Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, District Offices, College Heath Road, Mildenhall, Suffolk, IP28 7EY
Contact: Sharon Turner: Democratic Services Officer
Email: sharon.turner@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
96. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillor John Griffiths.
|
97. |
Minutes PDF 287 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
14 January 2020 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January
2020 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the
Chair.
|
98. |
Open Forum
At each Cabinet meeting, up to 15 minutes
shall be allocated for questions from and discussion with,
non-Cabinet members. Members wishing to
speak during this session should if possible, give notice in
advance. Who speaks and for how long
will be at the complete discretion of the person presiding.
Minutes:
The following non-Cabinet Members spoke under
this item:
1.
Councillor Brian Harvey, asked
questions/made statements in respect of Agenda Item 7 (Report
No: CAB/WS/20/019 - Sunnica Energy Farm: Consultation
Process).
Councillor Harvey opened by raising his concerns with regards to
the scale of the proposal, which had now increased to over 850
hectares. Appendix A of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/019 was a joint response from West Suffolk Council and
Suffolk County Council (dated 26 July 2019), to the non-statutory
public consultation report and Councillor Harvey asked whether a
response had been received from Sunnica.
Councillor Harvey raised concerns as to whether there were
informal/formal consultations taking place between Sunnica, West
Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council. He was also concerned to ensure that local
engagement was undertaken with the Town/Parish Councils.
Paragraph 2.7 of Report No: CAB/WS/20/019 set out the expected
decisions required and known timescales. Councillor Harvey made specific reference to the
response to Sunnica’s Statement
of Community Consultation (SoCC) which
was due in approximately February 2020 and asked if that was going
to take place and if so, had the Council seen Sunnica’s response.
Councillor Harvey also referred to the following, which may, in his
view, be affected by the proposed site:
-
One of the proposed routes for the potential Mildenhall Relief Road
would be through the centre of the site.
-
The existing anaerobic digestion plant located in that area, may
have to apply for a variation in their traffic route, meaning that
there could be an increase in traffic through the local
villages.
-
Within the proposed area was Bay Farm Quarry, Worlington, which was an operational sand and
gravel quarry.
-
The development could impact on the proposed route alignment for
the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) route from Cambridge to
Mildenhall.
Councillor Harvey concluded by stating that the local Town/Parish
Councils in the area, and particularly those located within the
Manor Ward, must be provided with the opportunity to be consulted
over these proposals, with the involvement of West Suffolk Council
and Suffolk County Council, alongside Cambridgeshire County Council
and East Cambridgeshire District Council.
In response,
Councillor Andy Drummond, Portfolio Holder for Regulatory, replied
to the questions/statements made by Councillor Harvey. In terms of the joint response submitted in July
2019, a response had not been received from Sunnica. Councillor Drummond referred to paragraph 2.7 of
the report and stated that he would be informing the Cabinet that
the timetable for this application had now slightly changed and
that the Statement of Community Consultation was likely to be
received in March 2020.
Councillor Drummond
also explained that Officers were currently negotiating the terms
of a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) with Sunnica in respect
of technical advice being sought, as part of the preparation of the
Council’s response to this application.
Councillor Drummond
concluded his response by explaining that the report on the Cabinet
agenda this evening was not about the merits of the proposal, but
as to how the Council ... view the
full minutes text for item 98.
|
99. |
Public Participation
Members of the public who live or work in the
District are invited to put one question or statement of not more
than three minutes duration relating to items to be discussed in
Part 1 of the agenda only. If a question is asked and answered
within three minutes, the person who asked the question may ask a
supplementary question that arises from the reply.
A person who wishes to speak must register at
least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to
start.
There is an overall time limit of 15 minutes
for public speaking, which may be extended at the Chair’s
discretion.
Minutes:
The following members of the public spoke
under this agenda item:
1.
Mark Cordell, Chief Executive, Our Bury St Edmunds
Business Improvement District (BID), made a statement in
respect of Agenda Item 9 (Report No: CAB/WS/20/021 – West
Suffolk Parking Review).
Mr Cordell
appreciated the funding challenges being faced by West Suffolk
Council and that there had been no recent increases in car parking
charges. The car parks in Bury St
Edmunds provided both a good service and a quality
surface. He also acknowledged the
recent work between the BID Chair, Councillor Peter Stevens and the
West Suffolk Council Car Parking Team regarding the trial for the
pay-on-exit car park in the Town.
