
Portfolio Holder: Cllr
John Griffiths
This item
will be considered separately as part of Agenda Item 8 below
(Report No: COU/WS/19/007).
5.
Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP): Planning Inspector’s
Report and Adoption
Portfolio Holder: Cllr
John Griffiths
This item
will be considered separately under Agenda Item 9 below (Report No:
COU/WS/19/008).
6.
Western Way Development: Final Business Case
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Joanna
Rayner
This item
will be considered separately under Agenda Item 10 below (Report
No: COU/WS/19/009).
7.
Exempt: Investing in our Commercial Asset Portfolio (para
3)
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Susan
Glossop
As this
referral is exempt, it will be considered separately in private
session under Agenda Item 17 below (Exempt Report No:
COU/WS/19/012)
Minutes:
Council considered the Referrals Report of
Recommendations from Cabinet, as contained within Report No:
COU/WS/19/006.
(A) Referrals from Cabinet: 23 July 2019
1. Proposal to
Establish a West Suffolk Environment and Climate Change Taskforce
– Proposed Declaration of a Climate Emergency
At the Annual Meeting of
Council held on 22 May 2019, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of
the Council announced that he would be proposing to set up two
taskforces, one of which would be requested to look at ways in
which the Council could improve on its current and previous actions
taken to mitigate the effects of adverse environmental factors and
climate change.
On 23 July 2019, the Cabinet
agreed to establish an Environment and Climate Change
Taskforce. Report No: CAB/WS/19/016
contained proposals for the terms of reference for the Environment
and Climate Change Taskforce that had been announced at the Annual
Meeting. In summary, the Taskforce aimed to ensure that the Council
used the opportunity to review and assess its
existing activities and future opportunities in response to
increased societal awareness of environmental issues. The
Taskforce would explore how the Council could
enhance its environmental stewardship, recognising the need for
balance with other urgent social and economic
priorities.
It was anticipated that initial
findings and feedback would be presented to Cabinet in autumn 2019,
with final recommendations coming forward in 2020.
In addition to the
recommendations contained in the report and in recognition of a
Climate Emergency being called for the whole of Suffolk, the
Cabinet agreed to recommend to West Suffolk Council that it
declared a Climate Emergency. Acknowledgement was given at the
Cabinet meeting to how West Suffolk would specifically play its
part, including what exactly calling a Climate Emergency in West
Suffolk would actually mean, and more importantly, the action
needed to be taken to make a significant difference.
Councillor John Griffiths drew relevant issues
to the attention of Council, including the current work and
performance of the Council in this area and how it was within the
remit of the Taskforce to make recommendations to Cabinet in
respect of how the Council should report, set targets and measure
progress on mitigating the effects of climate change and the impact
on the environment and biodiversity.
Emphasis was placed on ensuring actions were
implemented that emanated from the Council’s aspirations.
Examples were given where the Council could make a
difference.
On the motion of Councillor Griffiths,
seconded by Councillor Margaret Marks, it was put to the vote and
with the vote being 49 for the motion, none against and one
abstention, it was
RESOLVED:
That a Climate Emergency be declared.
(B) Referrals from Cabinet: 10 September 2019
1. Annual Treasury
Management Report: 2018/2019 (FHDC)
Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder
for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the
attention of Council, including that the report provided the Annual
Treasury Management Report for the former Forest Heath District
Council for the complete 2018/2019 financial year. Recognition was
given to the Financial Resilience Sub-Committee and the Performance
and ...
view the full minutes text for item 29.
|
30. |
Single Issue Review (SIR) of Core Strategy Policy CS7: Planning Inspector’s Report and Adoption (Report No: COU/WS/19/007) PDF 180 KB
Report No: COU/WS/19/007
(**Note: Due to their size, the appendices to this covering
report will be circulated as a separate supplement to the agenda
papers**)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a non pecuniary interest in
this item as she was a personal acquaintance of the owner of land
at Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket and
remained in the meeting for the consideration of the
item.)
