Meeting Details

The Chair

The Chair congratulated Councillor Topping for her recent LGIA nomination for Leader of Year.

The Chair attended the following engagements since the last Full Council meeting:

6 October – County Harvest Festival (Suffolk Agricultural Association) at Trinity Park in Ipswich

13 October – Mayor of Ipswich Civic Service at St Mary Le Tower Church in Ipswich

20 October – West Suffolk Council’s Civic Service at St Edmundsbury Cathedral

10 November – Lowestoft Town Council’s Annual Remembrance Parade and Wreath Laying Ceremonyat Royal at Plain, Lowestoft

10 November – Bungay Remembrance Sunday event at St Mary’s Church

18 November – Youth Council Induction Day at East Suffolk House

19 November – Formal opening of the Gull Wing Bridge, with HRH Princess Anne

20 November – Quality of Place Awards at East Suffolk House

22 November – Bake for Britten fundraising event for ‘Britten as a Boy statue’ at the Kirkley Centre in Lowestoft

24 November – Festal Evensong on the Feast of Christ the King at Norwich Cathedral

Cabinet and Assistant Cabinet Members also attended:

 Remembrance Service at HMP Warren Hill, Hollesley Bay

 Martlesham Heath Remembrance Service – USAF

 Wrentham Remembrance Sunday

Framlingham Remembrance Sunday

Southwold Remembrance Sunday

Wickham Market Remembrance Sunday

Woodbridge Remembrance Sunday

Felixstowe Remembrance Sunday

Melton Remembrance Sunday

Aldeburgh Remembrance Sunday

Leiston Remembrance Sunday

Beccles Remembrance Sunday

The Vice-Chair

The Vice Chair attended the following engagements since the last Full Council meeting:

6 October – Mayor of Ipswich’s Cheese and Wine Evening at Ipswich Town Hall

24 October – Agricultural Awards Dinner and Awards Ceremony at Trinity Park

2 November – Mayor of Ipswich Diwali Dinner Celebration at Ipswich Town Hall

4 November – Chair of Babergh District Council’s Buffet Curry Night in Long Melford

10 November – Saxmundham’s Remembrance Sunday event

14 November – ActivLives AGM at Kesgrave Community and Conference Centre

19 November – Mayor of Sudbury’s Cheese and Wine Evening at Wine Boutique in Sudbury

26 November – 6th Annual Suffolk BME Business Awards 2024 at the University of Suffolk in Ipswich

The Leader

 With effect from 6th November Councillor McCallum replaced Councillor Dean on Planning Committee South.

 Councillor Mark Packard will be taking on the role as Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management. The Leader thanked Councillor Yule for her work in the role, following her request to step down as Cabinet Member.

 The Leader confirmed that Councillor Bennett would take the role as Chair of Planning South.

 The Cabinet

 Councillor Langdon-Morris referenced the Resilience Coordinator who would be starting in their role in early January 2025.

 The government recently met and discussed a £2.4 billion investment focused on flood resilience and  better protection for communities.

 Councillor Candy talked about the international day to eliminate violence against women and girls. East Suffolk was supporting the campaign with white ribbons being available.

 Councillor Molyneux (as Assistant Cabinet Member) announced attendance at a recent parliamentary reception, which was to challenge the previous government’s restrictions on local authorities being able to adopt higher standards of building, relating to the new local plans.

 The Councillor discussed the upcoming Developers Charter, the Quality of Place awards and the representation of the Council at the RTPI awards recognising East Suffolk's planning delivery dashboard.

 Councillor Wilson recently attended the East Suffolk business awards and congratulated all businesses who won awards. The Councillor congratulated Councillor Lawson who picked up the award for Local Charity of the year as a trustee of the Kesgrave War Memorial Community Centre.

 Councillor Whitelock announced that Councillor Graham had become the southeast area local representative for Arts Council England.  

Councillor Byatt paid tribute to former Councillor Peter Coghill who recently passed away. Condolences were given to Mr Coghill's family and friends.  

On the proposition of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Back it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 September 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Question from Mr Chilvers to Councillor Beavan Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing

 REF : Council Housing Future / St Peters Court Demolition

Has an analysis been considered comparing the increasing costs of housing support in the private sector versus the costs of renovating St Peters Court in Lowestoft considering that the council will only begin to look at its replacement once the demolition has been concluded and in the light of the situation where the council is struggling to meet its legal requirements regarding housing those in need due to the increasing costs of rent aggravated by the frozen local housing allowance. The cost of increasing destitution ultimately falls on the council and it seems sensible that a wider analysis of the associated costs should be factored into the fate of existing housing stock and wider housing strategy pursued by the council.