Mr Cordell also
supported the recommendation to Cabinet to retain the ‘Free
from 3’ scheme on a Tuesday and to also retain the night
charge in Bury St Edmunds.
Mr Cordell explained
that he specifically wished to raise the following issues with the
Cabinet. The High Street crisis had hit
Bury St Edmunds and 2019 had been the worst year ever for recorded
footfall levels in Bury St Edmunds and the level of vacant units
was the highest for nine years. He
considered that car parking charges were proportionately
detrimental to low income households.
Public transport infrastructure in and around Bury St Edmunds was
poor and cars were the only real option
to get to work. To implement these
proposed increases in full, from April 2020, would have a huge
impact on low income households and urged the Cabinet to reconsider
this.
In addition, Mr
Cordell also requested the Cabinet to reconsider the reimbursing of
the RinGo transaction charges,
currently at a cost of £180,000 per year. He considered that this reimbursement was a waste
of public money as people who used RinGo were prepared to pay the 20p charge
associated with that convenience/choice. Not reimbursing this charge would then provide the
Council with the flexibility to reconsider the implementation of
all of the charges from April 2020.
In conclusion, Mr
Cordell urged the Cabinet to consider the recommendations before
them this evening and not to reimburse the RinGo charge, as he considered that this could
become an uncontrollable cost for the Council in the future.
In response,
Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, thanked
Mr Cordell for his statement and also
acknowledged the good working relationship between the Council and
the Bury BID. Councillor Stevens
wished to specifically refer to the statement which had been made
with regard to the Council reimbursing
the RinGo charge. He explained that the Council also incurred costs
for the collection, sorting and securing of cash in the car parking
machines throughout the Town.
Therefore, there were competing costs and it must be recognised
that a balance had to be struck between the Council’s costs
in collecting cash from the machines and the costs associated with
card payments.
2.
Andrew Appleby, a resident of Newmarket, made a statement in in respect of Agenda Item 9
(Report No: ...
view the full minutes text for item 99.
|
100. |
Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee: 9 January 2020 PDF 155 KB
Report No:
CAB/WS/20/017
Chair of the Committee: Cllr
David Nettleton
Lead Officer: Christine
Brain
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/017)
The Cabinet received and noted this report,
which informed Members of the following substantive items discussed
by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at their meeting held on 9
January 2020:
1.
Management of Events in West Suffolk.
2.
Cross Authority Task and Finish Group – Citizens Advice.
3.
Work Programme Update 2020.
Councillor David Nettleton, Chair of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, also drew relevant issues to the
attention of Cabinet.
|
101. |
Report of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee: 30 January 2020 PDF 152 KB
Report No:
CAB/WS/20/018
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
Chairman of the Committee: Cllr
Ian Houlder
Lead Officer: Christine
Brain
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/018)
The Cabinet received and noted this report,
which informed Members of the following substantive items discussed
by the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee at their meeting on
30 January 2020:
1.
2019-2020
Performance Report (Quarter 3).
2.
Delivering a Sustainable Medium-Term Budget 2020-2021.
3.
Treasury Management Report and Investment Activity (April –
December 2019).
4.
Annual Treasury Management and Investment Strategy Statements
2020-2021.
5.
Re-appointments to the Financial Resilience and the Health and
Safety Sub-Committees (2019-2020).
6.
Work Programme Update 2020-2021.
Councillor Ian Houlder, Chair of the Performance and Audit
Scrutiny Committee, drew relevant issues to the attention of
Cabinet, including that separate reports were included on this
Cabinet agenda for Items 2., 3., and 4. above.
Councillor Houlder
also referred to paragraph 1.2.5 of the report which had contained
a recommendation for Cabinet to consider Brandon as a special case
and to look at property investments in the town. The Cabinet stated that it recognised the specific
challenges within Brandon. All property
investments were considered on a case-by-case basis, including
those within Brandon. The Cabinet
agreed with the principle of investing in the district, as
supported by the recently approved Asset Management Strategy, but
did not consider that it was appropriate to concentrate on one
specific town. Therefore, the Cabinet
did not support the recommendation made by the Committee, as set
out in paragraph 1.2.5.
|
102. |
Sunnica Energy Farm: Consultation Process PDF 540 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/019
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Andy
Drummond
Lead Officer: David Collinson
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED:
That:-
1.
