(Council Procedure Rules Section 6) Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to put one question of not more than five minutes duration. 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 are dealt with sooner, or if there are no questions, the Council will proceed to the next business.
Each person may ask one question only. A total of five minutes will be allowed for the question to be put and answered. One further question will be allowed arising directly from the reply, provided that the original time limit of five minutes is not exceeded.
Written questions may be submitted by members of the public to the Service Manager (Democratic Services) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 23 April 2018.. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.)*
*For further information, see Public Information Sheet attached to this agenda.
Minutes:
The following questions were put and answered during Public Question Time:
1. Ian Steel, Chairman of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the proposed options for the West Suffolk Council Electoral Review, with particular reference to the boundary options for Rougham Ward, as set out in Option A, and for Moreton Hall, as set out in Option E and F1 of Report No: COU/SE/18/010, to be considered later at agenda item 8.
Mr Steel expressed concern that the parish of Rushbrooke with Rougham would be divided into two should the proposed Option for Rougham Ward be accepted by the Council and subsequently, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE). This option would be a two-Member ward comprising councillors that may have an affiliation towards a mix of rural and urban or solely urban issues (emanating from the neighbouring Moreton Hall Ward); however, Mr Steel considered Rushbrooke with Rougham parish should not be divided and should retain its present status within a rural ward.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, stated that the LGBCE encouraged the Council to submit as many options as possible, including consultation responses received from the various organisations and interested parties, which included those from Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council and those from within the neighbouring Moreton Hall ward, both ‘sides’ of which had provided strong cases. Any subsequent comments made in addition to these before the submission deadline of 4 May 2018 would be included. This was therefore the planned approach of the Council.
Emphasis was placed on the fact that the LGBCE’s work to create boundaries for the new Council would not change the boundary between the Bury St Edmunds parish and the Rushbrooke with Rougham parish. Following the Borough Council’s Community Governance Review undertaken in 2015/2016 which reviewed all parish boundaries, there were no plans to revisit potential changes to the parish boundary between Rushbrooke with Rougham parish and Bury St Edmunds parish. However, Councillor Griffiths explained that district warding might divide a parish, where the LGBCE considered it necessary, in order to reflect community identity and effective local government.
No supplementary question was asked.
2. Peter Langdon, Vice- Chairman of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the same subject matter as Mr Steel. He firstly wished to express, in his opinion, some inaccuracies in the submissions contained in Report No: COU/SE/18/010, before questioning the option of dividing of Rushbrooke with Rougham parish set out in Option A.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, reiterated the issues outlined to Mr Steel above, including emphasising that Mr Langdon’s comments would be included as part of the Council’s submission to the LGBCE.
No supplementary question was asked.
3. Cliff Hind, Chairman of Moreton Hall Residents’ Association asked a question in connection with the proposed options for the West Suffolk Council Electoral Review, with particular reference to the boundary options for the Moreton Hall Ward. He objected to the option of splitting the existing ward into two as he considered it would lose cohesion, reasoning that it was not for Eastgate Ward to take up issues in Moreton Hall. He also felt that the new housing developments in Rougham Ward should be in Moreton Hall as transport links, education facilities, community links and other facilities for these dwellings were closer to Moreton Hall and not Rougham, the centre of which was three miles away, with no footpath or cycleway currently provided to the centre of Rougham.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, stated that Mr Hind’s comments would be taken into consideration and included as part of the Council’s submission to the LGBCE.
No supplementary question was asked.
4. James Sheen of Bury St Edmunds, asked a question in connection with the positive influence of the mayoralty and the historical significance of borough status in St Edmundsbury.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, agreed with Mr Sheen’s sentiments regarding the work of the mayoralty in St Edmundsbury. The creation of a new Council for West Suffolk gave the opportunity to consider what Civic Leadership should be in the future, and with this in mind confirmed that having discussed with the Leader of Forest Heath District Council, it was his intention to seek to form a Civic Leadership Working Group. Terms of reference for this Group would be presented to a future meeting of the West Suffolk Shadow Council.
In his supplementary question, Mr Sheen sought assurance that a binding decision could be taken by the Shadow Council for an application to be made for borough status for West Suffolk Council.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, stated an application to the Privy Council for borough status for the new West Suffolk Council could be made on the binding decision of the Shadow Council, should this be the course of action the Shadow Council wished to take.
5. Mark Cordell, Chief Executive of ‘Our Bury St Edmunds’ Business Improvement District, asked a question in connection with the proposed redevelopment of 17-18 Cornhill, Bury St Edmunds which included a proposal to widen Market Thoroughfare as part of the scheme.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, stated that the Cabinet had supported the proposed ambitious redevelopment project and had recommended its approval under agenda item 7 on this Council agenda; which included the proposed widening of Market Thoroughfare which was now possible now that 17-18 Cornhill was under Council ownership, and that the redevelopment would serve as a catalyst to help improve this part of Bury St Edmunds and St Andrews Street South.
No supplementary question was asked.
6. Kevin Hind, of Bury St Edmunds, asked a question in connection with agenda item 9 on this Council agenda, ‘Senior Pay’, and whether the proposed increase in the Leadership Team’s salaries could be deferred to April 2019 when the current pay agreement between unions and the Local Government Association ended in 2019/2020.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, reiterated the comments he made during the introduction of his Leader’s Statement (see minute 339 above) that an amendment would be sought to one of the recommendations in Report No: COU/SE/18/011 to align the senior pay structure with the whole review of the workforce for implementation on 1 April 2019.
In his supplementary question, Mr Hind asked why the pay banding for Service Managers were not included in the proposals. In response, Councillor Griffiths sought clarification on this technical matter from the former Assistant Director (Human Resources, Legal and Democratic Services), who stated that Council was required to consider and approve the pay banding for the Leadership Team (Chief Executive, Directors and Assistant Directors). Once these parameters had been set, the rest of the payline, which included Service Managers and other employees could be determined by the Head of Paid Service (the Chief Executive) under delegated authority.