Council considered this report, which sought
approval for the adoption of the Single Issue Review (SIR) of
Policy CS7, including both the main and additional
modifications.
The preparation of the Forest Heath Core
Strategy Single Issue Review (SIR) of Policy CS7 had now reached
the end of the plan making process. The
Inspector’s Report had been received and, subject to
incorporating the associated Main Modifications identified by the
Inspector, they had concluded that the Local Plan was sound.
The following documents were also attached to
this report:
·
Appendix A set out the Inspector’s Report
which found the Local Plan sound and considered it an appropriate
basis for the planning for the area of West Suffolk District
Council, formally known as Forest Heath. The main modifications were attached to the
Inspector’s Report.
·
Appendix B set out the suggested additional
modifications by Officers made to the SIR document
to-date.
·
Appendix C set out the final version of the SIR of
Core Policy Strategy CS7, which included all of the main
modifications required by the Planning Inspector and the additional
modifications suggested by Officers.
·
As a result of the modifications, the Habitats
Regulations Assessment (HRA) (Appendix D) and the Sustainability
Appraisal (SA) (Appendix E) documents had also been
updated.
This Local Plan Single Issue
Review set out the overall housing requirement for the area
(formally Forest Heath) which was 6,800 homes (340 dwellings per
annum) and its broad distribution across the
settlements. The Inspector had dealt
with concerns arising from the horseracing industry, noise and
environmental constraints and had found the document sound and an
appropriate basis for planning in the area formally known as Forest
Heath. The Inspector’s report was
very supportive of the work the Council had done and praised the
Authority, including on the extensive consultation that was carried
out. This was a huge achievement for
the Council.
Councillor John Griffiths,
Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of
Council, including that adoption of this Local Plan, which would
sit beside the former St Edmundsbury
Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan, would provide certainty
in respect of meeting the Council’s legal requirements and
providing the community, developers and Members certainty of where
development could take place. This
would help protect the whole of the district and minimise the risk
of speculative development. In turn this would support the
formulation of a new West Suffolk Local Plan, which was now in the
early stages of development.
A detailed discussion was held
and the following issues were raised:
(a) That very few
new homes were planned for Brandon over the next 12 years, which
meant the town would see very little benefit from s106 monies
during that period. It was however,
acknowledged that Brandon had its own challenges to overcome,
principally due to ...
view the full minutes text for item 30.
|
31. |
Site Allocations Local Plan (SALP): Planning Inspector’s Report and Adoption (Report No: COU/WS/19/008) PDF 186 KB
Report No: COU/WS/19/008
(**Note: Due to their size, the appendices to this covering
report will be circulated as a separate supplement to the agenda
papers**)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a non pecuniary interest in
this item as she was a personal acquaintance of the owner of land
at Hatchfield Farm, Newmarket and remained in the meeting for the
consideration of the item.)
Council considered this report which sought
approval for the adoption of the Site Allocations Local Plan,
including both the main and additional modifications.
The preparation of the Forest Heath Site
Allocations Local Plan (SALP) had now reached the end of the plan
making process. The Inspector’s
Report had now been received and, subject to incorporating the
associated Main Modifications identified by the Inspector, they had
concluded that the Local Plan was sound.
The following documents were also attached to
this report:
·
Appendix A set out the Inspector’s Report
which found the Local Plan sound and considered it an appropriate
basis for the planning for the area formally known as Forest
Heath.
·
Appendix B set out the additional modifications
suggested by Officers to the SALP document.
·
Appendix C set out the final version of the SALP,
along with a Policies Map Book showing the allocations (Appendix
D). These documents included all of the
main modifications required by the Planning Inspector and the
additional modifications suggested by Officers.
·
As a result of the modifications, the Habitat
Regulations Assessment (HRA) and the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
documents had also been updated.
