Agenda item

Report No: COU/SE/15/036

 

Referrals from Cabinet: 20 October 2015
1.	Delivering a Sustainable Budget: 2016/2017
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Ian Houlder
Referrals from Cabinet: 24 November 2015
1.	West Suffolk Councils - Gambling Act 2005: Joint Statement of Policy 2016 to 2019
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh
2.	Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme and Technical Changes 2016/2017
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Ian Houlder
3.	Council Tax Base for Tax Setting Purposes 2016/2017
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Ian Houlder
Referrals from Cabinet: 8 December 2015
1.	Land to East of Barrow Hill, Barrow: Development Brief
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh
2.	Development Brief for Allocated Housing Development Site at Erskine Lodge, Great Whelnetham
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh
3.	The Meadow, Wickhambrook Development Brief
	Cabinet Member: Cllr Alaric Pugh
Referrals from Democratic Renewal Working Party: 2 December 2015
1.	Community Governance Review - Initial Consultation Results
	Chairman: Cllr Patsy Warby

 

Council considered the Referrals report of Recommendations from Cabinet and Democratic Renewal Working Party, contained within Report No: COU/SE/15/036.

 

(A)    Referrals from Cabinet: 20 October 2015

 

1.       Delivering a Sustainable Budget 2016/2017

 

Approval was sought for proposals to be included in the budget setting process in order to progress securing a balanced budget for 2016/2017.

 

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Borough Council continued to face considerable financial challenges as a result of increased cost and demand pressures and constraints on public sector spending.  In this context, and like many other councils, St Edmundsbury had to make difficult financial decisions.

 

The proposals contained in the report had previously been scrutinised by the Performance and Audit Scrutiny Committee before being recommended to Council for approval by Cabinet.

 

On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Robert Everitt, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the proposals, as detailed in Section 5 and Table 2 at paragraph 5.1 of Report No: PAS/SE/15/026, be included, in securing a balanced budget for 2016/2017.

 

(B)    Referrals from Cabinet: 24 November 2015

 

1.       West Suffolk Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Policy 2016 to 2019

 

Approval was sought for the West Suffolk Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Policy 2016 to 2019.

 

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Statement of Policy set out how St Edmundsbury Borough and Forest Heath District Councils (the West Suffolk councils), in their roles as Licensing Authorities, would carry out functions under the Act.  It recognised the importance of responsible gambling within the entertainment industry whilst seeking to balance this with the key objectives of the Act.

 

On the motion of Councillor Alaric Pugh, seconded by Councillor Frank Warby, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Gambling Act 2005: West Suffolk Joint Statement of Policy for the period 2016 to 2019, as contained in Appendix 3 to Report No: LIC/SE/15/003, be adopted.

 

2.       Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme and Council Tax Technical Changes 2016/2017

 

(Councillor Margaret Marks declared a pecuniary interest in this item as an owner of an empty, water damaged property in Haverhill and therefore she had a direct financial interest in this particular referral and left the meeting during its consideration.)

 

Approval was sought for the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme (LCTRS) and Council Tax Technical Changes 2016/2017.

 

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that no changes to the current LCTRS and technical changes were being recommended for the reasons outlined in the report.

 

On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That no change be made to the current Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme or Council Tax Technical Changes levels for 2016/2017, as detailed in Sections 5 and 6 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/074.

 

3.       Council Tax Base for Tax Setting Purposes 2016/2017

 

Approval was sought for the Council Tax Base for Tax Setting Purposes 2016/2017. 

 

Councillor Ian Houlder, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Performance drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Council Tax Base was used in the calculation of Council Tax.  Each authority divided its total Council Tax required to meet its budget requirements by the Tax Base of its area to arrive at a Band ‘D’ Council Tax.

 

On the motion of Councillor Ian Houlder, seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That

 

(1)     the tax base for 2016/2017, for the whole of  St Edmundsbury is 35,737.08 equivalent Band ‘D’ dwellings, as detailed in paragraph 1.4 of Report No: CAB/SE/15/075; and

 

(2)     the tax base for 2016/2017 for the different parts of its area, as defined by parish or special expense area boundaries, are as shown in Appendix 2 to Report No: CAB/SE/15/075.

