Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from the following Cabinet Member - Councillor Gallant.

Apologies for absence were received from the following Assistant Cabinet Members - Councillor Back, Councillor Cackett and Councillor Cloke.  

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources gave two announcements.  Firstly, he gave an update in respect of the distribution of the Energy Council Tax Rebate Scheme, stating that through the Anglia Revenues Partnership, no less than 84% of East Suffolk council tax payers had now received the discount of £150 from their council taxes, with the total value being at some 93,500 transactions, with over £14,048,000 been distributed, with the vast majority of those being through the BACS system refunding accounts via direct debits, and now a significantly growing proportion of those that East Suffolk Council (ESC) had written to encouraging people to complete claim forms.  Goring forward, when there were no more claim forms coming in, credit would be applied to council tax bills.

Secondly, Councillor Cook referred to a very important piece of legislation coming forward, that would be very beneficial to ESC.  He referred to the Queen’s Speech, outlining the Government’s planned legislative programme for the next 12 months, which was presented to Parliament on 10 May 2022. The Government was proposing that billing authorities would have the power to charge a 100% premium on second homes or empty dwellings. 

The Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill would give billing authorities the power to charge a 100% premium on “dwellings occupied periodically”. A determination would have to be “made at least one year before the beginning of the financial year to which it related”. Assuming receipt of Royal assent in early 2023, authorities should be able to use the premium from 2024/25 at the earliest.
Given the number of second homes in Suffolk, Councillor Cook stated, this 100% council tax premium should represent a significant addition to the income stream from council tax. Based on current information and council tax levels, this could yield additional income of just under £11.2m in Suffolk, the bulk of which was in East Suffolk. 

In East Suffolk, over £7.6m could be generated, around £5.9m for Suffolk County Council, over £1m for Suffolk Police, and over £700,000 for ESC. As with other premiums, the second homes premium would generate this additional income by way of increasing the council tax base parish by parish. Consequently, parish councils with significant numbers of second homes would also benefit from this premium, enabling them to increase their income for the same level of parish council tax, or reduce their parish council tax for the same level of precept.

Properties could, Councillor Cook advised Cabinet, be reclassified as being liable for business rates to avoid this premium, but the criteria for holiday lets in the business rates system was also being tightened from April 2023, and scope for avoidance of the premium may be limited.

With regard to properties empty for more than one year, again, based on current information and council tax levels, Councillor Cook reported, it was estimated that application of the 100% council tax premium could generate additional, largely one-off, income of around £650,000, around £500,000 for Suffolk County Council, around £90,000 for Suffolk Police, and around £60,000 for ESC. Any ongoing additional income would be dependent on further properties becoming empty for more than a year,  a situation that the premium and Council policy was actually seeking to prevent.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment was delighted to announce that Paul Mackie had recently been appointed  as ESC's very own Environment  and Climate lead officer. Paul would bring an articulation, a solid academic background and a commitment to all things environment.  Councillor Mallinder reported that Paul currently worked for Coastal Partnership East and so therefore knew more than most the tangible changes in the coast due to the manifestation of climate change.  Councillor Mallinder stated that this role was absolutely crucial  for  East Suffolk as it was about continuing focusing the Council on his environmental vision; it would build on the excellent work that Daniel Waring had already started. 

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health took the opportunity to refer to Covid-19 and encouraged everybody, where appropriate, to come forward for their vaccinations.  

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 April 2022 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Cabinet received report ES/1162 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, together with a presentation which was given by officers.  The report contained a high level overview, which stated that the Resilient Coasts project would deliver practical solutions to deal with climate change and sea level rise that were co-created and implemented by communities along East Suffolk and Great Yarmouth coastal frontages.  The project aimed to facilitate a sense of ownership that would increase community resilience to tidal flooding and coastal erosion. 

It was reported that high risk communities with no resilience options would benefit from a suite of innovative tools that would allow them to plan and transition in response to coastal change to viable, sustainable places whilst delivering wider outcomes of local plans and strategies.  Through eight work packages much needed tools and options would be created for those affected by coastal change so  new community-led resilience master plans could be co-created. 

The project would add value to traditional coastal management and planning approaches and go beyond other resilience work initiatives by offering the first dedicated joint UK erosion and tidal risk resilience project. This would generate significant learning locally, nationally, and across public and private sectors.  The project would provide evidence for policy change and underpin how coastal practitioners manage the coast and learn to adapt to coastal change now and in the future.