The Forest Heath Site
Allocations Local Plan contained the site specific housing,
employment and other allocations to meet the requirements of the
Core Strategy. This Plan would complete
the suite of Local Plan documents for the former Forest Heath area
and for West Suffolk. The Inspector had
dealt with concerns arising from the horseracing industry, noise
and environmental constraints and had concluded finding the
document sound and an appropriate basis for planning in the area
formally known as Forest Heath. The
Inspector’s report was very supportive of the work that the
Council had done and praised the Authority, including on the
extensive consultation that was carried out. This was a huge achievement for the Council in
order for development to be delivered in a planned way.
Councillor John Griffiths,
Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of
Council, including reiterating the issues raised during
consideration of Report No: COU/WS/19/007.
The majority of Members
recognised the need for adopting the Site Allocations Local Plan
and Map Book, which together with the Single Issue Review of Core
Strategy Policy CS7 (Report No: COU/WS/19/007), had been found
sound by the Planning Inspector. Members of the former Forest Heath
area and the team of officers involved with the process were
commended for their significant amount of work in reaching this
point. Emphasis was then placed by some
on urging Members to trust the Examination process. This had
involved consideration of extensive evidence presented to the
Inspector which had culminated in his decision in finding the Plan
sound.
Members also considered that by
adopting the Local Plan, it could successfully work with Suffolk
Highways, developers and other partners ...
view the full minutes text for item 31.
|
32. |
Western Way Development: Final Business Case (Report No: COU/WS/19/009) PDF 206 KB
Report No: COU/WS/19/009
(**Note: Background papers to this report are NOT provided in
paper form but are available to view via the modern.gov app or on
the intranet/website**)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Council considered this report which sought
approval for the Final Business Cases for the Western Way
Development (WWD), Bury St Edmunds and, as part of the wider
scheme, the replacement of the Bury St Edmunds Leisure Centre,
allowing the project to be delivered on the basis set out in those
Business Cases and the Council’s Constitution.
Councillor Joanna Rayner, Portfolio Holder for
Leisure, Culture and Community Hubs, drew relevant issues to the
attention of Council and particularly wished to thank officers for
all the significant work undertaken on the delivery of this project
to-date. Councillor Rayner also
re-iterated that the Final Business Cases had been written on the
basis that, having considered alternative options, Councillors and
partners had already agreed, in principle, to redevelop the Western
Way site in the manner proposed.
Members noted that although public
consultation had already taken place on both the 2016 Masterplan
and the future of the leisure centre, a further community
consultation on the WWD had been carried out over the Summer and
would close at midnight on 10 September 2019. The main purpose of this process was an informal
pre-application consultation for any future planning applications,
given people the chance to influence the design and transportation
aspects of the scheme.
A summary report of the pre-application
consultation had been circulated to Members as a late paper
(Appendix 4) to Report No: COU/WS/19/009. In addition to over 32 forms completed at a
drop-in exhibition on 6 September 2019, 267 people had completed
the detailed online questionnaire upon close of the consultation on
10 September 2019. The most prevalent
topics were traffic, transport, parking and health and leisure
facilities. This feedback would assist
in refining the proposals in the next stage of the project, if the
Business Case was approved. There were,
however, no issues arising in the consultation that would prevent
consideration of the Final Business Case, not least as many of the
issues raised in the consultation would be thoroughly tested
through the formal planning process. A
full report on the consultation, with responses to all comments
made, would then be included in any later planning application.
The 2018 Outline Business Case had been
approved on the basis of Council
receiving an external gateway review before making final decisions
on the project. This was primarily to
be focused on the financial and delivery vehicle aspects of the
project, as these were the new dimensions compared to other hub
projects.
As the Final Business Case demonstrated,
having absolute certainty on the partner requirement would shape
how the first phase of the project was tendered and then actually
delivered. The proposed design was
flexible enough to adapt to however this requirement ended
up. Therefore, there was no reason to
hold up a planning application.