Response from Councillor Beavan Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing

 Councillor Beavan, thanked Mr Chilvers for his question. The decision regarding St Peters Court was not taken lightly. In October 2023, Cabinet was asked to consider the future of St Peters Court.  The report and accompanying documents, which were discussed at Cabinet evidenced the detailed investigations, surveys and financial analysis that had taken place.  As part of this, the costs associated with rehousing everyone, the loss of rental income and a number of other factors were considered.  All of the financial options, were considered over a 30 year period.  Various options were considered but due to the age, construction, demand and significant investment required, Members reluctantly made the decision that the only viable option was to decant all of the residents, then demolish the building and redevelop the site.  St Peters Court is now empty, with all residents successfully rehoused.  The building has been boarded and the internal fixtures and fittings are being removed, prior to the main demolition commencing in 2025.

Councillor Beavan concluded that the administration had ‘done the maths’ and decided that in the long run they could supply more decent houses by sadly demolishing St Peters Court. If it had remained the Council would have been subject to a new regulation on buildings on the same height where a second staircase would be required. Therefore, the decision remained the right one. The council was still looking to the future of supplying affordable housing and the Councillor would touch on that in a later Member question.

Question 1 from Councillor Mallinder to Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

Autumn is a beautiful time of year but with the falling of leaves we also required an increase in pavement cleaning.

Can the leader of East Suffolk confirm how many road sweepers we own and  going forward  how does the council intend to improve pavement cleaning.

Response from Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

 We own 3 mechanical brooms with one based in Lowestoft and two in Ufford. In addition we have 3 small sweepers and 4 pedestrian sweepers.

 ESSL have recently been investigating their sweeping/cleansing service and have concluded that there are improvements to be made within the existing structure and resource. As part of the East Suffolk’s Amazing campaign we, along with ESSL, will be looking at areas where improvements need to be made which will be aided by the further roll-out of a digital operational management system.

 Any particular issues can be raised with us through the online reporting systems which we can then investigate.

 Councillor Mallinder followed with a supplementary question: would the Leader agree it was a mistake to cancel the annual district wide litter pick earlier in the year and would the Leader confirm it would be reinstated for 2025.

 The Leader, Councillor Topping responded that she believed it was postponed not cancelled.  The Leader would get confirmation outside the of meeting at report back.

 The Leader highlighted that there were 118 parishes that do litter picking.

 Question 2 from Councillor Edward Back to Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

 What is the cost of rebranding the "Pardon the Weeds, We're Feeding the Bees" campaign to "Nature at Work"?

Response from Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

 The cost for creating a new identity for the ESC Nature at Work campaign, designing new signs and delivering online communications is £413, plus ESC officer time supporting this work.

 The work is being delivered by GroundWork East, which is a community and environment charity that works across the East of England.

 The majority of the 116 Pardon the Weeds / Nature at Work sites do not have signs in place. The signage is important to communicate the benefits of the scheme to the community plus act as markers to aid the ESSL operatives and to prevent unscheduled mowing.

 There will be a one-off cost to produce and place the new signs of approximately £10,525. When the new signs are placed, a visual survey will be conducted and images will be taken to support the monitoring of these important sites.

 The new identity and design for the scheme is a small part of the larger Nature and Work programme. For example, we are often approached by town and parish councils and schools across the district to help them create space for nature on their land – this new scheme will support them to do this through training, equipment and ongoing guidance.

 The scheme will also create a new monitoring programme for us to measure and track how the scheme is benefitting nature and which approaches are most effective. This will help us identify and deliver actions to enhance these key sites, beyond reduced mowing.

 The total cost for the new Nature at Work programme is £49,960. These costs and the programme have been reviewed and approved by the cross-party Environment Task Group (ETG), which will monitor the ongoing delivery of the project.

 Councillor Back followed with a supplementary question, the Councillor appreciated it was a new campaign following the 'Pardon the Weeds' work previously carried out and asked if the Leader of the Council considered the expenditure represented value for money for the taxpayer.

 The Leader, Councillor Topping responded that the programme was started by the previous administration and needed to be rolled out. The Leader believed the rebranding was necessary for an evolution situation, the programme now included all types of nature. The Leader believed it was worth the expenditure.

 Question 3 from Councillor Myles Scrancher to Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment 

 
One of the most reoccurring issues I receive complaints on from residents are the poor state of footpaths overgrown with weeds, heavily overgrown trees and bushes and unmanaged verges on roads.

Although the Administration has introduced the ‘East Suffolk’s Amazing’ initiative which aims to get residents involved with helping to keep our district tidy. Our residents pay council taxes, and this should offer them a baseline standard of maintenance and care of public areas.

What is the administration going to do in my areas of Carlton Colville, Gisleham and Mutford to resolve these ongoing issues?

