13th December 2005 - Minutes

The following Members were unable to be present:-

            Mr D M Busby, Mr B D Hurren, Mr N H J Irwin, Mr C D Kerr, Mr J A B Long, Mr A E Pearce, Mr J W Roberts and Mrs W J Sadler.

            The proceedings were opened with Prayer.

62 MINUTES

            RESOLVED

           That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2005 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

63 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

The following Members all declared personal interests in the item referred to Minute No 66 (c) below in their capacity as Members of Suffolk County Council but advised that they would speak and vote on the relevant matter:-

Mr P K Beer	Mr J M Owen
Mr D G Grutchfield	Mr C M Spence
Mr R E Kemp	Mr D L Wood

The following Members all declared personal interests in that part of the item referred to in Minute No. 66 (c) below which related to the Compulsory Purchase Order in Hadleigh in their capacity as Members of Hadleigh Town Council.  They advised that they would speak and vote on the matter:-

Ms J J Chapman	Mr B L Lazenby
Mr K Grimsey	Mr J J Quinlan
Mr D G Grutchfield

Mr D L Wood declared a personal interest in the item referred to in Minute No. 66 (c) below in his capacity as a Member of the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Partnership but advised that he would speak and vote on the matter.

Mr P J Holbrook and Mr C J Hunt declared personal interests in the item referred to in Minute No. 66 (c) in their capacity as Members of the Dedham Vale and Stour Valley Joint Advisory Committee but advised that they would speak and vote on the matter.

Mr J R A Sayers declared a personal interest in the item referred to in Minute No. 66 (c) below in his capacity as a Member of the Gainsborough House Society but advised that he would speak and vote on the relevant matter.

Mr N A Ridley declared a prejudicial interest in that part of the item referred to in Minute No. 66 (c) by virtue of his Chairmanship of the Gainsborough House Society and advised that he would not speak or vote on any part of that item that related to the Society.

64 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

(a) Events Attended

The Chairman informed the meeting of events attended on behalf of the Council.

(b) Lets Recycle.Com Award for Excellence

The Chairman advised that the Suffolk Recycling Consortium, of which Babergh are partners, had been presented with the Lets Recycle.Com Award for excellence for the best partnership between the Resource Management Industry and Local Authorities.

(c) Mince Pies

The Chairman informed the meeting that during coffee break mince pies would be available.

(d) Meeting with Staff

The Chairman advised that at 2.30 p.m. she and the Chief Executive had extended an invitation for staff to have a Christmas celebration.  Members were also welcome to attend.

(e) Helen Style

The Chairman welcomed to the Council Miss Helen Style, who had recently taken up her post as a Corporate Director.

65 TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE NO. 13

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13, it was noted that the following petition had been received:-

                Nuisance of Ball Games, Chaplin Road, East Bergholt

Petition signed by approximately 23 residents relating to the above.

66 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

(a) Annual Report of Development Committee (Overview and Scrutiny (Community Services) Committee Minute No. 36 and Strategy Committee Minute No. 72 (b))

It was noted that the Standards Committee at its recent meeting had resolved to grant a dispensation to Members and Substitute Members of the Development Committee when this matter is considered.

During consideration of this matter it was requested that it be noted that the joint training undertaken with Officers and Members from other Authorities had been particularly successful.

An amendment to the proposal to delete the words “be required to” was proposed and seconded.  Upon being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

RESOLVED

That Members and Substitute Members of the Development Committee should be required to undertake a minimum of 4 half-day training sessions per year (such training to be open to Non-Members of the Development Committee).

The amendment was lost.

It was then proposed and seconded that Resolution (1) (referred to below) be deleted.  Upon being put to the vote this amendment was lost.

The Acting Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development undertook to provide a summary schedule document that would clearly indicate any changes to policy text, particularly those involving sites, designations etc.  This would be based on the schedules appended to Paper E218.

RESOLVED

(1) That the Inspector’s report be welcomed and it be noted that in all the most substantive cases the Inspector endorses the Council’s position in its emerging Local Plan.

(2) That subject to the response of the Inspector in relation to the need for clarification (raised by the Council) on Policy HS08a, set out at paragraph 4.14 of Paper E218, and noting the need for officers to report on the remaining matter set out at paragraph 4.10 (Development in villages), the proposed responses to each recommendation attached as Appendix A (Statement of Decisions) to Paper E218 be agreed for public consultation.

(3) That the proposed Post Inquiry Modifications attached as Appendix B to Paper E218 be agreed for public consultation.

