Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Packard, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2427 which related to the adoption of the Kirkley Waterfront Planning Position Statement.

Councillor Packard outlined that the Kirkley Waterfront area was the largest brownfield site in the district, at about 60 hectares in total. Although some parts of it – including where the Council’s own Riverside office sits – have been re-developed, much of it remains in significant need of regeneration. 

The Waveney Local Plan included provision for approximately 1,400 houses, employment land, new shops and education provision and various other elements.

Planning permission was granted in 2015 for the re-development of the Brooke Marine site for up to 850 dwellings (and other uses). Although the permission had been lawfully implemented, to date only token construction work had taken place, which had brought some doubt over the progression of delivery of homes and infrastructure through the consent as a whole. The position statement considers that.

The former Jeld Wen site had a planning application submitted in July 2024 for up to 500 dwellings. The application remains under active discussion with officers, with some recent changes, including the provision of land for a pre-school, submitted in May 2025.

Working with the main landowners, Suffolk County Council and others, the Council has, over the past two years, prepared the Planning Position Statement for Kirkley Waterfront. In addition to greater viability challenges, it recognised that some new requirements have come in (such as Biodiversity Net Gain) and that, due to falling birth rates, there was no longer a need for a new primary school. It also noted that the ecological value of the County Wildlife Site was higher in parts than previously thought, but also in increasing need of management.

Although the Position Statement cannot replace the Local Plan policy or existing Supplementary Planning Document, it provided a realistic and positive vision for the site.

Once adopted, it would be a material consideration in relation to the determination of planning applications and whilst significant challenges remain, it should assist the progress of the site’s re-development, and it has importantly heightened public awareness and engagement in its development opportunities.

Councillor Langdon-Morris queried if there could be significant contamination on site and if there was public sector money to buy down risk.

Councillor Packard responded that it had been disappointing nothing has happened on the development and there was a need for new houses.

The Strategic Director added that there needed to be a strategic approach to considering options for development. There could be opportunities with Homes England and a full site master plan could be developed rather than looking at smaller parts of the site. 

The Chief Executive Officer followed on, that other models of investment had been considered. 

Councillor Beavan stated that there would be a cross-party workshop to consider the question of what the authority wanted out of the development and what would be the best outcome for the Lowestoft community. The Councillor highlighted the flood risks to Lowestoft with the flood barrier.

Councillor Topping thanked those who took part in the consultation.

Councillor Byatt queried if questions were continuing to be asked regarding the government delivering on the flood barrier. Councillor Topping responded that conversations continue with the local MP who is also trying to get movement with government.

Councillor Gooch and Councillor Ashdown supported the strategic aims to develop the land which would have a positive impact in Lowestoft.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planner for all of their work.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard seconded by Councillor Beavan it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Agreed to adopt the Kirkley Waterfront Planning Position Statement.

2. Authorised the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management, to make any presentational or typographical amendments, and make minor factual updates to the Kirkley Waterfront Planning Position Statement prior to it being published.

Councillor Packard, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2432 which related to Resilient Coasts Project Delivery.

The updated plan served to outline how East Suffolk ensures that the highest safety standards are achieved. The Food Standards Agency required that the service plan be an expression of the authority’s commitment to the development of food controls and it must provide information on how we deliver the service.

The Food and Safety Team were continuing to undertake risk-based inspections of food premises, with a focus on raising standards in businesses that are performing poorly. A new key performance indicator had been introduced for the Team to assess how effectively they are achieving their objectives.

The Team has responsibilities for health and safety enforcement, accident investigation and awareness raising. A new project for this year will look at raising awareness of legionella in spa pools and hot tubs within our local holiday sector. 

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

The Border Target Operating Model - BTOM - transitioned from an implementation programme to ‘Business As Usual’ commencing 31st March 2025; with some further control elements to be phased in during 2025.

A new challenge for the Port Health Team is emerging, the proposed UK / EU SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) Agreement. It is very early days, with no official timescale being provided, but this is likely to signal the 4th major change to import control requirements in the last 6 years. 

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

There was a discussion regarding the work packages and shoreline management plans.

The Chair thanked the team for their ongoing work.

