Meeting Details

Chair’s Announcements 

The Chair welcomed Councillors Leach and Cawley who were recently elected in a local By-election.

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

22 February 2025 – Scout Showcase at the 1st Halesworth Scout HQ

24 February 2025 – East Suffolk Youth Council meeting on Teams

Vice Chair

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

9 March 2025 – Ramadan Community Iftar Event at the Ipswich Mosque

18 March 2025 – SCC Chairman’s Annual Civic Reception at Ipswich Town Hall

The Leader

 The Leader welcomed Councillors Leach and Cawley who were recently elected in a local By-election.

The Cabinet

Councillor Ashton referenced the NEXUS development which had been completed. Cabinet would be receiving a paper in April. The development provided excellent accommodation for prospective businesses.

 Councillor Beavan announced that the government had confirmed £6 million grant funding which was match funding for a £12 million campaign. The Healthy Homes project had also been launched in the Kirkley area and it was hoped to be able to extend the project to other areas later in the year. The project would focus on housing, fuel poverty, carbon emissions along with health and wellbeing.

 The Strategic Director welcomed Nick Denny who recently joined East Suffolk Council as the new Head of Property and Place. 

On the proposition of Councillor Topping seconded by Councillor Daly it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Lead Petitioner addressed the Council and stated that he had started this petition due to the potential increase in parking charges, as both a resident and business owner on the seafront in Lowestoft. The Council was doing good things on the seafront, but this would be a negative for the area. The Council had not consulted properly with businesses and residents on these proposals, and had not given consideration to how occupancy of underused car parks could be increased. A full consultation would have demonstrated the negative impact of this proposal on businesses and residents.

The Chair invited members to address the petition.

Councillor Wilson, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Transport, stated that he had discussed this issue with the lead petitioner and stated he understood the concerns raised and the impact of the Council's decisions on the tourist economy. The decision had to be taken as the Council now received 60% less funding than did ten years ago and had a deficit of between £6million and £8million over the next four years. This was unsustainable. Fees and Charges had all risen by CPI, plus a seasonal uplift for these particular car parks.

Councillor Wilson stated that the increase would allow the Council to invest in new payment machines, car charging infrastructure, new signage, cycle racks, public conveniences, beach safety and accessibility, changing facilities, lifeguards and other discretionary spending which had to continue as the impact of the Council stopping this spending would be far greater. 

Councillor Wilson stated that not all charges were being uplifted equally. The seasonal charges applied to around 30% of the Council's car parking spaces, which were in themselves only a fraction of the car parking spaces in the district. There were 150 free to use spaces around the Pier and Kensington Gardens in Lowestoft, with an additional 300 spaces a short walk away which did not have the same seasonal uplift. A great deal of research and modelling had taken place before a decision had been made. Councillor Wilson stated the impact of the car parking changes would be looked at and if shown to be wrong then the car parking charges would be reviewed. Councillor Wilson confirmed that the charge would not be introduced on 1 April as planned, but would likely be delayed to June 2025 due to an administrative hold up. 

Councillor Green stated car parks were not effectively signposted in this area, there were plenty of car parking spaces in this area but the signposting needed improving.

Councillor Byatt stated businesses on the seafront in Lowestoft were an essential part of the town. This proposal had been discussed in Cabinet, Council and by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but the lack of wider public consultation had put us in this situation. Car parks were important to the life of a town. These charges had been based on what was done in Cromer and Great Yarmouth, but Lowestoft and Felixstowe were different areas and there was a risk of driving people away. The Council would not be in this position if there had been a good public consultation. This petition showed two and a half thousand people did not want this change, with many more supporters on social media. Councillor Byatt stated seasonal charges should be abandoned and a full review carried out of parking in Lowestoft including consideration of removing 30minutes free parking which would provide an additional £1.5million. These decisions should not be based just on finances but on the impact on people and businesses.

 Councillor Smithson stated the long term consequences of this was not clear. Consultation and transparency was important and this was a case of something being done to people without consultation. There had been a parking review in Felixstowe and seasonal charges had been introduced, and yet campervans on the seafront had not been moved on. Local people were losing faith in the whole process and did not feel listened too. 

Councillor Jepson stated that he understood that the money raised from car parks was reinvested in car parks and that there was a need to increase charges by CPI. Councillor Wilson had mentioned other areas such as beaches and events when discussion of the funds had been raised and Councillor Jepson stated that there needed be clarity on where revenue from the car parks would go. 