However, the core focus of the gateway review was only ready at
this point to be approved in principle and then clarified before
the contractual spending decisions were taken. Therefore, it was being proposed that this review
was a condition of ...
view the full minutes text for item 32.
|
33. |
Electoral Review of Suffolk County Council (Report No: COU/WS/19/010) PDF 182 KB
Minutes:
Council considered this report which sought
approval for the proposed approach to consultation for the
Electoral Review of Suffolk County Council.
The Local Government Boundary
Commission for England (LGBCE) was carrying out an electoral review
of Suffolk County Council, which would run from 2019 to 2020, in
time for implementation at the next County elections in
2021. Other than supplying data in its electoral
registration function to allow the Commission to prepare forecasts,
West Suffolk Council had no direct role in the review and was
simply a third party consultee.
Members noted how the review
and consultation would be conducted, together with the proposed
approach for responding to the consultation.
Councillor Carol Bull,
Portfolio Holder for Governance, drew relevant issues to the
attention of Council, including that as with the recent
parliamentary boundary review (and the approach taken by the former
St Edmundsbury Borough and Forest Heath District Councils to that
review), it was proposed that West Suffolk Council would not submit
any formal ‘corporate’ response to the LGBCE
consultation, other than the Electoral Registration Officer
highlighting any technical errors in the proposals under their
statutory role.
Instead, it was proposed that
individual councillors, local political parties/groups and any
other interested parties such as Parish / Town Councils be
encouraged to respond to the Commission direct during each round of
consultation. The Commission was always clear that a
well-argued representation containing detailed factual information,
and local insight, carried the most weight with them,
irrespective of who provided it. In that context, a
well prepared response from an individual elector would carry as
much weight as one from this council. Furthermore, unless
there was complete unanimity, any formal response from this council
would have to highlight any varying councillor viewpoints, in any
event. So the effect with the Commission would be largely the
same as those councillors responding directly.
This approach was also
consistent with the approach taken by Suffolk County Council to
participating in the 2018 electoral review for the new West Suffolk
Council.
Members noted the proposed
timeline for the review and how they would be notified of the
various stages of the consultation, including being provided with
guidance on how to take part, should they wish to do so.
Some concern was expressed that
West Suffolk Council was missing an opportunity to show its support
for a desired amount of Suffolk County Councillors, particularly
within Bury St Edmunds’ town divisions where there may be
some changes to the boundaries should the initial proposals be
implemented. Some concern was also
expressed regarding the LGBCE’s processes and accuracy of
data used when referring to the Electoral Review recently carried
out for the creation of West Suffolk Council.
The majority of Members were
however, satisfied with the proposed approach as summarised
above.
On the motion of Councillor Bull, seconded by
Councillor John Griffiths, it was put to the vote and with the vote
being 46 for the motion, two against and two abstentions, it
was
RESOLVED:
That the proposal set ...
view the full minutes text for item 33.
|
34. |
Review of Political Balance and Appointment to Politically Balanced Bodies
The Monitoring
Officer has received notification that Councillor Frank Warby has
resigned from the Spectrum Group. Group leaders have
indicated they are supportive of the proposal to allocate
Councillor Warby a seat on the Licensing and Regulatory Committee,
currently allocated to the Spectrum Group. The Monitoring
Officer has reviewed the political balance and is satisfied that
this proposal is compliant with the requirements of the Local
Government and Housing Act 1989.
As such, Council is
requested to RESOLVE to allocate Councillor Frank Warby a
seat on the Licensing and Regulatory Committee and reduce the
allocation of the Spectrum Group on the Licensing and Regulatory
Committee from three seats to two seats. The allocation of seats to
Substitute Members on the Committee currently remains
unchanged.
Minutes:
Council considered a
narrative item, which sought approval for appropriate arrangements
following the resignation of Councillor Frank Warby from the
Spectrum Group.
