BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, CORKS LANE, HADLEIGH ON TUESDAY 1 JUNE 2010

Quick Links

21 - Minutes
22 - Declaration of Interests
23 - Chairman's Announcements
24 - Petitions
25 - Recommendations and Reports from Committees
26 - Questions from the Public
27 - Questions from Members
28 - Mr H N Todd
29 - Representatives on Outside Bodies/Partnerships
 

PRESENT:Mr D L Wood – Chairman 

The following Members were unable to be present:-  

Mr C W Arthey, Mr J C Brand, Mrs S P Clarke, Mr A J Hinton, Mr P Jones,
Mr M Newman, Mr D C Rose, Mr C M Spence and Mr H N Todd. 

The proceedings were opened with a short prayer for those Members who had chosen to participate. 

21        MINUTES

RESOLVED 

That the Minutes of the Annual Meeting held on 20 April 2010 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

• Top of page

22        DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Mr D G Grutchfield declared a personal interest in his capacity as a Member of Suffolk County Council in relation to the Budgetary aspects of the matter referred to in Minute No 25(b) below. 

Mr P K Beer subsequently declared a personal interest in the matter referred to in Minute No 28 below by reason of his relationship to Mr Todd, and was not present while this matter was discussed. 

Mrs C A Todd subsequently declared a personal interest in the matter referred to in Minute No 28 below by reason of her relationship to Mr Todd.

• Top of page

23        CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

Standards Committee Members 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Don Watson, Chairman of the Standards Committee and Tasia Kavadias, a Co-opted Member of the Committee. 

Colin Spence 

The Chairman informed Members that he had written to Colin Spence on behalf of the Council offering congratulations on his appointment as Chairman of the Suffolk Police Authority.

• Top of page

24        PETITIONS

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13, the receipt by the Chief Executive of a petition was noted as detailed below:- 

Under 5’s Play Area – Catesby Meadow, Sudbury 

Petition signed by approximately 57 residents of the District objecting to the proposed use of galvanised steel fencing around a small residential play area.

The petition was reported to the Development Committee at its meeting on 12 May 2010 and was taken into account by the Chief Planning Control Officer when considering the submission of details pursuant to Condition 5 (Details of the play space including equipment, railings and landscaping) of planning permission no B/99/00512/OUT (Outline – residential development Priory Stadium, Priory Walk Sudbury).  The submission of details was approved by the Chief Planning Control Officer and the Notification of Decision was issued on 14 May 2010. 

• Top of page

25        RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

(a)       Babergh Development Framework – Draft Core Strategy (Preferred Options and Issues and Options Consultation) (Strategy Committee Minute No 11)

The Chairman of the Strategy Committee in introducing this item referred to his Committee’s consideration of the Draft Core Strategy Document at its meetings on 8 April and 13 May, as a result of which various amendments were incorporated into the Draft Document.  He then referred to a letter received from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 27 May informing Councils that the Government intended to “rapidly abolish regional strategies and return decision making powers on housing and planning to local councils.  Consequently decisions on housing supply (including the provision of traveller sites) will rest with local planning authorities without the framework of regional numbers and plans”.  Members noted that a formal announcement on this matter is expected soon. 

The Chairman went on to point out that Councils will still face an ongoing challenge to make local planning framework decisions particularly on numbers and location of housing needs for the medium and longer term and that although officer advice is that approval of the Draft Strategy could be delayed in the short term without significant risk to the Council’s ability to properly plan for, and control growth in, the District, the longer the delay the greater the risk to the Council.  The Chairman therefore did not propose the recommendations of the Strategy Committee as contained in Minute No. 11 but moved that in the short term a decision on Paper K16 be deferred to a future meeting after clarification as to the way forward had been received from the Government.  The motion was seconded and carried on being put to the vote.   

RESOLVED 

That further consideration of Paper K16 and the recommendations of the Strategy Committee as set out in Minute No 11 be deferred until such time as clarification has been received from the Government as to the way forward. 

(b)       Car Parking Issues (Strategy Committee Minute No 12) 

The Chairman of the Strategy Committee introduced his Committee’s recommendations on the two issues identified for further discussion following the Council decision to approve long term parking charges in Sudbury and Hadleigh. 

