Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Conference Room, Mildenhall Hub, Sheldrick Way, Mildenhall, IP28 7JX
Contact: Claire Skoyles: Democratic Services Officer
Email: claire.skoyles@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Note: **Please note that the venue for this meeting has now moved to Mildenhall Hub, Sheldrick Way, Mildenhall, IP28 7JX**
Media
Items
No. |
Item |
403. |
Apologies for absence
Minutes:
No apologies for absence were received.
|
404. |
Minutes PDF 154 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
18 October 2022 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 18 October
2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the
Chair.
|
405. |
Declarations of interest
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.
|
406. |
Open forum
At each Cabinet meeting, up to 15 minutes
shall be allocated for questions or statements from and discussion
with, non-Cabinet members. Members wishing to speak during this
session are encouraged to 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 on the relevant agenda items, as indicated in the order
shown below. A summary of the issues raised collectively on each
agenda item has been recorded:
A. Agenda item
6 – Report number CAB/WS/22/056: Land to the West of
Mildenhall: Masterplan
1. Councillor
Ian Shipp, ward member for Mildenhall Kingsway &
Market
2. Councillor
Andy Neal, ward member for Mildenhall Queensway
3. Councillor
Brian Harvey, ward member for Manor
Concern was expressed regarding the potential
impact of the forthcoming development on transport and the highway
network and whether sufficient measures would be put in place to
manage traffic flow. The data used to assess the potential impact
was felt to be inaccurate and out-of-date.
The need for more housing in Mildenhall was
acknowledged; however, this needed to be achieved in a phased,
sustainable and workable manner which
ensured there was less reliance on car usage.
It was felt that the development of the land
designated for employment use should be delivered in the relatively
early phases in case viability issues were experienced in later
years which may impact deliverability.
Councillor Harvey specifically expressed his
concern regarding the impact of the development on the rural
villages in the vicinity of Mildenhall. He felt that an increase in
traffic had already negatively impacted on the surrounding rural
village road network and this would be
exacerbated by the development.
B. Agenda item
7 – Report number CAB/WS/22/057: Sunnica Energy Farm Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project (NSIP): Written Representation
1.
Councillor Brian
Harvey, ward member for Manor
Councillor Harvey expressed his full support
for the Council’s proposed Written Representation in relation
to the above scheme for submission to the Examining Authority. He
specifically drew Cabinet’s attention to the proposed
development’s impact on the rural road network particularly
around the transportation of construction materials; the lack of
detail in the application; and the significant amount of time and
resource that had been spent on responding to the proposals to
date.
C. Agenda item
8 – Report number CAB/WS/22/058: Street Lighting
1. Councillor
Andy Neal, ward member for Mildenhall Queensway
2. Councillor
David Palmer, ward member for Brandon West
3. Councillor
Phil Wittam, ward member for Brandon East
4. Councillor
Victor Lukaniuk, ward member for Brandon Central
Concern was expressed that Report number:
CAB/WS/22/058 presented to Cabinet that evening did not offer an
immediate solution to the perceived disparity between funding the
street lighting service by council taxpayers of the former Forest
Heath District and St Edmundsbury Borough Councils. Whilst the
findings of the street lighting audit were acknowledged and
officers thanked for their work to date, there was a resistance to
believe that a resolution would be agreed on this matter, even in
2023 as part of the wider planned review of the Council’s
relationship with town and parish councils, as had been
recommended.
A number of options
for seeking a swifter resolution to achieving the desired parity on
this matter were offered.
Matters affecting the prosperity of
... view
the full minutes text for item 406.
|
407. |
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.
This can be done online by sending the request to democratic.services@westsuffolk.gov.uk
or telephoning 01284 757176 or in person by
telling the Committee Administrator present at the meeting. We
would urge anyone who wishes to register to speak to notify
Democratic Services by 9am on the day of the meeting so that advice
can be given on the arrangements in place.
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. Councillor Russell Leaman,
Deputy Mayor of Mildenhall High Town Council made a statement
in connection with Agenda item 6: Report number CAB/WS/22/056, Land
to the West of Mildenhall: Masterplan.
