Agenda item

Report No: COU/FH/17/006

The Director presented this report which sought Council approval to agree the terms of reference and consultation recommendations for the Community Governance Review of Forest Heath in 2017.

Members’ attention was drawn to an addendum to Appendix C of Report No: COU/FH/17/006 which had been circulated as a supplementary paper to the agenda.

Council were advised that Recommendation 1 of the report would require separate consideration of each of the ‘potential issues’ and a separate motion would need to be proposed, seconded and voted upon for each.  Where options are referred to below, these were set out in detail in Appendix C to Report No: COU/FH/17/006, including maps showing proposed new boundaries for consultation.

Potential Issue No. 1: Exning/Newmarket

Whether or not (and how) Exning Cemetery should be transferred from Newmarket Parish to Exning Parish by way of a minor boundary change.

Councillor Simon Cole, as Ward Member for Exning, spoke in support of this ‘issue’ and advised Council that this was supported by Exning Parish Council.

Councillor Cole moved that Option B: Include in the Review – Option 2: Change the boundary to transfer an area from Newmarket Parish to Exning Parish, be approved.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Bill Sadler and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

1a.     That, as set out in Appendix C to Report No: COU/FH/17/006, Potential Issue No. 1: Exning/Newmarket be included in the terms of reference for the Community Governance Review and the Council’s recommendation for consultation be Option 2: Change the boundary to transfer an area from Newmarket Parish to Exning Parish.

Potential Issue No. 2: Mildenhall/West Row

Whether or not (and how) the existing Parish of Mildenhall should be divided to create two parishes, each with its own parish council: a smaller Parish of Mildenhall and a new Parish of West Row.

The Leader spoke, in his capacity as one of the Ward Members for West Row, and questioned whether there was evidence of sufficient support within West Row for this proposed change.

As such, he proposed that Option B: Include in the Review – Option 1: No change to the current arrangements, be approved.  As this would enable local evidence to be submitted to demonstrate a need for a change.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

1b.     That, as set out in Appendix C to Report No: COU/FH/17/006, Potential Issue No. 2: Mildenhall/West Row be included in the terms of reference for the Community Governance Review and the Council’s recommendation for consultation be Option 1: No change to the current arrangements.

Potential Issue No. 3: Kentford/Moulton

Whether or not (and how) new and existing properties to the North of Moulton Parish should be transferred to Kentford Parish.

The Director advised that since publication of the agenda, a joint response had been received from Moulton and Kentford Parish Councils.  Both agreed that the ‘issue’ should be included in the CGR and that consultation with residents on a new boundary should focus on the choice between Options 1 or 2.

Councillor Simon Cole moved that Option B: Include in the Review – Option 2: Transfer properties from Moulton Parish to Kentford Parish by moving the boundary, be approved.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

1c.     That, as set out in Appendix C to Report No: COU/FH/17/006, Potential Issue No. 3: Kentford/Moulton  be included in the terms of reference for the Community Governance Review and the Council’s recommendation for consultation be Option 2: Transfer properties from Moulton Parish to Kentford Parish by moving the boundary.

Potential Issue No. 6: Barton Mills/Red Lodge

Whether or not (and how) land in Barton Mills Parish should be transferred to Red Lodge Parish.

The Director drew attention to the documentation in respect of this item which had been circulated as a supplementary paper to the agenda.  He also advised on the linkage of this ‘issue’ to the Local Plan process and how this should be borne in mind when considering this matter.

Councillor David Bowman moved that Option A: Do not include in this review, be approved.  This was duly seconded by Councillor Brian Harvey who informed Members of Barton Mills Parish Council’s opinion.  With the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

1d.     That as set out in the addendum to Appendix C to Report No: COU/FH/17/006 Potential Issue No. 6: Barton Mills/Red Lodgebe not included in the terms of reference for the Community Governance Review for the following reasons: there is not yet certainty regarding whether or not, and how, this land would be affected by future development and a later CGR to examine this specific issue would be more appropriate.

(Councillor Bill Sadler left the meeting at 7.04pm on conclusion of the above item.)

Attention was then drawn to Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 of the report. 

Councillor Ruth Bowman raised a question with regard to the timeframe and resources in place for the CGR and the Director responded in detail.

Councillor Colin Noble spoke in his capacity as Leader of Suffolk County Council and made reference to Potential Issue 6: Isleham Marina.  He strongly objected to any suggested change of Isleham Marina moving out of the county and informed Members that the County Council would oppose this on behalf of the community.

The Director confirmed to Councillor Noble that the proposal before Council was for this matter to not be included in the CGR for the reasons set out in Recommendation 2 of the report.

It was proposed by Councillor Andy Drummond, seconded by Councillor David Bowman and with the vote being unanimous, it was

RESOLVED:

That:-

2.   Potential Issues 4 (Dalham/Ousden) and 5 (Isleham Marina) outlined in Appendix C of Report No: COU/FH/17/006 be not included in the terms of reference for this Community Governance Review, on the basis that they involve Principal Area Boundaries and be dealt with in the matter proposed in Appendix C instead;

3.   Reflecting the decisions made in 1a.-d. and 2 above, terms of reference, maps, electorate forecasts and final recommendations for consultation be prepared and published for this Community Governance Review, on the basis set out in Section 4 and Appendix A of Report No: COU/FH/17/006; and

4.   Consultation on the final recommendations for this review be carried out on the basis set out in Appendix A of Report No: COU/FH/17/006, and a report on the outcomes of that consultation be presented to the Council at its June or July 2017 meeting for final decision.