Meeting Details

The Chair

The chair welcomed Councillor Letitia Smith following her election at the recent by-election on 4 July 2024.

 Since the last Annual Full Council meeting on 22 May, the Chair attended the following Civic engagements:

• 26 May - Service of Remembrance and Thanksgiving for the 357th Fighter Group USAAF at the Mustang Memorial at Therberton.

• 6 June – Royal British Legion’s Suffolk Service of Commemoration for the 80th Anniversary of D Day at St Edmundsbury Cathedral.

• 7 June – Bungay’s D Day 80 Commemoration – The Castle Bailey in Bungay.

• 16 June – The Mayor of Felixstowe’s Civic Service – St John’s Church, Felixstowe.

• 21 June – Bungay Community Support’s First Anniversary Event – Number 28 Winfield St, Bungay.

• 23 June – Mayor of Southwold’s Civic Service – A Celebration of Creativity – St Edmunds Church, Southwold.

The Vice-Chair

Since the last Annual Full Council meeting on 22 May, the Vice Chair attended the following Civic Engagements:

• 30 May – Suffolk Show – Councillor Fisher was in the Royal line up and met HRH the Duke of Gloucester and took part in the Presidents Lunch – at the Events Centre at Trinity Park.

• 31 May – Start of Suffolk Pride Month – The Cornhill in Ipswich.

• 11 July – Mayor of Felixstowe’s Civic Reception – Landguart Fort, Felixstowe.

•13 July – The Official Launch of Lowestoft Tennis Facilities by Lowestoft Town Council – Denes Oval, Lowestoft.

• 14 July – Mayor of Ipswich’s Fundraising Guided Walk and Meal – Cornhill, Ipswich.

• 19 July – Mayor of Ipswich’s ‘At Home’ Event – St Stephen’s Church, Ipswich.

 The Leader

The Leader welcomed Councillor Ashton as the Deputy Leader of East Suffolk Council and thanked Councillor Beavan for his work as Deputy Leader.

 The Leader welcomed Councillor Letitia Smith following the by-election. 

 The Leader had been made aware of a new Non Executive Outside Body which required an appointment of a Councillor to represent East Suffolk Council.  The Outside Body was the Broadland Futures Initiative – Elected Members Forum, which was looking at preserving the long-term future of the Broads.  Using Delegated Authority, and following discussion with the other Group Leaders, the Leader had appointed Councillor Andree Gee to sit on the Outside Body for the remainder of the 2024/25 municipal year.  Councillor Gee is already the Council’s representative on the Broads Authority.

 Since the meeting papers were published, the Leader had also been made aware of a change to the Membership of Planning Committee South.  Using delegated authority, Councillor Deborah Dean had replaced Councillor Debbie McCallum, with effect from 3 June 2024.

 The Leader announced that Councillor Seamus Bennett would take on the role as Assistant Cabinet Member, supporting the Deputy Leader.

 The Leader announced Councillor Packard would be taking the chair of the Kesgrave, Rushmere St Andrew, Martlesham, Carlford and Fynn Valley Community Partnership.  The Leader thanked Councillor Thompson for his work on the Community Partnership. 

 The Leader thanked all involved in the George Taylor charity football match which took place recently, over £500 was raise for MIND.

The Cabinet

Councillor Ashton reminded Members about the upcoming Asset Strategy workshop planned for Wednesday 31 July at East Suffolk.

 Councillor Daly advised that the new government had made an announcement to refund UNWA. 

Chief Executive

The Chief Executive reflected on the recent sad passing of Rachel Smith from the Planning team. Mrs Smith would be sadly missed and condolences were sent to her family, husband and daughters. Members and Officers stood for a moment of reflection. 

 The Chief Executive thanked the Strategic Director, Kate Blakemore for her work with East Suffolk and wished her well for her new role as Chief Executive at King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council.

The Chief Executive congratulated Kerry Blair on being appointed as the Strategic Director, and referenced the appointment of Michelle Burdett to other Strategic Director role.

On the proposition of Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Daly it was unanimously 

RESOLVED 

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Question from Mr John Ellerby to Councillor Yule, Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management

 In response to the 2013 floods, Lowestoft Flood Protection programme was developed. This strategic capital project, including the construction of flood walls and a tidal barrier, was originally planned for completion in 2020.

These planned strategic flood protection measures were included in the Lowestoft area strategy and flood risk sections of the Waveney Local Plan, adopted by ESC in March 2019.

Indeed, the tidal barrier was identified as a critical element of Lowestoft’s flood defences in the flood risk assessment submitted by ESC in January 2020 as part of the planning application for the construction of the flood walls.

Since the local plan was adopted there have been significant changes made to national policy on flood risk in the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 and in the National Planning Practice Guidance. The climate change allowances produced by the Government for use in flood risk assessments have also been updated.

In March 2024 less than two months after calling a halt to the tidal barrier project ESC, in accordance with statutory regulations, reviewed the Local Plan and concluded that an updated Plan was not needed at this time.

 Would the Cabinet member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management comment on the form the (March 2024 Local Plan) review took (ie how it was done), and how the decision not to update the Local Plan was made?