Response from Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment

 ESSL have recently been investigating their sweeping/cleansing service and have concluded that there are improvements to be made within the existing structure and resource. As part of the East Suffolk’s Amazing campaign we, along with ESSL, will be looking at areas where improvements need to be made which will be aided by the further roll-out of a digital operational management system.

 With regard to verges, trees and bushes, unfortunately these are not all the responsibility of ESC. Where we can, we will work with relevant landowners and agencies to resolve these issues. We have met with the County Council to aim to raise the priority level of the issues that you raise – which are the case across the district – and will continue to do so.

 Any particular issues can be raised with us through the online reporting systems which we can then investigate.

Councillor Scrancher followed with a supplementary question and asked if Councillor Noble could provide a guarantee that the issues impacting East Suffolk managed areas would be resolved prior to the 2025 Summer.

 Councillor Noble responded that there were on-going issues many of which were under Suffolk County Council authority. Some areas would come under nature at work and there will be areas which would be expanded, and rebranding work was taking place. Meetings were ongoing with ESSL to address issues and make improvements. The Councillor concluded that any grievances could be reported and acted on.

 Question 4 from Councillor Debbie McCallum to Councillor David Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing

The new Labour government have highlighted their aspirations to build 300,000 new homes annually over the next 5 years to meet their 1.5 million targets as a means of addressing the housing shortage crisis.
 
 
Given their aspirations, what are your plans moving forward to provide social and council housing throughout East Suffolk?

Response from Councillor David Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing

 A good question. That target equates to over 1000 new homes a year in East Suffolk but we only have the land supply for 900.

On the other hand, at 25% affordable, 1000 new homes will only produce about 250 affordable homes and so about 125 social homes to rent by us or registered providers -  barely a dent in our 5000 waiting list which grew by 431 in August and September alone this year.

Meanwhile the government has set us a target of nearly 1700 new homes a year which we have told them is neither achievable nor desirable. We are between a rock and a hard place.

We desperately need homes that people can afford to live in but not at the expense of losing the natural beauty of East Suffolk.

We are working around the edges. We are promoting rural exception sites with 100% social rent in villages like Westleton.

We are prioritising brownfield sites but the remediation cost at Kirkley Waterfront will be so expensive that few social homes can be afforded.

We are targeting empty homes – three second homes in Southwold have not had anyone stay for one night in 3 years – but we can’t even charge them extra council tax because they are “substantially furnished” We are looking at increased housing density and co-living - in the future.

Maybe, more supply will bring down the price of new homes - but then builders will say there is no profit for them.

If only we could increase the proportion of affordable houses built to 50% instead of 25%, we could solve our housing crisis with less land.  What we need is a radical solution - and there is an Achilles heel.

Farmland is worth £10,000 an acre. If we come along and give it planning, that becomes a £1 million – a hundred times more. With an average density of 12 houses per acre, that means the land alone costs £85,000 a home.

Two people on an average wage cannot afford to buy or rent an average house at £300,000. If we only paid the property owner £100,000 for his acre of £10,000 farmland (ten times not one million at one hundred times the value), we could reduce the price from that unaffordable £300,000 to an achievable £225,000.

The landowner and builder get a reasonable profit, and we get homes that people can afford to live in. Everyone is happy except perhaps the property speculator, but if they won’t play ball, we can always Compulsory Purchase order. That way we get the housing we need without losing the countryside we love.“

Question 5 from Councillor Alan Green to Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council  

 Following a question from Councillor Byatt at the July Full Council meeting related to the apparent random trench-digging by contractors installing cables for Broadband, a further issue has now come to light.

 In my ward of Kessingland  a substantial length of newly-laid tarmac over a previous cabling excavation on a footway has been dug up for yet another contractor to lay more cabling. In addition, this company has now run out of tarmac and has left the site fenced off and unfinished.

 Whilst Councillor Byatt’s question related to appropriate notification of cabling work, it is now apparent that this Council needs to make further representations to the County Council regarding this farcical situation.  Our paths and roads are being dug up and refilled by separate contractors leaving unsightly patchworks of ugly, randomly laid uneven surfaces.

 Will you follow up on this unacceptable lack of co-ordination with the County Council as a matter of urgency?

 Response from Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

 Utility companies have the right to excavate in the highway.  This right is granted under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA), which allows statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, to install, maintain, and repair their apparatus in public highways.

 They must obtain the necessary permit (road space booking) from the relevant highway authority (Suffolk County Council) but this cannot be unreasonably withheld.  The Suffolk County Council Network Assurance Team will work with utility companies to minimise disruption caused by road works (i.e. avoid roadworks on diversion routes etc.) and encourage that works are coordinated where this is possible.