Members noted that recommendation (1) related to the introduction of a season ticket discount scheme but that it had not proved possible to recommend a scheme which would specifically help lower paid workers using Hadleigh and Sudbury car parks.  It was also noted that the recommendation not to charge for car parking at Corks Lane related to the 2010/11 financial year only.  During the course of the ensuing debate, reference was made to the details of the proposed scheme and of possible alternative arrangements.  It was agreed that the recommendations, which had been proposed and seconded, would be voted on separately.  An amendment was moved to recommendation (1) asking for the matter to be brought back to Council by the Strategy Committee after four months from the start of the arrangements which were proposed to be introduced on 1 October 2010, looking specifically at the number of available spaces and whether the ticket machines would be capable of issuing weekly tickets.  The Chairman of the Council and the Chairman of Strategy Committee both made reference to the normal scrutiny processes of the Council and the review which would be carried out in any event to look at the operation of the new scheme and its effect on budget and other matters.  On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.  Before the vote was taken on the recommendations of the Strategy Committee, Mr Ridley confirmed the following matters:- 

· Further investigation will be undertaken, and information will be provided, on the possibility of issuing weekly tickets
· Details of numbers using the car parks will be provided
· A review of the arrangements will take place after 6 months of operation
· The SFP process will look at the issue of charging for staff car parking as part of its discussions on savings for the financial year 2011/12. 

A recorded vote was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 22.5. 

The result of the recorded vote on recommendation (1) was as follows:- 

 Recommendation (1) was declared carried by 22 votes to 10 with 2 abstentions. 

The result of the recorded vote on recommendation (2) was as follows:- 

Recommendation (2) was declared carried by 23 votes to 8 with 3 abstentions. 

RESOLVED

(1)    That a Season Ticket discount scheme be implemented in the Council’s car parks based on the terms and conditions set out in paragraph 5.7 of Paper K17 and that the types of season tickets be annual, quarterly or monthly as set out in the table under the final bullet point. 

(2)    That no charging for car parking at the Council’s Corks Lane car parks be introduced in 2010/11.

• Top of page

26       QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

See Appendix attached for Questions asked at the meeting, together with replies. 

The response given on the day to the Supplementary Question addressed to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee was that a full written answer would be provided after the meeting.

• Top of page

27       QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS 

None received. 

• Top of page

28       MR H N TODD 

The Director of Corporate Services to report that Mr Todd has been unable by reason of ill health to attend meetings of the District Council in recent months and that his last attendance was at the meeting of the Council on 28 January 2010. 

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that if a Member of a Local Authority fails over a period of six consecutive months from the date of his last attendance to attend any meeting of the Authority, he shall, unless failure was due to some reason approved by the Authority before the expiry of that period, cease to be a Member of the Authority. 

It is not known when Mr Todd’s health will allow him to resume attendance at District Council meetings. 

RESOLVED 

That Mr Todd’s ill health be approved as a reason for his failure to attend meetings of the District Council.

• Top of page

29       REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES/PARTNERSHIPS

Suffolk County Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee 

The Director of Corporate Services reported that following the annual appointment of Members to Committees, Mr L H Young no longer sits on an Overview and Scrutiny Committee and is therefore ineligible to serve as the Babergh representative on the County Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Members were aware that Mrs Munson, the current substitute Member, was willing to serve on the County Committee.  Mr J R B Cave’s name was put forward as the substitute Member for this role. 

RESOLVED 

(1)        That Mrs M O Munson be appointed as the Council’s representative on the Suffolk County Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the current term of office. 

(2)        That Mr J R B Cave be appointed as the substitute Member for this appointment for the remainder of the current term of office. 

The business of the meeting was concluded at 11.10 a.m.

Chairman 

• Top of page

APPENDIX TO MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD 1 JUNE 2010

MINUTE NO 26 – QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 

Question from Save Gainsborough Country Action Group to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee 

Babergh is a special and quintessentially English District and has qualities which make it one of the most unique Districts in the UK.  In the context of your Committee's role to examine policy and performance issues of importance please explain the purpose and rationale for the extensive effort currently underway for planning for a merger with Mid-Suffolk District.   

Reply from the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee

Part of my Committee’s role is the scrutiny role on the management of the Council’s budget and the provision, planning, management and performance of all Council services.  

In January the Council agreed its position on how to meet its budget savings targets in 2011/12 and subsequent years, whilst also retaining the capacity to maintain, and possibly enhance, standards of service in all priority areas, in the event that the local government review did not lead to structural change in Suffolk from April 2011. 

My Committee had scrutinised the Medium Term Financial Strategy which set out the estimated General Fund savings required for the three year period starting in April 2011.  These were around £1.5m a year, depending on the scale of cuts in Government grant and other variable external factors.  