 

(C)    Referrals from Cabinet: 8 December 2015

 

(With the agreement of the Mayor, the following referrals were considered in a different order to that published in the agenda.)

 

1.       Development Brief for the Allocated Housing Site at Erskine Lodge, Great Whelnetham

 

(The Development Brief for the Allocated Housing Site at Erskine Lodge, Great Whelnetham had been prepared on behalf of Havebury Housing Partnership.  Councillor Joanna Rayner declared a pecuniary interest in this item as an employee of Havebury Housing Partnership.  Councillor Robert Everitt declared a pecuniary interest as a board member for Havebury Housing Partnership and Councillors Clive Springett and Frank Warby both declared pecuniary interests as Directors of Havebury Housing Partnership.  All of the aforementioned Members left the meeting during the consideration of this particular item.)

 

Approval was sought for the Development Brief for the Allocated Housing Site at Erskine Lodge, Great Whelnetham, subject to a minor typographical amendment to the recommendation, which should have referred to the ‘A134’ and not ‘A143’ road.

 

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that thorough consideration had been given to this item at the meeting of the Sustainable Development Working Party and its recommendations had been endorsed by Cabinet.

 

This Development Brief had been considered by officers, the majority of Members of the Sustainable Development Working Party and Cabinet to accord with the Council’s Protocol for Preparing Development Briefs, the Vision 2031 Development Plan document and Core Strategy Development Plan document.  The Development Brief would provide a suitable framework for the consideration of future planning applications.

 

Councillor Terry Clements, Ward Member for Horringer and Whelnetham, expressed his concerns regarding the content of this Development Brief, particularly in respect of the total number of dwellings proposed for this site, which he considered was in excess of that identified as being required to meet the village’s housing need in the adopted Rural Vision 2031 Local Plan document; and also the potential risk of flooding caused by hard surface run-off.  Councillor Pugh addressed these concerns, including that the proposal accorded with local planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework, as outlined in the report to Council; however some Members supported Councillor Clements’ concerns.

 

On the motion of Councillor Alaric Pugh, seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Development Brief for the allocated housing site at Erskine Lodge, Great Whelnetham, as contained in Appendix A to Report No: SDW/SE/15/015, be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance subject to an amendment whereby an indication is given to the developers that there will be a requirement to investigate road safety aspect and improvements to the junction of the A134 with Stanningfield Road as part of the Transport Assessment to be submitted in support of a planning application.

 

2.       Land East of Barrow Hill, Barrow: Development Brief

 

Approval was sought for the Land East of Barrow Hill, Barrow: Development Brief.

 

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that thorough consideration had been given to this item at the meeting of the Sustainable Development Working Party and its recommendations had been endorsed by Cabinet.

 

Whilst this Development Brief did not strictly adhere to the Council’s Protocol for Preparing Development Briefs,  it had been considered by officers, the Sustainable Development Working Party and Cabinet to accord with the Vision 2031 Development Plan document and Core Strategy Development Plan document.  The Development Brief would provide a suitable framework for the consideration of future planning applications.

 

Councillor Ian Houlder, Ward Member for Barrow, stated that this Development Brief had been produced sooner than expected; however, he considered village residents generally supported the proposals although there was an expectation from Suffolk County Council to make highway infrastructure improvements.

 

Councillor Farthing supported Councillor Houlder’s comments, adding that it was important to maintain the character of  the village, which included providing sufficient garden space within new housing developments.

 

On the motion of Councillor Alaric Pugh, seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Development Brief for Land East of Barrow Hill, Barrow, as contained in Appendix A to Report No: SDW/SE/15/014,  be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance.

 

3.       The Meadows, Wickhambrook: Development Brief

 

Approval was sought for the Development Brief for The Meadows, Wickhambrook.

 

Councillor Alaric Pugh, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Growth drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Development Brief had been considered by officers, the majority of Members of the Sustainable Development Working Party and Cabinet to accord with the Council’s Protocol for Preparing Development Briefs, the Vision 2031 Development Plan document and Core Strategy Development Plan document.  Some amendments had been made to the Development Brief following a good response by the local community to the consultation, and would provide a suitable framework for the consideration of future planning applications.