 Permits contain agreed works durations and other conditions that may be appropriate such as how traffic or pedestrians should be managed.  Should roadworks overrun and where prior agreement for an extension has not been sought/granted then the utility company or the company undertaking works on their behalf could be subject to a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN).

 Utility companies or their contractors are required to provide advance notice of their works to those impacted by their works.

 Utility companies along with Suffolk Highways regularly share forward planned work programme to facilitate timing (i.e. local authority surfacing works following on from utility trenching works) and coordination of work (multiple activities under the same closure).

 In terms of ducting and cabling work for fibre broadband, there is no overarching body that installs the infrastructure as there is for gas/water/electricity (e.g. UK Power Network provides the infrastructure even though consumers can buy their electricity from a range of providers).  Unfortunately, this means that different broadband providers need to install their own ducting and cabling.

 In terms of reinstatement quality, this is mandated in the Specification for the Reinstatement of Opening in Highways (SROH) and is published by the Department for Transport.  The specification details the depth of layers and compaction requirements along with the level of the completed surface.  Network Assurance monitor a selection of reinstatement (around 10%) to ensure compliance both during reinstatement and post reinstatement and others where quality or workmanship is called into question.  Work not meeting the required standards can be subject to a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) and a requirement for the works to be corrected.

 It appears that examples of poor quality reinstatement works is a national issue with many examples being cited across social media. It also appears that the statutory undertakers in some cases are deciding it’s better to risk the £2,500 fine, which is rarely pursued, rather than do the work to the required specification and quality. As a council, ESC should be vigilant about this and hold such contractors to account via SCC. This clearly aligns strongly with the ‘East Suffolk’s Amazing’ initiative and taking pride in our district. 

Motion 1

East Coast Flyway: Potential UNESCO World Heritage Site

 Proposer: Councillor Whitelock

 Seconder: Councillor Noble

 This Council notes that:

 
The East Coast Flyway (East Atlantic Flyway : England East Coast Wetlands)  is globally important for migratory waterbirds and for its nearly contiguous complex of ecologically connected and immensely variable coastal wetlands. These East Coast Wetlands, include many exceptional, extensive and biodiverse habitats located across a range of dramatic and dynamic estuaries as well as open coast ecosystems and support over 155 different bird species most of which migrate internationally along the East Atlantic Flyway (EAF) which extends from the Arctic to South Africa.

The area within the proposed boundary contains almost 170,000 hectares (ha) of coastline, between the Humber and the Thames including: 

- Benacre to Eastern Bavents 471 ha
- Minsmere to Walberswick 1,998 ha
- Alde-Ore Estuary 2,404 ha
- Deben Estuary 981 ha

The East Coast Flyway area is important as a staging area, as well as for more than 1 million wintering birds, with international importance regarding 29 waterbird populations. It further serves as a global exemplar of coastal adaptation and nature conservation management in response to climate change.

Recognition by UNESCO in the importance of this coastline creates a lever for investment in people, ecotourism, sensitive infrastructure, research and educational opportunities; the area was added by the Government to the UK Tentative List of Potential World Heritage Sites (April 2023) and UNESCO list (September 2023).

This Council resolves to:

Write a formal letter to Jeff Kew, Project Development Manager at RSPB in support of this application on behalf of East Suffolk Council, crucially supporting the requirement for positive community engagement.

Work cross-party with local authorities and any relevant stakeholders across the UK and globally to support this application leading to the designation of the East Coast Flyway as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Councillor Whitelock outlined the motion. This was an opportunity to put East Suffolk and its coastline on the world map. The coastline of Suffolk was incredibly important. Over 100,000 people visited Minsmere annually, and it had been recognised by Lonely Plant. If successful, it would be the second natural world heritage site in England after the Jurassic Coast. Over one million birds overwintered on the coast. The designation would also bring benefits to residents in terms of tourism, community engagement and pride, increased investment in coastal facilities and visitor management. The project was supported by Suffolk, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Kent County Councils.

 Councillor Noble seconded the motion.

 Councillor Lynch asked what the process was for obtaining the designation.

 Councillor Whitelock responded that it was a long process and would take some years to complete, with possible recognition coming in July 2030. Due to the possibility of their being a different administration in 2030 was important to gain cross party support for the work to continue into the future.

 Councillor Byatt proposed that the motion be amended to state:

 This council resolves to:

 1. Write a formal letter to Jeff Kew, Project Development Manager at RSPB confirming that this Council continues to support this initiative, as stated in the Coastal Partnership East meeting on 11 July 2023, and endorsing the requirement for positive community engagement.

 2. As part of Coastal Partnership East, work cross-party with local authorities and any relevant stakeholders across the UK and globally to support this application leading to the designation of the East Coast Flyway as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, providing any support as reasonable via CPE if further revision or technical evaluation of the submission is required.