The decision making in respect of the formal stages
of the development process for the Sunnica Energy Farm be in
accordance with the table at paragraph 2.7 of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/019 (as amended); and
2. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation be amended to include
delegated authority to Officers to discharge the requirements
attached to any Order granted, monitor the implementation of the
Order, take any necessary enforcement action and determine any
non-material and material amendment applications.
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/019)
The Cabinet considered this report which
explained that the Sunnica Energy Farm was a scheme for the
installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) generating panels and
on-site energy storage facilities across two sites within Suffolk
and Cambridgeshire. The proposal would
include the infrastructure associated with the required connection
to the national grid, including an extension to the Burwell
National Grid Substation.
Councillor Andy Drummond, Portfolio Holder for
Regulatory, drew relevant issues to the attention of Cabinet and
explained that West Suffolk Council were a formal consultee and
needed to decide how to respond to the consultations and various
formal stages of the process. It was
being proposed for the regulatory responses to be executive
decisions and, therefore, to be agreed by Cabinet, Portfolio
Holders or Officers.
The scheme was defined as a Nationally
Significant Infrastructure project as an onshore generating station
in England, exceeding 50MW and an application for a Development
Consent Order must be made by the applicant to the Planning
Inspectorate (PINS).
Councillor Drummond explained that paragraph
2.7 of the report set out the expected decisions required and known
timescales. Since the publication of
the report, the timescales had now been amended as follows:
-
Response to Statement of Community Consultation (now March
2020)
-
Response to Statutory Consultation (now June/July 2020)
-
Draft and comments on the Statement of Common Ground (now late
Autumn 2020)
-
Preparation and submission of a Local Impact Report (now early
2021)
Any decision making would need to be
accompanied by local member(s) and Cabinet member
briefings. Regular updates had been
provided to local Members, including engagement in the informal
consultation response provided in the Summer of 2019. This engagement would continue as the Council
developed future formal responses.
Councillor Drummond also took the opportunity to remind of the
briefing for Members which had been arranged for 12 February 2020
at 5pm.
The general public’s main opportunities
to have their say in the process run by the Planning Inspectorate
would be at the Statutory Consultation Stage and during the
Examination in Public.
RESOLVED:
That:-
1.
The decision making in respect of the formal stages
of the development process for the Sunnica Energy Farm be in
accordance with the table at paragraph 2.7 of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/019 (as amended); and
2. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation be amended to include
delegated authority to Officers to discharge the requirements
attached to any Order granted, monitor the implementation of the
Order, take any necessary enforcement action and determine any
non-material and material amendment applications.
|
103. |
Recommendations of the Extraordinary Overview and Scrutiny Committee - 23 January 2020: West Suffolk Parking Review Group PDF 164 KB
Report No; CAB/WS/20/020
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Peter
Stevens
Chair of the Committee: Cllr
David Nettleton
Lead Officers: Darren Dixon and
Mark Walsh
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED:
That the recommendations as set out in Section
10 and Tables 1 and 2, being the West Suffolk Parking Review
Group’s Report, attached as Report No: OAS/WS/20/003, be
approved (Appendix A), subject to the following
amendments/referrals being made:
1. Table
1: Brandon – no parking charges should be introduced in
Brandon. Instead, a maximum stay of 3
hours is allowed in the Bury Road car park, with users required to
obtain a free ticket. A review should
be undertaken after 12 months to evaluate how this is
operating.
2. Table
1: Brandon – No recommendation be made to Suffolk County
Council regarding parking on Brandon High Street.
3. Table
1: Bury St Edmunds – That all aspects relating to Bury St
Edmunds be referred to Cabinet for determination, subject to
recommendation 4., 5., 6. and 9. below:
4. Bury
St Edmunds: Cabinet to be asked to consider the implications of
retaining the “free from 3” scheme on Tuesdays
and also consider the implications of
extending it to include 8am to 12 midday on Wednesdays.
5. Bury
St Edmunds: Cabinet to be asked to consider the implications of
removing the nightly charge from 6pm.
6. Bury
St Edmunds: Cabinet to be asked to consider the implications of
retaining the tariff period to 6pm (from the 8pm proposal).