 

Councillor Clive Pollington, Ward Member for Wickhambrook, stated that there had been extensive discussion during the consultation regarding a previous proposal to extend the existing doctors’ surgery in the village, which had subsequently been withdrawn from the Development Brief.  NHS England would however, still be required to assess health care provision in the light of development of The Meadows site. Some concern had also been expressed regarding parking around the surgery, however, following amendments, he and the community generally supported the draft document.

 

On the motion of Councillor Alaric Pugh, seconded by Councillor Peter Stevens, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Development Brief for The Meadows, Wickhambrook, as contained in Appendix A to Report No: SDW/SE/15/016,  be adopted as non-statutory planning guidance.

 

(D)    Referrals from Democratic Renewal Working Party:

2 December 2015

 

1.       Community Governance Review – Initial Consultation Results

 

(Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a pecuniary interest in this item as a landowner within an area being subject to the community governance review: Vision 2031 Strategic Site, North East Bury St Edmunds, and left the meeting during the consideration of this particular proposal.  

 

Councillors Patrick Chung, Robert Everitt, Wayne Hailstone, Diane Hind, Joanna Rayner, Richard Rout, Andrew Speed, Clive Springett, Peter Thompson, Patsy Warby and Frank Warby all declared local non-pecuniary interests in this item as Members of Bury St Edmunds Town Council and remained in the meeting during its consideration.

 

Councillor Jane Midwood declared a local non-pecuniary interest in this item as a Member of Wickhambrook Parish Council and remained in the meeting during its consideration.

 

Councillors Tony Brown, John Burns, Jason Crooks, Paula Fox, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, David Roach and Barry Robbins all declared local non-pecuniary interests in this item as Members of Haverhill Town Council and remained in the meeting during its consideration.)

 

Approval was sought for several recommendations in connection with the first phase of the Community Governance Review (CGR).

 

Firstly, as there were a substantial number of proposals under consideration which were intended to form the basis of the final recommendations for the Community Governance Review, the Mayor invited the Service Manager (Legal) to set out a proposed procedure for managing the debate, which would allow Members to speak more than once if they had previously indicated which particular proposals, if any, upon which they wished to speak.  Members were minded to agree this approach; however, it  required a suspension to the relevant Council Procedure Rule.

 

Therefore, on the motion of Councillor John Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Patrick Chung, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Council Procedure Rule 11.5 of the Council’s Constitution be suspended during the consideration of Item (8)(D)(1), Referrals from Democratic Renewal Working Party: 2 December 2015, Community Governance Review – Initial Consultation Results, to enable Members to speak more than once during the debate.

 

Councillor Patsy Warby, Chairman of the Democratic Renewal Working Party drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that Withersfield Parish Council had submitted a representation after the Working Party meeting which informed that they had concerns for the future viability of their council if houses at Hanchett End were transferred to Haverhill.  Whilst that view had been too late for the Working Party to consider, it could be looked at in phase 2 in some detail.

 

Councillor Warby added that the CGR would be conducted in two distinct phases.  The first phase, which had just ended,  was to gather local opinion to help the Council shape a number of final recommendations.  The second phase, which would take place during 2016, was to formally consult on those recommendations before a decision was taken by Council in summer 2016.  Councillor Warby emphasised that the results of the initial consultation was the first of two opportunities for people to influence the review.

 

Councillor Warby then explained the detail of the five recommendations contained in the report, including that unless Members had previously indicated earlier whether they wished to speak on a specific proposal which may lead to an amendment(s), each proposal set out in Appendix A would be accepted as the basis for the final recommendations for the next stage of the CGR.  The recommendations set out in the report, were duly proposed by Councillor Patsy Warby and seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.

 

Due to the significant and technical nature of the proposals, the Mayor then invited officers, Alex Wilson, Director and Fiona Osman, Service Manager (Democratic Services and Elections), to contribute to the discussions to assist Members with the debate.

