Meeting Details

The Chair

 The Chair welcomed Councillor Packard to his new role as Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management.

The Chair also thanked Councillor Yule for her work as Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management who had requested to be stepped down from her Cabinet Member role to being unwell. 

On the proposition of Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

 That the Minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Langdon-Morris Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money introduced report ES-2175 which related to the Council Tax Base 2025 / 2026. 

East Suffolk Council was required to approve its council tax base before 31 January each year in order for the information to be provided to Suffolk County Council and Suffolk Police and Crime Commissioner for their budget processes. It also enabled each Town and Parish Council to set their respective precepts.

The tax base was the estimated number of chargeable dwellings expressed as a number of band D equivalents, adjusted for an estimated number of reliefs, discounts, exemptions and appeals plus an allowance for non-collection. 

Following the enactment of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, on 26 October 2023 councils were given the discretion to charge additional council tax of up to 100% on furnished homes not used as a sole or main residence. On 21 February 2024, Full Council resolved to charge a "100% premium" for second homes from 1 April 2025 resulting in a 200% charge. It is estimated based on current data that this will result in an additional 4,047.26 Band D equivalent properties.

Overall, the tax base for the district showed an increase of 5,349.26, or around 5.88%, on the tax base for the current year of 91,018.73 Band D equivalents, primarily due to the introduction of the second home premium. The increase excluding the second home change is 1.43%. Collection rates for 2025/26 are assumed to continue at 99% in line with previous years.

Appendix A showed the estimated 2025/26 council tax base for the district by parish along with the increase or decrease compared with 2024/25 and the element which was due to the introduction of the second home premium. Where the tax base of a parish had decreased, this was primarily due to factors in the calculation such as the value of discounts and reliefs and not a reduction in the physical number of properties.

Councillor Beavan queried if the issue of empty homes would be addressed.

The Chair advised there had been an Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP) briefing where the issue had been discussed. They provided information on what they could do. There was also an Empty Homes Officer who could be contacted.

Councillor Daly raised that it would be good if proceeds of empty home premiums could be utilised to tackle homelessness.

Councillor Beavan added that the money was prioritised for affordable homes, in second home areas. There was a need to get the town and parish councils to come forward as the Council did not want to impose any measures.

There was a meeting with the Police Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Suffolk County Council (SCC) to discuss the issue and it was concluded that it was down to districts and boroughs to manage.

Councillor Daly stated he would raise it as a member of the PPC panel.

The Chair advised that the question was asked of SCC regarding second homes funding and there was additional financial pressures for SCC to manage.

Councillor Ashton added that he believed there was a good appetite from a number of parish councils to utilise any funding available from second homes in their communities.

There was a recent ARP meeting and some discussion around how to ensure people do not abuse the second home premium. ARP do have a few options available to address those who wish to abuse the system.

Councillor Byatt queried what the additional figures would be in the budget for East Suffolk Council.

 The Section 151 Officer responded that the estimated figure that would come to East Suffolk Council, would be in the region of £800,000.

Councillor Green added that over the years, some of the holiday chalets and holiday lets in Kessingland had been extended to 12-month occupancy. The Councillor wondered if there was any evidence available to support that residents were paying the correct taxes in these properties.

Councillor Langdon-Morris would take the question away and come back with a response.

On the proposition of Councillor Langdon-Morris, Seconded by Councillor Wilson it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet:

 1. Approved the council tax base for 2025/26 for the East Suffolk district is 96,367.99 Band D equivalent properties.

 2. Confirmed the council tax bases for 2025/26 for individual town and parish areas are as shown in Appendix A.

Councillor Packard the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES-2176 which related to East Suffolk's Developer’s Charter.

The Developer’s Charter was prepared to set out the Council’s aspirations and expectations in relation to new development, not just in relation to the final development itself but the way in which the development is proposed and delivered.

Councils do not need to have a Charter, but it was a way in which the Council could encourage development to go ‘over and above’ the requirements of policy and adopted guidance, and developers to work well with communities.

The Charter covers five themes:

1. Participation & Engagement;
2. Landscape & Biodiversity;
3. Homes;
4. Sustainable Design;
5. Considerate Construction & Community Ownership.

As set out in the Charter, its purpose was to:

• establish the Council’s high-level expectations for the sustainability and quality of major residential developments in East Suffolk,
• set out how developers, communities, and the Council can work together to best achieve meaningful engagement with each other, and
• give support and recognition to developers that have achieved high standards both at the planning application and construction stages of development.

