Meeting Details

Councillor Candy raised under item 6 of the minutes of 2 September 2025 P6 the A45 should have read A14.

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

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2025, as amended, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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


RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting held on 24 September 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Mark Packard, Cabinet Member with the responsibility for the Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES-2528 which related to the CIL Funding Bids 2025 and the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024-25.

The annually presented report for Cabinet contained two key appendices which were themselves separate reports, Appendix A: The CIL Spending Report 2025 and Appendix B: The DRAFT Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) 2024-25, with the Infrastructure Funding Statement having its own set of 3 appendices. The layout of the latter document was set out within the CIL Regulations.

The contents of Appendix A the CIL Spending report for 2025 demonstrated that it had been a bumper year for CIL spending, with 29 projects seeking funding through CIL.

In accordance with the delegated powers the CIL Spending Working Group made the following decisions 

a) that £428,730 Local CIL has been committed this summer to 16 small Local CIL and Local CIL Play Fund projects and some of these projects are already underway.
 
b) two requests for the forward funding of Neighbourhood CIL have been approved for Eyke and for Trimley St Martin for their Village Hall improvement projects.
 
c) following review of the operation of the CIL Spending Strategy, the ringfencing of District CIL for Health and Education projects proposed to be delivered across the 5-year period has been increased to £14.2m.

Cabinet were asked to decide on the recommendations of the CIL Spending Working Group (CSWG) within the CIL Spending Report to approve just over £8.1 million of funding for these 11 infrastructure projects proposed to support the planned new housing developments across the East Suffolk area.

The projects recommended for funding from CIL were:
 
Wickham Market Library £ 29,500.00

Waldringfield Footpath Project £ 42,734.34

Leiston/Saxmundham - Sisu machines £ 42,000.00

Henley Gate Primary School £ 272,868.75

Benhall/Saxmundham Cycling and Walking project £ 402,836.00

Beccles Medical Centre Extension £ 4,226,255.00

Leiston FC – reallocation of existing CIL award (new pitch location) £ 276,018.18

Melton - Wilford Bridge Cycling and Walking project £ 573,869.00

Thorpeness - New Community Hall £ 735,000.00

Benacre Flood Defence Project £ 1,000,000.00

Halesworth Campus sports pitches top up £ 501,069.00

There were no questions from Cabinet Members.

Councillor Keys-Holloway raised concerns regarding the viability of the Halesworth campus site.  The Councillor recognised the wonderful concept for both rugby and football club. The land was gifted with the purpose of community, and the community wanted the best use of the land. The community wanted to make sure people were using facilities that were fit for purpose and there was concern that this was not being done in the right way. 

Councillor Ashdown supported the Halesworth campus project and the work of the CIL working group. The project was examined in detail, and the proposal was the only way the project would be able to move forward. The CIL working group had unanimous cross-party support.

Councillor Byatt raised concern regarding Beccles medical centre, which was in receipt of CIL funding, however a proportion of the population who accessed their services were from South Norfolk. Councillor Byatt queried if South Norfolk could be asked for funding contribution. Councillor Packard responded that the CIL working group had to consider the projects presented which were done in good faith.

Councillor Daly queried if the CIL working group included representations from local communities when considering projects and funding. Councillor Packard responded that it was not generally how the process worked. In respect of the Halesworth campus a letter of representation had been received. There had been lengthy discussion and consideration at the CIL working group about this complex project which was part of a wider plan for the area.

The Head of Planning and Building Control added that the funding asked for was in addition to existing funding to take the project forward. Planning permission was in place for the whole project, which included 3G pitches, car parking and infrastructure.

Councillor Ewart sought clarification that Kelsale would be included in the Cycling, Walking and Wheeling strategy. Councillor Bennett responded that he would be happy to discuss outside of the meeting. A lot of work had gone into strategy, and he believed there was funding in the strategy for Kelsale.

The Chair, Councillor Topping, noted receipt of a letter regarding the Halesworth campus site from Adrian Ramsey MP, also signed by County Councillor Annette Dunning, Councillor Wakeling and Councillor Keys-Holloway. Councillor Topping was aware of the history and the issues in the area.

The Chair stated on her request a meeting was called on 28 July 2025 for stakeholders. The Apollo centre was not present. It was a productive meeting with participants being able to share their views. The Leader confirmed the CIL working group was quorate at four and councillors present at the meeting in question were able to make the decisions taken.

The Chair discussed the 3G pitch, which had planning permission and was sized according to Sport England requirements. If the recommendations were not supported the rugby pitch would not be delivered. The 3G pitch would likely proceed regardless.

The Chair detailed other concerns regarding the community use agreement with football club and campus. The Chair believed there was reassurance that the campus would honour the agreement made and not outprice users.

The Chair read out the conditions on p13 of appendix A.

Councillor Beavan appreciated the concerns raised; in terms of viability, he was satisfied in supporting the recommendations. CIL was not just for Halesworth but the whole area. Councillor Beavan highlighted the successes of Southwold Rugby in recent years.