 Councillor Smithson seconded the amendment.

 Councillor Beavan stated that Coastal Partnership East was not the Council, and we needed to send a message that we supported it independently. 

 Councillor Gooch stated that it did not negate the Council support, it just clarified things.

 Councillor Whitelock stated that Coastal Partnership East did support the project, but East Suffolk Council as a separate entity also needed to make support clear.

 Councillor Smithson stated that the important thing was for the coastline to get its status, and it was a stronger statement to encourage work to continue rather than to add support now.

 Councillor Byatt summarised that this work was already underway, and it was important to recognise the role of Coastal Partnership East.

 By a majority vote the amendment did not pass.

 The Chair invited debate on the motion as originally proposed.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris highlighted a recent visit from a South Korean delegation to Minsmere, who had been very impressed by the work on the coastline and had wanted advice on how to replicate it.

 Councillor Wilson asked if there was a map of the area that could be circulated. Councillor Whitelock confirmed there was a set of slides on it which could be circulated. 

 Councillor Topping stated that the RSPB had been invited to speak to Cabinet and were very pleased that the motion had been put forward to give the project a push. Councillor Topping commended the work of Coastal Partnership East.

 Councillor Mallinder asked whether there were any implications on the Council if the designation was agreed. Councillor Whitelock confirmed it did not change any legal protections, it was just recognition on a world stage.

Councillor Wilson added that this would bring communities and groups together. It could provide a lever for investment in people, ecotourism and infrastructure but did not provide any legal protection.

 Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that there was huge value in the project and even though there were no legal protections it would provide funding to protect vulnerable wildlife.

 Councillor McCallum asked if it would affect the planning application for Sizewell C. Councillor Whitelock stated it was not about protection but about recognition.

 Councillor Smith asked if we have informed the Coastal Partnership East of the intention to support this. Councillor Whitelock confirmed that officers were aware of it, and the Coastal Partnership East also supported the proposal so the Councillor did not think it would be an issue for the Council to support it also.

 Councillor Noble stated that it was an opportunity to put the Suffolk coast on the map. Excellent conservation and scientific work was being done on the coast which deserved recognition.

 Councillor Whitelock thanked Councillors for their consideration and questions.

 The motion as originally proposed was put to the vote and was passed.

 Motion 2

 Reusable Nappies

 Proposer: Councillor Ceresa

Seconder: Councillor McCallum

This council notes that: 

In the 2023 DEFRA update Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) on the real impact of nappies, the report showed that reusable nappies produce less CO2 than single use disposable nappies. The environmental impact of production is over 90% lower for a reusable nappy than for a single use nappy. The environmental impact of the disposal of a single use nappy in 9x higher than that for a reusable nappy. Single use nappies use approximately 98% more resources to produce than reusable alternatives. If every child in the UK in nappies used reusables rather than disposables, it would save the equivalent of 700 million car miles of CO2- that’s nearly 3000 journeys to the moon in a car! Even when washing and drying, reusable nappies are still the best choice for the environment. 

This Council resolves to:

Offer a money off voucher or a starter pack to an expectant parent, a parent or foster carer with a baby under 18 months (or under 5 years with a disability requiring nappies), to help with upfront costs of buying reusable nappies.

Councillor Ceresa introduced the motion and outlined the impact of disposable nappies. There were an estimated 167 billion disposable nappies used globally each year, using 248.5million barrels of crude oil. More than 300,000 nappies a minute were sent to landfill or incinerator across the globe, and many ended up in the environment. 150 tonnes of nappies end up being incorrectly added to recycling bins in Suffolk, requiring removal. Reusable nappies were easy to use and came in a variety of styles. The nappy is put into the washing machine once used. Whilst there was an upfront cost implication to getting a starter pack, the longer-term cost savings to families would exceed the initial outlay to get started. Additional savings would also be made with reduced contamination of recycling.

 Councillor McCallum seconded the motion.

 Councillor Candy thanked Councillor Ceresa for bringing the motion. Councillor Candy proposed that the motion be amended to state:

 “To explore the viability of the scheme which would financially support adults with caring responsibilities for children under three years (or under five years with a disability requiring nappies) to assist with the costs of buying reusable nappies.”

 Councillor Candy stated she felt this was a very important issue and there were many options that needed to be explored.

 Councillor Wilson seconded the amendment and stated he welcomed the raising of the age from eighteen months to three years. The motion as initially presented did not allow for sufficient exploration of what could be done here, and some figures had to be put behind the motion before it could be agreed.

 Councillor Ashton stated it was not just about the financial viability. We also needed to explore how the scheme might be delivered and how people might be encouraged to adopt reusable nappies, as the largest barrier was convenience.

