Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gallant.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment referred to East Suffolk Council (ESC) having worked incredibly hard over the last four years to introduce nature back into people's lives and he referenced the ‘pardon the weeds, we’re feeding the bees’ campaign and the planting of parish oak trees.  Councillor Mallinder stated that the final part of ESC's vision would be the gifting of Spring bulbs to East Suffolk's communities; he commented that he had been delighted to recently launch the East Suffolk Bloom campaign where communities had been asked to apply for Spring bulbs to plant in their communities; if successful the bulbs would be ready for collection in late September and once planted there would be a great show of flowers in the Spring of 2024, supporting early pollinators, helping biodiversity and lifting people's spirits at seeing the wonderful flowers.  Councillor Mallinder asked Cabinet to encourage groups to apply and he referred to details of the campaign being available on ESC's website.    

It was by consensus

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2022 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Cabinet received report ES/1433 by the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development.  The report provided an overview of ESC's approach to enabling the nascent clean hydrogen sector within the district. Cabinet was advised that there were a number of clean hydrogen projects due to become operational in the next one to four years linked to wider economic drivers which supported the local, regional and national economy. These included Freeport East, Sizewell C and the southern North Sea offshore wind cluster. Furthermore, the development of a clean hydrogen sector further supported the growth and anchoring of clean energy as a major economic driver for the district.  

In addition, ESC was  exploring how it could achieve its net zero ambitions and clean hydrogen presented opportunities relating to the Authority’s vehicle fleet, leisure centres and housing stock. Discussions were ongoing with clean hydrogen developers around how this zero carbon fuel could support the Council’s ambitions.

The emerging clean hydrogen sector represented a significant opportunity to further embed East Suffolk’s competitive advantage in clean energy. Furthermore, the proposed hydrogen developments linked into a number of ESC's key economic drivers. For these reasons it was an entirely appropriate and proactive response for ESC to take a local leadership role in encouraging and enabling this nascent sector which would deliver greater economic resilience, sustainable growth and support both the district and council in achieving their net zero ambitions.

The Deputy Leader referred to the Hydrogen Conference that ESC would be hosting on 23 February 2023, at the Orbis Centre in Lowestoft, he commented that there had been very strong uptake but there were still a few places available.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment stated that, going forward, East Suffolk should be at the heart of the hydrogen project; he felt that hydrogen could possibly be the energy source of the future and he stated the importance of public and private sectors working together.  Councillor Mallinder stated that once hydrogen becomes a cheap and practical source of energy it could serve East Suffolk well in its vehicle fuel, heating leisure centres and being an energy source for the housing stock, thus reducing  the carbon footprint substantially. 

After stating  that he totally supported the Strategy, Councillor Beavan questioned that if electricity was used to make hydrogen, and then hydrogen was used to do something, whether it would be more efficient to use electricity to do the thing directly.  Councillor Beavan stated that maybe hydrogen would not be the panacea that some thought it was going to be; he concluded that ESC's lorries could be hybrid, they could run on electricity with a hydrogen tank in reserve.  The Deputy Leader, generally, agreed, stating that a mix would be required in order to achieve net zero. 

Councillor Byatt, after stating that he supported the Strategy, referred to wind turbine construction and how Waveney / East Suffolk had been keen to be at the centre of construction, and that had not happened, asked the Deputy Leader how confident he was that East Suffolk would be at the heart of hydrogen projects.  The Deputy Leader referred to officers being completely embedded in the sector, he referred again to ESC hosting the conference in February and he hoped that ESC would be an enabler so that opportunities would not be missed.  Councillor Rivett concluded, stating that  he had every confidence in officers to ensure that all opportunities would be taken. 

Councillor Byatt asked about training opportunities at local colleges and enquired if they were being looked at now.  Councillor Rivett stated that skills formed part of the Strategy and that would certainly be an important factor; Councillor Rivett hoped that the whole district would be able to utilise the opportunities. 