Group leaders had
indicated they were supportive of the proposal to allocate
Councillor Warby a seat on the Licensing and Regulatory Committee,
currently allocated to the Spectrum Group. The Monitoring
Officer had reviewed the political balance and was satisfied that
this proposal was compliant with the requirements of the Local
Government and Housing Act 1989.
As such, Council was
requested to consider whether Councillor Frank Warby should be
allocated a seat on the Licensing and Regulatory Committee and
reduce the allocation of the Spectrum Group on the Licensing and
Regulatory Committee from three seats to two seats. The allocation
of seats to Substitute Members on the Committee currently remained
unchanged.
Councillor John
Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew
relevant issues to the attention of Council.
On the motion of Councillor Griffiths,
seconded by Councillor David Nettleton, it was put to the vote and
with the vote being 48 for the motion, none against and two
abstentions, it was
RESOLVED:
That Councillor
Frank Warby be allocated a seat on the Licensing and Regulatory
Committee and the allocation of seats to the Spectrum Group on the
Licensing and Regulatory Committee be reduced from three seats to
two seats.
|
35. |
The Gershom Parkington Memorial Trust
The Gershom Parkington Memorial Trust was set up by St
Edmundsbury Borough Council in 1983 to
support the Council’s clock collection, the bulk of which is
the Gershom Parkington clock
collection. It is a separate charity to
the main Gershom Parkington bequest,
also managed by the Council. The
Borough Council made an initial donation of £500. This sum was supplemented with other small
donations in the following years.
The objects of the Memorial
Trust are to advance the education of the public in understanding
the development of horology and to encourage a practical interest
in scientific matters particularly amongst students and school
children. To achieve that, its rules
allowed it to spend its funds on a range of activities relating to
acquiring, maintaining, displaying and interpreting clocks and
watches. Trustees were drawn from the
local council, local community and also horological
organisations.
The charity was dormant for
over 20 years, with accrued funds of around £11,500 by
2015. At that time, it was re-activated
to consider two specific funding requests, each of
£5,000. One from the Bury St
Edmunds Heritage Trust relating to the display of clocks loaned
from the Council collection in the refurbished
Guildhall. The other was for a new ICT
display system for interpreting the clock collection at
Moyse’s Hall. Both requests were approved, leaving a balance of
funds of just under £2,000 by summer 2019.
Given the small amount of
funding remaining, and there being no plans for more fund-raising,
the trustees met earlier in the summer to discuss their future
options. It was agreed that the charity
had served its purpose, and could close. In keeping with Charity Commission guidance, it
was also agreed to pass the remaining funds to another local
charity, the Friends of Moyse’s
Hall (on the basis that the clock collection is now on display at
the museum). The Friends would be asked
to ring-fence the money to supporting the clock collection and
ensure that the funds were spent as soon as possible. In making their decision, the trustees also wanted
to highlight the continuing legacy of Frederic Gershom Parkington and have asked that the transfer of
funds is publicised.
It is a grey area as to whether
the Trust needs the consent of any third party to close itself
down. However, its original deed does
say that, should the charity ‘fail’ for any reason,
then the Council may, by resolution, terminate it and redistribute
its funds to a similar charitable purpose within the local
area. In this context, it would seem
that the safest procedure would be for the Council to agree to
implement the trustees’ decision above.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the resolution of the Gershom Parkington Memorial Trust at its meeting on 31 July
2019 be endorsed and, in accordance with that resolution, the
Charity be terminated and its remaining funds be redistributed by
the Council to the Friends of Moyse’s Hall on condition they are spent in a
timely manner, consistent with the charitable objects of
...
view the full agenda text for item 35.
Minutes:
(Councillor Diane Hind declared a non pecuniary interest in this
item as she was the Council’s nominated representative in an
observer capacity on the Gershom Parkington Memorial Trust, and was also treasurer
of the Friends of Moyse’s Hall
museum. She remained in the meeting for the consideration of the
item.)
Council considered a
narrative item, which sought approval for the termination of the
Gershom Parkington Memorial
Trust.