 Councillor Mallinder stated he did not agree with the amendment as is it read as if it would be pushed into the future. The original motion could be accepted now and still allow for detail to be worked through.

 Councillor Candy responded that it was important to explore the overall viability, and it needed to be considered in greater depth.

 Councillor Smithson stated she was in support of reducing disposable nappies because they were damaging to the environment. If Councillors did not support the amendment there was a danger of losing the whole motion as it specified a voucher scheme which might not be viable.

 Councillor Gooch stated she had similar concerns regarding the original statement. A cultural change was also needed.

 Councillor Gee stated that if initial cost around £100, once it had been met there would be no further cost.

 Councillor Folley stated she had purchased 100 nappies under £5 for a grandchild. There was a cost-of-living crisis and people would not be able to afford the expense of laundering reusable nappies. 

 Councillor Noble stated that when 'Simpler Recycling' was introduced the council would be collecting disposable nappies and recycling them. This was already being done in Wales.

 Councillor Lynch stated he did not support the amendment as it contained no wording on starting the process of engaging parents before birth. People had to think about it before starting to use disposable nappies.

 Councillor Ewart agreed the amendment was needed to look at the project thoroughly.  Reusable wipes and other consumables also needed to be considered.

 Councillor Keys-Holloway stated she agreed with the idea, but there needed to be information to go alongside it so people understood the process of using and washing the nappies, and how to choose the best option for their child.

 Councillor Ceresa stated she had tried to keep the motion simple, other councils were  offering it either through money off or by subsidising the entire cost of starter pack. Others who were doing it only provided for children up to eighteen months as over this age parents had already settled into whatever routine they had.

 Councillor Plummer agreed with Councillor Folley that it would not work for every family and there were some barriers. Starting a library of options so people could gather information and understand what was best for their child would be a better way to go.

 Councillor Candy thanked Councillors for their points of view and these all needed to be considered so the Council could introduce the right scheme.

 By a majority vote the amendment was passed.

 The Chair invited debate on the motion as amended.

 Councillor Byatt proposed that the motion be amended to add two additional points to the amendment previously agreed.

 2. Refer to the DEFRA report ‘Lifecycle assessment of disposable and reusable nappies in the UK in 2023’ and recognise the environmental benefit of re-usable nappies to encourage their use wherever reasonable,

 3. Research the success or otherwise of schemes currently offered by other English Councils providing a cost-benefit analysis for later consideration at Full Council.”

 Councillor Byatt stated it was important to recognise that not everyone could do it and that the Council should be supporting this wherever reasonable.

 Councillor Wilson seconded the amendment and agreed that it provided necessary detail.

 Councillor Byatt summarised that the Council needed to investigate the whole process, including the recycling of disposable nappies.

 The amendment was agreed unanimously.

 Councillor Ewart asked whether this project would include clinical practitioners to provide the necessary input. Councillor Ceresa agreed.

 Councillor Ceresa summarised that it was a very important topic, especially in light of the Council declaring a climate and biodiversity emergency and aims around net zero. Councillors had raised some excellent points to consider and hoped it could make an impact to people.

 The motion as amended was put to the vote and was passed. 

The Chair, Councillor Dr Anthony Speca introduced report ES/2170 which related to the Constitution Review Working Group’s proposed changes to East Suffolk Council’s Constitution to provide for the East Suffolk Youth Council.

The Youth Council’s induction day had been attended by thirty youth councillors who had been elected by their peers. The group included students from mainstream education, special schools and home-schooled pupils. Councillor Speca stated he was proud that East Suffolk had such a strong group of young people who had put themselves forward, and they would make a valuable contribution.

Councillor Speca stated it was not a youth forum where representatives were merely consulted, but a Council which would pass its own motions and set its own priorities. The Youth Council was a clear, real council with real and robust connections to Full Council. 

Councillor Gandy asked what the procedures were for the Youth Council and whether any motion would be allowed. Councillor Speca confirmed motions would have to go through the Youth Council's Standing Orders, which has been modelled on the Council's Standing Orders. Nicola Wotton, Member Support and Civic Manager acted as both Clerk and Monitoring Officer, and there was also a designated support officer. All motions would have to pass through the same process as the ones received at Full Council. The group had also spent a lot of time going through their priorities and the Council’s priorities.

Councillor Lynch asked for clarification on the time allotted to the Youth Council on the Full Council agenda. Councillor Speca confirmed representatives did not have to attend every meeting, and they did not have to stay for the whole meeting. The five-minute slot for the Youth Council to address Full Council was for announcements, any motions would be dealt with in the same way as member motions. Youth Councillors would not take part in debate, they would just present their motions. 