 Response from Councillor Yule, Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management

The review assessment of the Waveney Local Plan was undertaken in accordance with policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and guidance set out in the national Planning Practice Guidance on Plan-making, and it was undertaken prior to the Waveney Local Plan reaching the fifth anniversary of its adoption on 20th March 2024 (as is required by legislation). There is no prescribed way in which an assessment must be carried out; however, reference was made to other local authorities’ assessments and a toolkit provided by the Planning Advisory Service was also used to respond to a set of identified matters / questions. In summary, a review of each Local Plan policy entailed considering whether any changes were necessary based on factors such as appeals performance, changes to national policy and changes in legislation. The focus of the assessment is on the effectiveness of the policies, not solely on whether anything has changed. 

In relation to the matters set out in the question before Council, the decision to stop work on the Tidal Barrier project was considered as part of the Local Plan review assessment. The review explains that the ceasing of the Tidal Barrier project will not directly affect the Local Plan implementation, as the Tidal Barrier project was not sufficiently advanced at the time to specifically be mentioned in the Local Plan. The policies in the Local Plan related to development in Lowestoft therefore do not presume there will be a Tidal Barrier, but would require mitigation measures informed by site specific flood risk assessment to be incorporated within development where necessary. Whilst the absence of the Tidal Barrier will make the delivery of development in central Lowestoft more challenging, particularly the Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood, alternative flood risk mitigation measures (such as land-raising) were already recognised as being a likely potential measure. Importantly, policies are in place to ensure that flood risk, taking account of climate change, can be mitigated over the lifetime of developments. 

The Local Plan review assessment concluded that, whilst there are some policies where future updates would be desirable, none of these are considered to be necessary at the present time and through the application of planning judgement these policies remain effective and the plan can continue to provide a robust plan-led approach to development. The Council published an updated Local Development Scheme, also in March 2024, which sets out an indicative timetable for commencing preparation of an East Suffolk Local Plan once there is more clarity on the changes to the national planning policy and legislative situation. Preparation of a new Local Plan is indicatively planned to begin in spring/summer 2025. This will be the vehicle through which future changes to policies will be considered and made. 

The Waveney Local Plan review assessment was considered and approved by Cabinet on 5th March 2024.

Question from Councillor Paul Ashdown, to Councillor Tom Daly, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change

Regarding the GLI’s position on the Lion Link and Sea Link projects, Cllr Beavan stated "We don’t want any cables coming through East Suffolk carrying electricity that we do not use or need.

"For three years, we have been calling for an offshore grid to take the electricity to where it is needed – up the Thames Estuary – just like the rest of Europe do with their windfarm energy."

How are you going to ensure that we will not have electric cables passing through East Suffolk?

Response from Councillor Tom Daly, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change

 In May last year there was a district and county election which had significant impacts. The GLI’s position on all of the NSIPS, was the position of Council.  

 This question highlights the significant challenge East Suffolk is facing with the impending potential consenting and subsequent delivery of various offshore wind farms, interconnectors and grid reinforcement proposals that are all proposing to come through East Suffolk. Members will recall at last September Full Council we agreed a Motion which set out the council’s position on energy projects and we continuously advocate that position in all our responses to the various consultations and in our dialogue with promoters and government officials. That position is that we continue to argue the need for offshore grid development with connections into suitable brown field locations and full and proper coordination between projects so as to resist the need for on shore cable routes connecting from landing points to the gird hub through East Suffolk.

 Councillor Daly stated he was becoming concerned about this issue with the early signals coming from the new Labour Government on their energy delivery policy. We acknowledge their policy to reach net zero, but it cannot be at all cost. Recent statements from the new Secretary of State and decisions issued such as Sunnica solar farm in West Suffolk/Cambridgeshire all inform me that local views and concerns, and therefore for the environment, carry little weight. This was further compounded by a recent consultation being undertaken by Ofgem including the Nautilus Interconnector setting out that their grid connection in the Isle of Grain was not cost effective and as such they are returning to Leiston/Friston for their connection. This just highlights again that despite the communities making a strong case about the local environmental impacts, and the National Grid Ventures addressing those concerns, the cost of delivery for the consumer is the highest priority in decision making.

We will continue to make the case with government about the challenges East Suffolk is facing and the need for a national approach to energy infrastructure delivery. We will also set out our concerns and objections through the formal planning process but I as set out above some of these proposals are likely to be consented and come forward and we will strive, where this occurs, to achieve the best mitigation package possible to ensure the least disruption and harm to our communities.

'East Suffolk benefits from offshore energy via it's neighbouring areas, it is not incumbent that East Suffolk do it's part within reason, to support the supply of energy to counties and residents to the west that need the power. How would we cope if other areas took a similar approach should we need it.' 

Councillor Daly Responded that East Suffolk was not just playing its part, it was going to become a major area of the country for the production and distribution of energy. There was major investment for the whole country in energy and the most crucial element was implementation in the most environmental and community friendly way.  

There was enough critical mass in place for the government to look at National Grid and provoking OFGEM for a proper offshore network that future proofs East Suffolk.  

Councillor Daly stated he wanted a principled strategy which supported brownfield sites being considered first. East Suffolk would play its part and hoped the government would do the same.