That projected level of year-on-year budgetary saving would simply not be achievable without unacceptable damage to the Council’s capacity to deliver either the full range of its current services or the quality of those services, unless the Council could identify and deliver radical alternative models of service provision. 

Although Local Government Review remained a prospect at that time, the pressing need to find on-going savings and efficiencies, whilst also retaining resilience and increasing capacity amongst our staff made it essential to plan pro-actively for radical alternative scenarios if unitary change did not happen or was delayed beyond April 2011. 

For that reason, the Council agreed to explore with Mid Suffolk District Council the scope for achieving integrated management and service delivery arrangements.  Underpinning this decision were some key common characteristics – one of which was that our landscape, communities and populations are similar. 

Whilst the balance between the need to make savings and maintain service resilience may differ to a degree in particular service areas, the fundamental need to achieve this balance across all service areas was common to both Councils.  

Service integration should enable both Councils to make year-on-year savings.  However it was also agreed that the concept of constitutional merger should also be supported and that there should be immediate investigation into when and how this might be achieved.  

It is now known that Local Government Review will not go ahead, which makes the work currently underway on possible integration or merger with Mid Suffolk District Council all the more important. 

Supplementary Question from Save Gainsborough Country Action Group  

Paper J223, concerning the merger with Mid-Suffolk discussed at Strategy Committee in April 2010 makes clear the intention that in October 2010 a recruitment process will be started for a new CEO and that this person is in place by March 2011 for integration to commence in April 2011.  As the business case has not yet even been prepared this suggests that this merger is totally pre-determined.  What action will you take regarding this pre-determination and the TOTAL absence of any mention in this paper of any need for public consultation and through that determining whether this merger is wanted by the majority of the electorate of Babergh District, or not? 

Reply from the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee  

Paper J223 deals with recommendations from the (non decision-making) Joint Member Board of Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils to their Strategy and Executive Committees respectively.  Contrary to your assertion, that Paper does not confirm that there was a clear intention to commence a recruitment process for a single Chief Executive in October 2010 or that any such postholder would be in place by March 2011.  Nor does it fail to recognise the importance of public consultation in this review. 

I refer below to relevant sections of that report and its recommendations and have used bold and italic text to highlight those elements that directly address your concerns. 

Paragraph 5.10 of Paper J223 states "It was recognised that the business case would need demonstrably to support the proposition of full operational integration from April 2011 before final decisions on this were made, although it would not preclude integration of specific aspects of service delivery before then if there were a sound case to do so.  It was further acknowledged that, in addition to the projected benefits of integration/merger, the business case would have to take account of any developments on the outstanding issue of Local Government Review in Suffolk, which may call into question both the principle and timing of any proposal for integration and/or merger between the two Councils." 

Paragraph 5.11 goes on to make it clear that any decision relating to a Chief Executive appointment would be dependent on the outcome of the business case i.e. it states "On the assumption that, on completion of the business case, the two Councils would still wish to proceed with full operational integration from April 2011, the Board considered that it would be essential to have the single Chief Executive in place by early March 2011." 

Paragraph 5.13 then confirms that the possible timing of any such recruitment process was a provisional aim only. 

Flowing from those considerations: 

Recommendation 2.8 of that paper makes it clear that no decision was being sought to proceed with any recruitment process for a single Chief Executive prior to completion of the business case for integration of officers from the two Councils into a single staffing structure to serve both Councils. 

The Recommendation reads "That, provided the business case supports operational and managerial integration by April 2011, the provisional aim should be to have a single Chief Executive in place by the beginning of March 2011 through an internal and external recruitment process commencing around October 2010" 

Recommendation 2.11 then makes it clear that no decision was being sought to proceed with merger of the two Councils (i.e. the dissolution of the two Councils and their replacement with a new single District Council for the current Babergh and Mid Suffolk areas) before completion of the business case for such a change. 

The Recommendation reads "That the concept of a constitutional merger to create a new single Council be supported in principle and that this option be fully explored with a view to achieving the earliest practicable implementation if this is ultimately agreed as the best way forward." 

On the question of public consultation, paragraph 5.25 of Paper J223 makes clear the need for public consultation on any possible constitutional changes.  That paragraph reads "...the Board recognised that the details of, and reasons for, any proposed constitutional changes would need to be carefully discussed between the two Councils and explained to the public in plain language.  Any communication and consultation arrangements would therefore need the most careful joint planning and management.  It was noted that this was a key consideration for early resolution..." 