It was important to recognise that the Charter was not policy or guidance that can be taken into account in the determination of planning applications. The Charter doesn’t repeat the existing requirements of adopted planning policies or the guidance contained in our Supplementary Planning Documents, which are already in place to secure quality in new residential developments.

The Charter set out that there will be recognition / awards for development that performs positively against the themes in the Charter, and also set out our commitments as the Council.

 Engagement taken place to inform the Charter:

• Town and Parish Forums – July 2024

• Engagement with developers – 1:2 meetings in August 2024, and a session at the Major Home Builders Forum in October 2024

• Local Plan Working Group – October 2024

It was intended that, following Cabinet, the Charter will be published online and publicised widely to developers and landowners. Officers in the Planning and Communications teams are working together on a strategy to encourage developers to use the Charter and set up an awards scheme. 

The Communications Team was reviewing and amending the presentation of the Developers Charter to ensure the document complies with corporate branding and design standards.

The Chair thanked Councillor Molleneux as Assistant Cabinet Member for his work along with the planning team.

Councillor Daly added it was an exciting piece of work which had been spoken about for long time and queried how are the council was working with other local authority areas.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management was pleased to have been working with other councils. Essex were leading on the front foot with net zero construction and a good inspiration. The team have attended some positive and collaborative meetings, learning from other councils.

Councillor Langdon-Morris applauded the sentiment captured in the pages and well done to the Planning team and Councillor Molleneux for his in depth and thorough work. The Councillor would abstain from voting on the item. 

Councillor Packard added that developers were very interested in the Charter and want to participate.

Councillor Candy welcomed the Charter and thought as a Council there was a need to go and beyond. The Councillor wondered if there was a missed opportunity considering the encouragement of smaller developers.

Councillor Packard responded that it did apply to all developers.

Councillor Wilson added that it was a really useful step towards better standards for houses being built in the district. There was a concern that the Council was not being more forthright and putting statue in for raising the floor of construction standards.

The Councillor queried if more could be done especially regarding Local Plan Review around flooding and ensuring land was safeguarded from development in flood plain areas.

Councillor Wilson asked when the awards would go live, when would it be reviewed and would it be part of Local Plan review and would there be any anticipated extra work on a busy planning team. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management responded that it was a fair point regarding there not being a substantial feature around flooding. The was strong emphasis in local plans regarding flooding and sustainable urban drainage systems, which was delivering good outcomes on planning applications. Flood risk was also being addressed through landscape led approaches. The local plan approach was well guided by strategic flood risk assessment.

It was hoped that it would be used by the start of next year. It would be good to have some retrospective reflection of some good work carried out recently.

It would be a living document which could be adapted through Local Plan Working Groups and reflecting any national changes.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management concluded that it was a valuable tool for how the team delivers on planning and could support the conservations already taking place in the early stages of developments.

Councillor Beavan added that a flood map was expected in January 2025 looking ahead at 2054 and 2105. The Councillor added that it was a good step forward. The Housing team are hoping to bring forward a zero net project in 2025.

Councillor Byatt stated that he hoped it would be published digitally and by other means to maximise those who could access it. The Councillor added that it would be good to have an appendix to the charter which showcased examples and good work carried out.

Councillor Packard responded that developers would like to have examples to reference.

Councillor Jepson added that it was clear a huge amount of work had been done. The Councillor queried if there was a cost implication to developers when they sell the property and queried 3.3 of document circulated regarding healthy environments.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management highlighted that there was a health environment supplementary planning document. Which had a focus around the size of plot developments.  Regarding the cost to developers, the local plan process had been viability tested. There some voluntary options for developers to consider and a net zero property would be more expensive to build. When looking to embed these into policy there would be more robust testing to ensure the viability for developers.

Thanks was passed to the Policy Team within the wider Planning Team.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Daly it was by majority vote

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet:

 1. Adopted the East Suffolk Developers Charter.

 2. Supported the introduction of awards for developers, and authorises the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management, to agree the detail of an assessment and recognition scheme.

 3. Authorised the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management, to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Developers Charter prior to it being published.

 4. Authorised the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management to add any future beneficial minor inclusions or amendments to the Developers Charter through consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and the Local Plan Working Group. 

Councillor Packard the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2177 which related to the Houses in Multiple Occupation ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Guidance Note.

East Suffolk had two Local Plans, the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and Waveney Local Plan, both of which contained a planning policy that related to the conversion of buildings to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).