Question from Councillor Peter Byatt to Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

A number of residents have been in contact with ward members about the activities of contractors who are installing cabling for fibre-broadband across Lowestoft. It seems that these contractors are arriving on scene and proceeding to dig up pavements and verges outside homes and businesses without any prior notice.

What measures can this Council take to ensure that this inconsiderate practice is discontinued and that timely notice of random trench-digging is provided?

Response from Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

Councillor Topping stated that Councillor Rumble had experienced the same issue recently. Responsibility for works on the highway fall within Suffolk County Council’s (SCC) remit.

 Councillor Topping was disappointed on Councillor Byatt's behalf that Suffolk County Councillors did not have the same relationship experienced with Network Assurance as is experienced in Beccles, where Network Assurance had engaged with  the community and provided updates. 

 Suffolk County Council were approached for a response to this question, their response was as follows:

 'It is the government’s ambition to deliver nationwide gigabit-capable broadband as soon as practicably possible (Building a Digital UK, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). Gigabit-capable broadband is important for all communities providing faster, more reliable connectivity for homes and businesses everywhere and government intervention is in place to target development of the broadband infrastructure and offer a competitive market. This does mean that several telecoms providers are working within our County simultaneously.  

There is no requirement for prior public notice to be given by any party when undertaking works within the highway either by statutory undertakers or the highway authority (Suffolk County Council). However, a permit condition (NCT11b) can be applied that requires a work promoter to undertake advanced publicity of works.

Statutory Guidance on the use of “NCT11b” condition is provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) which outlines that “This condition should be used by exception. It cannot be routinely applied to works. It may be appropriate at locations where it is vital that local residents/businesses are notified in advance of an activity due to the sensitivity of the location e.g. close to a school, hospital etc. or because of the times during which works will take place – e.g. night working.”

 It also states that “The application of this condition should be reasonable, proportionate and agreed with the works promoter and include the method and timescales required appropriate to the impact to the network. Due to the nature of advanced information, this condition cannot be applied to immediate permits and would only apply to minor works where minimum notice periods are not used.”

 Further information on conditions can be found at DfT | Statutory guidance for highway authority permit schemes: permit scheme conditions.

 Suffolk County Council (Network Assurance) do share roadwork information publicly via a digital interactive map when works have been submitted to Network Assurance.

The digital map based platform used by Suffolk County Council (SCC) to provide information around road works and street works is https://one.network, this is also integrated into SCC’s website page Roadworks in Suffolk | Suffolk County Council. This platform offers users a free account to sign in and by doing so provides a lot of additional features (some very recent new additions) from email alerts for a parish area, or bespoke user drawn areas of interest, to SCC’s gritting routes. 

 Network Assurance will raise the concerns with the respective telecom providers working in the area as part of their regular 1:1’s. However, the advance letter drops which may take place, can on occasions, be mistaken as general advertisement literature due to providers also putting their broadband package details on the back of their notifications. This is also a concern that Network Assurance have raised with the telecom providers.' 

Tree and Hedgerow Strategy

Proposer: Councillor Sally Noble
Seconder: Councillor Rachel Smith-Lyte

This Council notes that:

1. Europe’s total land area has forest cover comprising 47%, whereas the UK forests cover just 12% of land. Trees are vital in combatting climate change due to their ability to remove excess carbon dioxide from the environment, reduce flooding, filter air pollutants and provide wildlife habitats. 

2. Precedent for concerted action is evidenced by Leicestershire County Council, who have a ‘Tree for Every Person’ scheme, aiming to plant 700,000 over the next 10 years and have a scheme allowing residents to apply for a free tree or hedge to replace those lost to diseases . Mid Suffolk District Council have a dedicated ‘Parish Tree Planting Project’, which is a scheme to provide parishes and community groups with free trees as well as hedgerows and wildflower seeds.

3. In 2023, Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils worked with the Woodland Trust to make a call for land to increase the district’s tree coverage and improve biodiversity.

4. Protecting existing trees and planting new trees is a vital role in tackling the climate and biodiversity and ecological emergencies already declared by ESC. In completing this, we understand the necessity of external funding and additional resources, and are actively seeking these wherever possible.

5. Our officers receive many complaints about trees, and we wish to impress upon the public the vital importance of trees in protecting our environment.

This Council resolves to:

1. Develop a Tree and Hedgerow Strategy. In the process of doing so, actively seek input and feedback from stakeholders, residents, community groups, and experts to identify key priorities and actions whilst considering long term implications. 

2. Issue a call for land enabling landowners to put forward spaces for tree planting.

3. Complete the ongoing work of mapping and baselining tree canopy cover in the district, and complete a tree opportunity map for ESC owned land. As a result of this work, develop a strategy to enable 250,000 trees to be planted across East Suffolk, increasing canopy cover by 1%.

4. Acknowledge that town and parish councils and the tree wardens play a key goal in reaching ecological targets, and as such commit to providing more resources, for example: tree aftercare, support of The Suffolk Tree Warden Network, and strengthening communication to identify areas where ESC can provide targeted help.

5. We will promote the importance of Street Trees with the County Council, both existing trees and as part of new developments. Promoting the value of street trees and recognising that they are not just a maintenance burden.

Councillor Noble introduced the motion stating that ambition, innovation, creative thinking cross-party input and transparency was important. 