The £9.1m Resilient Coast project would be funded by the Defra and Environment Agency (EA) Flood and Coast Resilience Innovation Programme (FCRIP) and would be one of 25 projects across England to be funded and one of only five dedicated coastal projects.  

The draft Outline Business Case was currently being technically reviewed by the Environment Agency assurers and it had been proposed that ESC acts as Lead Authority for the project in partnership with Great Yarmouth Borough Council with work being delivered by the Coastal Partnership East officers.  Additional resources to support project delivery would be necessary and paid for by the FCRIP fund.

Although the EA had already given approval for the project to commence and allocated the funding the project required, Government processes stipulated that a detailed Outline Business Case be submitted for technical ‘assurance’ by the EA’s national panel. When this process had been completed approval would be in place to move into the delivery phase and claim the remaining funding over the course of the project.

It was highlighted that the project would focus on finding practical solutions to enable adaptation to coastal erosion, flooding and climate change risk. The funding was not available to spend in locations that already had flood and coastal solutions through existing funding routes.  

The project’s work would be focused on four core pilot locations and the outputs would also feed-in to three ‘twin’ locations, ie

- Southwold, a defended coastal town between the mouth of an estuary at flood risk and soft eroding cliffs - focus was on the transition between hard defences and soft/natural coast where defences.

- Hemsby, an undefended coastal resort with properties at risk behind an eroding sand dune with significant environmental designations.

- Great Yarmouth, a defended urban zone at flood risk with areas of uneconomic frontage that needed resilience solutions and potential for enhanced biodiversity and alternative flood management solutions.

- Thorpeness, a partially defended rural coastal heritage village at both erosion and flood risk.

The twin locations were as follows:-

- The undefended cliff top community in Pakefield at significant erosion risk.

- The rural community at erosion risk in Shotley Gate within an estuary environment.

- The area from Corton to Gunton, with key infrastructure, holiday parks, failed historic coastal defenses and a village at future erosion risk.  

Wider coastal community benefits were highlighted as follows:-

Outside the pilots and twins it was an aim to work strategically with communities across the whole East Suffolk and Great Yarmouth frontage to establish coastal change science and potential impacts and raise awareness about coastal risk.  

CPE would develop and share visualisations of future coast scenarios to support community understanding of the constraints and opportunities for a resilient coast to support future discussions when coastal impacts increase.  CPE would share new coastal erosion risk mapping to support planning and development decisions.  

CPE would also be engaging infrastructure and third-party asset owners to establish where infrastructure was located along the whole coast and work with these partners to establish longer term investment plans that support more resilient infrastructure for our coastal communities and economies for the future.  

CPE would be exploring the natural capital of the coast and establishing wherever possible ways that would support the natural coastal areas and potential funding routes to enhance biodiversity and local nature recovery.

Cabinet was advised that governance to this stage had been provided by the CPE Board which included Councillors Ritchie and Mallinder and Senior Officers Nick Khan and Philip Ridley.  A Resilient Coast Project Board would be established upon approval of the outline business case by the EA and following approval by ESC Cabinet.  Wider project governance was already being established with officers, partners and stakeholders and included a new Coastal Community group for the pilot locations at Thorpeness, Southwold, Great Yarmouth and Hemsby and would extend to other key coastal communities including Pakefield, Easton Bavents, Corton and Gunton.

In conclusion, the project would meet a significant number of ESC Local Plan and Strategy objectives and deliver outcomes across all five ESC strategic themes.  The project was aligned with National Defra Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Strategy and LGA Coastal Specialist Interest Group work plans and linked to wider government place-making and levelling-up agendas.

Cabinet  gave its full support for the project and welcomed the work with communities; the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment particularly commented favourably  in respect of ESC and CPE really focussing and building environmentally resilient communities; he acknowledged that East Suffolk was exposed in this  area and he was delighted to see national Government recognising that; he stated that East Suffolk needed to make sure it was ready for the future; he stated the importance of building environmentally sustainable and resilient communities, for now and for future generations.   