Councillor Leaman expressed issues of concern
raised by the High Town Council in respect of the proposed
masterplan. Specific reference was given to the potential major
impact the proposed development would have on the existing road
network in and around Mildenhall. Having undertaken their own
traffic survey, the High Town Council considered the detail
provided in the masterplan appeared to be woefully short of an
acceptable solution. In particular, the impact of the proposed
development on traffic flow in the town centre was considered to be
significantly detrimental.
In response, Councillor David Roach, Portfolio
Holder for Planning, stated that the Council was aware of the
issues raised by the High Town Council. The masterplan, if adopted
as planning guidance, provided an overview of the development
required on this strategic site and the level of detail regarding
highway improvements would come forward as the planning process
progressed. Engagement would continue with Suffolk County Council
as the majority landowner for the site, the Highway Authority, the
High Town Council and local ward members to ensure an acceptable
solution was in place at the relevant time.
2. Nick Wright, speaking on
behalf of ‘Say No to Sunnica Action Group’ made
a statement in connection with Agenda item 7: Report number
CAB/WS/22/057, Sunnica Energy Farm Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project (NSIP): Written Representation.
Mr Wright stated that he was a local farmer
and whilst not against solar farms in general, the Action Group
objected to size and scale of this development. He welcomed the proposed Written Representation
attached as Appendix 1 to Report number: CAB/WS/22/057 and hoped
Cabinet would support its submission to the Examining
Authority.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader
of the Council, stated that the Council shared the Action
Group’s concerns and thanked Mr Wright for the Group’s
engagement with the process. Councillor David Roach, Portfolio
Holder for Planning, concurred that the Council was not against the
provision of solar farms; however, this proposal appeared to be too
vast and would be situated in an inappropriate location. The
Council had other concerns, as set out in the proposed Written
Representation.
The Chair thanked the members of the public
for attending the meeting and invited them to hear the debate on
the items at the relevant point in the agenda.
|
408. |
Land to the West of Mildenhall: Masterplan (Report number: CAB/WS/22/056) PDF 161 KB
Report number: CAB/WS/22/056
Portfolio holder: Councillor David Roach
Lead officer: Julie Baird
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved:
That the West Mildenhall Masterplan, as
contained in Appendix A to Report number: CAB/WS/22/056, be adopted
as planning guidance.
Minutes:
(In the interests of openness and
transparency, Councillors Andy Drummond, Robert Everitt and David
Roach declared that they were all members of Suffolk County
Council. All three members remained in the meeting and voted on the
item.)
The Cabinet considered this report, which
sought approval for the West Mildenhall Masterplan to be adopted as
planning guidance.
Policy SA4(a) of the Site Allocations Local
Plan (SALP) 2019 document set out that 97 hectares of land was
allocated for a mixed-use development at Land to the West of
Mildenhall to include 1,300 dwellings with a local centre, a
minimum of five hectares of employment land, a ten hectare SANG
(Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace), school, leisure
facilities and public services. Approximately 19.2 hectares of the
site allocation had already been developed as the Mildenhall Hub, a
public service, educational and leisure facility that opened in
summer 2021.
While the principle of development was
established at the point at which this site was allocated for
development in the adopted SALP (2019), the purpose of a
masterplan, which had been out for consultation, was to put in
place a framework against which future planning applications could
be assessed and provide a clear vision as to the nature of the
development that would come forward to fulfil the policy
allocation.
Councillor David Roach, Portfolio Holder for
Planning, drew relevant issues to the attention of Cabinet,
including that following a review of the consultation responses and
updated masterplan, officers had identified three key areas where
further engagement with Suffolk County Council (SCC), as the
majority landowner, was necessary. These related to land ownership,
the timing of the delivery of the five hectares of employment land
required by the policy allocation; the highway impacts of the
future development and the need for highway mitigation measures to
be implemented.
With regards to transport, further detailed
assessments would be forthcoming at the outline planning
application stage and would be comprehensively considered at that
time. With regards to the phasing of the employment land, it was
considered, that the Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) in place, as referred to in paragraph 2.15 of
the report, was an acceptable compromise and provided sufficient
commitment from SCC to bring forward the employment land as soon as
possible.
A detailed discussion was held and the
challenges associated with implementing sufficient highway
improvements in Mildenhall and across West Suffolk were recognised;
however, every effort would be made to ensure appropriate road
infrastructure was in place to satisfactorily manage traffic flow
at the appropriate time as planning applications came forward.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that in order to ensure that a
comprehensive and policy compliant development came forward on this
allocated site it was necessary for a masterplan to be adopted as
planning guidance. Delivery would be phased and further detail
would come forward at the relevant planning application
stage.