 
The motion was seconded by Councillor Bennett who discussed the importance of tree coverage with England having only 10%. The Councillor highlighted that boosting tree and hedgerows were important in both rural and urban areas. 

Councillor Robinson stated that having the right trees in the right place was important as mature trees in urban areas could cause issues including collapsed drains, pavement, road damage and verges were not suitable locations for trees. Councillor Robinson would not support that element of the motion.

Councillor Gooch supported the motion and the benefits it would bring to creating eco-systems and creating biodiversity. There were wider health benefits and along with the aesthetic of 'treescapes' being of beauty and inspiration to artists and poets. 

Councillor Gooch echoed the importance of the right trees in right place and the opportunity it would provide for citizen engagement. 

Councillor Ninnmey welcome the motion and reflected on work completed in the 1980’s in the Grove area of Felixstowe to recover the damage from the great storm. That trees had been undervalued and referenced the public feeling regarding the tree removed along Hadrian’s wall. 

Councillor Mallinder stated that he believed that trees and hedgerows were very important, however he did not feel the motion was right for the Council and he would abstain from voting.  The mass planting of trees did not improve biodiversity. There needed to be quality over quantity and a balance, focused on habitats and landscapes. He raised concerns over trees being planted along highways and being contained in plastic wrapping. 
 

Councillor Byatt offered his support for the motion. He echoed the importance of the right tree in the right place and understood the position of Conservative colleagues.  Councillor Byatt stated that it was important to talk to town and parish councils as well as Suffolk County Council. There was a need to consider tree and hedge cover with new planned developments.

Councillor Jepson advised that part of being in opposition was to look at what was being brought to Council and raise any perceived issues on behalf of residents more detail was needed to support the motion, such as cost.

Councillor Smithson echoed the right tree in the right place and recognised that maintenance would need to be considered and proposed to amend the motion to state that: 

The Council notes: importance of ensuring trees planted in urban areas are in the appropriate place. 

Councillor Lynch stated that the strategy was good, just needed some more detail. There needed to be data to support the process and ensure achievable targets and timelines were in place. 
 

Councillors Pitchers seconded the proposed amendment and reserved right to speak. 

There were 15 members who voted for the amendment and 24 against. The amendment did not pass. 

Councillor Wilson stated that the agency who had been engaged regarding the motion had planted over 400,000 trees with 95 different types of tree. They were also working with companies interested in offsetting their own carbon footprints and had 10-year management plans in place. 

Councillor Wilson urged members to have faith in the Cabinet Member, the Officers involved in the work and the governance structure that supported it. 

Councillor Topping highlighted that some trees would have been in place prior to urban infrastructure being built around them. There were examples where developers had invested in trees and provided one instance where a developer would gift a tree to the residents when a house was sold. 

Councillor Noble concluded to state that all feedback would be taken on board. Activity was already in action, with some trees planted and other sites identified. Advice would be taken from the appropriate experts and agencies. 

The motion was put to the vote and by majority voting in favour the motion was passed. 

Proposer: Councillor Peter Byatt
Seconder: Councillor Rosie Smithson

This Council notes that:

1. It is responding to climate change by declaring a Climate Emergency in July 2019 and committing to reach net zero CO2e emissions by 2030.

2. It has a duty to consider social justice and a fair transition to net zero.

3. With cross party support, in 2023 the Green, Liberal Democrat and Independent administration launched its new strategy, ‘Our Direction’, to deliver a new focus on the environment alongside a thriving economy, the housing challenge and tackling inequalities.

4. All Councils have complex, competing priorities when serving their communities; within the four themes and thirty-two priorities of ‘Our Direction’ there is potential for conflict where trade-offs must be made.

5. Cornwall Council has responded to similar trade-offs by adopting a visual ‘Decision Making Wheel’, which is a simple graphic tool that helps to show, and then weigh, how the consequences of potential projects and decisions could affect the environment and people.

This Council resolves to:

 1. Investigate the adoption of an East Suffolk version of Cornwall Council’s ‘Decision Making Wheel’ for all Cabinet and Full Council decisions, as a means to ensure that decisions made that combat climate change do not disadvantage the people of East Suffolk, and that decisions that may initially seem to benefit the community do not draw too heavily on what our environment can stand.

Councillor Byatt introduced the motion and referenced the Cornwall ‘Donut’ model, which provided a holistic framework that balances human needs with the planet's capacity. The Donut model consisted of two rings: the inner ring represented the social foundation, the essential areas of life such as health, education, and housing that no one should lack.

The outer ring represented the ecological ceiling, the environmental limits within which humanity must operate to avoid damaging the Earth’s life-support systems.

Councillor Byatt highlighted some of the benefits of the model, which included social justice, environmental sustainability and holistic governance.

Councillor Langdon-Morris, Ashton, Lynch, Gooch and Noble offered their support for the motion. There were comments that it would be good to explore using the wheel and embed it in work the Council does, with the option to get feedback. 

 
Councillor Mallinder agreed with comments made and stated he thought it was a terrific concept which looked at the whole community and environmental impact.

Councillor Noble commented that there were good ideas and it was worth investigating further.

Councillor Byatt concluded that the decision wheel would be used for Cabinet level decisions and would also be helpful for managers in the initial stages of projects. It could also be considered when identifying where mitigation could be needed.