(4) That the proposed wording citing the likely need for a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the means of access for a new supermarket on the Brett Works site, as proposed in paragraph 4.30 of Paper E218, be agreed.

(5) That the proposed wording citing the likely need for a CPO to facilitate the principal means of access for the overall Chilton development package, as proposed in paragraph 4.35 of Paper E218, be agreed.

(6) That the changes listed at paragraph 2.1 of  Paper E218A be agreed.

(7) That the proposed additional changes set out in paragraph 4.3 (plus new Inset map) and the proposed modifications contained in paragraphs 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 of Paper E229 be agreed and included within revised Appendices A and B of Paper E218 prior to public consultation.

(8) That the Acting Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development be authorised to include the additional changes above into the schedules (at Appendices A and B to Paper E218), plus any full revised/clarified text.

(d) Babergh Local Development Scheme (Strategy Committee Minute No. 98)

                        RESOLVED

(1) That the Acting Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development be authorised to submit the revised Local Development Scheme for Babergh appended to Paper E219 to the Secretary of State.

(2) That the revised Local Development Scheme for Babergh be adopted with effect from 1 February 2006 unless the following has been received:

(a) a direction from the Secretary of State under Section 15(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: or

(b) notice that the Secretary of State requires more time to consider the Scheme.

67 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

None received.

68 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

Question from Dr M R Miller to the Chairman of the Council:

“Would the Chairman please explain under which Articles in the Babergh Constitution the Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services was authorised to reject a Call-In Request submitted by Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Members in accordance with O and S Procedure Rule 38(c) objecting to the 10 November decision by Strategy Committee to approve Paper E184, on the grounds that this decision committed the Council to expenditures on new staff for a 3 year period for which no provision exists in budgets previously approved by the Council, and thus appears to be outside the powers of Strategy Committee?”

The Chairman of the Council gave the following answer:-

“I have had a thorough explanation of your concerns.  As already explained to you by the Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services in e-mails of 17 and 21 November, and verbally on 22 November, the procedure for Call-In under Rule 38 of the Constitution only allows the Head of Legal and Administrative Services to call-in a decision for scrutiny by Overview and Scrutiny Committee where you have produced evidence in support of your application which suggests that Strategy Committee made a decision outside its Terms of Reference. 

Having carefully considered the evidence that you produced, it is clear that Strategy Committee did not exceed its authority as you have claimed and that the purported basis for call-in is factually wrong.

In such circumstances, the Head of Legal and Administrative Services has no authority to arrange a call-in meeting”.

Supplementary question from Dr Miller:-

“Would the Chairman please explain the mechanisms by which the commitment to £225,000 on new staff over the next 3 years as authorised by approval of Paper E184 may be curtailed, in the event that Council may decide at its meeting to be held on 23 February 2006 not to approve the full £3m CAST programme, which is itself a major reason why it will be recommended that this Council end its debt-free status and borrow £3m with annual interest charges of £138,000 and costing every Council Tax payer £3.50 per year for ever, as set out in budget Paper E227?”

The Chairman advised that she would consider the supplementary question and give an answer following the meeting.  A copy of the answer is attached as an Appendix to these Minutes.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 1.35 p.m. when the following Members were present.   

Mrs S M Wigglesworth – Chairman

69 REVIEW OF CONSTITUTION

The Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services and the Chief Executive reported that at the Council meeting in February 2005 a report (Paper D241) on the review of the constitution was considered. 

A number of items were agreed but the meeting noted that the Strategy Committee had decided to defer certain matters for consideration as part of a more comprehensive Review of the Constitution, initially through the Political Groups and the Members Seminar. 

These matters related to:

• O and S Committees to meet before Strategy in the Committee cycle
• Roles and Terms of Reference of Committees
• Reporting procedure when developing policy
• Meetings of PLG to be linked to revised committee cycle
• Member Champions
• Monitoring progress made in achieving approved outcomes for each priority
• Single issue public meetings to be held
• Working groups to increase opportunities for persons to attend (evening meetings)

The Review of the Constitution, including a possible new Committee structure has been discussed at a Members Seminar and within Political Group meetings.  However from feedback via the Political Leaders Group there appears to be insufficient support amongst Members to implement a review of the Committee structure at the present time. 

The meeting were requested to provide guidance on the timing and potential scope of any further review of the Council’s Constitution and to confirm whether any or all of the deferred matters should be considered further in advance of any such review.