Councillor Beavan stated that he welcomed the report and he gave thanks to all involved; he added that it was a dream that he had, when the Southwold Board was set up, to proactively build a road to resilience for East Suffolk communities; Councillor Beavan thanked Councillor Ritchie for helping to set up the Board and also for the work that was being undertaken constructively on the harbour as well.  In conclusion, Councillor Beavan stated that he looked forward to the opportunities ahead for cross-party working  and he looked forward to the engagement with local communities so that they could devise their own resilient road forward.

Councillor Gooch referred to a news item that she had just seen, which related to the types of people who might purchase vulnerable coastal properties and might not have a survey prior to doing so; Councillor Gooch commented that a suggestion had been made that there should be openness and those people should be protected.  Officers commented in respect of the sharing of information, stating that there were almost certainly people who were purchasing properties in erosion risk areas, who were unaware of the risks.  Officers thought that over the next couple of years the issue would be raised as an important issue, and with the erosion risk mapping being refreshed in 2023/24 that would flag to a lot of people potential new erosion risk areas that people were not anticipating.  Officers were uncertain as to whether the Government wanted to put it into legislation that estate agents and others needed to give this information to people but it was thought, from a community and grass roots level, that the the relevant information should be shared. 

On the proposition of Councillor Ritchie, seconded by Councillor Rudd, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

1. That the Resilient Coast Outline Business Case, attached at Appendix A of the report, be accepted as a basis for a £9.1m programme of innovative coastal adaptation along the East Suffolk and Great Yarmouth coastal frontages.

2. That it be acknowledged that the Outline Business Case approval by the Environment Agency will release the allocation of funding to East Suffolk Council and the Cabinet’s approval of the Outline Business Case is therefore required by the Environment Agency to release funds.

3. That the role as lead authority and the financial responsibility and scrutiny of £9.1m, supported by the additional scrutiny of GYBC's Environment Committee, be accepted.

Cabinet received report ES/1163 by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development; the report was introduced by the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development. The report highlighted the key elements of ESC's new Economic Strategy and it set out why this was a critical time to review the Council's approach to supporting the existing economy and enabling sustainable growth.  The report also reflected the wider national and regional economic context and how the new strategy would align with this.    

Cabinet welcomed the new Strategy, commenting that ensuring that East Suffolk continued to have a strong, resilient and diverse economic base was crucial in maintaining a high quality of life for the residents of the district.  It would also provide a strong foundation for new businesses to emerge, develop and innovate.  Coupled with a strong emphasis on place development and capitalising on the competitive advantage the key sector presented, the new Strategy would provide a clear and robust framework for delivering sustainable economic growth that could benefit all of the district's residents, businesses and visitors.    

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources, commenting in respect of financial sustainability,  highlighted that one of the advantages in having such a Strategy was that ESC would be able to predict further in advance how potential budget gaps could be closed.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment commented in respect of environmental issues, stating that as a shift was made to a more environmentally focussed way of living, that would create jobs.

Councillor Deacon referred to the comment in the report that as part of the development of the new Strategy almost 80 organisations were consulted; he asked how many organisations had responded; it was confirmed that the consultation had been "direct" and, as such, all organisations had responded.  

Councillor Deacon referred to the reference within the report to Suffolk seeking a devolution deal and he enquired about the impacts of that; Councillor Deacon asked for more information.  It was confirmed that discussions continued in this regard with the devolution deal still being worked up and there being many different variables, with ESC, and other districts, being very much involved.

Councillor Deacon referred to paragraph 3.2 of the report and the reference to it being imperative that ESC harness opportunities to ensure that communities, especially the most marginalised, benefit from the unprecedented developments referenced; Councillor Deacon suggested that East Suffolk should monitor the take up of jobs by ward deprivation data for example and he asked if there would be a proactive plan.  It was confirmed that following the adoption of the Strategy there would be annual delivery plans that would set out in detail the activities that would be pursued in order to achieve the objectives.  There would also be a focus on skills, apprenticeships, aspiration raising and awareness of the opportunities available.  

