Agenda item
Referrals report of recommendations from Cabinet
- Meeting of St Edmundsbury Council, Tuesday 22 September 2015 7.00 pm (Item 91.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 91.
Report No: COU/SE/15/028
|
(A) |
Referrals from Cabinet: 1 September 2015
|
|
|
|
1. |
West Suffolk Strategic Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2020
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Members: Cllrs John Griffiths and Ian Houlder
|
|
|
2. |
West Suffolk Investment Framework
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Ian Houlder
|
|
(B) |
Referrals from Cabinet: 8 September 2015
|
|
|
|
1. |
West Suffolk Operational Hub
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Peter Stevens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
The Future of the Organic Waste Service in West Suffolk
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Peter Stevens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
Annual Treasury Management Report 2014/2015
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Ian Houlder
|
|
|
4. |
Haverhill Town Centre: Masterplan
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh
|
|
|
5. |
North East Haverhill: Masterplan
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh
|
|
|
6. |
South East Bury St Edmunds Strategic Development Site: Masterplan
|
|
|
|
Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh |
Minutes:
Council considered the Referrals report of Recommendations from Cabinet, as contained within Report No: COU/SE/15/028.
(A) Referrals from Cabinet: 1 September 2015
1. West Suffolk Strategic Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2020
Approval was sought for the West Suffolk Strategic Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2020.
Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the draft documents had both been updated through a ‘light touch’ review, which focussed on updating the projects and actions within the existing frameworks and making minor changes to reflect developments in legislation or local government financing arrangements.
A discussion was held on investing in affordable housing and encouraging developers to build high energy efficient homes.
On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Clive Springett, and duly carried, it was
RESOLVED:
That subject to updates and amendments by the Leaders, as detailed in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/048, the:
(1) West Suffolk Strategic Plan 2016-2020; and
(2) West Suffolk Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016-2020, be adopted.
2. West Suffolk Investment Framework
Approval was sought for the West Suffolk Investment Framework.
Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Investment Framework supported staff and Members throughout the initial development stages to the decision making process for the Councils’ key strategic projects, particularly those that required the Councils to invest. It also supported the Councils’ compliance with the ‘The Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities’.
In addition, a number of West Suffolk’s key strategic projects had the potential to commit significant capital sums, as well as officer and Member resources. It was important therefore that feasibility funding was made available at the early stages of these business case developments, so as to unlock these projects and their investment potential and to enable the necessary progress to a full business case and the identification of a preferred way forward for Member scrutiny and approval.
On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Patsy Warby, and duly carried, it was
RESOLVED:
That the West Suffolk Investment Framework attached at Attachment A to Report No: CAB/SE/15/049, be approved.
(B) Referrals from Cabinet: 8 September 2015
1. West Suffolk Operational Hub
Approval was sought for the Borough Council’s contribution of £108,000 funding to enable the West Suffolk Operational Hub project to progress.
Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that on 8 September 2015, the Cabinet resolved that:
(1) the contents of Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, be noted;
(2) approval is given for a further six-week period of public pre-application consultation that will give an opportunity for suggestions for alternative sites and provide information for public scrutiny including the:
(i) case for a shared waste hub;
(ii) site selection criteria;
(iii) process of site selection; and
(iv) sustainability appraisal.
While Cabinet had approved (2) above as an executive matter, this could only proceed with the approval of funding, as detailed in the recommendation to Council. Members noted from Report COU/SE/15/028 the initial funding allocated during the feasibility and deliverability phases of the West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) project, and an outline of the estimated elements of further costs required to progress the project. This summary included the estimated costs to undertake the new six-week pre-application consultation approved by Cabinet on 8 September 2015.
Councillor Stevens reiterated his comments from earlier in the meeting regarding the outcomes of the new consultation being considered by a Focus Group. Having taken all documentation into account as outlined in the Cabinet resolution above, which would be made publicly available, and the results of the consultation, the Group would be asked to consider a preferred option to site the WSOH and a planning application would be subsequently submitted.
A detailed discussion was held and Councillor Sarah Broughton, Ward Member for Great Barton Ward, which was adjacent to the previously preferred WSOH location of Hollow Road Farm (HRF), welcomed the new consultation but expressed some concern that reference to HRF remained in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/15/050 as the preferred site, and whether the impact of the new proposals for the future of the organic waste service had been taken into account in the development of this project (see Minute 91 (B) (2) below.)
Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger, Ward Member for Fornham Ward, which was the ward in which HRF was located, supported Councillor Broughton’s concerns and sought assurance that the new consultation would genuinely consider alternative suggestions for sites and how no further funding should be allocated to progress the proposed business case until this new consultation had been completed and analysed.
