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 put one question of not more than five minutes duration on Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016, West Suffolk Operational Hub. A person who wishes to speak must register at least fifteen minutes before the scheduled meeting start time of 6pm.
(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 on Agenda Item 8, Referral of Recommendations from Cabinet: 14 June 2016, West Suffolk Operational Hub.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:
The following questions were put and answered during this first session of Public Question Time.
1. Adrian Graves of Great Barton,asked why, having undertaken a second period of consultation within which the Council had asked for potential sites for a West Suffolk Operational Hub to be put forward, a new criterion (traffic) had been added and sites had been scored against the site selection criteria, that it chose to dismiss sites which he considered to be compelling, viable alternatives that would cost less to implement?
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that each alternative site suggested was investigated and scored against the site selection criteria. The options assessment was also
re-scored to take into account the new traffic criterion. The detailed, objective research had clearly shown that Hollow Road Farm was the best option for a West Suffolk Operational Hub which would future-proof waste services for the growing population.
2. Phillip Reeve, Chairman of Great Barton Parish Council, referred to a perceived lack of passion towards protecting the well-being of the communities most closely affected by the proposal; the credence of the Sustainability Appraisal at Appendix C attached to Report No: CAB/SE/16/024; and asked a question regarding a viable (in his opinion), alternative site that had been suggested north of Symonds Farm which had not been assessed, and how he felt that 6.5 hectares of, what he considered to be, prime agricultural land at Hollow Road Farm should not be destroyed when sites that had been put forward had not all been assessed.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that he had a duty to represent those that lived and worked in west Suffolk together with those in his own ward, which he did with a passion, as well as being passionate about providing the best waste services now and into the future. In respect of the potential loss of agricultural land - if a West Suffolk Operational Hub was to be sited at Hollow Road Farm, page 44 of the Identification and Assessment of Potential Options and Sites (IAPOS) report at Appendix B attached to Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 set out the planning policy sequence that needed to be taken into account before land was to be selected for development. Should Council approve the recommendations contained in Report No: COU/SE/16/007 (re-produced from Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/024), a detailed planning application would be prepared for consideration by the Development Control Committee and it would be its decision regarding whether the Hollow Road Farm site was an acceptable location.
3. Mike Collier, Chairman of Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council, expressed concern regarding the potential increase in vehicle movements in the vicinity of Hollow Road Farm should the decision be taken to proceed with siting a West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) in this location. Mr Collier specifically asked whether the Councils [St Edmundsbury Borough, Forest Heath District and Suffolk County Councils] could confirm that the results of a traffic, transport and highways assessment and review carried out as part of the planning application for the WSOH would address, what he considered to be, all the inevitable issues of safety and congestion as part of a comprehensive Traffic Plan for Bury St Edmunds.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, confirmed that if proceeding to the submission of a planning application, an associated transport study would be undertaken in consultation with the Highways Authority and Highways England to cover potential impacts on local and trunk roads. Any necessary infrastructure requirements and mitigation measures would be included in that study.
4. Sarah Bartram of Fornham St Martin, referred to her perceived provision of a depot facility in the Mildenhall or the Newmarket area to service the Forest Heath district, and therefore a West Suffolk Operational Hub (WSOH) would not be operated from a single site, as proposed. She questioned the costs of setting up, operating and staffing a second depot.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that it was a misconception that a second depot would be provided. The proposed facility would be a limited parking area for some cleansing equipment and small vehicles, which was estimated to cost approximately £20,000 a year. This cost had already been included in the overall costs for the WSOH proposal, which would be covered by the income from leasing the closed Mildenhall depot site as well as from the substantial property cost savings to be made from not operating a depot in Mildenhall.
5. Howard Quayle, Chairman of Fornham All Saints Parish Council, referred to the financial implications of implementing both Options 4 (co-location of a waste transfer station (WTS), depots and Household Waste and Recycling Centre (HWRC) at a single site) and 5 (co-location of a WTS and depots with the HWRC remaining sited at Rougham Hill) and the differences between the two Options regarding the facilities provided and estimated costs for implementing each. Mr Quayle considered that Option 5 would provide a better return on investment and asked for firm data that Option 4 would provide more benefits than Option 5 by 2026, 2036 or beyond.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that the estimated savings for Option 4 compared to Option 5 were prudent with an approximate saving of £97,000 being an estimate of what could be achieved from the first year of operation. The Borough Council had recent experience of sharing facilities and services with Suffolk County and Forest Heath District Councils, and it was known that once shared arrangements had been established, further benefits and savings would be achieved that could not have been envisaged from the beginning.
Councillor Stevens added that whilst financial implications were crucially important, he wished to draw attention to the number of non-financial benefits of implementing Option 4, as set out in paragraph 5.3 of Report No: CAB/SE/16/024.
6. John Corrie of Bury St Edmunds, asked that as £500,000 of public money had to date been spent on the West Suffolk Operational Hub project, whether it was time to bring the project to fruition.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that expenditure on the project to date was somewhat less than suggested by Mr Corrie. However, Councillor Stevens agreed that having fully consulted on the project for a second time, it was appropriate to propose moving the project forward to its next stage.
7. Simon Harding of Bury St Edmunds, asked whether the number of miles travelled by bin lorries or waste transfer lorries carrying non-recyclable black bin waste to the incinerator at Great Blakenham would be lower going to and from Hollow Road Farm, when compared to Rougham Hill, and whether so-called ‘waste miles’ were a major running cost for a waste hub.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that the information Mr Harding requested was detailed in Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 and its appendices. Taking all criteria into account, as shown in the fully detailed report and appendices, Hollow Road Farm was an overall better site than Rougham Hill, or indeed any other site.
8. Frank Boggis of Fornham St Martin, asked a question regarding works being undertaken by Anglian Water on Barton Hill, Fornham St Martin and whether these works were connected with the West Suffolk Operational Hub proposed to be located at the adjacent Hollow Road Farm site.
In response, Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, stated that he could not speak on behalf of Anglian Water and its work programme; however Councillor Stevens confirmed that no works had been commissioned by the Councils.
(Councillor Paula Wade arrived during the consideration of this item.)