Councillor Topping recognised that there could have been better engagement. There was a budget deficit of £1.8million if the Council did not pass these seasonal charges which had been agreed in the budget passed in February. If it became clear that the charges were encouraging people to park elsewhere the Council would respond to this. Regarding the car parking reviews which had been carried out across the area this was sitting with Suffolk County Council to move on and Councillor Topping urged any Councillors who had a car parking review in their area to push this with County Council. 

Councillor King asked whether there could be exemptions in the seasonal charges for businesses or groups such as ParkRun volunteers. Councillor King stated there were issues with vacant car parks in Great Yarmouth due to the cost of car parking and we needed to ensure that this did not happen here. 

Councillor Ashton stated he was aware of the impact that Council assets on the economy of towns, such as the beach huts. Anything that the Council could do with assets to increase footfall would be considered. There were significant challenges with car parking and assets which needed to be managed. There was no certainty that this would cause harm to businesses, and while this was a risk the Council would monitor what was happening and respond appropriately.

Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that car parking revenue could be spent on a range of amenities, it was not necessarily restricted to being spent only in car parks. 

Councillor Langdon-Morris stated there were 110 items under the fees and charges for licensing of which this was one. Councillor Langdon-Morris stated he felt this had fully been looked into and responded to, and would be considered annually. 

RESOLVED

 That Full Council:

1. Considered how to respond to the petition, recognising that:

 The setting of Fees and Charges is a Cabinet function.

The body responsible for scrutinising the exercise of this function is the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which has already provided recommendations following a decision Call-In process.

The recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were adopted in full by Cabinet on 4 February 2025.

2. That when setting parking fees and charges in future years, East Suffolk Council engages with town councils and business groups and associations during the budget setting process to discuss the impact of any changes to parking tariffs.

 3. That East Suffolk Council monitors the impact of the parking fee increase through the summer and reports back to Cabinet.

The East Suffolk Youth Council (ESYC) Vice Chair (VC) updated members that there had been a Youth Council meeting on 21st February which was held online. The Youth Councillors discussed a motion relating to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), with an ambition to see increased funding allocated for beneficial services in local communities. The Head of Planning and Building Control attended the meeting and was able to support discussions with his specialist knowledge. As a result, the Youth Councillors were able to amend their motion accordingly. 

Motion on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

This Council notes that:

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has funded many projects across East Suffolk, such as the Framlingham Surgery Extension, Bungay Community Centre and Lowestoft Royal Green Play Area.

Nationally, the CIL has raised an estimated £1 billion per year for projects such as these.

 The current Levy for East Suffolk varies by specific area, but it is set at £100/sqm for middle value zones and £300/sqm for higher value zones.

Charitable organisations and social housing providers do not pay the CIL.

 When setting local rates, all councils ‘must aim to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an appropriate balance’ between the desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy and ‘the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area’.

 Due to recent events such as the increase in inflation, local flooding, and the proposed increase in housebuilding by the incumbent national government, the need for local infrastructure has increased across East Suffolk.

 At the same time, the top UK housebuilders have made a combined £2.9 billion in profits in 2021 alone, showing that housing projects are economically viable.

 Moreover, the recent large increase in house prices has led to increased profits for housebuilders and decreased affordability for existing residents.

 Decreased affordability is cited as a key reason why young adults are leaving East Suffolk, contributing to a lack of investment in opportunities, as well as fewer services, for younger people.

 Most housing developments are opposed by local residents, with the key reasons being a lack of community cohesion and strains on local services.

 Land can be designated as used for 'Nature conservation', 'Landscape conservation' and 'Natural Heritage conservation', and these designations can be made by Councils and other relevant organisations (e.g. Natural England) so as to flow through to the planning process and inform planning decisions.

 This Council resolves to call upon East Suffolk Council to:

Re-evaluate the Community Infrastructure Levy, with a predisposition to increase it for the reasons above, with an awareness to the impact on house purchasers. 

Re-evaluate planning policies, with a predisposition to adjust the mix of land uses in order to redesignate more housing development land for commercial use (e.g. retail and industry facilities), community service use (e.g. schools, medical surgeries and entertainment facilities), and the conservation of heritage, landscape and nature.

Consult East Suffolk Youth Council on annual spending priorities for local projects funded by the CIL, to ensure that:

The needs of young people in our communities are incorporated into the development of annual spending priorities.

Maximum benefit to young people is achieved through CIL spending at the local and District level.

Establish a process whereby East Suffolk Youth Council can be properly engaged in the production of the Local Plan, to ensure that:

Youth voices are influential in the production of the Local Plan.