Councillor Lynch also raised the question of the safety of the Youth Councillors in light of the issues that Councillors sometimes faced through social media. Councillor Speca confirmed there was a keep safe document in place for youth councillors. None of the Youth Council meetings were broadcast and Youth Councillors would not be visible on the broadcast of Full Council meetings. They would also only attend Full Council with a parent, teacher or guardian.

Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that she was often blown away by the insight of young people and that she was proud of what East Suffolk Council was trying to achieve.

Councillor Smith asked if the council would be contributing to the cost of young people attending meetings.  Councillor Speca confirmed there was a policy for doing so, schools and home schoolers had been contacted and offered help.

Councillor Mallinder asked what additional costs or workload would be added to Democratic Services. Councillor Speca stated the Chair’s budget was paying for the East Suffolk Youth Council. Part of the Youth Voice and Communities budget had also been allocated for the Youth Councils initiatives. It was new work for the Democratic Services team, but they had been very supportive and enthusiastic.

Councillor McCallum stated she had met with the eco council at Heath School, their youngest participant was 5 years old. How had Councillors been selected for involvement in the Youth Council? Councillor Speca stated that every secondary school in East Suffolk, including non-mainstream, private and alternate provision had been invited so no one had been missed out. Some schools were more interested and engaged than others and there was room for the Council to grow. However, the Youth Council had also seen engagement from schools who had never previously engaged with the Council. The age range had been proposed at the Model District Council event and agreed on by a majority vote.

 Councillor Ewart asked if officers had been DBS checked as part of the process. Councillor Speca confirmed that some officers were DBS checked, but students would always be with teachers or guardians.

 Councillor Gandy stated that the Waveney Youth Council had attended Overview and Scrutiny along with Audit and Governance meetings and asked if that would be considered by the new Youth Council. Councillor Speca stated Youth Council would grow through avenues such as Community Partnerships. Their main function was to amplify the young voice. As the Youth Councillors get comfortable with the processes there could be other sorts of activities they want to get involved in.

 Councillor Byatt stated it had been looked at in great depth and detail and should be fully supported and endorsed. He asked for clarification on how Full Council would report back to the Youth Council. Councillor Speca confirmed that Youth Council would have a clerk who would report back and there would be an item where the Cabinet Member or Assistant Cabinet Member for Communities, Culture, Leisure and Tourism would also attend to provide feedback.

 Councillor Whitelock welcomed the Youth Council and hoped it would give young people confidence in their voice.

 Councillor Green asked what the rationale was for the 11 to 19 age group. Councillor Speca stated that 19-year-olds were sometimes still in education at A level and non-mainstream educational settings.

 On the proposition of Councillor Speca, seconded by Councillor Smith-Lyte it was unanimously

 RESOLVED

 That Full Council amends the Council Procedure Rules in East Suffolk Council's (ESC) Constitution to provide:

 1. a standing item on the Full Council agenda of Ordinary Council meetings, for a deputation of Youth Councillors to attend Full Council and address Full Council on the work of the East Suffolk Youth Council (ESYC), ask a question of Full Council or answer a question from Full Council;

 2. that any motions passed by the ESYC be discussed at Full Council;

 3. that the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the ESYC, or whoever else the ESYC nominates to deputise in their place, may attend Full Council on their own or as a pair;

 4. that the ESYC deputation be given up to 5 minutes on the Full Council agenda;

 5. that ESYC’s deputation on the Full Council agenda be after the presentation of any Petitions and before the discussion of any motions passed by the ESYC; and

 6. that the discussion at Full Council of any motions passed by the ESYC to be on the Full Council agenda after the ESYC deputation and before any Motions on Notice. 

The Leader, Councillor Caroline Topping introduced report ES/2168 which related to the Code of Corporate Governance 2024/25.

Every year the Council reviews and refreshes its Code of Corporate Governance.  It was an important document that sets the tone at the and clearly describes the Council’s commitment to good governance standards, principles, and values in every aspect of our work and details how we deliver good governance across all Council functions.

The Code of Corporate Governance would be used as the basis for assessing and concluding on effective governance in the Council’s Annual Governance Statement due at the end of the current financial year.

The Audit and Governance Committee had reviewed and commented on the draft Code at their meeting held 30 September 2024 and recommended it to Full Council to adopt.

Councillor Grey commended the work of the internal audit team.

Councillor Byatt asked if the Youth Council had a code of governance. Councillor Speca confirmed they had been provided a code of conduct and rules on breaches.

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

RESOLVED

 To adopt the refreshed Code of Corporate Governance 2024/25 attached at Appendix A to this report, having duly considered the recommendation to do so from the Audit and Governance Committee meeting held 30 September 2024. 

