Agenda and minutes
Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds, IP33 3YU
Contact: Christine Brain: Democratic Services Officer
Email: christine.brain@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
159. |
Substitutes
Any member who is substituting for another
member should so indicate, together with the name of the relevant
absent member.
Minutes:
The following substitution was declared:
Councillor Dawn Dicker substituting for
Councillor Julia Wakelam.
Councillor Clive Springett substituting for
Councillor Patrick Chung.
Councillor Cliff Waterman substituting for
Councillor Diane Hind.
|
160. |
Apologies for absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors Simon Brown, Patrick Chung, Diane Hind, Joe Mason,
Marion Rushbrook and Julia Wakelam.
|
161. |
Minutes PDF 161 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on
13 January 2022 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 13 January
2022 were confirmed as correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
162. |
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.
|
163. |
Announcements from the Chair regarding responses from the Cabinet to reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Minutes:
The Chair informed members he attended Cabinet
on 18 February 2022 and presented the Committee’s report from
its meeting held on 13 January 2022.
As per the minutes confirmed above, the Chair
updated Cabinet on the Committee’s consideration of the
update provided by Suffolk County Council on the recommendations
from the Councillor Call for Action (CCfA). The Chair drew
Cabinet’s attention to a number of additional recommendations
for action made by the Committee.
Cabinet formally noted, supported and endorsed the CCfA
recommendations made by the Committee for Cabinet to take
forward.
Cabinet was also updated on the
interim report from the Markets Review Group and the
Committee’s forward work programme, which were also noted by
Cabinet.
The Chair thanked Councillor
Trevor Beckwith for all the work he had put into bringing the CCfA
to the Committee’s attention.
|
164. |
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
01638 719729 or in person by telling the Committee Administrator
present at the meeting. Due to applying coronavirus health and
safety measures, precautions taken will apply to members of the
public in attendance registered to speak, and therefore, 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:
There were no members of the public in
attendance on this occasion.
|
165. |
Response on Homes for Life and Ageing Population Housing Questions PDF 134 KB
Report number: OAS/WS/22/004
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received report number:
OAS/WS/22/004, which had been prepared following a request on 12
March 2020, which came from discussions relating to the West
Suffolk Housing Strategy Implementation Plan 2018 to 2023: Year 1
Review. The report provided responses
to two questions raised:
-
How many Homes for Life are being built; and
-
What is specifically being built for the ageing population?
The report explained the terminology, history
of the change and current policy standards being used to meet
housing need across West Suffolk.
How many Homes for
Life are being built?
The Cabinet Member for Planning informed the
Committee that West Suffolk Council did not hold any data for the
number of homes that had been developed as “Homes for Life or
Lifetime Homes”. There was no
longer a recognised standard and there were currently no records of
homes that had been or were being built. However, the following information provided showed
how the previous standard had evolved to the current development
standard which replaced Homes for Life.
In February 2008 the UK Government announced
its aim for all new homes to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards
by 2013. By 2015, the
Government’s ‘housing standards review’ led to
the Lifetime Homes standards being replaced by the building
regulations standards M.
The building regulations being utilised across
West Suffolk for the purpose of having accessible and adaptable
dwellings was specifically M4(2) and M4(3). All developments were expected to meet this as a
minimum standard.
M4(2): Category 2 – Accessible and
adaptable dwellings
M4(2) was the standard which West Suffolk was
recommending 100% of its developments through the Local Plan
process which was currently being developed. This requirement was met when a new dwelling
provides reasonable provision for most people to access the
dwelling and includes features that made it suitable for a range of
potential occupants, including older people, individuals with
reduced mobility and some wheelchair users. This was required to go through a viability test,
as all our policy recommendations, were for the Local Plan.
M4(3): Category 3 – Wheelchair user
dwellings
M4(3) was the standard which West Suffolk was
recommending for 25% of its affordable housing on developments and
10% on market sales on developments through the Local Plan process
which the Council was currently working through. This was required to go through a viability test
as all the Council’s policy recommendations were for the
Local Plan. This requirement was
achieved when a new dwelling had practical provisions for a
wheelchair user to live in the dwelling and could use any outdoor
space, parking and communal facilities.
The Council met regularly with registered
providers and developers that cover West Suffolk, to promote the
benefits of housing that meets the need of our
communities. The size and standards of
housing was a regular agenda item to ensure West Suffolk promotes
clear expectations for what was developed.
The planning team was currently reviewing all
the policy recommendations mentioned above for the West Suffolk
Local Plan. This would ...
view the full minutes text for item 165.
|
166. |
Suffolk County Council Health Scrutiny Committee - 26 January 2022 PDF 112 KB
Report number: OAS/WS/22/005
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Margaret Marks, the
Council’s appointed representative on the Suffolk County
Council Health Scrutiny Committee presented report number
OAS/WS/22/005.
The report, prepared by
Councillor Margaret Marks, set out what was considered at its
meeting held on 26 January 2022. The
primary focus of the meeting was to consider:
-
Dentistry Services in Suffolk and make
recommendations for improvements.