Youth help to shape land-use allocations and planning policies, including (but not limited to) policies regarding affordable housing, environmental considerations, and the mix of land uses

Youth help to inform the community-infrastructure priorities set out in the Local Plan

Youth priorities and needs are incorporated into the Local Plan.

Councillor Packard discussed the new Local Plan and the timeline for the implementation. The Councillor highlighted the importance of young people getting involved in the process along with wider consultation for the Local Plan. Councillor Packard highlighted some of the challenges and outlined the 2023 increase in CIL allocation to many areas of the district. To aid housing delivery there were reductions in some areas.

 Councillor Packard stated that the best time to review CIL rates would be after the Local Plan had been adopted. The Councillor was keen to ensure there was a role for the Youth Council to take part in regarding the Local Plan development and CIL.

 Councillor Packard proposed the following motion for consideration which was seconded by Councillor Leach

 This Council resolves to:

 Establish a process through which East Suffolk Youth Council will be properly engaged in the production of the Local Plan and in the spending of Community Infrastructure Levy.

Use the East Suffolk Youth Council to inform East Suffolk Council’s community infrastructure priorities of the Local Plan, particularly regarding the needs of young people and community cohesion.

Consult East Suffolk Youth Council on the annual spending of Community Infrastructure Levy, so that spending projects may be developed based on the needs of young people in our communities in order to maximise the benefit to young people through Community Infrastructure Levy spending at the local and District level.

Councillor Pitchers queried if Youth Councillors were able to go through similar training to adult Councillors, in relation to CIL and Planning. Councillor Packard responded that some levels of training could be offered to support the Youth Councillors.

Councillor Jepson stated that he supported the Youth Council and the work they were doing, however had some concerns regarding the accuracy of some information in the motion and if the Youth Council was influenced by Officer or Member input. Councillor Speca responded that the motion was completely their own initiative and there was no direction given to the Youth Councillors.

Councillor Byatt was impressed with the knowledge the Youth Councillors and agreed that consultation should be wide and engaging of young people over 18. The Councillor queried if there should be a timeline on the work with consideration to a task and finish group and also if the Council has the resources to support the work.

Councillor Packard responded that the amended motion was in response to the Youth Council, there would be more discussion needed and it would evolve.

Councillor Graham urged members not to underestimate the talent of the Youth Councillors and advocated for the transparency of the Youth Council process.

Councillor Smith proposed ‘friendly’ amendments to some of the wording of the motion. The amendments were seconded by Councillor Ceresa and Councillor Packard was happy to accept the changes proposed. The amending wording would now read:

This Council resolves to:

Establish a process through which East Suffolk Youth Council will engage in the production of the Local Plan and in the spending of Community Infrastructure Levy.

Work with the East Suffolk Youth Council to inform East Suffolk Council’s community infrastructure priorities of the Local Plan, particularly regarding the needs of young people and community cohesion.

Consult East Suffolk Youth Council on the annual spending of Community Infrastructure Levy, so that spending projects may be developed based on the needs of young people in our communities in order to benefit young people through Community Infrastructure Levy spending at the local and District level.

Councillor Smith-Lyte encouraged the Youth Council to continue to ask for what they wanted  in their communities.

Councillor Ashton commended the Youth Councillors on their work and understanding of the CIL processes. The Deputy Leader discussed consultation and the need to improve representation from across age ranges and communities.

 Councillor Leach described her local Town Council where there was a Youth Council with 12 seats representing state and independent schools. The result of bringing the young people together had been fantastic and inspiring to witness the ideas they brought for discussion.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Leach the motion as amended was unanimously passed.

The Leader, Councillor Topping introduced report ES/2322 which related to Political Balance and allocation of seats on Committees 2024/25 following two By-elections. The results of the By-election was no political change. No political balance change.

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

RESOLVED

 That Full Council approved:

 1. That, with effect from 19 March 2025, 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 this 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.

 3. That Councillor Edward Back be appointed to Licensing Committee and Councillor Robert Cawley be appointed to Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Leader, Councillor Topping introduced report ES/2320 which related to Consideration of proposals for Local Government Reorganisation affecting East Suffolk.

To consider the Interim Plan proposals for Local Government Reorganisation affecting East Suffolk as part of the English Devolution White Paper published by HM Government on 16 December 2024. On 5 February, East Suffolk Council was invited to submit an Interim Plan to Government covering initial thoughts regarding Local Government Reorganisation in Suffolk by 21 March.

It was emphasised in guidance and briefings that this was an Interim Plan and not a decision point for Government. The deadline for final proposals is 26 September. District and borough councils in Suffolk have worked together to produce an Interim Plan to represent initial thinking now. The development of a full business case for 26 September would be backed by more extensive evidence and, most importantly, opinion and feedback from residents, businesses and partner organisations in East Suffolk.

