Agenda item

Report No: COU/SE/16/007

 

Referral from Cabinet: 14 June 2016
1.	West Suffolk Operational Hub
	Portfolio Holder: Cllr Peter Stevens   (For ease of reference, Report No: CAB/SE/16/024,  considered by Cabinet on 14 June 2016 is attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: COU/SE/16/007)

 

(Councillors Tony Brown, John Burns, Terry Clements, Beccy Hopfensperger, David Nettleton and Sarah Stamp declared local non-pecuniary interests as Members of Suffolk County Council and remained in the meeting for the consideration of this item.)

 

Council considered Report No: COU/SE/16/007, which sought approval for several recommendations referred from Cabinet to enable the progression of the West Suffolk Operational Hub project.

 

The Service Manager (Legal and Democratic Services) firstly provided guidance to Members before their consideration of the item in connection with avoiding the perception of pre-determination and/or bias towards the proposal.  Members were reminded that the planning aspects of this item were not under consideration by Council, and guidance was particularly directed at Members that also sat on the Development Control Committee (DCC) and, specifically Cabinet Members that were also Members of DCC, regarding potential issues they should consider given their positions.

 

On 14 June 2016, the Cabinet had considered Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 during joint informal discussions with Forest Heath District Council’s Cabinet.  For ease of reference, this report was attached as Appendix 1 to Report No: COU/SE/16/007; however due to the number of pages contained in Appendices A, B and C to that report, these were not attached but were available to view online. The appendices were:

 

Appendix A: Consultation Report

Appendix B: Identification and Assessment of Potential Options and Sites (updated since the first round of consultation)

Appendix C: Sustainability Appraisal (updated since the first round of consultation)

 

Upon consideration of the report and its recommendations at that meeting, and given the significance and public interest in the item, the Cabinets had resolved to waive their executive decision making powers and made all five recommendations contained in the report subject to full Council approval.

 

Both St Edmundsbury Borough and Forest Heath District Councils’ Cabinets unanimously agreed to support the recommendations contained in Cabinet Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 (and for reference purposes those in Forest Heath Cabinet Report No: CAB/FH/16/023), and these were now recommended to both Councils for approval.

 

Councillor Peter Stevens, Portfolio Holder for Operations, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that following concerns raised during the first consultation on this project, a commitment had been made to re-consult.  A new consultation was subsequently carried out between 8 January and 19 February 2016, which included placing documentation that had supported the development of a WSOH in the public domain for scrutiny and comment, and also that suggestions for alternative sites to locate a potential WSOH had been sought.

 

Councillor Stevens acknowledged the extensive work undertaken by respondents to produce the quality of comments received during the second round of consultation, and he thanked those that had responded accordingly. 

 

He then summarised the detail of the report and its appendices, which had concluded that:

 

(1)     With significant housing growth in west Suffolk over the next 20 years or so with an estimated increase of more than 22% (from around 75,000 to 92,000 households), this would place increased demand on waste and street services. The current infrastructure used to deliver these services in west Suffolk would not be fit for purpose given the changing demand.

 

(2)     A shared West Suffolk Operational Hub was the best solution for taxpayers across west Suffolk in terms of cost savings to be made and providing greater potential than any other option.  It would also provide better managed, more efficient services at a modern facility, which could also generate increased levels of income.

 

(3)     Hollow Road Farm was the best site to locate a WSOH. If the decision was taken to proceed to the next stages of the project, a planning application would be prepared and would address specific issues such as traffic and environmental impact. The planning application would be subject to further consultation.

 

Councillor Stevens moved the motion, which was duly seconded by Councillor Patrick Chung. Councillor Sara Mildmay-White requested that at the appropriate time, the vote be recorded and this was supported by more than five other Members, as required by the Constitution.

 

Councillor Paul Hopfensperger acknowledged the extensive level of opposition expressed by residents most closely affected by the proposal and considered the suggested site at Land to the south of West Suffolk Crematorium, which had scored +1 in the assessment against qualitative criteria detailed in Appendix B, in comparison to +7 for the Hollow Road Farm site, was more suitable, principally because it was located further away from residential dwellings, and would have less traffic implications.  Given the site plans and information provided in Appendix B, he estimated the capital costs for locating a WSOH at Land at West Suffolk Crematorium would be similar to those for Hollow Road Farm. 

 

In response, Councillor Stevens provided further information on the site assessment process and how the sites were scored against the 20 individual scoring criteria. The scores were the same for both Hollow Road Farm and Land to the south of West Suffolk Crematorium, except for the following where the latter site scored lower, as detailed in Appendix B:

 

(a)     suitability of the local road network;

(b)     visual impact;

(c)     light pollution; and

(d)     because the site was a large east/west orientated site meaning it could be more exposed to the prevailing wind, particularly when compared to Hollow Road Farm which was well-screened along its western boundary.

 

Councillor Hopfensperger proposed an amendment to the substantive motion, which was to accept Recommendations (1), (2) and (5) as provided in Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 (and re-produced in Report No: COU/SE/16/007), but to amend Recommendations (3) and (4), so that they read:

 

(3)     the preparation and submission of a detailed planning application for a West Suffolk Operational Hub on land at Hollow Road Farm to the south of West Suffolk Crematorium, be approved;

 

(4)     approval be given for a gross capital budget of up to £12.7m (after the Forest Heath District Council contribution) to the Council’s Capital Programme for 2016/17, funded in line with paragraphs 6.10 to 6.21 of Report No: CAB/SE/16/024;

 

Councillor Diane Hind supported Councillor Hopfensperger’s concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed WSOH at Hollow Road Farm to residential dwellings, particularly those located in her Northgate ward.  She considered the impact on residential amenity would be less detrimental if a WSOH was located at the suggested site located at Land to the south of West Suffolk Crematorium, and duly seconded Councillor Hopfensperger’s amendment to the motion.