Some Members also expressed concern regarding:
(a) references to HRF as the preferred option in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/15/050;
(b) the proposed increase in funding required since the matter was last considered in July 2015; and
(c) the proposed new consultation process and how other credible, available, alternative sites to HRF (including those with rail links) should genuinely be considered in an open and transparent manner.
Other Members acknowledged however, that:
(a) the references to HRF as the perceived preferred option in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, had been taken out of context;
(b) the documentation that would be publicly available to assist interested parties with suggesting alternative sites, as detailed in the Cabinet resolution above, was a positive step in promoting democracy and transparency and provided further reassurance that a genuine consultation would be undertaken; and
(c) a solution to identifying a preferred optimum location for siting the WSOH for the delivery of cost and efficiency savings was the ultimate goal; however that in order to fund the new consultation process, the request for further funding had increased since last presented to Council.
Councillor Stevens proposed the motion, which was duly seconded by Councillor Robert Everitt. Councillor David Nettleton requested that the vote be recorded and this was supported by more than five other Members, as required by the Constitution. The votes recorded were 30 votes for the motion, 12 against and no abstentions, namely:
For the motion:
Councillors Simon Brown, Bull, Chung, Everitt, Glossop, Griffiths, Hailstone, Houlder, Margaret Marks, Tim Marks, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, Midwood, Mildmay-White, Pollington, Pugh, Rayner, Richardson, Roach, Rout, Rushen, Speed, Springett, Stamp, Stevens, Thompson, Thorndyke, Wakelam, Frank Warby and Patsy Warby.
Against the motion:
Councillors Broughton, Tony Brown, Burns, Clements, Crooks, Fox, Hind, Beccy Hopfensperger, Paul Hopfensperger, Nettleton, Robbins and Wade.
Abstentions:
None
The motion was duly carried and
RESOLVED:
That funding of £220,000 (£112,000 FHDC and £108,000 SEBC), as detailed in Section 3 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/050, be approved, and for this to be allocated from the respective Council’s Strategic Priorities and Medium Term Financial Strategy reserve to enable the project to progress.
(At this point, a motion to adjourn the meeting for a short comfort break was moved, seconded and upon being put to the vote was duly carried. The meeting resumed at 9.39 pm.)
2. The Future of the Organic Waste Service in West Suffolk
Following the recent Suffolk Waste Partnership review of organic waste management, approval was sought for revisions to the organic waste service in West Suffolk.
Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that specific options for the future of West Suffolk’s brown bin scheme and the implications relating to each had been considered in detail. Option 3 was the preferred option of officers and Cabinet, which would be to introduce an annual subscription charge and exclude food/kitchen waste, which would potentially generate an income to ensure that the service was cost neutral. The justification for the proposal was provided in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/15/051.
The service would be provided on an opt-in basis at a cost of approximately £1.35 per collection, which was value for money when compared to the cost of a bulky goods collection at £35 a time. VAT was not believed to be charged within this charge; however this would be confirmed to the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee in November 2015.
The majority of Members acknowledged that this was difficult decision to make; however if the scheme was to continue in its current format, West Suffolk would be faced with an estimated budget increase of approximately half a million pounds per year in comparison to current costs. If not implemented, savings would therefore need to be found from elsewhere with potential impacts on services across the two West Suffolk councils.
Members also recognised that it was not conducive to potentially increase Council Tax by approximately 6% to continue the existing service. Such an increase would command a referendum and consideration would therefore need to be given to the potential cost implications of that.
Some clarification was sought on the new collection service and possible ramifications of the change; and whether there were possibilities for providing support to communities to introduce their own community composting facilities.
On the motion of Councillor Peter Stevens, seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder, and duly carried, it was
RESOLVED:
That
(1) the exclusion of food/kitchen waste from the brown bin scheme - to commence following procurement of the new treatment contract, be agreed;
(2) a subscription charge of between £35 and £50 per year for the brown bin service, as detailed in Section 1.4.3 to 1.4.8 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/051, be introduced; and
(3) a future report be received outlining the results of the procurement exercise and the Suffolk Waste Partnership’s agreed actions to deliver recommendations 1 and 2 above.
3. Annual Treasury Management Report 2014/2015
Approval was sought for the Annual Treasury Management Report for 2014-2015.
Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council.
On the motion of Councillor Houlder, seconded by Councillor Clive Springett, and duly carried, it was
RESOLVED:
That the Annual Treasury Management Report for 2014-2015, attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: TMS/SE/15/004, be approved.