There was a considered debate with a number of Councillors supporting the proposal of multiple unitary authorities being the preferred option for East Suffolk and Suffolk. Reasons in favour of multiple unitary authorities was to preserve localism and keep local government decision making within local communities. Local heritage and identity were referenced in relation to the sense of pride community members have for their local areas and local communities, which could be at risk with a one unitary model.

Members in support recognised that one unitary authority would be too large and removed from communities.

Councillor Daly commended the work that had gone into working through everything to date. The Councillor felt that it was crucial localism survives and supported the multiple unitary option for Suffolk.

Councillor Smithson stated that understanding of place was essential and felt one unitary would result in communities being far removed from the decision-making process. The Councillor believed that one unitary would be transactional not transformational and would be too big, remote and would not be able to deliver what communities need.

Councillor Byatt added that a single unitary would not be sensitive to the needs of communities and he disagreed with Suffolk County Council proposals. The Councillor believed that people were proud of where people live and council boundaries were important to people’s identities and history. Councillor Byatt highlighted the importance of consultation and transparency and getting the best outcome for East Suffolk.

The Leader Councillor Topping stated that she had been at the District Councils Network Conference, and it was confirmed there would be nor between now and September. Suffolk Leaders have engaged a third party, KPMG to support the process and to gather evidence to support a multi unitary approach for Suffolk. Communication was open and on-going with the Districts and Boroughs, there were weekly meeting taking place. The Leader stated that she would report back regarding consultation, including stakeholder consultation.

Councillor Smith-Lyte was supportive of a multi unitary model.

Councillor Langdon-Morris provided his support for the multiple unitary option and discussed the cost benefit of the process and local environmental challenges that local communities face. 

Councillor Jepson referenced the previous merger of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney, which took a significant amount of time to implement. The Councillor felt that some issues could be improved by one unitary Suffolk authority, such as confusion over highway matters for example which need to be redirected to County Council. Residents can get frustrated when they are not sure who to contact. Councillor Jepson supported there being more than one unitary authority for Suffolk.

Councillor Ewart discussed the East Suffolk Coastline, which was an asset to the area, supporting tourism, heritage and off shore energy. The Councillor referenced the local environmental issues including coastal erosion, rising temperatures and flood management issues. There was a need for more funding to address these concerns.  Councillor Ewart was proud of what was achieved in East Suffolk.

Councillor Lynch did not support one unitary, feeling that representation became poor and did not work to support local communities. The Councillor was not sure how 3 unitary authorities could work and welcomed more information to understand how East Suffolk would not be detrimentally affected by that proposal.

Councillor Topping responded that the Leaders of Suffolk along with KPMG would be gathering evidence on all options and urged members to support the option of multiple unitary authorities.

Councillor Ninnmey discussed the local connection of Town and Parish Councils local decision making and the impact of devolution. The Councillor raised some of the challenges faced in combining health trusts.

Councillor Robinson stated he was a twin hatter and was still able to support Town and Parishes, he did not believe that would change with one single unitary. He believed the services provided by Suffolk County Council would be less effective if they were split into multiple authorities.

Councillor Bennett had spoken against the motion passed by Suffolk County Council and encouraged people to listen to the recording via the County’s YouTube Channel. The Councillor believed in decision making being closer to communities and spoke to the merging of Suffolk Coastal and Waveney which took years of consideration and consultation. Councillor Bennett did not believe a fast track approach would work.

Councillor Ashton added that there were a number of Councillors who had 20-25 parishes within their jurisdiction which could make keeping in touch with community members challenging. Councillor Ashton discussed voting numbers and the potential efficiencies which could be made from one unitary, which the Deputy Leader did not feel would be significant.

The Leader thanked all members for the considered debate and thanked officers for their work in preparing for the item as well as continuing business as usual. The Leader thanked the Chief Executive for his work and support. Thanks were provided to the Executive Officer, Jo Jonas and Councillor Ashton for their work and support.

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

1. Considered and commented on the Interim Plan for reorganisation contained within Appendix A to the report.

2. Recommended to Cabinet that a multi-unitary model of local government best meets the needs of residents and businesses in East Suffolk.

3. Recommended to Cabinet that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make changes to the Interim Plan, in conjunction with district and borough council colleagues and contribute to a joint covering letter ahead of submission to Government by its deadline of 21 March 2025.

On the proposition of the Chair, Councillor Speca, seconded by Councillor Fisher it was recommended that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.