 

A debate was then held on the amendment to the motion.

 

Councillor Paul Hopfensperger 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 10 votes for the motion, 31 against and no abstentions, namely:

 

For the motion:

Councillors Broughton, Tony Brown, Burns, Hind, Beccy Hopfensperger, Paul Hopfensperger, Robbins, Wade, Wakelam and Williams.

 

Against the motion:

Councillors Simon Brown, Bull, Chung, Clements, Crooks,  Everitt, Fox, Glossop, Griffiths, Hailstone, Houlder, Marks, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, Midwood, Mildmay-White, Nettleton, Pollington, Pugh, Rayner, Roach, Rout, Rushen, Speed, Springett, Stamp, Stevens, Thompson, Thorndyke, Frank Warby and Patsy Warby.

 

Abstentions:

None

 

The amendment to the substantive motion was therefore defeated.

 

Councillor David Nettleton felt that neither the Hollow Road Farm site nor the Land to the south of West Suffolk Crematorium were suitable locations as he considered a WSOH should be sited in an urban location.  The former Padley Poultry site and associated land, located off Mildenhall Road (not Northern Way as stated in the appendices to Report No; CAB/SE/16/024), was one of the suggested alternative sites that had not met the site assessment criteria; however, Councillor Nettleton considered this was a viable option and should be investigated further.

 

He then proposed an amendment to the substantive motion, which was duly seconded by Councillor Tony Brown.  The proposed amendment was to accept Recommendations (1), (2), (4) and (5) as provided in Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 (and re-produced in Report No: COU/SE/16/007), but to divide Recommendation (3) into two parts, so that it read::

 

(3)     (a)     the preparation and submission of a detailed planning       application for a West Suffolk Operational Hub on land at        Hollow Road Farm, be approved; and

 

(b)     consideration is also given to purchasing the former Padley Poultry site off Mildenhall Road, and other land immediately to the south, with a view to developing this site as either a operational hub, or for housing, including a large social homes element.  A detailed planning application is prepared for whichever option is eventually chosen;

 

A debate was then held on the amendment to the motion and upon being put to the vote, this second amendment to the substantive motion was defeated.

 

Councillors Sarah Broughton and Beccy Hopfensperger, Ward Members for Great Barton and Fornham respectively, expressed concerns regarding the proposal to site a WSOH at Hollow Road Farm.  They both referred to the strength of feeling that had been communicated to them from residents in their wards in objection to the proposed site and urged Members not to disregard their views.  They provided reasons why Option 5 (to co-locate a waste transfer station and depots but to leave the Household Waste and Recycling Centre at Rougham Hill) was more favourable, particularly as they considered the cost savings between Options 4 and 5 appeared to be minimal.  Reference was also made to alternative sites that they considered would provide better accommodation for a WSOH; and the potential impact of increased traffic generation in the locality.

 

The debate continued and Members duly acknowledged the representations of Councillors Broughton and Beccy Hopfensperger and the vehement opposition from residents most closely affected by the proposal; however, the majority of Members considered the consultation, site assessment and financial assessment processes had been extremely thorough, comprehensive and transparent.  The partnering councils were required to consider the optimum, most cost effective and viable option for delivering future waste management services for residents in the whole of west Suffolk, and the majority of Members agreed that this would be achieved by siting a WSOH at Hollow Road Farm.

 

As previously requested, the substantive motion was then put to a recorded vote. The votes recorded were 29 votes for the motion, 12 against and no abstentions, namely:

 

For the motion:

Councillors Simon Brown, Bull, Chung, Clements, Everitt, Fox, Glossop, Griffiths, Hailstone, Houlder, Marks, Betty McLatchy, Ivor McLatchy, Midwood, Mildmay-White, Pollington, Pugh, Rayner, Roach, Rout, Rushen, Speed, Springett, Stamp, Stevens, Thompson, Thorndyke, Frank Warby and Patsy Warby.

 

Against the motion:

Councillors Broughton, Tony Brown, Burns, Crooks, Hind, Beccy Hopfensperger, Paul Hopfensperger, Nettleton, Robbins, Wade, Wakelam and Williams.

 

Abstentions:

None

 

The motion was duly carried and,

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)     the content of Report No: CAB/SE/16/024 and its appendices be noted;

 

(2)     the progression of a project to deliver a West Suffolk Operational Hub (option 4), be approved;

 

(3)     the preparation and submission of a detailed planning application for a West Suffolk Operational Hub on land at Hollow Road Farm, be approved;

 

(4)     approval be given for a gross capital budget of £12.7m (after the Forest Heath District Council contribution) to the Council’s Capital Programme for 2016/17, funded in line with paragraphs 6.10 to 6.21 of Report No: CAB/SE/16/024; and

 

(5)     it be agreed for the Council’s Section 151 Officer to make the necessary changes to the Council’s 2015/16 prudential indicators as a result of recommendation (4).

 

(At this point, the Mayor adjourned the meeting for a  period of approximately 20 minutes.  The meeting reconvened at 8.45 pm.)