Councillor Packard concluded that it was common that 10-20% of funding was held back that until building / project work was completed. The rugby club had looked at mapping where members lived, and they were from Halesworth and outside villages.

Councillor Noble supported the recommendations.

Councillor Beavan had declared an other registerable interest as a member of Southwold Rugby Club and did not participate in the vote.

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

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet

 1. Noted the contents of the CIL Spending Report (Appendix A) namely the Local CIL funding awards, the two cases of forward funding of Neighbourhood CIL and the increased ringfencing of £14.2m District CIL by the CIL Spending Working Group to secure Health and Education projects proposed to be delivered over the next 5-year period.

 2. Approved the recommendations (section 7 of the CIL Spending Report) of the CIL Spending Working Group to award or reject the requests for the District CIL funding for projects proposed to support the planned new housing developments across the East Suffolk area.

 3. Approved the draft Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024-25 (Appendix B) for publication, subject to minor amendments to be approved through the Chair of the CIL Spending Working Group/Cabinet Member for Planning. Publication to be made by 31 December 2025 statutory deadline.

Councillor Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing introduced report ES-2527 which related to six newly developed Housing Policies requiring approval. The policies had been identified as priorities following a comprehensive gap analysis of the Council’s housing policy framework.

Their development ensured the council remain compliant with current legal and regulatory standards, and their adoption would  support consistent, safe, and effective service delivery across our housing stock.

The six policies proposed for approval were:

1. Housing Electrical Safety Policy – Establishes our approach to electrical safety in domestic dwellings, communal areas, and temporary accommodation.

2. Housing Heating Safety Policy – Covers the management of heating systems including gas, oil, solid fuel, and air source heat pumps across all Council-owned or managed properties.

3. Housing Water Safety Policy – Focuses on water hygiene and the control of risks such as legionella, applicable to all housing types including supported and temporary accommodation.

4. Housing Fire Safety Policy – Sets out our fire safety responsibilities and standards across domestic dwellings, communal areas, retirement living schemes, and temporary accommodation.

5. Housing Asbestos Safety Policy – Details our approach to managing asbestos-containing materials in all relevant property types, ensuring compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

6. Housing Lift Safety Policy – Outlines the management of lift safety, including passenger lifts, stairlifts, and other fixed lifting equipment across our housing stock.

The policies were critical to maintaining safe living environments for residents and ensuring teams and contractors operate within clear, consistent frameworks.

Councillor Langdon-Morris queried if the policies were new, or revisions to existing ones. The Head of Housing responded that there had been a set of standards in place, these had not been official policies. The fire strategy was approved May 2022, and it was recognised as good practice to adopt policies, which were being presented to Cabinet as a new and improved version of the standards.

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet gave delegated authority to the Head of Housing in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing:

 1. Approved all six policies and agree that these are published on the Council’s website and shared with relevant stakeholders as part of the wider housing service improvement plan.

 2. To make amendments and update the policies as required in response to changes in legislation, operational feedback, or best practice.

Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for The Environment introduced report ES-2532 which related to the procurement of a supply contract for 240l bins. There was a requirement to purchase new 240l bins on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, including to replace damaged bins, missing bins, new developments and new garden waste subscribers. A contract was needed with an approved manufacturer to supply 240l bins as and when required.

There were no questions from Cabinet Members.

Councillor Jepson queried how long the procurement would take and would there be a clash with Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). The Strategic Director responded that it was not anticipated any issues would arise with the contracting and LGR.

Councillor Byatt queried if there would be the offer for smaller bins where required. Councillor Noble responded that smaller bins would still be available.

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet approved: 

1. The procurement of a 240l bin supply contract to enable ESC to deliver our statutory requirement with regard to the provision of a waste and recycling collection to residents.

2. Delegated authority to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Corporate Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, to enter into a contract with the successful bidder for the supply of 240l bins and for legal services to seal the resulting contract.

3. That ESC runs a procurement tender process to award a three-year manufacture and supply contract for waste and recycling bins, pursuant to the Council’ Contract Procedure Rules and the Procurement Act 2023.

Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment introduced report ES-2535 which related to the procurement of new brown bin lids to replace the green bin lids on garden waste bins.

Councillor Noble stated that Better Recycling was a government mandated initiative which every council needed to adopt. The council was expected to meet this target in a financially prudent manner.

All Suffolk councils have agreed to standardise waste and recycling bin colours across Suffolk, as part of the government’s expectation for greater consistency. The established waste and recycling stream colours were formalised by WRAP in 2017 with the aim of standardising bin colours across the country to help avoid confusion for residents.

When the garden waste subscription service was introduced, a previous administration introduced green bins for garden waste, instead of the established brown coloured bins for garden waste. Therefore, there could be confusion regarding the garden waste bin when the new green lidded bin is introduced for card and paper.

It was important that it was addressed as cost effectively as possible and replacing the lids only would be a cheaper option than replacing the entire bin. To replace bins in their entirety it would cost c.£875,000 plus distribution which would take the overall cost to around £1Million.