Councillor Gooch referred to the definition of clean hydrogen page 43 the papers "any source of hydrogen production that needs renewable energy source".  Councillor Gooch commented that nuclear was not a renewable energy source; she suggested that there was lots of evidence to suggest that that was a mislabelling of it.  Councillor Gooch suggested that the Strategy should be called a "Hydrogen Strategy.  The Deputy Leader responded that the Strategy made it clear as to what the definition encompassed; he also referred to the various colours of hydrogen, based on source, he believed that if East Suffolk was going to achieve net zero then it would need to work with hydrogen to obtain the benefits; he acknowledged that it would not be 100% right from day one but there would be further refinement thereafter.  Councillor Rivett stated that he acknowledged and understood Councillor Gooch's concerns but he felt that this was the right way to proceed.

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

RESOLVED

1. That the Clean Hydrogen Strategy be adopted.

2. That authority be delegated to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development, to make any necessary changes to the strategy in the future.

Cabinet received report ES/1439 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources, who reported that the capital budget report was considered at Cabinet on 3 January 2023 which was prior to the report going to the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on 19 January 2023. The report had been updated to include the insertion of Appendix H, being the pre-submitted Scrutiny questions regarding the Southwold Enterprise Hub and the HRA (Housing Revenue Account) new dwellings budget. Following debate by the Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 19 January the report had been updated to include the insertion of Appendix I, being the draft minutes from the meeting for the Capital Programme report.

Councillor Cook reported that to ensure that the Council reflected the most up to date information the capital programme had been updated since the Scrutiny meeting to reflect the announcement from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to allocate £25m seed funding to Freeport East through ESC and also the availability of £2.69m through the Local Authority Housing Fund to acquire housing stock for those fleeing conflict (including from Ukraine and Afghanistan) and reduce homelessness. 

Following Cabinet's approval of the Capital Programme, Councillor Cook reported, the report would then be presented to Full Council on 22 February 2023 for approval.

Cabinet gave thanks for the thorough report, acknowledging that the Capital Programme had been examined at length during a number of meetings; the Deputy Leader welcomed the ambitious plans. 

Councillor Byatt referenced the mention of a decarbonisation report on page 92 of the papers; he asked if that report had come forward.  It was confirmed that the report had not yet been considered; it was a report that would come forward to Cabinet in the future.  

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

RESOLVED

1. That the General Fund capital programme for 2022/23 to 2026/27 including revisions as shown in Appendix B to report ES/1439 be approved and recommended for approval by Full Council.

2. That the Housing Revenue Account capital programme for 2022/23 to 2026/27 including revisions as shown in Appendix G to report ES/1439 be approved and recommended for approval by Full Council.

Cabinet received report ES/1440 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources which provided an update on the draft Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as presented to Cabinet on 3 January 2023 and presented an initial draft of the Council’s General Fund Budget for 2023/24. The MTFS provided a baseline forecast of income and expenditure and looked at the overall financial climate, including public finances and the local government financial environment. 

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources reported that the  key change to the 2023/24 budget was the update to Government funding following the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement in December.  Due to the new Funding Guarantee Allocation this had increased the Government funding to ESC by £1.1m next year.  The updated MTFS also assumed a continuation of this level of funding until 2026/27 and  captured the ongoing review of budgets by officers.  The budget gaps for the current year and next year had changed as follows since the report to Cabinet on 3 January: 2022/23 budget gap change from £0.786m to £0.904m, an increase of £0.118m; 2023/24 budget gap change from £2.629m to £1.347m, a decrease of £1.282m. The proposal to use the In-Year Savings Reserve to fund these gaps remained the approach, and a balanced budget continued to be presented in the report for both years. Appendix B was an additional item to the report and provided a snapshot of the results from the budget questions in the Residents’ Survey as at December. 

Councillor Cook reported that the 2023/24 referendum limit for Council Tax had been increased from 2% to 3%, but the  £5 threshold for Shire Districts in two-tier areas remained.  The report proposed a Band D Council Tax for East Suffolk of £181.17 for 2023/24, an increase of £4.95 or 2.81%.  