 

Where Members had previously indicated a wish to speak on specific proposals, support was generally shown for the corresponding proposal, as recommended by the Working Party.  Councillor Sara Mildmay-White, Ward Member for Rougham, demonstrated her strong support for the representation submitted by Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, which had featured during Public Question Time earlier in the meeting, and had formed the basis of Proposals 4, 6, 7 and 8 recommended for approval by the Working Party.  Councillor Sarah Broughton, Ward Member for Great Barton and other Members considered there was merit in consulting on these proposals and/or supported Councillor Mildmay-White’s and Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council’s views. 

 

Detailed discussion was then held on the proposed parish boundary for Haverhill.  Councillor John Burns, one of the Ward Members for Haverhill East and also a Member of the Democratic Renewal Working Party, provided explanations on each of the Proposals, and made specific reference to Proposals 12, 13 and 14.

 

Councillor Burns drew attention to the map relating to Proposals 12 to 14.  In addition to other proposals, Haverhill Town Council had suggested that between the Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park) and North West Vision 2031 strategic sites, the Haverhill Parish boundary should be extended outwards to follow the river and field lines, encapsulating existing properties by Melbourne Bridge in Withersfield Parish.

 

Councillor Jane Midwood, Ward Member for Withersfield, expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the proposals on the villages in the Withersfield ward and felt that further detailed consultation was required during Phase 2 to investigate whether this change was satisfactorily supported by all concerned.

 

Members noted that Withersfield Parish Council and existing electors by Melbourne Bridge had not yet been consulted on Haverhill Town Council’s specific suggestion to transfer this area to Haverhill (since these properties were not in a growth site), which would be undertaken during Phase 2.

 

Councillor Burns however, subsequently moved an amendment to the motion to delete the above suggestion of the Town Council in relation to Melbourne Bridge/Meldham Washland.  He believed this remained consistent with the intentions of the Working Party in relation to the Vision 2031 growth sites in Haverhill.  The effect of his amendment was that the consultation map, would instead, show a proposed revised parish boundary in relation to the Haverhill Research Park which followed the line of the A1017 and the A1307 only, until it joined up with existing boundaries. (Note: for clarity, a copy of the amended map is attached to these minutes as an appendix.)  

 

This therefore meant that, in conjunction with the amended map, consultation during Phase 2 would take place on the following basis for Proposals 12 to 14:

 

(a)     the recommendation for these particular proposals would be amended to read only:

 

‘The boundary of Haverhill Parish be extended as indicated on the attached map to incorporate the “North-East Haverhill” and “Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)” Vision 2031 strategic sites (alongside the “North-West” site)’.

 

(b)     The following additional recommendation in the report from the Working Party would be deleted:

 

‘(2)    the boundary of Haverhill Parish boundary also be extended in the vicinity of Melbourne Bridge/Meldham Washland as shown on the attached map.’

 

This amendment was duly seconded by Councillor David Nettleton.

 

The vote was taken on the amendment, which was carried, resulting in the amended motion becoming the substantive motion. 

 

On the motion of Councillor John Burns, seconded by Councillor David Nettleton, and duly carried it was

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)     subject to the following amendment to the recommendations specifically relating to Proposals 12, 13 and 14, so that it reads:

 

The boundary of Haverhill Parish be extended as indicated on the attached map to incorporate the “North-East Haverhill” and “Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)” Vision 2031 strategic sites (alongside the “North-West” site)’,

 

and to the associated change to the supporting mapping described in these minutes, the proposals of the Democratic Renewal Working Party, as set out in Appendix A to Report No: COU/SE/15/036, be approved as the basis of the final recommendations for the next stage of the Community Governance Review;

 

(2)     the Service Manager (Democratic Services and Elections) be authorised to prepare the final recommendations for consultation on each of these issues, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and, where applicable, the further delegated actions indicated in Appendix A;

 

(3)     the updated provisional timetable for the remainder of the review be approved and published as part of  modified terms of reference for the review, set out in Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/15/036;

 

(4)     the approach to consultation for the review, agreed by Council in December 2014, be confirmed for the remainder of the review (as set out in Appendix B to Report No: COU/SE/15/036); and

 

(5)     the Chief Executive be authorised to write to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to request an Electoral Review of the Borough Council’s own electoral arrangements prior to the 2019 elections, and also to highlight the issues being examined in this Community Governance Review which affect the principal area boundary of St Edmundsbury.