Replacement of the lids, costing around £350,000 to purchase and install, was considered cheaper and the more environmentally friendly option. The option would also ensure that there was consistency across Suffolk.

Councillor Noble noted that the funding would come from an existing budget, with funding already in place which could be utilised.

Councillor Wilson commented on recent media coverage and supported the well thought out proposals.

Councillor Jepson queried if a cheaper option had been considered, such as using labels to cover the existing lids, or guidance for users. Councillor Ashton responded that communications was complex and felt if labels were explored it would become more complicated for users. Anything that assists with providing clear and simple information would be welcome. Councillor Ashton added that stickers would not solve the issue.

Councillor Byatt did not support the proposal. The Councillor queried if there could be consideration to using an adhesive sticker to go over the green bin lids which would be more cost effective than replacing the bin lids. Councillor Ashton responded that there would still be a cost incurred with distribution of any stickers.

Councillor Wilson added that there would be greater risk of creating inefficiencies by tasking operatives to distribute the stickers and relying on people to get them stuck on the bins correctly.

Councillor Ashton stated that there was scope for people to put the sticker on the side of their bins which would result in properties having two green lidded bins. Councillor Noble added that this could increase cross contamination. Councillor Noble concluded that it could be considered, however felt that the current proposal was the best option to move forward.

The Chair added that if the wrong bin was put out and collected it could contaminate the entire vehicle’s load if it was the wrong type of waste. Councillor Jepson responded that there would still have contamination in some forms regardless.

Councillor Langdon-Morris added that he believed the benefit over time would outweigh the cost.

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

RESOLVED

That Cabinet approved:

1. The procurement of a contract to supply sufficient brown bin lids to replace green lids currently in use on garden waste bins.

2. Delegated authority to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Corporate Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, to enter into a contract for the supply of brown bin lids and for legal services to seal the resulting contract.

Councillor Tim Wilson, Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport introduced report ES-2533 which related to the Felixstowe Seafront Development Strategy. The strategy set out the long-term vision and phased enhancements of the South Seafront area. It had been developed by East Suffolk Council (ESC) in partnership with external consultants, extensive public, business and local councillor consultation and will secure the future of this important location through enhanced infrastructure and visitor experience, vibrant public spaces, and sustainable developments.

The paper also sought approval for the development of the priority projects up to RIBA 3 detailed design, surveys and QS work to more clearly identify the designs, costs and risks associated with the priority projects for delivery.

Once the RIBA 3 design works were completed, a paper would be put before Full Council seeking approval for capital funding for the priority projects which could be delivered by the end of 2027/28 financial year to align with the Local Government Review (LGR) timetable.

Councillor Wilson clarified that a part predestination was proposed and of those surveyed 68% responded in favour of a part pedestrianisation trial. Any consideration for pedestrianising would be part of a longer concept and would not be brought forward before LGR.

Councillor Candy discussed the challenge of managing short and longer-term priorities and that residents remained concerned with whether the floodgates would be open and what effect that would have on home insurance. There should be consideration to the increase of activities on Sea Road which creates more traffic and parking issues. Councillor Candy recognised that residents’ priority parking was on the long-term priority list and there was concern over lighting in the shelters, which would cause light pollution.

Councillor Wilson provided reassurance that parking and residents parking issues were a top priority. The issue of the floodgates was on the council’s radar and there were landscaping plans to look at further flood mitigation. Councillor Wilson added that very few of the projects would be implemented before LGR. There would be public consultation for areas of consideration and Councillor Wilson encouraged people to share their views.

Councillor Jepson thanked the team for their work and commented that the south seafront was developing beautifully. The councillor added that lighting was an issue and lot of money had been spent in refurbishing shelters which had been vandalised. Councillor Jepson concluded that CCTV would be integral to making the area safe. Councillor Jepson also referenced if electronic signage was viable to assist in parking management.

The Strategic Director responded that signage could be explored to ascertain viable options. Councillor Wilson added that CCTV was a wider issue and part of some district wide work which was taking place.

Councillor Candy added that CCTV had been raised multiple times from the Town Council, who were very keen to see CCTV implemented and had some funding to contribute towards it.

Councillor Ashton responded that there were ongoing conversations with Felixstowe Town Council. There was a resourcing issue of using CCTV for the police to respond in real time to incidents or if would be operational for recorded footage instead of active monitoring. The councillor reiterated there was a wider district discussion regarding CCTV.

Councillor Bennett commented that there was some additional police allocation in Felixstowe which could assist as CCTV conversations continue. The councillor added that there was a car park development near Mannings which could take some of the pressure off parking.

On the proposition of Councillor Wilson seconded by Councillor Ashton it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That Cabinet:

1. Approved the adoption of the Felixstowe Seafront Development Strategy at Appendix A to this report.

2. Approved the priority projects identified by the strategy to be developed up to RIBA 3 using the Felixstowe South Development allocation in the Council’s Capital Programme.

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

RESOLVED

 That 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 Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.