Flowing from consideration by the Joint Board of communication and consultation requirements: 

Recommendation 2.12 reads "That the need for both internal and external communication be identified and acted upon as part of planning the various workstreams for this review..." 

All of the Board's recommendations, including those referred to above, were subsequently endorsed by Babergh's Strategy Committee on 8 April 2010 (Minute 116) and Full Council on 20 April 2010.  Moreover, I would draw your attention to Paper K13 (and in particular paragraphs 5.4 - 5.7 of that report from the Joint Member Board) considered by Strategy Committee on 13 May, which again makes it clear that no decisions to proceed with integration or merger have yet been made.  I am therefore absolutely satisfied that there is no question whatsoever of predetermination either by Strategy Committee or Full Council on any aspect of this matter, nor any neglect of the need to carefully consider public consultation requirements at key stages in this process of review.  I therefore do not consider that any action is required of me, or any other party, on the matters you raise. 

Question from Michael Evans to Chairman of Strategy Committee 

Regarding the Draft Core Strategy of the Babergh Development Framework, will there be a genuine and full public debate in good faith on all options regarding the distribution of development, in spite of statement that no change in the proposed distribution is contemplated as it is evidence based, and that the proposed distribution is inevitable? 

Reply from the Chairman of the Strategy Committee 

Yes, all parties can be assured that the Core Strategy will be exposed to full and open consultation and all responses taken into account in formulating options for further consultation, and debate by Babergh’s Members. 

Question from Cornard Tye Residents Association to Chairman of Strategy Committee  

Why is it inevitable that the majority of new development in the Core Strategy will be built in the extreme WEST of the district, when the best job prospects, the ‘engine for growth’, the best transport infrastructure and the most sustainable locations to minimise car travel are all in the EAST? 

Reply from the Chairman of the Strategy Committee 

Babergh District is a predominantly rural area containing just two towns.  The largest of these is the Sudbury/ Great Cornard population centre situated in the west of the District.  Not unreasonably, our evidence base indicates that this area has a high need and both for housing and employment, amongst other key considerations.  The merits of various locations are influenced by provision of existing services and sustainability issues.  This approach is also in line with the Countywide principle of development of existing market towns. 

Supplementary Question from Cornard Tye Residents Association

You have referred to only 2 towns in the Babergh district, but should not the Ipswich built up area and fringe also be included? 

Reply from the Chairman of the Strategy Committee 

The Ipswich Policy Area has already taken a lot of growth and can be expected to continue doing so in the future with about 20,000 planned for the current 20 year period.  Growth is already likely to spill out into Suffolk Coastal, Mid Suffolk and Babergh and therefore the Babergh part of the Ipswich Fringe, including the parishes I represent, is likely to be required to take a substantial share of future development.

Question from Stefan Kosciuszko to Chairman of Strategy Committee 

Referring to the proposed Local Development Framework and the requirement for substantial numbers of new homes to be built in Babergh up to 2031, why have Councillors and Officers not presented any case for making the approval of such plans conditional upon substantial infrastructure improvements being made in the District, prior to accommodating this central government imposed, and overly excessive, proposed expansion of the Housing stock? 

Reply from the Chairman of the Strategy Committee

In terms of the identified need and demand for housing, the proposed figures are not overly excessive particularly if the Council wishes to meet its strategic priority around delivery of affordable homes.  Necessary infrastructure will be provided as part of the requirements imposed in response to individual development proposals through the development control process.  This is made clear in the Core Strategy.  

Supplementary Question from Stefan Kosciuszko 

I distinctly remember that at one point the Chilton development was conditional upon the Sudbury by-pass – in any event ….instead of relying upon a formulaic, hackneyed and unimaginative planning process would it not be more appropriate, especially since Minister Pickles’ letter, that a bottom-up planning process takes place immediately consulting each and every parish council on their housing proposals with particular attention to i) Affordable housing ii) rural village regeneration and iii) the preservation of the integrity of our historic market towns? 

Reply from the Chairman of the Strategy Committee 

As I said in my introduction the sting is in the tail.  We do know that future development in the South East and Babergh will continue to be desired and Government will need to tell us what the precise process and requirements will be in future for deciding housing numbers but Babergh has in the past involved its Parishes and others in resolving such planning matters and would no doubt do so again, given that Babergh will need to do this exercise for itself in the future.  As you know both personally and in the case of Cornard and which would similarly apply to my village of Sproughton, it will be difficult to obtain public support for development so it would be wrong to assume that this is likely to be any easier or less of a challenge than in the past – that is the conundrum we will all face.