A House in Multiple Occupation was a building, or part of a building, occupied by 3 or more people comprising 2 or more households who share at least one basic amenity (e.g. kitchen, bathroom).

Waveney Local Plan policy (WLP8.4 ‘Conversion of Properties to flats’) applied an ‘exceptional circumstances’ test to proposals for the conversion to HMOs or bedsits. The Suffolk Coastal Local Plan policy (SCLP5.12) supported the principle of such conversions within settlement boundaries subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of matters, including character, design and parking – the exceptional circumstances test does not apply and therefore the Guidance Note only relates to the Waveney Local Plan.

There was currently no guidance to assist decision makers, applicants, members of the public, and other stakeholders, in how to consider and apply the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. The inevitable consequence is that regular requests have been made for clarity.

The Guidance Note had been prepared to provide clarity. In particular, the Guidance Note identified the circumstances that should be deemed exceptional when considering planning applications for the conversion of buildings to Houses in Multiple Occupation. The identified exceptional circumstances are housing affordability and unsuccessful marketing of the current property in its current use.

What it meant in practice was that if an applicant could demonstrate that it had not been possible to sell or let the property over a reasonable period of time in compliance with the marketing requirements, and the Council’s position, as set out in the Supplementary Housing Statement (June 2024) or a subsequent iteration, is that there remains a significant need for smaller properties then ‘exceptional circumstances’ should be considered to be demonstrated.

It was important to note that even if ‘exceptional circumstances’ are demonstrated, there was no guarantee that planning permission would be granted, due to the need to consider planning applications against all relevant planning policies and all other material considerations. It is entirely possible, therefore, that permission may be refused on the basis that the proposal fails to accord with other planning policies.

The Guidance Note identified a number of other important considerations usually relevant to the conversion of buildings to Houses in Multiple Occupation, including:

Car parking

 Cycle storage

 Refuse storage

 Residential amenity

 The Guidance Note also provided  information relevant to licensing, building regulations and the Council’s pre-application service, all of which should be considered together and at the earliest possible opportunity as implications for one of these processes can affect the others.

The preparation of the Guidance Note had been undertaken through an officer steering group and has involved officers from Planning Policy and Delivery, Development Management, Private Sector Housing, Building Control, and Enforcement, and has also been overseen by the Local Plan Working Group.

A public consultation on the draft Guidance Note ran from 7 August until 18 September 2024. In total, 17 individuals and organisations responded to the consultation. Their comments have been considered and are set out in the Consultation Statement.

If adopted the Guidance Note will be a material consideration when determining planning applications.

The Guidance Note cannot, and does not, change Policy WLP8.4. The policy area of HMOs will be considered and addressed appropriately in the forthcoming preparation of the East Suffolk Local Plan.

Councillor Byatt thanked officers for the helpful and detailed document. It was reassuring to know that each application would be considered on its own merits with consultation with local members.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Wilson it was unanimous 

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet:

 1. Adopted the Houses in Multiple Occupation ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Guidance Note at Appendix A.

 2. Authorised the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management, to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Houses in Multiple Occupation ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Guidance Note prior to it being published.

Councillor Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment introduced report ES/2180 which related to ESSL requesting funding to purchase vehicles at end of lease term from NORSE and a request for funding for new lease vehicles in Q4 2024/25.

ESSL currently lease 56 light fleet vehicles including several specialised vehicles and 7 HGVs which were leased from NORSE via a leasing company. The current operating agreements were a legacy from the previous contract and the subleases were due to expire on 31/12/2024 and could not be renewed. It was important to ensure consistency in service and the vehicles were specialist in nature and hard to replace. 

There needed to be provision in place for operational use from 01/01/2025. There was a plan to work on a strategy for longer term fleet management with further work by ESSL to modernise the fleet of vehicles.

Councillor Byatt queried if maintenance costs for the vehicles were covered and if there were any potential impacts from the government’s announcement regarding standardising bin types nationally.

The Strategic Director responded that where vehicles were leased, maintenance costs were included in the leasing contracts. The rationale regarding leasing 40 vehicles considered the flexibility to adapt to any future technology developments.

Regarding the standardisation of bins, the view was that the recent guidance was supportive of the 3 weekly residual and twin stream collection and there would be no impact from the announcement. 

Councillor Wilson queried the 8-year life span statistic, given 83% of cost being approved was for the cost for purchase and if there was information of the average life span of vehicles purchased.