Councillor Candy, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health introduced report ES-2171 which related to the review of Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles. Councillor Candy stated that the Council was required to publish a Statement of Principles every three years. Councillor Candy confirmed that there had been no major changes to the Statement of Principles, most of the changes related to the updating of terminology and removing out of date information or contact details,

Councillor Smithson stated that it did not cover online gambling. Young people were particularly vulnerable to it and perhaps it was something the Youth Council could look at. Councillor Candy stated that GamCare, who campaigned for safer gambling and provided helplines had responded to the Council’s consultation and had acknowledged that we go over and above what was required. 

Councillor Gandy stated that in Lowestoft there were gambling premises close to banks and people would walk straight from the bank to gamble. Was it possible to restrict gambling premises around financial premises. Councillor Candy stated that they were looking at a policy that would not place or licence anyone close to a church or school. It would be harder to include banks but this could be considered.

Councillor Lynch asked how the Council investigated illegal gambling. Councillor Candy stated the Council does not have a statuary duty to visit premises. Despite this, Licensing Officers did visit premises and checked machines, receipts and money in and out. The Licensing team welcomed any reports and would investigate them.

Councillor Folley stated there had been a recent spate of scams related to online gambling. Councillor Candy stated that online activity was outside of the Council’s jurisdiction, but they would provide advice and direct people to GamCare.

Councillor King asked what could be done to protect children from gambling in pubs with slot machines which looked like children’s games. Councillor Candy stated it was the duty of the landlord. Councillor McCallum confirmed that children had to be accompanied by an adult over 18, as per the premises license, but enforcement could be inconsistent. Councillor Candy agreed that there may be some educational work that could be done.

Councillor Gooch welcomed the amendment on the treatments of greyhounds, horse and other animals. Greyhound and horse racing is inherently cruel and anything to strengthen protection for animals was welcome. Councillor Noble agreed with this statement.

Councillor Topping thanked Councillor Candy for her work and for the points made by other Councillors. She agreed that there was always more that could be done to protect people, especially children, from harm and the Council should be engaging with government on that.

Councillor Reeves stated that much of the Council's work in this area was permissive and they did not have many statutory powers. The Council was pushing it as far as they could and reiterated that if people became aware of premises which were not following the rules this should be raised. 

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

RESOLVED

 That Full Council:

 Adopted the revised Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles (Appendix B)

Full Council received report ES/2170, 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 the contents.

Councillor Smith asked Councillor Beavan regarding the recent creation of the housing investment team and if there had been there had been any exploration of the lists of Council assets and opportunities for development.

 Councillor Beavan responded that the assets had been reviewed. In addition any opportunities for churches were being explored and if any members knew of any potential locations please get in touch.

 Councillor Mallinder asked Councillor Noble if she could update regarding any further reductions in the use of glyphosate spray in the district.

 Councillor Noble responded that it was being looked into further and was on the agenda for the Environmental Task Group. There were conversations taking place with East Suffolk Services Ltd (ESSL) to explore other options. The Councillor advised that East Suffolk did not use that much and was getting reduced.

 Councillor Green queried page 7 of the report, under ‘Development’ and concerning affordable rent. The report did not state what the total was for the current year to date. The target for the next year was 38. The Councillor thought the target was 50 per year. Councillor Green also questioned if the Leader wanted to comment on the district struggling to get affordable housing, following a letter being written to the housing minister stating that the area was performing well in respect of affordable housing.

 Councillor Beavan responded that he would get back to Councillors with a response on the question.

 Councillor Gooch referenced the recent engagement event at the Community Help Hub in Bungay. There were 6 respondents in total. The Councillor wondered what the barriers might be for people engaging, as there appeared to be a lot of investment in the event.

 Councillor Whitelock responded that she was aware a lot of work had gone into planning the event and she would come back with a response regarding further feed back from the event.

 Councillor Byatt asked Councillor Ashton about digital champions and if there had been engagement regarding customer services officers being present in libraries given the changes with Suffolk County Council. The Councillor also asked if there had been consideration to the use of mobile libraries.

 Councillor Ashton responded that the team was aware of the possible risks to Suffolk libraries and it would be worth considering writing to Suffolk County Council to outline concerns as there were other implications to consider as well.  The team was aware of mobile libraries and were looking into a mobile hub and the viability of being able to access rural localities with a mobile hub. The Councillor concluded to reference digital champions and echoed previous concerns around the risk to people vulnerable to scams. There was some research to explore regarding other channels to engage with communities.

 Councillor Folley attended the Felixstowe North Garden question and answer session and queried if there was still an opportunity for consultation.

 Consultation Beavan advised that residents should keep talking to the Council and the Consultation would finish in the winter when the Cabinet make the decision.