7.
Haverhill: Cabinet to be asked to consider retaining the
“free from 3” on Fridays (subject to 9 below).
8. Cabinet to be asked
to determine its own proposals for Newmarket.
9. Cabinet to be asked
to look at the implication of “free from” parking
options in all market towns across West Suffolk on market days
(Fridays in Haverhill and Tuesdays in Newmarket).
10.
Cabinet to be asked to examine the electric vehicle bay charging
structure across West Suffolk, with the potential to introduce
charging for electric bays at a concessionary rate rather than the
full rate.
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/020)
The Cabinet considered this report which
explained that on 11 July 2019, a West Suffolk Car Parking Review
Group had been established by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
to review parking in West Suffolk.
Report No: OAS/WS/20/003 (attached as Appendix A to Report No:
Cab/WS/20/020) set out the conclusions and recommendations from the
Review Group, which had been presented to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 23 January 2020.
The recommendations of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee from their meeting on 23 January 2020, were as
set out in Report No: CAB/WS/20/020 for consideration by the
Cabinet.
RESOLVED:
That the
recommendations as set out in Section 10 and Tables 1 and 2, being
the West Suffolk Parking Review Group’s Report, attached as
Report No: OAS/WS/20/003, be approved (Appendix A), subject to the
following amendments/referrals being made:
1.
Table 1: Brandon – no parking charges should be
introduced in Brandon. Instead, a
maximum stay of 3 hours is allowed in the Bury Road car park, with
users required to obtain a free ticket.
A review should be undertaken after 12 months to evaluate how this
is operating.
2.
Table 1: Brandon – No recommendation be made to
Suffolk County Council regarding parking on Brandon High
Street.
3.
Table 1: Bury St Edmunds – That all aspects relating
to Bury St Edmunds be referred to Cabinet for determination,
subject to recommendation 4., 5., 6. and 9. below:
4.
Bury St Edmunds - Cabinet to be asked to consider the
implications of retaining the “free from 3” scheme on
Tuesdays and also consider the implications of extending it to
include 8am to 12 midday on Wednesdays.
5.
Bury St Edmunds - Cabinet to be asked to consider the
implications of removing the nightly charge from 6pm.
6.
Bury St Edmunds - Cabinet to be asked to consider the
implications of retaining the tariff period to 6pm (from the 8pm
proposal).
7.
Haverhill - Cabinet to be asked to consider retaining the
“free from 3” on Fridays (subject to 9 below).
8. Cabinet to be asked
to determine its own proposals for Newmarket.
9. Cabinet to be asked
to look at the implication of “free from” parking
options in all market towns across West Suffolk on market days
(Fridays in Haverhill and Tuesdays in Newmarket).
10.
Cabinet to be asked to examine the electric vehicle bay charging
structure across West Suffolk, with the potential to introduce
charging for electric bays at a concessionary rate rather than the
full rate.
|
104. |
West Suffolk Parking Review PDF 278 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/021
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Peter
Stevens
Lead Officers: Darren Dixon and
Mark Walsh
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED:
That:-
1.
Those matters referred to it by the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee in its report “Recommendations of the
Extraordinary Overview and Scrutiny Committee 23 January 2020: West
Suffolk Parking Review Group”, recommendations 3-10
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/020) be noted.
2.
The Parking Petition submitted on 24 January 2020 be
noted.
3.
The recommendations in respect of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee referrals, as set out in Section 2 of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/021, be agreed.
4.
The recommendation in Section 3 of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/021, not to give two free days parking in market towns,
be agreed.
5.
The recommendations in Section 4 in respect of
Newmarket and, in particular, the Parking Plan as attached at
Appendix 1 of Report No: CAB/WS/20/021, be agreed, subject to the
following amendments:
Appendix 1: Draft Newmarket Parking Plan and Recommendations: Table
1:
-
Proposed off street tariffs – Rous Road
3 hrs - £1.00
be amended to
2 hrs - £1.00
-
Guineas
Inclusion of Weekly Charge
- £10.00
6.
The Portfolio Holder for Operations be delegated to
approve any changes needed to the Traffic Regulation Order, to
accommodate any reasonable requirements from third party car park
landlords.