Councillor Deacon referred to paragraph 3.7 of the report and the performance measures; he commented that fulltime jobs should not be the only indicator of success in the area, particularly as many hospitality and tourism jobs were part time and of a seasonal nature.  Councillor Deacon also suggested that, in order to see if people were benefiting from the new Strategy, there needed to be an increase in residents' ability to live well and to see an improvement in the quality of their lives and health.  Councillor Deacon stated that ESC needed to measure the growth in wages of all employees over time.  In conclusion, Councillor Deacon stated that none of the measures listed within the report measured that.  In response, to provide reassurance, it was confirmed that a wide range of indicators were measured within the Economic Development Team and the report referenced the highlights and key measures; there was a lot of analysis in respect of the points that had been made by Councillor Deacon; also, once the annual delivery plan had been finalised the measures would be reviewed to ensure that they were appropriate; they would also complement and align with the Strategic Plan key performance objectives.  

Councillor Deacon referred to page 169 of  the report, the Lowestoft section, and the reference to consultation; he asked what the consultation would be about and what was hoped to be achieved.  It was explained that ESC wanted to engage properly to ensure that it took account of the needs and aspirations of local communities. 

Councillor Deacon referred to Felixstowe and asked what an all year round offer might include; he also asked about the the Logistics College and asked how that was progressing.  Councillor Deacon was advised that an all year round offer would focus on the out of season time; an example was the development of the Martello P Tower and also, in the longer term, the proposals for Landguard Fort.  Referring to the Logistics College, officers reported that this was an ambition as part of the Freeport East objectives; it was something that would be fleshed out as part of the delivery phase.

Councillor Beavan commented that a successful economy was not all about profit and productivity; it was, he said, about giving people worthwhile lives.  Councillor Beavan stated that through the pandemic people had reassessed their work life balance, sometimes working a four day week and spending more time at home; Councillor Beavan hoped that this could be factored into the Strategy so that ESC could consider what the economy was doing for people, not what the people were doing for the economy.  

Councillor Gooch commented that although she applauded the general direction of the new Strategy she objected to the framing of Sizewell C development within the clean energy sector, as currently illustrated within the report.  Councillor Gooch added that it was not clean, referring to waste production, carbon neutrality, marine churn etc.  Councillor Gooch suggested that there needed to be re-phrasing.  The Deputy Leader, in response, acknowledged that there were many views about Sizewell; however, he stated that he was content with the phrasing as drafted.     

On the proposition of Councillor Rivett, seconded by Councillor Burroughes, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

That the East Suffolk Economic Strategy, attached as Appendix A, be approved.

Cabinet received report ES/1164 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, the purpose of which was to seek the adoption of the Thorpeness Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan with boundary changes and to consider an extension to the Conservation Area.  The appraisal and Management Plan would provide guidance on the historic significance of the area to support decision making in the development management process.  

Cabinet was advised that under section 71 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ESC had a statutory duty to drawn up and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas in its district from time to time. 

Cabinet welcomed the proposals contained within the report and supported the reviews, as referenced, from time to time.  

Following a question by Councillor Cooper as to why the proposals did not extend further into Aldeburgh, it was explained that this had been considered but many of the properties had been extensively altered and, as such, were not of the same significance. 

On  the proposition of Councillor Ritchie, seconded by Councillor Smith, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

1. That the Thorpeness Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, attached at Appendix A, be adopted.

2. That the extension of the Thorpeness Conservation Area as shown on the map attached at Appendix B be agreed and include those properties included in the  schedule attached at Appendix E. 
3. That the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, be authorised to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Thorpeness Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan prior to it being published. 

Cabinet received report ES/1165 by the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Safety, the purpose of which was to seek adoption of an updated and revised Anti Social Behaviour Policy for 2022.  The current policy needed revision and updating and the new policy would allow ESC to actively work in partnership across all relevant teams and provide a joined up approach.  

There being no questions or debate, on the proposition of Councillor Rudd, seconded by Councillor Brooks, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

That the revised Antisocial Behaviour Policy 2022, attached as Appendix A, be adopted and authority be delegated to the Head of Communities, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, to make minor changes to the policy to accommodate evolving requirements of the service and changes to legislation and guidance.

Cabinet received report ES/1166 by the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health, who reported that the current Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Henham Park Latitude Festival was due to expire on 17 July 2022 and this year's Latitude Festival would start on 19 July 2022.  It was proposed that the PSPO for the Henham Estate Latitude Festival should not be extended on the basis that there was extremely limited evidence that the PSPO had supported the Police in tackling Nitrous Oxide related use in this location.  