The motion was unanimously passed. 

The Lead Petitioner addressed Councillors with reference to the submitted petition.

 Below contains the presentation wording provided by the petitioners as agreed in the meeting:

 ‘Dear councillors,

 Thank you for the opportunity to come and present our petition in front of you - My name is Monika Boast, and this is Mike Nicolson. We both live in Felixstowe and we are here to give you an overview on why this petition was launched and what outcome we are hoping to achieve.

North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood is part of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, which dictates to use a masterplan approach for this site.

I am here to discuss a very specific part of the land under this development – The Grove Woodland and the green open spaces surrounding the Grove including the very important Eastward Ho.

I’d like to start by quoting a section from the Local Plan: 12.37:

‘The Grove Woodland, which comprises broad leaved semi natural woodland has many veteran trees and is an important area for wildlife and biodiversity along with the playing pitches and open space at Eastward Ho. The Grove Woodland and Eastward Ho are well used recreational and community facilities for the residents of Felixstowe. Consultation responses have highlighted the importance of these existing areas and through the master planning process these areas are to be retained for continued community uses, biodiversity and ecological importance.’

 Residents of Felixstowe Peninsula started to feel concerned since Citizen Panel had been shown proposals, which have only ever suggested that these lands are to be built on.

With no alternatives shown, the only plan was to reduce in size the existing playing pitches, build houses, school, and Community Centre. We are talking about 2/3rds of the land being concreted over.

You may agree that none of these proposals sit very well with the statement from the local plan I just read – to be retained.

We know that nothing has been decided and there is nothing to appeal against yet. But this is why it is so important to talk about it now - because the design of the masterplan IS MEANT to be informed by the public. And we know there is a covenant on The Grove Woodland to protect it, but what does protection of The Grove actually mean?

Assaulted by Trelawny from the North, is the Grove not going to suffer if we build everywhere around it?

So why am I here today?

I am here to speak for over 5,500 residents who signed the petition as of today, and who use these fields to play football, walk dogs, run, fly a kite, ride a bike, have a picnic on, stroll and spend time surrounded by nature. And this number is growing daily, while people find out about the threat.

Our message to you is:  These community cherished open green fields, which also protect our beloved grove woodland, our physical and mental health retreat, must be saved. do not build on or reposition these lands and facilities, do not change or take away what we love and have used for decades and generations. we want these lands formally and legally protected, maintained and enhanced in its current size and form for us and future generations.

We understand the need to build houses. But public needs to know what is driving the need to build more houses in Felixstowe apart from the ones currently being build. We’ve had Brexit, Pandemic, Port automation, can we see new demographic and housing needs reports, ecological reports before the ideas on the design of the masterplan are released?

 Can we take a pause and review the evidence?

I would like to sum up by quoting Keep Britain Tidy chief executive, Allison Ogden-Newton OBE, printed in East Anglian Daily Times on 16^th July 2024:

 ‘Prioritising parks and green spaces is vital for our future (…)

We know beyond doubt that our local environment contributes to the wellbeing of individuals and communities, with our parks and green spaces recognised as areas where people can come together and be active.

Research shows that time spent in green spaces can positively affect mental and physical health, quality of life and a sense of wellbeing.’

Please recognise and acknowledge the scale and passion for this subject, these are only going to grow. And take into account what has been said when proposal to build Beech Way homes was rejected in Woodbridge just a few days ago – it posed a complete disregard to the site’s current open meadow state.

Act now, so that we don’t have to oppose the masterplan!

Imagine 5,500 people looking at you right now, because they are looking online and waiting for an update from me – what are you going to say to them?

To the Councillors here and the Planning Committee:

• Assure us that Eastward Ho and the green spaces surrounding the Grove will not be built on
• Recognise that building on these lands will threaten Grove’s biodiversity
• Assure us that the design of the masterplan is going to be community led.

Councillor Beavan thanked the petition members for attending the meeting. The need for  green space and the need to protect the environment was understood. The Councillor reassured that the Council were in open consultation with community members and stakeholders. The decision had not been made and the consultation process was being carried out before any decisions had been made. There were two more public meetings due to take place. There were constraints of the Local Plan and the requirements to following established national rules. There would be consultation and a master plan brought to Cabinet which would be done in a fair and sustainable way.

Councillor Deacon thanked the organisers of the petition and stated that it demonstrated the opposition to the large well used green space. Unless the policy SCLP12.3 was followed to the letter there would be future challenges. Paragraph C of the policy was highlighted. Councillor Deacon commented on historic work in Suffolk Coastal by the Conservative group and that there was no requirement for the Felixstowe area to host 38/40% of the additional housing quoter. The Councillor had recognised the need for affordable homes and had suggest an alternative way forward. 

In 2020 Councillor Deacon had asked if the process could be paused to allow a reassessment of the housing need.  He emphasised the importance of the right houses in the right place and recognised that the need for affordable housing was important.

The Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and the Waveney Local Plan (2019) are the Council’s adopted Local Plans. An adopted Local Plan forms part of the statutory development plan (along with ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans and the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan) and under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the determination of planning applications must be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

There is no provision for pausing decision making or pausing the implementation of a Local Plan. The Council has a duty to determine planning applications in a timely manner and there would be significant risks associated with not determining planning applications. An applicant can appeal non-determination of a planning application, which can be costly for the Council both in terms of resourcing an appeal but also in the event of costs being awarded against the Council if it was deemed to have acted unreasonably. The Council is measured on its housing delivery through the national Housing Delivery Test, and Councils must also demonstrate a five year supply of housing land (note – changes to the National Planning Policy Framework in December 2023 removed the requirement to annually demonstrate a five year supply whilst a plan is less than five years old, however the Government is currently proposing to reverse this). The consequences of not demonstrating sufficient delivery and supply open the district up to the risk of unplanned development coming forward. In addition to this resulting in development coming forward in an unplanned manner, there could be significant costs associated with the Council seeking to resist such speculative applications if these went through the appeals process due to either refusal or non-determination. The Council is currently in a good position in having two relatively recent Local Plans in place and in being able to demonstrate a five year supply, however must continue to positively deliver the growth set out in the Local Plans to ensure that delivery and supply continue.

The Government is currently holding a consultation on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and as part of this has made it clear that increasing housing delivery is a key objective of the Government.’

 Councillor Candy added that the consultation period was still on-going and should be utilised. 

 
Councillor Bennett stated he was born a few hundred yards from the Grove and understood the significance and value of the area. It was a complex and highly significant development. Councillor Bennett assured that the consultation process was open and genuine, Councillors would listen to views and take on board what people thought. 

 Councillor Jepson supported previous comments.  Felixstowe Council wanted the Grove and Eastwood Ho to be protected, which was in the plan.   The consultation process should be allowed to take its course and Councillor Jepson had confidence in the administration that consultations will take place and decisions were not pre-determined. 

 Councillor Smithson commented that she had lived in Felixstowe for four years and felt there was sense of real community. People love Felixstowe, it was full of heritage and great landscapes. There was development everywhere and community members feedback that there were concerns regarding the quality and lack of infrastructure to support the volume of development. There was not a safe cycle route, difficulty accessing healthcare or an adequate local bus route.

Councillor Smithson urged the GLI group to consider the opportunities to create a blueprint of excellence with community at its heart. 

Councillor Ninnmey stated he had been involved in the Grove since the 1980’s and discussed the complex process underway. He encouraged residents to engage in the consultation process.

 Councillor Byatt requested clarity on the option to pause the process. 

 Councillor Beavan added that there was a long process ahead and there was time review and consider community views. There was a significant housing need and an intention to look at doing things differently and to find the best for Felixstowe. 

Councillor Noble added that the concerns were heard and there was a passion for trees and green spaces being preserved, which would be looked at closely. 

Councillor Keys-Holloway commented that many people in the East Suffolk area were raising similar concerns regarding the importance of protecting green space. There was a need for housing and it was a complex issue but green spaces needed to be saved and residents were feeding that back. 

 Councillor Deacon requested if the process could be paused. 

 Councillor Yule responded that she believed answer was no but would get a formal answer and respond outside of the meeting. 

 RESOLVED

 The Leader of the Council, Councillor Topping, assured the petitioners that the Administration would take on board their views.

Councillor Caroline Topping Leader of the Council introduced report ES/2061 which related to Political Balance and allocation of seats on Committees 2024/25 following a By Election.

Membership of the Committees and Sub-Committees of East Suffolk Council was determined under the terms of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990.

Councillor Craig Rivett (the Conservative Councillor for the Carlton Colville Ward) resigned from East Suffolk Council with effect from 23 May 2024. A by-election for the vacant seat in this Ward was held on 4 July 2024 and Councillor Letitia Smith, was elected. Councillor Smith was a Conservative, therefore, the political balance of the Council remained unchanged.

On 24 June 2024, Councillor David Beavan, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, and a Liberal Democrat Councillor, left the Liberal Democrat Group and became an Independent Councillor. Councillor Beavan remained the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing. From 25 June 2024, Councillor Paul Ashton became the Deputy Leader of the Council.

The overall Political Balance of the Council remained unchanged.  

There were no questions or debate. 

On the proposition of Councillor Topping, seconded by Councillor Ashton, it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Full Council approved:

1. That, with effect from 24 July 2024, in order to meet statutory requirements, seats on Committees and Sub-Committees of the Council continue to be allocated in accordance with the contents of the report and Appendix A.

2. That the Leader be granted Delegated Authority to make any necessary changes to the membership of the Committees for the remainder of the 2024/25 Municipal Year, in consultation with the other Group Leaders.

Councillor Tom Daly, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Climate Change & Energy introduced report ES/2044 which related to the Our Direction 2028 Environmental Impact Plan. 

The strategy was being presented to Full Council to allow Members to be informed of the current approach to delivering the Council’s Environmental Impact priorities.

The Environment Impact theme was a core pillar of Our Direction 2028. There were 8 priorities, and the strategy guided the Council work for 4 years. There were plans in place for each strategic theme. 

Councillor Mallinder was delighted to see principles he had previously worked on being brought forward. The foundations were strong with diversity and a focus on litter and recycling. The Councillor highlighted the reduction in carbon footprint of the Council.  