Implementation of Business Rates reform continued to be delayed.  The financially advantageous position of the Council under the current system had been reported in previous years, and this delay improved the budget position of the Council.  Business Rates income for 2023/24 was based on the NNDR1 return which was completed by the due date of 31 January 2023 and the budget would be updated for the report to Full Council on 22 February.  This had resulted in a significantly improved position on Business Rates income than previously reported, and the report to Full Council would show the 2023/24 budget balanced without the use of the In-Year Reserve as presented in this report. 

Cabinet was advised that the reserves were currently projected at around £29m by the end of the MTFS, but this did not include use of reserves beyond 2023/24 to fund future projected budget gaps or the impact from the revision of Business Rates income to be included in the report to Full Council.  In addition to the Covid reserve which will be fully used, there were a number of other reserves that were forecast to be fully or substantially utilised over this period, and not replenished.  This included, the In-Year Savings reserve, NHB reserve, Transformation reserve, Capital reserve and the Port Health reserve.   

The Final Local Government Finance Settlement for 2023/24 was received on 6 February 2023.  Changes between the Provisional and Final Settlement showed a re-allocation of funding from the Funding Guarantee to the Rural Services Delivery Grant and the Services Grant, but with no change to the overall funding to East Suffolk.  There had also been no changes to the Band D Council Tax thresholds that were announced in the Provisional Settlement.

It should be noted, Councillor Cook reported, that there were prospective activities not yet factored into the MTFS, which had the potential to make inroads into the budget gap towards the end of the MTFS period.  These included Council Tax Premium on second homes and expected efficiencies from East Suffolk Services Limited.  However, despite these factors, and the uncertainty due to local government finance reforms, the range and scale of expenditure and income pressures, indicated that a combination of actions would be needed to ensure a longer term sustainable position including a phased use of reserves, maximisation of income, and the achievement of savings.     

In conclusion, Councillor Cook reported that this report was considered by the Scrutiny Committee on 19 January 2023. The pre-meeting questions from the Committee and the unconfirmed minutes of the meeting were detailed in Appendices C and D.

The Deputy Leader, after referring to the volatility and, because of that, the adjustments that had to be made to the report, gave thanks for the excellent report; he also referred to the budget consultation exercise and found the responses interesting and welcome.  

Councillor Byatt commented that at some point the county of Suffolk may have an elected Leader, he said that it was not anticipated within the next budgetary year but he asked if there would need to be a financial contribution from ESC.  The Deputy Leader stated that there would need to be a public consultation, then a vote would be required at a Suffolk County Council meeting and he would not wish to pre-empt the democratic processes that would need to take place.  The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources added that that situation would be dealt with when it was imminent.  

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

RESOLVED

That it be recommended to Full Council that it:

1. Approve the 2023/24 General Fund Revenue Budget as set out in report ES/1440 and summarised in Appendix A5 to that report and notes the budget forecast for 2024/25 and beyond

2. Approve the reserves and balances movements as presented in Appendix A7 to report ES/1440 and

3. Approve a proposed Band D Council Tax for East Suffolk Council of £181.17 for 2023/24, an increase of £4.95 or 2.81%.

Cabinet received report ES/1441 by the Cabinet Members with responsibility for Resources and Housing, respectively. 

Cabinet was reminded that  the 2023/24 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Budget Report was considered at Cabinet on the 3 January 2023 which was prior to the report going to the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on the 19 January 2023.

The report had been updated to include Appendix H ‘Minutes of the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 19th January’. The minutes detailed an additional recommendation (recommendation 6) which had been included in the report. The recommendation was requested by the Scrutiny Committee.

The new recommendation was as follows: A report be made to the Environment Task Group within 12 months setting out a detailed programme to deliver HRA Housing Stock retrofitting projects.

Cabinet was advised that two  further changes had been updated in the report between Cabinet meetings: 

• The addition of paragraph 3.8 to clarify the proposed rent increase to be applied to shared ownership properties. Although they are not protected by the Government's 7% rent cap, ESC would be applying a voluntary cap and these tenants would have the same increases applied (up to 6%) as other tenants.

