Subject to approval of the recommendations contained in Agenda Item 1 above, Members of the public who live or work in the Borough are invited to, with the exception of Agenda Item 8 above, put one question of not more than five minutes duration on the items contained on this Council agenda, or any other subject matter relating to the work of the Council. A person who wishes to speak must register at least fifteen minutes before the scheduled start time following the adjournment of this meeting of 7.30pm.
(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 (Legal and Democratic Services) no later than 10.00 am on Monday 27 June 2016.. 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:
(During the Question put by Parish Councillor Phillip Reeve, Chairman of Great Barton Parish Council, which referred to Appendix B: Issue 3 (Vision 2031 Strategic Site 'North East Bury St Edmunds'), Councillor Sarah Broughton declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this matter as her husband owned an area of land located within this strategic site allocation. Councillor Broughton left the meeting during the speech made by Councillor Reeve on this particular issue and returned upon his conclusion.)
The following questions were put and answered during this second session of Public Question Time.
1. Nathan Loader of Kedington Parish Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 13, Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Haverhill’ and asked a question in connection with Kedington Parish Council’s and other local respondents’ representations submitted during the consultation on the above Issue of the CGR, that the green buffer zone around Calford Green should not to be encompassed in to Haverhill Parish.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council provided detailed background to the legislation for CGRs and how they should be conducted. The Boundary Commission’s guidance was clear that the decision on a parish boundary could be based on a number of local factors, often requiring a subjective view to be reached. As there had been no consensus on this matter, the Democratic Renewal Working Party had considered the conflicting consultation responses of those in Kedington and from Haverhill Town Council, and had recommended that, as it was part of the masterplan for the growth site, the proposed parkland was most closely associated with the new development which, in CGR terms, would be in Haverhill Parish. Members would carefully consider these recommendations during the debate of the Issue under Agenda Item 9.
Councillor Griffiths also reiterated that in planning terms, the proposed park land was intended to act as a buffer between settlements, which it would continue to do so, whatever the outcome of the CGR and the parish in which it would be designated.
2. Colin Poole, Clerk to Haverhill Town Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 13, Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Haverhill’ and Issue 14, ‘Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park)’. He firstly expressed support for the recommendations of the Democratic Renewal Working Party (DRWP) in connection with Issue 13 and provided feedback on the position of Kedington Parish Council; and subsequently asked that, providing reasons why, the Council should not accept the recommendation of the DRWP in respect of Issue 14. If resolved, the existing boundary would be retained, which would mean Hanchett End (Haverhill Research Park) would remain in Withersfield Parish, whereas the Town Council felt Hanchett End was more closely associated with Haverhill Parish.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council acknowledged Mr Poole’s comments and stated they would be noted during the debate on the issues when the agenda item was reached. He also referred to his previous response to Parish Councillor Loader in connection with Issue 13 of the CGR and how Kedington Parish Council had reluctantly supported the principle of a boundary change (i.e. that new homes should be in Haverhill parish) but had considered the green buffer area around Calford Green should be in Kedington Parish.
3. Phillip Reeve, Chairman of Great Barton Parish Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 3 Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘North East Bury St Edmunds’ and Issue 4 Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Moreton Hall’ and reiterated Great Barton Parish Council’s support for the recommendations of the Democratic Renewal Working Party, due to be considered under Agenda Item 9.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council acknowledged Parish Councillor Reeve’s comments and stated they would be noted during the debate on the issues when the agenda item was reached.
4. Ian Steel, of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 4 Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Moreton Hall’ and Issue 6 Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Suffolk Business Park’ and expressed support for the recommendations of the Democratic Renewal Working Party (DRWP) in connection with the aforementioned issues and reiterated the position of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council acknowledged Parish Councillor Steel’s comments and stated they would be noted during the debate on the issues when the agenda item was reached.
5. John Eden, of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council, referred to the Community Governance Review (CGR): Issue 4 Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Moreton Hall’ and Issue 6 Vision 2031 Strategic Site ‘Suffolk Business Park’ and expressed support for the recommendations of the Democratic Renewal Working Party (DRWP) in connection with the aforementioned issues and reiterated the position of Rushbrooke with Rougham Parish Council.
In response, Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council acknowledged Parish Councillor Eden’s comments and stated they would be noted during the debate on the issues when the agenda item was reached.
Councillor Griffiths offered to provide Parish Councillor Steel with a copy of the introduction he had provided to Parish Councillor Loader on the legislation and operation of a CGR, which was duly accepted.