The Strategic Director advised that there had been a lot of work to modernise the vehicles and a lot of work been carried out by the workshop team. The average lifespan of the NORSE fleet was around 6/7 years. There was a lot of work to modernise the fleet with 24 rcv’s being purchased.

Councillor Langdon-Morris queried that the money would be paid to a 3rd party provider and if the arrangements had anything to do with NORSE.

The Strategic Director added that it was a third party company that was a specialised vehicle provider. There was nothing related to the profit share linked to the arrangement. There were discussions regarding ending the joint venture with the NORSE including all sums and the profit share.

Councillor Jepson queried if there was a process in place regarding staff responsibilities for looking after the vehicles and if there was confidence that staff were looking after the vehicles.

The Strategic Director advised that there was a robust process in place regarding incident and accident reporting. ESSL would be better placed to provide a response. There was a robust fleet management process in place.

On the proposition of Councillor Noble, seconded by Councillor Wilson

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet:

 1. Approved the purchase of vehicles at the end of the sublease agreement for the total sum of £515,303 and for this to be funded from an existing budget in the Council’s 2024/25 capital programme.

 2. Approved a supplementary revenue budget of £31,184 to fund the uplift in the management fee to ESSL for short-term leases arrangements required in Quarter 4 of 2024/25, and for this to be funded from the Transformation Reserve.

The Deputy Leader, Councillor Ashton, introduced report ES-2178 which related to the Mid-Year Budget Monitoring Report 2024/25 (Southwold Harbour and Caravan Site).

The Terms of Reference for the Harbour Management Committee require monitoring of financial performance against approved budgets, with mid-year and annual reporting to the Cabinet. The report outlined the financial position up to 30 August 2024.

 Southwold Harbour and Caravan/Campsite operations have experienced some variances against budget in both income and expenditure categories during the first half of the year. Key highlights included a higher-than-expected mooring fees but underspending on premises maintenance at the Campsite.

Southwold Harbour Income. 

Total income was £129,862, exceeding the budget of £125,080 by £4,782. Strong performance in mooring fees and other charges has contributed positively. 

Expenditure. Total expenditure of £145,890 is significantly above the budgeted £82,778 due to overspends on supplies and services (£76,513 actual vs. £21,730 budgeted). 

Net Position. deficit of £16,028, which, though negative, is £26,274 better than the expected deficit of £42,302. 4.2 

Southwold Caravan and Campsite. 

Income. £566,680, slightly below the budget of £591,102, reflecting a £24,422 shortfall mainly due to lower-than-expected static caravan fees. 

Expenditure. £246,746, underspending against the budget of £280,129, resulting in a £33,383 favourable variance, mainly due to lower employee and premises costs. 

Net Position. A surplus of £319,934, exceeding the budgeted surplus by £8,961. 

Combined Position

Total Income. £696,542, trailing the budget by £19,640. 

Total Expenditure. £392,636, with a £29,729 overspend. 

Net Position. The combined net surplus is £303,906, which is £49,369 behind the budgeted figure of £353,275.

There were various reasons impacting the costs, which included replacing the ice machine and some bulk purchases made at the start of year, for example diesel purchased would now be in the process of being sold. Regarding the campsite, the income was below the expected levels. This was due to Easter falling in March. It was expected the outturn by the end of the financial year the campsite would have recovered the shortfall in the first part of the year.

 Councillor Beavan added that under point 4.2 there was lower than expected static caravan fees and queried if that was due to caravans being empty or plot holders not paying.

 The Councillor remarked that the harbour structure was in need of maintenance and required significant investment to repair.

 Councillor Ashton there was ongoing work regarding reviewing the operating model of the campsite with an aim to generate more income and make the harbour and campsite cost neutral.

 The Strategic Director believed the caravan payment was due to people leaving that had not been expected.

 Councillor Byatt queried if diesel had a tank life.

 Councillor Ashton advised that with the purchase of the diesel for the harbour it would be sold in the subsequent months and would feature in the year end reports. There was a tank life on diesel, Councillor Beavan added that diesel could be cleaned if needed.

 Councillor Jepson thanked Councillor Ashton for communicating and being open in the briefings held about the harbour and the challenges faced.

 On the proposition of Councillor Ashton seconded by Councillor Beavan 

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet:

 1. Noted the financial performance of Southwold Harbour and the Caravan and Campsite up to 30 August 2024 at Appendix A

 2. Approved the forecast year-end financial position for 2024/25.

 3. Considered any necessary actions to mitigate variances or improve financial performance.

The item weas deferred to a future meeting.