Cabinet  gave its full support for the proposals contained within the report, with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing noting, from the report, that the number of day ticket visitors over the weekend of the 2021 festival was nearly 35,000 people and there were no fixed penalty notices given for the use of Nitrous Oxide and fewer than 10 Nitrous Oxide cannisters were found.  Cabinet was encouraged by these figures. 

On the proposition of Councillor Rudd, seconded by Councillor Kerry, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

That it be agreed that the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for the Henham Estate Latitude Festival 2022 should not be extended on the basis that there was limited evidence that the PSPO for this area had been needed or used or that it had supported the Police in tackling Nitrous Oxide related use in this location. 

Cabinet received report ES/1167 by the Leader of the Council, the purpose of which was to consider appointments to outside bodies (Executive), as outlined within Appendix A of the report.  In the absence of the Leader, the report was presented by the Deputy Leader.

There being no questions or debate, on the proposition of Councillor Rivett, seconded by Councillor Smith, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

1. That Councillors be appointed to those Outside Bodies listed in Appendix A for the 2022/23 Municipal Year. 
2. That the Leader of the Council be authorised to fill any outstanding vacancies left unfilled by the Cabinet.
3. That the Leader of the Council be granted delegated authority to make any necessary changes to the members of the Outside Bodies for the remainder of the 2022/23 Municipal Year

The Deputy Leader reported that in exceptional circumstances, the Council may, by law, exclude members of the public from all, or part of, an executive decision-making meeting.   The Council should, unless there were urgent circumstances, give notice of its intention to do so via the Forward Plan, which was updated and published on its website 28 clear days prior to the meeting.  

There were various reasons that the Council, on occasions, had to do this, Councillor Rivett advised, and examples were because a report contained information relating to an individual, information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person, or information relating to any consultations or negotiations.

Tonight, Councillor Rivett stated, Cabinet had four substantive exempt matters to consider and they are as outlined on the published agenda – items 13 to 16. 

Firstly, agenda item 13 related to the Lowestoft Town Investment Plan.  The purpose of this report was to consider the development phase of the Cultural Quarter town deal project following the completion of a HMT Green Book standard business case and submission to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, unlocking £14.7m of the £24.9m Town Deal. The other four of the five Town Deal projects received Cabinet approval in March of this year.  At this time Cabinet also gave approval for the Cultural Quarter to undertake detailed procurement of professional services in relation to the concept design for this project.  The project included investment to transform and fill the viability gap of ESC owned assets which would enable them to play a key role in the redevelopment and regeneration of Lowestoft as well as generating income and realising a return on capital investment.

Secondly, Councillor Rivett, reported, agenda item 14 related to a Pluming Supplies Contract.  ESC had retained social housing stock of around 4,500 properties for rent, generating around £25m per annum income to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The HRA was ringfenced and could only be used for the provision of housing, new developments, maintenance and other services on behalf of tenants. ESC had various workstreams in place to undertake a wide range of maintenance, refurbishment and improvement programmes to its social housing stock.  Many of these workstreams were undertaken by the Council’s retained in-house workforce, keeping homes in good condition for its tenants. In order to undertake necessary and ongoing repair and maintenance activities, there was clearly a need to purchase a wide range of plumbing materials.  The current plumbing material supplies contract would expire in 2021 and this report sought permission to re-procure a new contract for the supply of plumbing materials.  

Thirdly, Councillor Rivett reported, agenda item 15 related to the Lowestoft Beach Hut Refurbishment.  The purpose of this report he advised was to seek Cabinet approval for the external refurbishment of 93 beach huts and the beach office and to revise the capital programme to include a budget for the project. These were contained within four blocks that were located to the south of Claremont Pier along Lowestoft South Seafront. Once refurbished, the beach huts would be re-let for the 2023-2024 season. 

Lastly, Councillor Rivett concluded, agenda item 16 related to the Southwold Enterprise Hub.  The development of this Enterprise Hub had strategic importance.  It would support the local economy by helping to create and support a resilient and sustainable business community. The Enterprise Hub would also help create a more diverse economy with space for community initiatives and increased micro and SME business provision. This was in line with the East Suffolk Growth Plan 2018-2023 vision and objectives to support, sustain and diversify the economy.

On the proposition of Councillor Rivett, seconded by Councillor Kerry, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

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 involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.