Having considered the views and actions of
officers in respect of addressing the above issues, as detailed in
Report number: CAB/WS/22/056, and the ...
view the full minutes text for item 408.
|
409. |
Sunnica Energy Farm Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP): Written Representation (Report number: CAB/WS/22/057) PDF 447 KB
Report number: CAB/WS/22/057
Portfolio holder: Councillor David Roach
Lead officer: Julie Baird
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved:
That:
1. The Written
Representation in connection with the Sunnica Energy Farm Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project (NSIP) proposals to be submitted to the
Examining Authority (attached as Appendix 1 to Report number:
CAB/WS/22/057), be endorsed.
2. The Director
(Planning and Growth), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder
for Planning, be authorised to make amendments to the Written
Representation prior to its submission.
(Due to ensuring
the Written Representation is submitted by the required deadline of
11 November 2022, with the agreement of the Chair of the Overview
and Scrutiny (O&S) Committee, the call-in procedure for this
item has been suspended. The Chair of the O&S Committee was
satisfied that the decision proposed was reasonable in all the
circumstances and to it being treated as a matter of urgency).
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered this report, which
sought endorsement of the Council’s Written Representation in
connection with the Sunnica Energy Farm
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) proposals, and
for it to be submitted to the Examining Authority by the required
deadline of 11 November 2022.
Sunnica Energy Farm was a proposed
scheme for the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) generating
panels and on-site battery energy storage systems (BESS) across two
sites within Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. The proposal would include
the infrastructure associated with the required connection to the
national grid, which would either involve an extension to the
Burwell National Grid Substation or the installation of the
necessary equipment within the solar panel sites to enable the
generated power to be transported to the grid.
The scheme was defined as a Nationally
Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act
2008 as it was an onshore generating station in England exceeding
50 megawatts. Consent for an NSIP took
the form of a Development Consent Order. The application would be
determined by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and
Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The Council was a statutory consultee
in the consenting process and a number of stages needed to be
followed. The Council was now required to submit it’s Written
Representation (WR).
A WR was the most appropriate document for a
local authority to set out its view on the application, i.e.
whether or not it supported the application and its
reasons.
Section 2.3 of Report number: CAB/WS/22/057
summarised the views and concerns of the Council in response to the
proposals with the full WR attached as Appendix 1.
Councillor David Roach, Portfolio Holder for
Planning, drew relevant issues to the attention of Cabinet,
including placing his thanks on record to officers involved
throughout the process, to local ward members and to other
councillors, stakeholders and members of the public that had
engaged at the various stages.
These sentiments were echoed by fellow Cabinet
members, which included thanking Councillor Roach for his valued
contributions as well.
The Cabinet endorsed the view that a
Development Consent Order should not be granted in respect of the
application for the development in its current form for the reasons
provided in its WR. Such reasons included (but not limited to) the
visual impact on the landscape, the significant loss of
agricultural land and the impact on biodiversity. Whilst not
against the generation of energy from solar farms, it was felt that
this could be achieved through provision of separate smaller
schemes in more carefully considered appropriate
locations.
Resolved:
That:
1. The Written
Representation in connection with the Sunnica Energy Farm Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Project (NSIP) proposals to be submitted to the
Examining Authority (attached as Appendix 1 to Report number:
CAB/WS/22/057), be endorsed.
2. The Director
(Planning and Growth), in consultation with the Portfolio Holder
for Planning, be authorised to make amendments to the Written
Representation prior to its submission.
(Due to ensuring
the Written Representation was submitted by the required deadline
of 11 November ...
view the full minutes text for item 409.
|
410. |
Street Lighting (Report number: CAB/WS/22/058) PDF 151 KB
Report number: CAB/WS/22/058
Portfolio holder: Councillor Carol Bull
Lead officer: Alex Wilson
Decision:
Resolved:
That:
1. The results of the
street lighting audit, be acknowledged.
2. The issue of
streetlight ownership be returned to as a part of the wider planned
review of its relationship with town and parish councils in 2023,
linking it to more holistic discussions around the management of
the urban realm.