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved the addition of Work Package 9 (WP9) to the Resilient Coast Project

2. Approved the allocation of £1,632,000 to Great Yarmouth Borough Council for the delivery of WP9, the remaining funding will be claimed directly from the EA by GYBC

3. Approved the introduction of a Grant Agreement between ESC and GYBC for the remainder of the project.

4. Authorised the Head of Energy Planning and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, to manage the operational aspects of the project.

Councillor Langdon-Morris Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money introduced report ES/2429 which related to 2024/25 Outturn Financial Performance Report. The report provided an overview of the Council’s draft outturn position for 2024/25 in respect of the General Fund, Reserves, Housing Revenue Account (HRA), the Capital Programme and the Collection Fund.

The draft outturn position on the General Fund is a deficit of £0.966m, against an anticipated use of reserves of £1.85m to balance the original budget approved in February 2024.  The outturn deficit had been funded by the In Year Savings Reserve. The overall position captured favourable variances such as an additional £2m of net interest from interest and treasury investment income due to interest rates remaining high. It contributed to mitigating continuing pressures on the General Fund such as Housing Benefit Subsidy loss of circa £1m due to increases in temporary accommodation, reductions in funding, inflation and the high cost of living.  Income from fees and charges resulted in a surplus of £2.52m, where grants and contributions resulted in a deficit of £9.65m, excluding Port Health.

As of 31 March 2025, the total on the Council’s earmarked reserves stood at £43.84m.  It was an increase of £2.34m on 31 March 2024 position, largely due to an increase in the Port Health Reserve following increased revenue due to the introduction of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM) on 30th May 2024.

The HRA reported a £3.396m deficit position, which was a negative movement of £0.431m against the revised budget.  However, it was a planned use of the HRA working balance, which was required to be 10% of the income raised in the year (excluding interest income and grants and contributions).

The General Fund Capital Programme reported a £23.08m underspend at the end of the year, of which £12m was due to delays in the Lowestoft Towns Fund project. The remaining underspend was largely due to other projects being rephased to 2025/26.

The outturn position will feed into the 2025/26 review and update of the Medium Term Financial Strategy, the Capital Programme and the HRA.  Areas of focus for 2025/26 are detailed on page 23 of Appendix A and includes Local Government Funding Reform, temporary accommodation demand and the £7.5m budget gap for 2026/27 as reported in February 2025.

Councillor Langdon-Morris thanked the finance team for their work.

Councillor Jepson queried how the Local Government Review (LGR) could impact on projects which were underway or planned for delivery.

The Chief Finance Officer responded that projects that were underway would likely continue. There could be a review of projects which had not commenced which could be open to review on the implementation of the new Mayoral or when the new Unitary model is in place.

Chief Executive Officer added there was a new Capital Project Programme Board, which would be looking to make sure planned capital spend was delivered in the next three years. It would also manage any slippage within the implementation or payment plans of any projects which were underway.

The Strategic Director stated that surrounding districts were putting together an infrastructure list considering short-, medium- and long-term projects. This would be passed to the MCCA when it is set up.

Councillor Byatt queried if LGR would impact on the recruitment and if fixed term contracts would be offered instead of permanent positions.

Chief Executive Officer responded that it would be business as usual for next couple of years There could be some exception regarding temporary jobs to support the transition.

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Noted the Council’s draft outturn position for 2024/25 together with reserves and balances as of 31 March 2025.

2. Approved the General Fund revenue budget carry forward requests above £0.030mas set out in paragraph 1.5 of Appendix A, a total of £0.112m.

3. Approved the HRA revenue budget carry forward requests above £0.030m as set out in paragraph 3.3 of Appendix A, a total of £0.563m.

4. To note the areas of focus for budget monitoring in 2025/26 and budget setting for2026/27

Councillor Langdon-Morris Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money introduced report ES/2434 which related to the Procurement Strategy 2024-2028 Progress Report.

The Procurement Strategy 2024-2028 was developed following an officer and councillor workshop held during January 2024. The 2024-2028 strategy was been designed to align with the Council's objectives in Our Direction 2028 and was approved by Cabinet in June 2024. An Action Plan had been developed to support delivery of the strategy, and the Procurement Team was working on delivering the specific points within the plan during the four-year period the strategy covers. As part of the strategy, an annual report on the progress of the delivery of the strategy must be submitted to Cabinet.