Councillor Gooch thanked the previous Chair of the former iteration of the Environmental Task Group (ETG), Councillor Smith-Lyte,  Councillor Noble, the current Chair of the ETG, and officers for their work supporting the Environmental Task Group.

Councillor Jepson congratulated on the document and commended on the year-on-year reduction from 2017, however there was not the reduction which might have been expected following the COVID pandemic.

Councillor Byatt commented on the interesting projects and wondered if any of the projects would be suitable to apply the decision-making wheel. 

Councillor Smith stated it was interesting to see what Conservative ideas had been taken forward and she was looking forward to supporting collaborative working. 

Councillor Noble recognised cross-party work and the previous projects and initiatives that had been undertaken.  She thanked the Lead Officer for Climate Change & Sustainability and the team for their work. 

Councillor Daily concluded that it was heartening to see cross Council support, working together for benefit of the community.  


On the proposition of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Noble it was unanimously 

That Full Council: 

Having considered the Our Direction 2028 Environmental Impact Strategy as set out in Appendix A, approved its adoption. 

Councillor Dr Anthony Speca Chair of the Council and Chair of the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) introduced report ES/2052 which related to the Constitution Working Group – Contract Procedure Rules and Financial Procedure Rules.

The Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) was first convened by the Chair of Council in July 2023 to carry out a fundamental review of East Suffolk Council’s (ESC’s) Constitution to ensure it is complete, accurate, up to date, clear, lawful, fit for purpose and democratically sound. The CRWG was bringing proposed changes to the Constitution to Full Council in tranches, as it carried out its review. The first report of the CRWG was considered by Full Council on 24 January 2024. 

The first report contained recommendations in relation to functions and responsibilities and Council, Cabinet and Committee Procedure Rules. In the second report of the CRWG, the CRWG proposed changes to ESC’s Contract Procedure Rules, Finance Procedure Rules and the Officer Code of Conduct.

The CRWG also recommended that a further amendment be made to the Council Procedure Rules to provide that any Cabinet member, who commits in a meeting to answering a question outside of the meeting, must provide a written answer to all members in attendance at that meeting within 20 working days.

Members would no longer have to complete a nil return regarding gifts and hospitality. 

The Finance Procedure rules made it easier to understand who signs off different decisions and when decisions are required to go to Cabinet. 

The last item for consideration was written responses to questions which could not be answered in meetings. An answer to a question must be provided within 20 days and circulated to all members. 

Councillor Byatt added that the work of the group had been forensic and intense. There was an intention to ensure questions do not get lost and are recorded. Councillor Byatt urged members to support the item.

 Councillor Ninnmey queried if the 20 days were working days or non working days. 

 Councillor Speca confirmed that it would be 20 working days.

 On the proposition of Councillor Speca, seconded by Councillor Byatt it was unanimously

2. Agreed that these changes to the Constitution will take effect and come into force from, and including, Thursday 25 July 2024.

Councillor Deacon introduced report ES/2053 which related to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report 2023/2024.

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee welcomed the annual opportunity to outline the activities to both the rest of the Council and also any members of the public watching who may not be familiar with the work that undertaken.
 

Councillor Deacon thanked the Vice-Chair, Councillor Clery, and the other Committee members for all of their support and hard work. The Councillor also thanked the Democratic Services Officer for their support. 

There had been a varied work Programme in 2023/24 which saw the Committee scrutinising the new Cabinet Members and reviewing a number of topics of importance to residents and the 2024/25 Work Programme promised to be just as busy and was approved by the Committee last week.  It included reviews, Cabinet Member Scrutiny Sessions as well as scrutinising the Council’s budget and performance.  

 Two more meetings to the Committee dates published in the Calendar of Meetings for 2024/25.

 It was requested that Full Council note and endorse the Annual Report for 2023/24, and to also approve the updating of the Calendar of Meetings 2024/25 to include the two extra Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings to be held on 20 February 2025 and 24 April 2025.

 Councillor Jepson thanked Councillor Deacon For his leadership of the committee. It was rewarding work looking for consistent improvement.

Councillor Ashton also thanked the committee, noting that could be daunting to be scrutinised but process was useful.

The Leader thanked all for their engagement in the process and added that scrutiny added value for constructive support and advice. Councillor Topping thanked the Democratic Service Officer for their work in supporting the committee. 


On the proposition of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Clery it was unanimously

Councillor Candy introduced report ES/2040 which related to the East Suffolk Council Food and Health and Safety Service Plan 2024-2025.

The updated plan served to outline how East Suffolk ensured that the highest safety standards were achieved.

 East Suffolk deliver official food controls, both inland and at seaports, by the Food and Safety Team and Suffolk Coastal Port Health Authority.

 The Food and Safety Team were continuing to undertake risk-based inspections of food businesses. The focus of work must always be on improving the poorer performing businesses. To make sure that the improvement of poorly rated businesses was being achieved, a new key performance indicator, had been introduced for the Team.  Once a business was identified as needing improvement, officers would work with the business, with a view to them becoming generally satisfactory within three months. If that was not achieved, the officer would commence a more formal approach and if necessary, enforcement action. 

 The Team also had responsibilities for health and safety enforcement, awareness raising and accident investigation. This year there had been a focus on topics such as, gas and electrical safety in catering establishments, ill-health prevention at visitor attractions that offer contact with animals and workplace stress awareness.