Minutes:
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/021)
Prior to the consideration of
this report by the Cabinet, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio
Holder for Operations reiterated that, as had been mentioned
earlier in the meeting, it was not just the issue of car
parking charges which were relevant to the health and well-being of
Town Centres and that there was a more wider debate to be had to
address the decline of Town Centres generally.
The Cabinet then considered
this report which explained that the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee, at its meeting on 23 January 2020, considered a report
by the West Suffolk Car Parking Review Group (Report No:
CAB/WS/20/020 referred). Since the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting had been held, a petition
had been received by the Council calling for free parking in Bury
St Edmunds and other market towns, as set out in Section 3 of
Report No: CAB/WS/20/021.
A number of recommendations were made by the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, of which eight referred matters to
the Cabinet for further consideration.
This report provided more information on the referrals in order for
Cabinet to be able to reach a decision.
Councillor Stevens also specifically referred
to page 143 of the agenda papers which set out the draft Newmarket
Parking Plan and recommendations.
Councillor Stevens referred to the concerns raised earlier in the
meeting with regard to the unsatisfactory state of the car park
surfaces in Newmarket and confirmed that a programme of works for
the refurbishment of these car parks would be undertaken at the
earliest opportunity from April 2020.
These works would be started, as and when deemed most appropriate,
taking into account weather conditions and the avoidance of
conflicting with race days.
Whilst considering this report, the Cabinet
also proposed the following amendments, to Appendix 1; Table 1
(Draft Newmarket Parking Plan and Recommendations):
-
Proposed off street tariffs – Rous
Road
3 hrs -
£1.00 be amended to 2 hrs -
£1.00
-
Guineas
Weekly Charge - £10.00
The Cabinet also proposed an additional
recommendation, as follows:
6.The Portfolio Holder for Operations be delegated to approve any
changes needed to the Traffic Regulation Order, to accommodate any
reasonable requirements from third party car park landlords.
RESOLVED:
That:-
1.
Those matters referred to it by the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee in its report “Recommendations of the
Extraordinary Overview and Scrutiny Committee 23 January 2020: West
Suffolk Parking Review Group”, recommendations 3-10
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/020) be noted.
2.
The Parking Petition submitted on 24 January 2020 be
noted.
3.
The recommendations in respect of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee referrals, as set out in Section 2 of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/021, be agreed.
4.
The recommendation in Section 3 of Report No:
CAB/WS/20/021, not to give two free days parking in market towns,
be agreed.
5.
The recommendations in Section 4 in respect of
Newmarket and, in particular, the Parking Plan as attached at
Appendix 1 of Report No: CAB/WS/20/021, be agreed, subject to the
following amendments:
Appendix 1:
...
view the full minutes text for item 104.
|
105. |
Recommendations of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee - 30 January 2020: Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2020-2021 and Treasury Management Code of Practice PDF 129 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/022
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
Chair of the Committee: Cllr
Ian Houlder Lead Officer: Rachael
Mann
Decision:
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25
February 2020)
That:-
1.
The Treasury Management Strategy Statement
2020-2021, as set out in Appendix 1 to Report No: PAS/WS/20/004, be
approved; and
2.
The Treasury Management Code of Practice, as set out
Appendix 2 to Report No: PAS/WS/20/004, be approved.
Minutes:
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/022)
The Cabinet considered this report which
explained that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy’s (CIPFA) Treasury Management Code of Practice
required that, prior to the start of the financial year, that the
Council formally approved a Treasury Management Policy Statement
and Investment Strategy, setting out the Council’s treasury
management policy and strategy for the forthcoming year.
The Treasury Management
Strategy Statement 2020-2021 was attached as Appendix 1 and the
Treasury Management Code of Practice was attached as Appendix 2 to
Report No: PAS/WS/20/004. The report
also included additional supporting information on treasury
advisors; counterparty ratings; approved investment counterparties
and limits; revised building society limits and interest rate
projections.
RECOMMENDED TO
COUNCIL: (25 February 2020)
That:-
1.
The Treasury Management Strategy Statement
2020-2021, as set out in Appendix 1 to Report No: PAS/WS/20/004, be
approved; and
2.
