(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.
(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 and Elections) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 14 December 2015. The written notification should detail the full question to be asked at the meeting of the Council.)
Minutes:
The following questions were put and answered during this item:
1. Ian Steel, Chairman of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the outcome of the initial Community Governance Review (CGR) consultation on proposed boundaries for Lady Miriam Way and the railway escarpment to separate Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish and Bury St Edmunds Parish.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, stated that having considered Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council’s representation during the first phase of the CGR, the Democratic Renewal Working Party had recommended the external boundaries between Bury St Edmunds, Great Barton and Rushbrooke with Rougham parishes should be amended, which if their consultation response was to be correctly understood, was essentially the option supported by Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council. The decision would be taken later in the meeting when the item was reached, following which further consultation would be undertaken on this and other proposals as part of the CGR.
2. In response to a similar question from John Eden of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, which was in connection with proposed new parish boundaries for Rushbrooke with Rougham, Great Barton and Bury St Edmunds parishes in the context of the Community Governance Review (CGR), Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council explained that this was essentially what was being recommended by the Democratic Renewal Working Party for consideration later in the meeting, and if approved, this proposal would go out to consultation during Phase 2 of the CGR.
3. Peter Langdon of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, asked a question in connection with potential support being provided by the Borough Council to the Rougham Tower Association, which was shortly embarking on an improvement programme at its museum. In response, Councillor Joanna Rayner, Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture stated that she would welcome a meeting in the new year between the Council’s Leisure Services’ heritage and marketing teams and the Association to discuss potential proposals.
4. Nathan Loader of Kedington Parish Council, asked a question in connection with the Borough Council’s strategy for balancing jobs and housing growth in the Haverhill area and how it planned to deliver local jobs required for sustainable economic development. In response, Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth, stated that projected jobs growth was addressed in the Council’s adopted Core Strategy 2010, which clearly set out the needs and demands based upon sound evidence. How jobs would be delivered was comprehensively addressed in Haverhill Vision 2031 Local Plan document. This was backed by the Council’s proactive Economic Development team who worked with employers and organisations like MENTA to bring jobs to Haverhill.
In response to Mr Loader’s supplementary question, which was in connection with the Borough Council’s investment in the infrastructure for the proposed Haverhill Research Park (HRP), Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council stated that land in this location had recently been awarded Enterprise Zone status, which was a significant incentive for drawing business to Haverhill and St Edmundsbury. Together with the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership and other partners, every effort would be made by the Borough Council to make the proposed HRP an attractive location for new and expanding business.
5. In response to a question from Simon Harding of Bury St Edmunds, in connection with the existing Household Waste and Recycling Centre (HWRC) at Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that a new period of consultation on the delivery of a proposed West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) would commence from 8 January 2016 to 19 February 2016. Following the consultation, and in conjunction with an identified Focus Group, a proposal for a new WSOH, which would include a waste transfer station, combined depot and HWRC was anticipated to then come forward.
In his supplementary question, Mr Harding which was in connection with the existing waste transfer station and its environmental impact, Councillor Stevens stated that waste transfer stations were required to comply with environmental statements and licensing regulations to ensure the necessary controls were in place.