The Gershom Parkington Memorial Trust was set up by St
Edmundsbury Borough Council in 1983 to
support the Council’s clock collection, the bulk of which was
the Gershom Parkington clock
collection. It was a separate charity
to the main Gershom Parkington bequest,
also managed by the Council. The
Borough Council made an initial donation of £500. This sum was supplemented with other small
donations in the following years.
Councillor Joanna Rayner,
Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Culture and Community Hubs, drew
relevant issues to the attention of Council, including providing
background, purpose and remit of the Memorial Trust.
Members noted that the charity
had been dormant for over 20 years, with accrued funds of around
£11,500 by 2015. At that time, it
was re-activated to consider two specific funding requests, each of
£5,000, as summarised in the narrative item. Both requests
were approved, leaving a balance of funds of just under
£2,000 by summer 2019.
Given the small amount of
funding remaining, and there being no plans for more fund-raising,
the trustees met earlier in the summer to discuss their future
options. It was agreed that the charity
had served its purpose, and could close. In keeping with Charity Commission guidance, it
was also agreed to pass the remaining funds to another local
charity, the Friends of Moyse’s
Hall (on the basis that the clock collection was now on display at
the museum). The Friends would be asked
to ring-fence the money to supporting the clock collection and
ensure that the funds were spent as soon as possible. In making their decision, the trustees also wanted
to highlight the continuing legacy of Frederic Gershom Parkington and had asked that the transfer of funds
be publicised.
Council supported the proposed
approach.
On the motion of Councillor Rayner, seconded
by Councillor David Nettleton, it was put to the vote and with the
vote being unanimous, it was
RESOLVED:
That the resolution of the
Gershom Parkington Memorial Trust at
its meeting on 31 July 2019 be endorsed and, in accordance with
that resolution, the Charity be terminated and its remaining funds
be redistributed by the Council to the Friends of Moyse’s Hall on condition they are spent in a
timely manner, consistent with the charitable objects of the
Memorial Trust.
|
36. |
Motion on Notice (Paper No: COU/WS/19/011) PDF 63 KB
Councillor Lisa Ingwall-King has given notice
of a motion under paragraph 9.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, as
attached as Paper No: COU/WS/19/011.
Paragraph 9.6 of the Council
Procedure Rules states:
‘Any motion on notice under paragraph 9.1 above
of these Rules, on being moved and seconded, will usually, without
discussion, be referred to the appropriate forum for
consideration. If the Chair 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:
(a) Not involve the Council incurring
expenditure not included in the Council’s approved revenue or
capital budget.
(b) Not involve the Council being
committed to take action which would usually require public
consultation or a statutory process to be followed prior to it
being made.’
Minutes:
Councillor Lisa Ingwall King had given notice
of a motion for consideration by Council. This was attached to the
agenda as Paper No: COU/WS/19/011.
Councillor Ingwall King was duly invited to
put her motion adding that it was commendable that Council had
resolved to declare a Climate Emergency and that Cabinet had
established an Environment and Climate Change Taskforce to look at
the impacts of adverse environmental factors and climate change in
detail.
Councillor Ingwall King wished to highlight
the challenges further, encouraging Council to commit to the
additional declaration of an Environment Emergency as set out in
her motion. She referred to scientific
data and evidence that had indicated how the picture was apparently
bleak on a global level and how specifically, the potential adverse
impacts consumption was having on the environment in the United
Kingdom was becoming increasingly concerning.
Emphasis was placed on how Members could
directly make a difference, particularly in respect of ensuring
environmental issues were a significant feature in shaping the
emerging three revised key policy documents, namely the West
Suffolk Strategic Framework, Medium Term Financial Strategy and
West Suffolk Local Plan.
Councillor David Nettleton was duly invited to
second the motion. He acknowledged that
in accordance with the Constitution, consideration of the motion
may involve some expenditure and would therefore be required to be
referred to the appropriate forum for debate.