The Treasury Management Code of Practice, as set out
Appendix 2 to Report No: PAS/WS/20/004, be approved.
|
106. |
Recommendations of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee - 30 January 2020: Treasury Management - December 2019 PDF 132 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/023
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
Chair of the Committee: Cllr
Ian Houlder Lead Officer: Rachael
Mann
Decision:
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25
February 2020)
That the Treasury Management
Report (December 2019), being Report No: PAS/WS/20/003, be
approved.
Minutes:
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/023)
The Cabinet received this report which
explained that the Cabinet was required to consider the Treasury
Management Report as at 31 December 2019, prior to seeking its
approval by Council.
The 2019-2020 Annual Treasury Management and
Investment Strategy set out the Council’s projections for the
current year. The report included
assumptions on borrowing for the capital projects included within
it and which was based around three specific projects. The report also summarised the investment
activities for the period 1 April to 31 December 2019.
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25 February 2020)
That
the Treasury Management Report (December 2019), being Report No:
PAS/WS/20/003, be approved.
|
107. |
Recommendations of the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee - 30 January 2020: Delivering a Sustainable Budget 2020/2021 PDF 239 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/024
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
Chair of the Committee: Cllr
Ian Houlder Lead Officer: Rachael
Mann
Decision:
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25
February 2020 - as part of the budget setting process)
That the proposals
detailed in Section 2 and Table 1 of Report No:
PAS/WS/20/002, be included in securing a balanced budget for
2020/2021 and the medium-term financial plans.
Minutes:
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/024)
The Cabinet considered this
report which explained that the Performance and Audit Scrutiny
Committee had agreed the principles and approach for delivering a
balanced budget in 2020/2021 and a medium-term financial plan for
the years up to 2023/2024.
Workshops had taken place
during August to December 2019, alongside a detailed
“line-by-line” review of each service cost base to
ensure that budgets were only set for planned and understood
expenditure, which had then been considered by the Performance and
Audit Scrutiny Committee in November 2019.
At their meeting on 30 January
2020, the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee were updated on
the workshops and line-by-line reviews which had now concluded and
any further proposed changes in cost and income assumptions, as a
result had been included in Table 1 of Report No:
PAS/WS/20/002. Section 2 of Report No:
PAS/WS/20/002 also set out information with regards to the
provisional Local Government Finance Settlement and the New Homes
Bonus.
Having taken the current and future financial
pressures and challenges facing West Suffolk into account,
including the budget gap, budget assumptions, proposed timetable
and the methodology for securing a balanced budget for 2020-2024,
the Cabinet considered that the Performance and Audit Scrutiny
Committee’s recommendations were acceptable for incorporating
into the final budget proposals for 2020/2021 and in the medium
term financial plan for the years up to 2023/2024.
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25 February 2020 - as part of the budget setting
process)
That
the proposals detailed in Section 2 and Table
1 of Report No: PAS/WS/20/002, be included in securing a balanced
budget for 2020/2021 and the medium-term financial
plans.
|
108. |
Budget and Council Tax Setting 2020/2021 and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2020-2024 PDF 271 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/025
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sarah
Broughton
Lead Officer: Rachael Mann
Additional documents:
Decision:
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25
February 2020)
That:-
1.
The revenue and capital budget for 2020-2024,
including the capital budget flexibility set out in paragraph 5.7,
attached at Attachment A and as detailed in Attachment D
(Appendices 1-5), Attachment E (Appendices 1-3) and Attachment F to
Report No: CAB/WS/20/025, be approved.
2.
The additional business rate reliefs set out in
paragraphs 2.8-2.10 of Report No: CAB/WS/20/025, in support of our
business community in particular our
town centres and high streets in West Suffolk, be
approved.
3.
Having taken into account the conclusions of the
Assistant Director’s (Resources and Performance) report on
the adequacy of reserves and the robustness of budget estimates
(Attachment C) and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)
(Attachment D), particularly the Scenario Planning and Sensitivity
Analysis (Attachment D, Appendix 5) and all other information
contained in Report No: CAB/WS/20/025, the Cabinet recommends a
£4.97 increase in Band D council tax across both predecessor
areas of St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath. This assumption is based on the option to
harmonise the two predecessor areas by April 2022. The level of Band D council tax for 2020/2021,
therefore, be recommended to be set at £183.78 for the
predecessor area of St Edmundsbury and £163.98 for the
predecessor area of Forest Heath.
(Note: the level of council tax beyond 2020/21 will be set in
accordance with the annual budget process for the relevant
financial year.).