3. The information
gathered from the audit be shared with Suffolk County Council and
officers be authorised to support parish and town councils in that
dialogue.
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered this report, which at
the request of Cabinet in June 2022, presented the findings of an
audit of street lighting at district-level, including all parish
and town council lighting undertaken over the summer of 2022.
Following this work, Cabinet was now asked to consider and approve
recommendations to take the matter forward.
The report provided background and context to
the undertaking of the audit of street lighting in the district.
Section 2.2 of report provided more detail on the responses that
had been received from the 16 town and parish councils that had
responded to the survey.
It was not possible to infer the views of the
65 parish and town councils that did not respond, and there would
be other chances to follow this topic up in the future. This
overall level of response was perhaps unsurprising because, as
explained in the report to Cabinet in June 2022, parishes and town
councils in the former St Edmundsbury area generally did not, for
historical reasons, own any lights. Hence the different
categorisations of engagement. However, of the 16 parish and town
councils that did take part in the audit, the majority had
indicated that they were satisfied with their current streetlights
i.e. number, location, hours of operation, etc.
Councillor Carol Bull, Portfolio Holder for
Governance, drew relevant issues to the attention of Cabinet,
including that she and other Cabinet members had listened to the
views of the local ward members that had made statements on this
matter during Agenda item 4, Open Forum (see minute 406. above) and
was mindful of the depth of feeling regarding the perceived
disparity between the former Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury street
light ownership. Councillor Bull added that the situation was
complex with regards to street light ownership and further work
needed to be done to ensure a fair and consistent approach was in
place across the entire district.
Upon invitation by the Chair, the Strategic
Director informed that subject to approval of the recommendations,
a meeting with the Brandon Town Clerk and a Suffolk County Council
highways engineer had been arranged for the following day to take
this matter forward and meetings would be arranged with other town
and parish councils in due course in order to achieve a mutually
agreeable solution to this issue for all.
The Cabinet agreed that this matter was not
without its complications; however, it was considered prudent and
acceptable to return to the issue of light ownership as a part of
the wider planned review of its relationship with town and parish
councils in 2023 across the entire district, ensuring it linked to
more holistic discussions around the management of the urban
realm.
Resolved:
That:
1. The results of the
street lighting audit, be acknowledged.
2. The issue of
streetlight ownership be returned to as a part of the wider planned
review of its relationship with town and parish councils in 2023,
linking it to more holistic discussions around the management of
the urban ...
view the full minutes text for item 410.
|
411. |
UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Rural England Prosperity Fund (Report number: CAB/WS/22/059) PDF 251 KB
Report number: CAB/WS/22/059
Portfolio holders: Councillors John Griffiths
and Sarah Broughton
Lead officer: Ian Gallin
Additional documents:
Decision:
Resolved:
That:
1. the implementation
arrangements for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) Investment
Plan (at Appendix A to Report number: CAB/WS/22/059), be approved,
subject to funding being received from Government.
2. The West Suffolk
Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) investment allocations (at
Appendix B to Report number: CAB/WS/22/059), be approved for
submission to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra).
3. It be agreed for
officers to complete the full REPF Defra investment plan addendum
template in line with the details contained in Report number:
CAB/WS/22/059.
4. Delegated authority
be granted to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader
of the Council, to make changes to the UKSPF implementation plans
and the REPF investment plan addendum allocations, following input
from the Local Partnership Group.
5. Delegated authority
be granted to the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property to
implement the approved REPF investment plan addendum once funding
has been received from Defra, including implementing minor
variations in the funding amounts for each intervention, in order
to respond to changing circumstances over the lifetime of the
Fund.
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered this report, which
sought approval for the implementation arrangements for the UK
Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF); and for the Rural England
Prosperity Fund (REPF) investment allocations and associated
matters.
On 26 July 2022, the
Council approved and submitted its UK Shared Prosperity Fund
(UKSPF) investment plan to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing
and Communities. The investment plan set out how West Suffolk
proposed to spend its £1,943,467 against a selection of the
Government’s 41 ‘interventions’. Appendix A
attached to the report, provided detail for implementing each
intervention in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. The range of
proposed mechanisms and recipients represented a good spread across
different sectors, localities and organisation types, all with the
aim of building capacity and supporting the Council’s growth
and families and communities objectives,
particularly in the face of current economic challenges.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs had since announced a further fund, known as the Rural
England Prosperity Fund (REPF), or ‘Rural Fund’ as a
top-up to UKSPF (covering the priorities of Communities and Place
and Supporting Local Business only). West Suffolk’s
allocation was £753,701 (over the two years) and the capital
funding could be used everywhere in the district outside Bury St
Edmunds.