The Port Health Authority had been working hard to ensure checks on food entering the UK through the Port of Felixstowe, Harwich International Port and the Port of Ipswich are carried out efficiently, and that the UK’s food supply chain is protected. 

The implementation of the Border Target Operating Model - BTOM started on 30th April 2024, and had some way to go before being anything approaching a sustainable business as usual position. It was early days, but to give some indication of the scale of change; the number of official notifications had nearly tripled. 

The health, safety and well-being of our local authority workforce, and members, is paramount.  For that reason, the important work of the Corporate Health and Safety Team was included.  Reducing work related stress, considering health and safety at an early stage when procuring goods and services and complying with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, known as CDM, with the Council’s development projects were key priorities in 2024/25.

The achievements would not be possible without the dedication and expertise of East Suffolk Council and Suffolk Coastal Port Health Authority staff, plus the commitment of the hard-working businesses, partner organisations and all those who work so diligently all year round. 

Councillor Reeves thanked Officers for a comprehensive plan. 

On the proposition of Councillor Candy, seconded by Councillor Reeves it was unanimously

That Full Council: 

1. noted performance against the Service Plan for 2023/24; 

2. considered and comments on the Service Plan for 2024/25; 

3. recommended that Full Council approves the Service Plan for 2024/25; and 

4. authorised the Head of Environmental Services and Port Health, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Service Plan prior to it being published.

Councillor Yule the Cabinet Member with the responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2041 which related to the Playford Neighbourhood Plan.

Playford Parish Council commenced work on the Neighbourhood Plan in March 2017 and after a number of years of hard work from the Parish Council and the local community, the Neighbourhood Plan successfully passed its referendum on the 13th June 2024. 72 people voted (which was a 40% turnout) and 79% people voted ‘yes’.

 The Neighbourhood Plan had been built around wide engagement with the community and each had undergone several rounds of consultation. It contained a distinctive vision for Playford which responded to the matters which were important to the community. Policies and actions were set out in the plan to help achieve the vision.

 Officers at East Suffolk Council had provided support and guidance to the Parish Council throughout the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan.

 The Neighbourhood Plan addressed the matters including:

 The location of development in the countryside

 Protection of landscapes and important views

 Protection of trees, hedgerows and natural features

 Protection of locally important historic buildings

 Encouraging good design

Clerks note: amendment to the minutes as agreed 25 September 2024: Councillor Hedgley thanked the parish councillors and a previous Chair of the Neighbourhood Planning Committee for their work before they sadly passed away. The Councillor supported the recommendation. 

Councillor Yule concluded that it had been a long process and thanked everyone involved.

 On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That the Council: 

Make the Playford Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version, June 2024) part of the statutory development plan for East Suffolk for the whole of the Playford Neighbourhood area. 

Councillor Yule introduced report ES/2042 which related the Easton Neighbourhood Plan. 

Easton Parish Council commenced work on the Neighbourhood Plan in October 2017 and after a number of years of hard work from the Parish Council and the local community, the Neighbourhood Plan successfully passed its referendum on the 13th June 140 people voted (which was a 45% turnout) and 91% people voted ‘yes’.

The Neighbourhood Plan had been built around wide engagement with the community and each had undergone several rounds of consultation. It contained a distinctive vision for Easton which responded to the matters which were important to the community. Policies were set out in the plan to help achieve the vision.

Officers at East Suffolk Council had provided support and guidance to the Parish Council throughout the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The Neighbourhood Plan set out a range of planning policies, including:

The allocation of a site for approximately 12 homes

 Requirements relating to the conversion of rural buildings in the countryside

 Preserving local landscape character, key views and dark skies

 Provision for wildlife through avoidance and mitigation of recreational disturbance

 Protection of important green spaces

 Recognition of locally important heritage assets

 Designation of important design consideration for new development, and

 Identification of key village services and facilities.

 Members were recommended to approve the ‘making’ of the Easton Neighbourhood Plan.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris observed that there had been lots of work and it had been completed before Storm Babet. The flood plan needed to be updated by the Environment Agency as it was not accurate.

 Councillor Grey recognised the work of Parish Councils and the Chairs. He fully supported the plan.

Councillor Daly queried the picture of fox hunting on page 87.
 

Councillor Langdon-Morris stated this image represented its history and there was not a hunt in the area.

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council: 

Make the Easton Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum version, June 2024) part of the statutory Development Plan for East Suffolk for the whole of the Easton neighbourhood area.

Full Council received report ES/2054, which was presented by Councillor Topping, Leader of the Council, and provided individual Cabinet Members' reports on their areas of responsibility, as well as reports from those Members appointed to represent East Suffolk Council on Outside Bodies. The Leader stated that the written reports could be taken as read and she invited relevant questions on their contents.

Councillor Mallinder requested an update from the Suffolk Waste partnership. 

Councillor Noble confirmed she would provide one. 

Councillor Smith requested an update from the Community Partnerships.

Councillor Whitelock confirmed she would provide an update. 

It is recommended that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.     

On the proposition of Councillor Speca, seconded by Councillor Fisher it was unanimously resolved to move the meeting into exempt session.