• Between November and January updated utility bills had been supplied covering the winter months, giving a more accurate position of the heating service charge for 23/24. The service charge was proposed to be increased from £13.35 to £16.30 over a 50-week collection period. 

Following Cabinet's review of the HRA Budget proposals, the report would then be presented to Full Council on 22 February 2023 for approval.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing, after commenting on the very thorough report, apologised that  he had not been able to attend the Scrutiny Committee meeting due to personal circumstances. 

Councillor Goldson commented that the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing had been sorely missed at the Scrutiny Committee meeting. 

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

RESOLVED

That it be recommended that Council approve the following:

1. The draft HRA budget for 2023/24, and the indicative figures for 2024/25 to 2026/27;

2. Movements in HRA Reserves and Balances;

3. Proposed rent increase of up to 6%. 1% less than the Government 7% rent Cap for 2023/24 rent setting.

4. Service charges and associated fees for 2023/24;

5. Rent and Service Charges to be charged over a 50-week period unless being used for Temporary Accommodation when a 52-week period will be applied.

6. A report be made to the Environment Task Group within 12 months setting out a detailed programme to deliver HRA Housing Stock retrofitting projects.

That the following be noted:

7. The revised outturn position for 2022/23;

8. Changes affecting public and private sector housing and welfare;

9. Effects of the cost-of-living crisis to the HRA.

Cabinet received report ES/1442 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources who advised that the Terms of Reference of the Harbour Management Committee stated that the Committee would review and then recommend an annual budget to the Cabinet, including rental charges and central re-charges to the Council. 

A schedule of 2023/24 charges and dues for the Harbour, and the Campsite and Caravan Site was considered by the Committee on 24 November 2022 and presented to Cabinet on 3 January 2023.
At its meeting on 12 January the SHMC reviewed and commented on the draft 2023/24 budget provided in Appendix A.  Budget changes to highlight included:

• An additional £35,000 of revenue costs had been added in respect of capital projects reported to the Committee on 24 November 2022.  

• Contract staffing costs at the Caravan Site and Campsite had been increased by £23,000 to £43,000 as the original budget was not sufficient based on actual annual costs, which had totalled between £40,000 and £50,000 since 2020/21.

• Overtime was incurred annually at the Harbour and a £10,000 budget was now provided for this.

• The electricity budget for the Caravan Site and Campsite had been reduced from £54,000 to £32,000 as this was significantly more than required. 

• Internal Support Recharges had been reviewed as part of the budget setting process.  Whilst there had been some revisions, the overall recharge remained in line with the previous year actual recharge.

Cabinet was advised that one amendment had been made to the budget presented to the Committee.  This took into consideration a comment raised by the Committee in respect of car parking income not budgeted for in the current year.  A cautious approach had previously been taken with budgeting this income, but prior year trends indicated that this budget could be increased by £30,000. This amendment increased the budgeted surplus for the Harbour Account from £35,400 to £65,400 for 2023/24.   The amended summary budget was presented in Appendix B.

A surplus on the Harbour Account was ringfenced for the Harbour and could only be used to fund future Harbour activities.  For example, to fund projects and year-end deficits on the Harbour Revenue Account.

In conclusion, Councillor Cook reported that the Harbour Account budget would be considered by Full Council on 22 February 2023 as part of the Council’s overall General Fund budget setting for 2023/24.  

Councillor Kerry referred to the reduction in the electricity budget and, in the current climate, was curious about that.  It was explained that the budget was over £50k, and the actual costs were much less than that; bringing it down would still allow for an increase in utility costs.  

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

RESOLVED

That it be recommended to Full Council that it approve the 2023/24 Budget for Southwold Harbour, and the Caravan Site and Campsite in Appendix B to report ES/1442, as recommended by the Southwold Harbour Management Committee, as part of the overall Council budget at its meeting on 22 February 2023.