Attached to the report were the
following appendices:
-
Appendix 1: Covering report from Councillor Margaret
Marks from the meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee held on 26
January 2022.
-
Appendix 2a: Agenda Item 5 – Access to
Dentistry in Suffolk
-
Appendix 2b: Evidence Set 1 – East Suffolk
Council Scrutiny Committee report on Dentistry
-
Appendix 3: Evidence Set 2 – Healthwatch
Suffolk Dentistry Report
Councillor Marks informed the
Committee that the biggest problem was that 50% of children had not
seen a dentist, as they were unable to register with a
dentist.
Councillor Marks explained that
NHS England was the only body which had the power to change
everything. The budget would follow the
service to the clinical commissioning.
However, that money was now not available until next year, meaning
we had a year to make NHS England improve its service and adopt
some of the Health Scrutiny recommendations. Some of the work was now happening, but only
through default. There needed to be a
change in the dentist contracts; making sure the paperwork for
overseas dentists was not onerous; getting dentists back into
schools; supporting dentists better and providing the support they
needed.
The Committee considered the
report in detail and asked questions to which Councillor Marks
provided comprehensive responses. In
particular discussions were held on the number of bodies involved
in dentistry; needs assessments; and whether there was a shortage
of private dentists.
In response to a question
raised that if you do not see a dentist for two years, you drop of
the register, Councillor Marks explained that in reality there was
no registration or continuity of care.
One of the recommendations made by the Health Scrutiny Committee
was that people should be able to register with an NHS
dentist. The current dentist contract
did not support people going to the dentist regularly, which was
unacceptable.
In response to a question raised regarding
dental contracts, Councillor Marks explained that there needed to
be a national policy to make things right. The will was there, but just needed to get NHS
England onboard.
In response to a question raised about NHS
dentist income, Councillor Marks stated that the biggest problem
was with dentists leaving the NHS due to the low income and they
did feel respected in their profession.
They were not allowed to use some of their skills in the NHS, only
in private practice. Some dentists were
up skilling some of their nurses to do for example, x-rays and
dental cleaning.
There being no decision required, the
Committee noted the report on the Suffolk County Health
Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 26 January 2022 ...
view the full minutes text for item 166.
|
167. |
Work programme update 2022 PDF 114 KB
Report number: OAS/WS/22/006
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Committee received report number:
OAS/WS/22/006, which updated members on the current status of its
rolling work programme of items for scrutiny during 2020-2021
(Appendix 1). The Chair then drew the
Committee’s attention to two issues:
1)
The Committee’s next meeting was scheduled to be held on 9
June 2022, which coincided with the “Platinum Jubilee Parade
and RAF Honington 50th Anniversary Parade”, and therefore
advised that the meeting would be moved to the following week,
Thursday, 16 June 2022.
2)
“20mph zones” – the Chair proposed two options in
progressing this piece of work, either:
-
Inviting Suffolk County Council to a “virtual informal
Overview and Scrutiny” meeting between April and May 2022 to
brief the Committee on the “20mph zone” process; or
-
Inviting Suffolk County Council to the Committee’s June to
provide a briefing.
The Vice-Chair suggested holding a virtual
meeting between April and May to progress the “20mph
zone” topic, which was also agreed by the
Committee.
Councillor Cliff Waterman then, on behalf of
Councillor Diane Hind raised the issue of anti-idling. He explained that at the Committee’s meeting
held on 2 September 2021 it considered a work programme suggestion
on anti-idling and resolved that, members be provided with monthly
figures on the number of drivers spoken to informally by Civil
Parking Enforcement (CPE) officers, subject to a further update
report on air quality and anti-idling campaigns being brought back
in November 2021 meeting. A further
meeting was held on 11 January 2022 with the Chair and Vice-Chair
of Overview and Scrutiny, Councillors Diane Hind, Julia Wakelam,
the Director of Operations and the Democratic Services Officer
(Scrutiny) to discuss anti-idling. At
this meeting the possibility of continuing collecting figures on
the number of drivers spoken too was rejected by the Director of
Operations because there was not the mechanism to record
interactions for idling and issue them as Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs). Currently the
Council had no powers to do the work and were not resourced to do
the work (staff/systems) and corporate KPIs were therefore not
appropriate. KPI’s were reviewed
by the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee and agreed by
Cabinet/Council, and idling was not currently part of the agreed
dataset. However, the Director of
Operations had suggested two options which were:
1)
Agree for CPE Officers to continue to have an informal word with
idling motorists in the course of their duties (but not
record/report interventions); or
2)
Seek to establish the full impact and cost of obtaining formal
powers to enforce idling with the requisite resources, training and
back-office system modifications. If
the Committee agrees, then make a recommendation to Cabinet.
Given the importance to our residents’
health of reducing air pollution Councillor Waterman asked the
Committee to agree that the Director of Operations be tasked with
establishing the costs and impacts of establishing a full
anti-idling policy.
The Committee considered the request, which
was proposed by Councillor Cliff Waterman, seconded by Councillor
Paul Hopfensperger, and with the vote being unanimous, it was
...
view the full minutes text for item 167.
|
|
In this section
|