Council Procedure Rules Section 6. Members of the public who live or work in the district may put questions about the work of the council or make statements on items on the agenda to members of the Cabinet or any committee.
(Note: The maximum time to be set aside for this item is 30 minutes, but if all questions/statements are dealt with sooner, or if there are no questions/statements, the Council will proceed to the next business.)
Each person may ask one question or make one statement only. A total of five minutes will be allowed for the question to be put and answered or the statement made. If a question is raised, one supplementary question will be allowed provided that it arises directly from the reply and the overall time limit of five minutes is not exceeded.
If a statement is made, then the Chair may allow the Leader of the Council, or other member to whom they refer the matter, a right of reply.
The Constitution allows that a person who wishes to speak must register at least 15 minutes before the time the meeting is scheduled to start. Due to applying coronavirus health and safety measures, precautions taken will apply to members of the public in attendance and registered to speak, and would therefore, strongly 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.
As an alternative to addressing the meeting in person, written questions may be submitted by members of the public to the Monitoring Officer no later than 10am on Monday 21 February 2022. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.
Minutes:
The following members of the public had registered to speak under this agenda item:
1. Nathan Loader was not in attendance but had submitted a written question in connection with the proposed Haverhill North West relief road. Mr Loader had provided context to his question in respect of the road’s connection to the planning permission granted for development of a strategic site to the north west of Haverhill and asked whether the programme of construction of the North West relief road, including the start and completion dates, was still on track for completion by 21 March 2023; and if not, the nature of restrictions that would be imposed on both the North West and North East Haverhill construction sites.
The following response was provided by Councillor David Roach, Portfolio Holder for Planning:
“Outline planning permission SE/09/1283 for North West Haverhill includes planning permission for the construction of a relief road, residential development, a primary school, a local centre including retail and community uses, public open space and associated development. The S106 Obligation (legal agreement) for the development includes the requirement that the relief road should be complete no later than five years after the commencement of development (21 March 2023) or before the construction of the 500th dwelling on the site whichever is the sooner.
No date for commencement of the relief road has been given yet but work continues to prepare for its commencement and with an estimated build time of nine months, officers from West Suffolk planning team and Suffolk County Council Highways team have confirmed that the relief road is still on track to be delivered before the March 2023 deadline.
There is no restriction relating to the construction of the relief road on the planning permission for the North East Haverhill (Great Wilsey) development granted under planning permission DC/15/2151/OUT. This was not deemed necessary by Suffolk Highways Authority at the time permission was granted given the timings of the restriction on the North West Haverhill consent, predicted capacities and delivery rates relating to the two developments taken as a whole and the existence of the NW Haverhill relief road bond.
The current completion rates for the two developments are 230 at North West Haverhill and at North East Haverhill their first completion was at the end of January 2022.”
As Mr Loader was not in attendance, no supplementary question was asked arising directly from the reply. The above response would be emailed to Mr Loader following the meeting.
2. James Sheen asked a question in connection with the forthcoming ballot for the establishment of a new Business Improvement District (BID) in Haverhill, and whether the Council should abstain from exercising its right to vote in the ballot as Mr Sheen felt the businesses of Haverhill should decide for themselves how their town should be promoted.
Councillor Susan Glossop, Portfolio Holder for Growth, thanked Mr Sheen for his question and stated that he would be provided with a written response.
As the question was not answered during the meeting, no supplementary question was asked arising directly from the reply.
The Chair thanked Mr Sheen for attending and welcomed his presence for the remainder of the meeting should he wish to do so.
(Councillor Roger Dicker left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.)