4. Haverhill Town Centre: Masterplan
(Councillors Tony Brown and Tim Marks declared local non-pecuniary interests as members of ONE Haverhill’s Town Centre Masterplanning Core Group and both remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)
Approval was sought for the adoption of the Haverhill Town Centre Masterplan.
Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that he wished to place on record his thanks to ONE Haverhill and other partners during the development of this Masterplan. Emphasis was also placed on the excellent response to the consultation.
Other Haverhill Councillors supported Councillor Pugh’s comments and Councillor Tony Brown offered his personal thanks to Councillor Pugh for his leadership on this project and also to David Lock Associates (consultants appointed to produce the Masterplan).
In response to a question in connection with car parking and the potential for an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) survey of the entire town to extract data to assess the effect of traffic flow and volume in and around the town centre, including the impact the proposed new developments may have, Councillor Pugh stated that support had been shown in principle for this survey from Suffolk County Council as Highway Authority.
Members also reiterated the importance of the delivery of the aspirations identified in the Masterplan.
On the motion of Councillor Alaric Pugh, seconded by Councillor David Roach, and duly carried, it was
RESOLVED:
That the Masterplan for Haverhill Town Centre, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/007, be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document.
5. North East Haverhill: Masterplan
(In the interests of transparency, Councillor Tony Brown declared that he was the Suffolk County Councillor for Haverhill East and Kedington Division. Councillor John Burns declared a local non-pecuniary interest as he lived adjacent to the proposed strategic development site. Both Members remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)
Approval was sought for the adoption of the North East Haverhill Masterplan.
Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the resulting Masterplan had been formulated taking account of a range of opportunities and constraints, as detailed in the report to the Sustainable Development Working Party (Report No: SDW/SE/15/008 refers).
Councillor Karen Richardson, Ward Member for Kedington Ward reiterated the views of the members of the public that had spoken during agenda item 6; considered the consultation had been unsatisfactory and felt the number of homes planned would adversely impact on the residents of Kedington and other neighbouring villages.
Councillor Tony Brown also expressed similar concerns including that although it was acknowledged that discussions were being undertaken to make improvements to the existing A1307 trunk road, the present infrastructure and poor transport links could currently not support the planned development and growth set out in the Masterplan.
Councillor Pugh proposed the motion, which was duly seconded by Councillor Ivor McLatchy. Councillor Tony Brown requested that the vote be recorded and this was supported by more than five other Members, as required by the Constitution. The votes recorded were 31 votes for the motion, 8 against and 3 abstentions, namely:
For the motion:
Councillors Broughton, Simon Brown, Chung, Clements, Everitt, Glossop, Griffiths, Hailstone, Hind, Beccy Hopfensperger, Houlder, Margaret Marks, Tim Marks, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, Mildmay-White, Pollington, Pugh, Rayner, Roach, Rout, Rushen, Speed, Springett, Stamp, Stevens, Thompson, Thorndyke, Wakelam, Frank Warby and Patsy Warby.
Against the motion:
Councillors, Tony Brown, Burns, Crooks, Paul Hopfensperger, Midwood, Nettleton, Richardson and Robbins
Abstentions:
Councillors Bull, Fox and Wade.
The motion was duly carried and
RESOLVED:
That the Masterplan for North East Haverhill, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/008, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance.
6. South East Bury St Edmunds Strategic Development Site: Masterplan
Approval was sought for the adoption of the Masterplan for the South East Bury St Edmunds Strategic Development Site.
Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that following a detailed discussion at the meeting of the Sustainable Development Working Party and subsequent ratification by Cabinet, it had been recommended to reinstate the site for the proposed Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as originally proposed in the earlier draft Masterplan.
Councillor Sarah Stamp, one of the Ward Members for Southgate Ward, considered that many of the concerns that had been raised during the consultation had been addressed, however she would remain opposed to the reinstatement of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller site as she believed this was not an appropriate location and alternative options should be considered.
Other Members supported the concerns of Councillor Stamp but acknowledged other merits of the Masterplan. The majority of Members supported approval for the Masterplan.
On the motion of Councillor Alaric Pugh, seconded by Councillor Margaret marks, and duly carried, it was
RESOLVED:
That the Masterplan for the South East strategic land allocation, as contained in Appendix A to Report SDW/SE/15/009, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance, subject to the reinstatement of the site of the proposed Gypsy and Traveller accommodation as originally proposed in the earlier draft Masterplan.
(Councillor David Nettleton left the meeting at the conclusion of this item.)
Supporting documents:
PDF 248 KB