The report (appendix A) outlined the progress made during the first year of delivering East Suffolk’s Procurement Strategy 2024-2028, which focused on four main strategic themes or “pillars”: Social Value, Environment, Supporting SMEs and Local Businesses and Ethical Procurement. The pillars of the procurement strategy are based on the foundation of Good Governance which supported all themes.

Councillor Whitelock commented that it would be of benefit for other authorities to adopt a similar approach to their procurement processes. Councillor Langdon-Morris added that in the last financial year 41.6% had been spent with suppliers based in East Suffolk.

Councillor Jepson queried how satisfied the team were in the implementation of setting more robust systems and if there were any noted outcomes.

The Procurement and Contracts Manager advised that it was a phased approach with holding training workshops and providing an interactive workbook to staff, which had a section social value.

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Noted the submitted First Progress Report 2024-2025.

Councillor Candy, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health introduced report ES/2445 which related to East Suffolk Council’s Food and Health & Safety Service Plan 2025-2026. The updated plan outlined how East Suffolk ensures that the highest safety standards are achieved.

East Suffolk Council’s food safety work benefited people far beyond East Suffolk: there were several food manufacturers who distribute nationally, and a high volume of food is imported through the Port of Felixstowe.

The Food Standards Agency required that the service plan be an expression of the authority’s commitment to the development of food controls, and it must provide information on the services was delivered.

The Food and Safety Team were continuing to undertake risk-based inspections of food premises, with a focus on raising standards in businesses that are performing poorly. A new key performance indicator had been introduced for the team to assess how effectively they are achieving their objectives.

The team had responsibilities for health and safety enforcement, accident investigation and awareness raising. A new project for this year would look at raising awareness of legionella in spa pools and hot tubs within the local holiday sector. All their health and safety projects are reflective of both local and national priorities.

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

The Border Target Operating Model - BTOM - transitioned from an implementation programme to ‘Business As Usual’ commencing 31st March 2025; with some further control elements to be phased in during 2025.

A new challenge for the Port Health Team was emerging, the proposed UK / EU SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) Agreement. Whilst it was early days it would likely signal the 4th major change to import control requirements in the last 6 years.  Whilst the SPS Agreement was over the horizon, the Port Health team continue to deliver the existing requirements of the BTOM at both the Port of Felixstowe and Harwich International Port.

The health, safety and well-being of the local authority workforce, and members, was paramount.  For that reason, the important work of the Corporate Health and Safety Team was included.  Reducing work related stress, considering health and safety at an early stage when procuring goods and services and complying with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, known as CDM, with the Council’s development projects and the way that the Council manages its property and land to ensure all who use it can do so safely are key priorities in 2025/26.

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

The Chair recognised the work of the Port Health team and congratulated the previous Food and Safety Manager who recently retired.

It was noted that recommendation 3 of report should have read ‘3. recommended that Cabinet approves the Service Plan for 2025/26’ not Full Council. This would be amended on the minutes of the meeting. Councillor Candy moved the recommendation to Cabinet in her introduction.

There was a discussion regarding the risk-based approach which was set by DEFRA and what percentage of good were to be inspected. He thresholds of risk were, low, medium and high. Low risk goods tended to no be inspected. The Head of Environmental Services and Port Health added that goods arrived from all over the world, with technical specialists and trained staff in place to manage the processes in place at the Port.

The Chair referenced a recent celebration of the 150th birthday of the Port of Felixstowe in Greenwich.

Councillor Candy commented on how well presented the report was and how clear the report was read. Councillor Jepson and Councillor Byatt thanked Head of Environmental Services and Port Health for their work and commented that the team do a wonderful job.

On the proposition of Councillor Candy seconded by Councillor Noble it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. noted performance against the Service Plan for 2024/25;

 2. considered and comments on the Service Plan for 2025/26;

 3. recommended that Cabinet approves the Service Plan for 2025/26; and

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

Councillor Beavan Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing introduced report ES/2433 which related to the Housing Regulation Quarterly Update report. As part of the Improvement Programme, over the last 18 months, detailed surveys were commissioned by the Council, which identified out of the 75% of the stock surveyed, 50% of homes fall below the Decent Homes Standard.