It was proposed and seconded that this matter be deferred.  Upon being put to the vote this proposal was lost.

RESOLVED

That all of the deferred matters contained in Paper D241 be referred back to the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee to undertake a quick review of these matters and report direct to a future Council meeting.      

70 TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS

The Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services submitted a report (Paper E230) outlining a draft timetable of meetings for 2006/07. 

RESOLVED

That the timetable of meetings for 2006/07 as outlined in Paper E230 be approved. 

71 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS

(a) Strategy Committee

RESOLVED

That it be noted that Mr J J Quinlan has replaced Mr A C Bavington on the Strategy Committee and that Mr A C Bavington has been appointed as the substitute Member. 

(b) E-Government Steering Group

RESOLVED

That Mr A J Hinton be appointed as the replacement Member for Mr P J Holbrook on the E-Government Steering Group.

(c) Relate

No nominations were submitted to serve on this body.

RESOLVED

That a replacement representative not be appointed at the present time. 

(d) Foundation Board University Campus, Suffolk

RESOLVED

That Mrs S M Wigglesworth be appointed as the Council’s representative on the Foundation Board University Campus, Suffolk for the remainder of her Term of Office.  Further that Mr N A Bennett be appointed as the substitute Member.

72 EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below on the grounds that if the public were present during this item it is likely that there will be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the item. 

PART II

73 PUBLICATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS ON THE COUNCIL WEBSITE (Standards Committee Minute No. 33) (Exempt information by virtue of paragraph 7 of Part 1)

RESOLVED

That the publication of the District Councils’ Register of Interests on the Council’s website be voluntary and Members can decide whether to opt in to publication rather than having to give a reason to opt out.

Note:   The meeting adjourned between 11.05 a.m. and 11.35 a.m. for refreshments.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 2.20 p.m.

Chairman

BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL MEETING 13 DECEMBER 2005

Answer to Supplementary Question from Dr Michael Miller

In response to your question, I am afraid that you appear to have misunderstood the Strategy Committee’s decision and possibly also the overall financial position on CAST.

On the first point, the Strategy Committee did not commit the Council to £225,000 on new staff over the next three years.  The Committee only approved the recommendation in Paper E184 that “£75,000 be allocated from the remaining £200,000 in the General Fund Reserve for the Transformation Agenda to cover the 2006/07 costs for the Project Office for CAST”.

Therefore, since the three year commitment asserted in your question was neither sought nor obtained, the question of its curtailment does not arise.  In the event of wishing to curtail the one year funding that was authorised for the Project Office, recourse would be had to normal notice provisions in the temporary contracts.

On the second point the lack of distinction in the wording of your question between projected capital and revenue spending on CAST, and between capital expenditure on CAST and other projects, provides scope for misleading inferences to be drawn.  The fact that you then do not refer to estimated revenue savings arising from the CAST project further compounds that problem.

The revenue position is as follows:

(i)            The gross revenue costs for CAST over the next three years are estimated to be £1.9m, including the cost of borrowing for potential capital costs of £1m.

(ii)           The estimated revenue savings from Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) over that three-year period amount to £1.35m

(iii)          The costs of the project are then to be apportioned between the General Fund and the HRA, as set out in Paper Paper E227 referred to in your question.

(iv)          Paper E227 (para 4.17 and Appendix 7) from the Service and Financial Planning Group to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees on 12 December, shows that the anticipated impact on the General Fund Revenue Account of the CAST project over the next three years is £411,000.  This arises from costs in 2006/07 and 2007/08 totalling some £475,000 that could be largely met from the General Fund Reserves identified by the Strategy Committee on 15 September as possible sources of funding, followed by projected savings to the General Fund of £64,000 in 2008/09.

(v)            On-going savings can then be expected after 2008/09 on the basis of these projections.

In relation to the capital programme, the wording of your question gives the impression of a much closer correlation between possible borrowing of £3m to support the Council’s capital programme and the estimated capital cost of the CAST project than is actually the case.  In fact, two thirds of that proposed borrowing is to support other Council priorities.

As already referred to, the projected capital cost and borrowing for CAST over the three year period is £1m, with the borrowing costs being part of the revenue costs which can be met from reserves as described above.  The effect on the Council Taxpayer of this project in the short term will be the loss of interest on the £446,000 of reserves that will be used and the unavailability of those reserves once spent for other purposes.  Thereafter, there will be net savings of benefit to the General Fund.

I hope this response clarifies the position.