The Chair agreed and stated his intention to
refer this matter to the appropriate forum, without debate, as if
carried, the motion was likely to have budgetary
implications. The appropriate forum was
Cabinet, specifically, the Cabinet’s Environment and Climate
Change Taskforce. It was expected that final, meaningful,
purposeful recommendations emanating from the Taskforce would be
presented to Cabinet for approval and subsequent action in
2020.
The Chair referred the motion to Cabinet for
further consideration, without debate, and moved to the next agenda
item.
|
37. |
Any Other Urgent Business
To consider any business, which
by reason of special circumstances, should in the opinion of the
Chair be considered at the meeting as a matter of
urgency.
Minutes:
There were no matters of urgent
business considered on this occasion.
(Councillor Max Clarke left the meeting at the conclusion of
this item.)
|
38. |
Exclusion of Press and Public
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 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.
Minutes:
As the next item on the agenda was exempt,
on the motion of Councillor John Griffiths, seconded
by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, 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.
|
39. |
Exempt: Referrals Report of Recommendations from Cabinet (para 3) (Exempt Report No: COU/WS/19/012) PDF 148 KB
(B)
Referrals from Cabinet: 10 September 2019
1.
Exempt Report No: COU/WS/19/012
Investing in our Commercial Asset Portfolio (para 3)
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Susan
Glossop
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Councillor Aaron
Luccarini declared a pecuniary interest in this item as his wife
was employed by the principal tenant that occupied the property
under consideration. He moved to the public gallery and therefore
did not vote on this item.)
Council considered this exempt report, the
contents of which had been recommended by Cabinet for approval.
Members were advised of the opportunity to acquire a commercial
property investment. It was considered
that this purchase offered the opportunity to protect jobs with a
major employer, provide an addition to the Council’s
commercial asset portfolio to generate revenue income and provided
strategic opportunities. The overall
investment would also be in line with the Council’s
principles of its Investing in Growth Strategy.
Councillor Susan Glossop, Portfolio Holder for
Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council and duly
responded to questions raised.
The majority of Members recognised the
benefits of making the proposed acquisition and supported the
recommendations.
On the motion of Councillor Glossop, seconded
by Councillor John Burns, it was put to the vote and with the vote
being 44 for the motion, four against and no abstentions, it
was
RESOLVED:
That the recommendations contained in Exempt
Report No: COU/WS/19/012, be approved.
(This decision and
associated papers will be available in the public domain in due
course)
The exemption
relating to this item was removed on 11 March 2020, and therefore
the following resolution is now published. This is not however,
contained in the signed minutes for this meeting:
RESOLVED:
(1) the purchase
of the freehold interest of Provincial House, 30-38 High Street,
Haverhill for £3,500,000 (three million and five hundred
thousand pounds), excluding VAT, fees and Stamp Duty Land Tax, to
be funded from the Investing in Growth fund, be
approved;
(2) a capital
budget of £3,699,500 (three million, six hundred and
ninety-nine thousand, five hundred pounds) be established and made
available to facilitate the purchase, including fees and Stamp Duty
Land Tax, to be funded from the Investing in Growth
fund;
(3) a capital budget of
£145,000 be established to fund the cost of landlord works,
as detailed in 5.4 of Report No: CAB/WS/19/030, funded from the
lease surrender premium;
(4) a revenue
budget of £230,000 be established, for the period of 3 years,
to cover the holding costs of the vacant elements of the building,
as detailed in 5.9 of Report No: CAB/WS/19/030, to be funded from
the lease surrender premium;
(5) the RIBA stage
one feasibility costs of £20,000 be funded, as detailed in
6.3 of Report No: CAB/WS/19/030, from the Strategic Priorities and
Medium Term Financial Strategy Reserve; and
(6) should the
purchase be made, the Council’s Section 151 Officer will make
the necessary changes to the Council’s prudential indicators
as a result of Recommendations (2) and (3) above.
|
|
In this section
|