4.
The Assistant Director (Resources and Performance),
in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources and
Performance, be authorised to transfer any surplus from the
2019/2020 revenue budget to the Invest to Save Reserve as detailed
in paragraph 7.4, and to vire funds
between existing Earmarked Reserves (as set out at Attachment D,
Appendix 3) as deemed appropriate throughout the medium term financial planning period.
5.
The Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy as set
out in Attachment G, be approved.
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/025)
The Cabinet received this report which
explained that the Cabinet was required to recommend to Council the
budget and the level of council tax required to fund the
Council’s activities over the next year. The Cabinet supported the budget proposals for
securing a balanced budget for 2020/2021, as previously considered
and recommended by the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee and
incorporated into Report No: CAB/WS/20/025.
In 2020/2021 it was being recommended for
a £4.97 increase in Band D council tax across
both predecessor areas of St Edmundsbury and Forest
Heath. The budget for council tax for
2020/2021 and future years was based on the option to harmonise the
two predecessor areas (St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath) using the
average Band D rate across both predecessor areas, harmonising the
council tax bills by 2022/2023, whilst maximising the Council Tax
receipts to protect services and to support the Council’s
investment plans. For 2020/2021 this
represented an average Band D monthly increase of 97p (for the
predecessor area of Forest Heath) and 14p (for the predecessor area
of St Edmundsbury).
Therefore, it was being
recommended that the level of Band D council tax for 2020/2021, be
set at £183.78 for the predecessor area of St Edmundsbury and
£163.98 for the predecessor area of Forest Heath.
In addition, the Government had
announced that additional business rates measures would apply from
1 April 2020. These measures would
increase the current retail discount and extend that discount to
cinemas and music venues; extend the duration of the local
newspapers office space discount and introduce an additional
discount for public houses. Therefore,
it was also being recommended to support these additional rate
reliefs to facilitate delivery of the Council’s ambition to
support its town centres and high streets in West
Suffolk.
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: (25 February 2020)
That:-
1.
The revenue and capital budget for 2020-2024,
including the capital budget flexibility set out in paragraph 5.7,
attached at Attachment A and as detailed in Attachment D
(Appendices 1-5), Attachment E (Appendices 1-3) and Attachment F to
Report No: CAB/WS/20/025, be approved.
2.
The additional business rate reliefs set out in
paragraphs 2.8-2.10 of Report No: CAB/WS/20/025, in support of our
business community in particular our
town centres and high streets in West Suffolk, be
approved.
3.
Having taken into account the conclusions of the
Assistant Director’s (Resources and Performance) report on
the adequacy of reserves and the robustness of budget estimates
(Attachment C) and the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)
(Attachment D), particularly the Scenario Planning and Sensitivity
Analysis (Attachment D, Appendix 5) and all other information
contained in Report No: CAB/WS/20/025, the Cabinet recommends a
£4.97 increase in Band D council tax across both predecessor
areas of St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath. This assumption is based on the option to
harmonise the two predecessor areas by April 2022. The level of Band D council tax for 2020/2021,
therefore, be recommended to be set at £183.78 for the
predecessor area of St Edmundsbury and ...
view the full minutes text for item 108.
|
109. |
Decisions Plan: 1 February 2020 to 31 May 2020 PDF 233 KB
To consider the most recently published
version of the Cabinet’s Decisions Plan
Report No:
CAB/WS/20/026
Portfolio Holder: Cllr John
Griffiths
Lead Officer: Ian Gallin
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/026)
The Cabinet considered this report which was
the Cabinet Decisions Plan covering the period 1 February 2020 to
31 May 2020.
Members took the opportunity to review the
intended forthcoming decisions of the Cabinet. However, no further information or amendments were
requested on this occasion.
|
110. |
Queensbury Lodge, Newmarket PDF 153 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/027
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Susan
Glossop
Lead Officer: Julie Baird
Decision:
RESOLVED:
That:-
1.
The undertaking of the Urgent Works process be
authorised.
2.
The acceptance of the mitigation measures, as set
out in the exempt Appendix to this report, be agreed.
Minutes:
(Report No: CAB/WS/20/027)
The Cabinet considered this report which
explained that Queensbury Lodge, Queensbury Cottage and Stables
were each individually Grade II Listed Buildings and were situated
on a prominent site at the entrance to Newmarket’s town
centre. The Yard was considered to be the second oldest
racehorse-training establishment in the town after Palace House
Stables.