Cabinet received report ES/1443 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management which set out the proposed Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) for approval by Cabinet.  Cabinet, as the Duty Holder for the Southwold Harbour, was required to approve and adopt the MSMS and associated policies.

The report stated that when setting up the Harbour Management Committee (HMC), a list of likely tasks and priorities were set out.  One task was to ensure the Harbour was compliant with all relevant legislation and ensure appropriate health and safety policies were in place and being kept up to date. 

The HMC appointed ABP Mer as Southwold Harbour’s Designated Person. Part of this service included the provision of a gap analysis against the requirements of the Port Marine Safety Code. In August 2022 ABP Mer produced the Port Marine Safety Code Gap Analysis: Southwold Harbour August 2022. 

Councillor Ritchie reported that the gap analysis identified 33 items that were a requirement of the Code or an omission against a regulatory requirement. The gap analysis suggested that the Marine Safety Management System would benefit from a thorough review.

With the assistance of ABP Mer, research relating to documentation adopted by other harbours within the UK, and consultation with Harbour staff, a new Marine Safety Management System had been produced, comprising the following documents: Marine Safety Management System (MSMS); Marine Safety Plan 2023 – 2025; Safety of Navigation Policy; Conservancy Policy; Training Policy.

In addition to these documents, the Port Marine Safety Code also required a policy on Enforcement and Prosecution in the Harbour and an Environment Policy, which was encompassed in the Council’s existing Compliance and Enforcement and Environment Policies.

Cabinet was advised that Southwold Harbour did not currently comply with the Port Marine Safety Code. To assist in reaching compliance with the Code, it was recommended to Cabinet that the MSMS and associated policies and plans were formally adopted and approved. 

Following a question regarding timescales and compliancy, officers referred to drafts of standard operating procedures now being in place and work being undertaken on risk assessments.  Officers also  advised that a workshop had been arranged on marine navigation and it was hoped, when audited in October 2023, compliancy would be complete. 

Councillor Goldson asked about liability during the period that compliancy was not in place.  Officers advised that the Port Marine Safety Code was an advisory /voluntary code, it had been  compiled by the Government and all statutory harbour authorities needed to comply with it.  Should there be an accident or a marine accident then there was the possibility of prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act.  Following another  question officers advised that  it was their understanding that you could not insure against criminality. 

Councillor Byatt referred to public safety and asked if the Harbour Authority was responsible for ensuring the safety of visitors who used the quayside.  Councillor Ritchie referred to Southwold Harbour being different to many harbours because it was open to the public and confirmation was given that  ESC was responsible for the safety of visitors within the harbour; that would fall under the lability of ESC as a whole as owner of the estate. 

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

RESOLVED

That the Marine Safety Management System and associated documentation be approved.

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, the Deputy Leader reported, that the Council, on occasions, had to do this 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, the Deputy Leader reported, Cabinet had five substantive exempt matters to consider as outlined on the published agenda – items 14 to 18.

Item 14 related to the proposed transfer of assets owned by East Suffolk Council.  The report set out the details of the proposed transfer and the financial implications for the Council and sought both the approval of the transfer and to delegate authority to the Council’s Head of Operations to instruct Legal Services to undertake the transfer.

Items 15 and 16 both related to the approval of Section 113 agreements between East Suffolk Council, as a member of the Anglia Revenue Partnership, and other councils for the provision of fraud services.  Item 15 sought the approval of an agreement between the Council and Broadland District and South Norfolk Councils, and item 16 sought the approval of an agreement between the Council and Lincolnshire Councils.

Item 17 related to a grant awarded from the Community Housing Fund to Hastoe Housing Association to deliver affordable housing on the former Southwold Fire Station site by the former Waveney District Council.  The report sought to uphold the original decision relating to enable the delivery of social rented homes.

Item 18 relates to another Hastoe Housing Association development in Southwold, on the former Southwold Hospital site.  This item, due to additional information being provided, was withdrawn from the agenda and it was expected that it would come forward to the next Cabinet meeting, in March.    

On the proposition of Councillor Rivett, seconded by Councillor Brooks, it was by a 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 Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.