In a similar way to the UKSPF, the
Council needed to submit to Government a plan for how the
£753,701 would be allocated against a set of
‘interventions’ and these were set out in Appendix B.
The proposed allocations aimed to support West
Suffolk’s rural areas by building capacity and supporting the
local economy and communities, in order
to meet the Government’s objectives contained in
section 1.6 of the report.
Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of
the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Cabinet
including reiterating how both of these
funds offered significant opportunities to further invest in the
local area to continue to support growth, enhance local places,
bolster the support for the most vulnerable in the communities and
offer opportunities to local residents to develop new skills.
As the other portfolio holder leading
on this matter, Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder for
Resources and Property, was delighted to second the motion moved by
Councillor Griffiths. Given the tight time constraints imposed by
Government, she felt the Council was maximising the opportunities
the funds offered to make a real difference to the local economy
and communities, supporting businesses and residents during a very
challenging time.
Upon invitation by the Chair, the
Chief Executive explained the role of the Local Partnership Group
in the process, which consisted of several representatives from
partners and organisations across the district. The establishment
of the Group was a requirement of the UKSPF prospectus and would
oversee the implementation of the UKSPF and REPF. The Group had
held its first meeting on 7 November 2022, and representatives of
the approach undertaken to date to manage the implementation of
both funds had been supported.
In response to a question, the
Cabinet was informed that a communications plan was in place. Once
...
view the full minutes text for item 411.
|
412. |
West Suffolk Statement of Licensing Policy (Report number: CAB/WS/22/060) PDF 191 KB
Report number: CAB/WS/22/060
Portfolio holder: Councillor Andy Drummond
Lead officer: Jen Eves
Additional documents:
Decision:
Recommended to Council (13 December 2022):
That the revised West Suffolk Statement of
Licensing Policy 2022 to 2027, as contained in Appendix B to Report
number: CAB/WS/22/060, be adopted.
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered this report, which was
recommending to Council, approval of a revised West Suffolk
Statement of Licensing Policy to cover the period 2022 to 2027.
The Licensing Act 2003 required a licensing
authority to prepare and publish a statement of its licensing
policy at least every five years. The policy must be kept under
review during the five-year period and the licensing authority may
make any revisions as it considered appropriate, such as those
relating to feedback from the local community on whether the
licensing objectives were being met, so it continued to be relevant
and fit for purpose throughout the relevant time period.
As set out in section 2 of the report, the
proposed substantive changes to the Statement were minimal and they
were primarily dictated by changes in guidance and legislation.
Members noted that there was a statutory duty
to undertake a consultation to gauge impact and opinion among key
stakeholders. This was held between 21 June and 22 July 2022.
Further details of the consultation and the three responses
received were set out in section 4 and 5, and Appendix A attached
to the report. No comments received resulted in necessary changes
to the Statement of Licensing Policy.
Councillor Andy Drummond, Portfolio Holder for
Regulatory and Environment, drew relevant issues to the attention
of Cabinet, including placing his thanks on record to the officers
involved in producing the revised Statement of Licensing
Policy.
Having noted the outcomes of the consultation
on the proposed revised policy, the Cabinet considered it
acceptable to recommend adoption of the document to Council.
Recommended to Council (13
December 2022):
That the revised
West Suffolk Statement of Licensing Policy 2022 to 2027, as
contained in Appendix B to Report number: CAB/WS/22/060, be
adopted.
|
413. |
Decisions Plan: 1 November 2022 to 31 May 2023 PDF 226 KB
To consider the most recently published
version of the Cabinet’s Decisions Plan
Report number: CAB/WS/22/061
Portfolio holder: Councillor
John Griffiths
Lead officer: Ian
Gallin
Minutes:
The Cabinet considered this report which was
the Cabinet Decisions Plan covering the period 1 November 2022 to
31 May 2023.
Members took the opportunity to review the
intended forthcoming decisions of the Cabinet; however, no further
information or amendments were requested on this occasion.
|
|
In this section
|