The buildings were all included in the Suffolk
Historic Buildings at Risk Register due to neglect or prolonged
lack of maintenance. They were on one
of the main approaches to the town centre within the Newmarket
Conservation Area and created a poor impression of the town and its
attitude towards its horse racing and build heritage. The condition of the three listed buildings had
worsened and a survey in April 2019 identified part of the Lodge
which was in danger of collapse.
Section 54 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Aras) Act 1990 allowed the Council to serve an
Urgent Works Notice on the owner giving notice of the
Council’s intention to undertake works required to keep the
buildings weather-tight, secure and safe from collapse. The owner was also given the opportunity to
undertake the works themselves.
Historic England’s Advisers were aware of the site through
previous planning discussions and were in
agreement that the buildings were in urgent need of
protection and supported the Council’s proposed approach.
If the urgent works were not secured, the
listed buildings would have to endure at least two more winters
with subsequent further deterioration and Officers were concerned
that the Lodge, in particular, was in
imminent danger of collapse.
It was, therefore, considered that the
condition of the buildings needed to be addressed as a matter of
urgency using the Council’s powers under Section
54. To progress this, an urgent
decision was needed on whether the Council should use its powers to
serve an Urgent Works Notice and also to accept the cost of taking
direct action, together with the mitigation measures, which were
set out in the exempt Appendix to this report.
RESOLVED:
That:-
1.
The undertaking of the Urgent Works process be
authorised.
2.
The acceptance of the mitigation measures, as set
out in the exempt Appendix to Report No: CAB/WS/20/027, be
agreed.
|
111. |
Exclusion of Press and Public
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.
Minutes:
It was proposed, seconded and
RESOLVED:
That the press and
public 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.
|
112. |
Exempt Appendix: Queensbury Lodge, Newmarket (para 3)
Exempt Appendix to Report No:
CAB/WS/20/027
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Susan
Glossop
Lead Officer: Julie Baird
(This exempt
Appendix is to be considered in private under paragraph 3 of
Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as it contains
information relating to the financial or business affairs of any
particular person (including the authority holding that
information))
(No representations
have been received from members of the public regarding this item
being held in private.)
Decision:
RESOLVED:
The recommendations were approved as set out
in the Exempt Appendix to Report No: CAB/WS/20/027.
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/027)
The Cabinet considered this exempt Appendix
which set out the mitigation measures for the undertaking of urgent
works at Queensbury Lodge, Newmarket.
RESOLVED:
The recommendations
be approved as set out in the Exempt Appendix to Report No:
CAB/WS/20/027.
|
113. |
Investing in our Commercial Asset Portfolio (para 3) PDF 267 KB
Report No: CAB/WS/20/028
Portfolio Holder: Cllr Sara
Mildmay-White
Lead Officers: Davina Howes and
Julie Baird
(This report is to
be considered in private under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of the
Local Government Act 1972, as it contains information relating to
the financial or business affairs of any particular person
(including the authority holding that information))
(No representations
have been received from members of the public regarding this item
being held in private)
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED:
The recommendations were approved as set out
in Exempt Report No: CAB/WS/20/028.
Minutes:
(Report No:
CAB/WS/20/028)
The Cabinet considered this report which set
out an opportunity for the Council to invest in its commercial
asset portfolio.
RESOLVED:
The recommendations
be approved as set out in Exempt Report No: CAB/WS/20/028.
The exemption
relating to this item was removed on 27 July 2020, and therefore
the following resolution is now published. This is not however,
contained in the signed minutes for this meeting:
RESOLVED:
That:
1. the purchase of the
freehold interest of St Edmunds Guest House, St Andrews Street
North, Bury St Edmunds, be approved, for £850,000 (Eight
hundred and fifty thousand pounds), excluding VAT, fees and Stamp
Duty Land Tax, to be funded from the Investing in Growth fund;
2. a capital budget of
£940,500 (Nine hundred and forty thousand five hundred
pounds) be established to be made available to facilitate the
purchase, including fees and Stamp Duty Land Tax, and initial
alterations budgeted at £50,000, to be funded from the
Investing in Growth fund; and
3. 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
|