The Decent Homes Standard was a set of minimum standards for the condition of socially rented homes. It ensures that homes are fit for habitation, are in a reasonable state of repair, have modern facilities, and provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

A decent home is one, which should be wind and weather tight, warm and have modern facilities.  All of the surveys have included an assessment under the Housing, Health and Safety Ratings System (HHSRS), which sets out that homes should be free from hazards, enabling residents to live in homes, which do not pose a risk to their health and/or safety.

A Category 1 (Cat 1) Hazard means there is something that could cause a serious and immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety and these issues are being addressed as a priority. 

A Category 2 (Cat 2) Hazard means there is something that needs to be remedied but it is less serious and immediate.

As a result, East Suffolk referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing, and they would now consider the information provided to them by the Council before determining whether any action needs to be taken.

All tenants had been notified of the issues and will continue to be informed.

An Improvement Plan had been developed, which set out the steps the Council would take to improve the position of Decent Homes.

A new compliance management system would be mobilised later in the year. Members would be kept updated quarterly on the progress being made against the Improvement Plan.

Councillor Byatt queried if additional resources were needed. Councillor Beavan responded that KPI and dashboards would be implemented to help monitor progress. More Housing Officers would be required to see how were living on a more regular basis.

The Chair advised that sensitivity was required as some people do not want to have agencies in their homes. The Head of Housing added that the teams deal with lot of vulnerable people and all tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment of their tenancies. There are instances where maintenance, repair or access is required, and it can be challenging to gain access to people’s homes.

There was a discussion regarding communication and supporting people to report issues such as damp in their homes. The Head of Housing clarified the decent homes standards further and that whilst it covered issues such as damp, it also captured the need to replace facilities that were over 15 years, such as kitchens.

There was information available on the website regarding how to manage moisture in the home and there was a Tenant Engagement Board. It was historically challenging to get people to engage with such initiatives, but it was hoped that with the right marketing people would want to sign up to be involved. In addition, there were estate days and other avenues for tenants to engage with the Council and services.

Councillor Beavan added that some issues could be easily fixed, such as adding new carbon monoxide alarms to some homes or looking at moisture meters.

The Chair brought the debate to a close adding that the team were doing a great job in working through the issues which had been identified.

On the proposition of Councillor Beavan seconded by Councillor Candy it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet:

 1. Noted the information contained within this report and endorses the actions set out in the Improvement Plan to ensure the Council is compliant with the Regulator of Social Housing Consumer ‘Safety and Quality Standard’

 2. Noted that the next quarterly update will be presented to the Cabinet meeting in October 2025

Councillor Langdon-Morris Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money introduced report ES/2442 which related to 2025/26 Quarter 1 Financial Performance Report. The report provided an overview of the Council’s position at the end of Quarter 1 of 2025/26 (April and May) against the original budget approved in February 2025, in respect of the General Fund, Reserves, Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and the Capital Programme.

At the end of May 2025, the projected forecast for the year end is a surplus of approximately £0.624m, primarily due to additional funding secured following budget setting. However, forecasts will be subject to change throughout the year and will be reviewed on a quarterly basis.

The opening balance of Earmarked Reserves as at 1st April 2025 is £43.84m.

The HRA had a projected forecast of £0.519m surplus, compared to an original budget of £0.972m surplus. It reflected the impact of carry forward budgets from 2024/25 of £0.613m, offset by a positive variance of £0.160m vacancy savings. Carried forward budgets were subject to Cabinet approval on 8th July. 

The General Fund Capital Programme Budget of £81.597m included £23.082m of carry forward underspend from 2024/25 due to project delays and rephasing.

Going forward, areas of focus will include Local Government Funding Reform, temporary accommodation demand and inflationary pressures, as well as the £7.5m budget gap for 2026/27 as reported in February 2025.

There were no questions or comments 

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Noted the Council’s financial position for the period April to May 2025 against the profiled General Fund budget, and the forecast position for the end of the year.

2. Noted approved budget change variations following the original 2025/26 budget approval in February 2025 and the impact on the General fund for the year.

 3. Noted the areas of financial challenge for the current year and the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

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

RESOLVED

 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 items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.