Meeting Details

The Chair

The Chair stated he had attended following engagements as Vice Chair of the Council, since the last Full Council meeting:

 Level 2 AGM Celebration (Youth Development Group on 20 May at the Level 2 Hub in Felixstowe

 Institution and Induction of Rev Natalie Reese on 27 May at St Edmunds Church, Kessingland

 Suffolk Show on 29 May at Trinity Park

Pride Blooms 2025 Suffolk Fringe Opening Ceremony on 31 May at the Cornhill, Ipswich

Suffolk Agricultural Associations’s Food and Farming Student Day on 18 June at Hollow Trees Farm in Semer

Chair of West Suffolk’s Civic Service and Cathedral Tower Celebration on 22 June at St Edmundsbury Cathedral

Celebration of Achievement 2025 for the Eastern Education Group on 30 June at St Edmundsbury Cathedral

SALC 75th Celebration and AGM on 1 July at the Athenaeum, Bury St Edmunds

Mayor Felixstowe’s Civic Reception on 4 July at the Sea You Restaurant in Felixstowe

Armed Forces Champion Councillor Lee Reeves attended the Armed Forces Day Suffolk Celebration on 28 June at Christchurch Mansion in Ipswich

The Leader

With effect from 23 May 2025 Councillor Beavan and Councillor Hammond took places on Planning Committee North. With effect from 7 July 2025 Councillor Hammond will become Vice Chair of Planning Committee North.

With effect from 3 June 2025 Councillor Leach replaced Councillor Hammond on Overview and Scrutiny.

Following the recent interim assessment by the Local Government Association, the assessor found that East Suffolk Council continues “to meet and exceed the requirements of the Charter for Councillor Development-Charter Plus”.

 We demonstrated to the assessor that we “continue to have a councillor led strategic commitment to councillor development” and he was particularly pleased that we intend to act as an advocate for councillor development as part of the LGR discussions.  

 
The Leader thanked members of the cross-party Member Development Steering Group for all their hard work and commitment. The Leader reminded members to ensure they complete feedback forms following any training attended, as comments are always reviewed.

Cabinet Members

Councillor Whitelock announced that the Tour of Britain cycling event would return to East Suffolk on 2 September, where the opening stage of the event would be hosted.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris announced that Anglia Revenue Partnerships (ARP) reported a 20% increase regarding returns on collection from the previous year. The Councillor reported that ARP had received a number of complaints regarding the second homes premium and there would be a 6-month review and ARP will produce a report for consideration.

 Councillor Candy announced that a colleague in the Port Health team was retiring after 33 years of service. Councillor Candy wished Simon Rowell all the best for his retirement. 

Councillor Daly made a statement on the conflict in Gaza.

 Councillor McCallum left the room. 

Chief Executive

The Chief Executive did not make any announcements.

On the proposition of Councillor Folley seconded Councillor Topping it was unanimously

RESOLVED

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

Question from Councillor Mark Jepson to Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment

The data on the key performance indicators sadly indicates that fly tipping has increased in the vast majority of wards in 2024/25, the last year of full data, in some areas quite considerably.

Disappointingly, action relating to fly tipping has also reduced too; between 2022/23 and 2034/25 actions from reports have reduced from 2416 to 972.

For the same periods:

Investigations down from 2210 to 868
Statutory Notice from 12 to 3
Warning letters from 156 to 69

Can the Cabinet Lead outline why there has been a reduction in positive actions and what they propose to implement to address this upward trend.

Response from Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment

Councillor Noble stated that the Environmental Protection Team had lost a number of experienced staff in recent months. They covered a huge area of work and it had been a struggle to recruit more officers to this area. The key priority for the team was preventing fly tipping in the first place through surveillance of hotspots, increased patrols, public space protection orders and ensuring proper disposal of trade waste. There had been an issue with KPI reporting in the switch from Norse to ESSL. This is in the process of being resolved and Councillor Noble state she would confirm when this had been completed and updated with the correct figures. Councillor Noble also noted there was a societal change where littering from vehicles was seen as acceptable by some people, and this cost the Council thousands of pounds to clean. There would be public awareness campaigns on littering and responsible dog ownership in the autumn as these were also key areas. 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Jepson to Councillor Noble  

Councillor Jepson sought clarification on the numbers of staff that had been lost, what the issue was with KPI reporting and whether the team would still be pursuing prosecutions or have a focus on prevention. 

Response from Councillor Noble

A response to the question would be circulated within 20 days or prior to the next Full Council meeting.  

Question from Councillor Mark Jepson to Councillor David Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing

In the press release dated 11th June, Councillor Beavan is highly critical of the previous Conservative administration, stating; "I apologise to our tenants for these failures and assure them that we are, step by step, turning round this housing department after years of neglect." 

It has always been recognised how diligent and conscientious the previous Housing Cabinet member was, so it is disappointing to read these comments.

The latest report reflects that 51 properties out of 4345 were identified as 'non decent.' Councillor Beavan has been leading East Suffolk's housing portfolio for the last two years, if the housing stock had been so poorly neglected why was he not able to identify these issues previously.

Response from Councillor David Beavan, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing

Councillor Beavan stated he should have known about this two years ago but did not because the previous administration had stopped routine inspections of housing stock eight years ago. As soon as Councillor Beavan had heard about these case he had spent two days with inspectors, and a robust monitoring system had now been set up. 

Councillor Beavan stated that when he had taken on this portfolio two years ago the Council had been selling more houses than they were building, had overcharged tenants by £10million, had not applied for decarbonisation funding to improve housing stock. The Council was now working on a pipeline of housing stock, had paid back tenants and had a retrofit programme in place. Other issues such as St Peter's Court repair, and the project at Deben Fields was costing more to build than it was worth and the mobile monitoring software that had been purchased was not fit for purpose. Each of these required additional funding to fix. It was a mammoth task, and Councillor Beavan hoped that parties could work together to improve things in a collaborative manner. The previous parties leadership had not been up to the task, although they were not helped by the government. As Cabinet Member Councillor Beavan accepted the buck stopped with him. 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Jepson to Councillor Beavan

Councillor Jepson stated not all issues could be put back to the Conservative Party, and they were willing to work together on the housing issue. At Cabinet there had been a suggestion that more staff were required, would improved technology and working practises as well as staffing improve the position? 

Response from Councillor Beavan

Councillor Beavan stated he had apologised as he was the Cabinet Member. Housing officers had to look after around 1000 properties each, and this was unsustainable. People were needed to go in and speak with tenants and see properties to ensure both tenant and property were being looked after. Technology and working practices were being looked at as well as staffing levels. 

Question from Councillor Jamie Starling to Councillor Paul Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet with responsibility for Corporate Services – Digital, Customer Services, HR and Assets

Recent articles in Reuters, The Times and other news agencies have highlighted concerns regarding spyware and kill switches installed in solar panel inverters.

Energy officials are reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices that play a critical role in renewable energy infrastructure after unexplained communication equipment was found inside some of them.

Solar/ power inverters, which are predominantly produced in China, are used throughout the world to connect solar panels and wind turbines to electricity grids. They are also found in batteries, heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers.

Can the Cabinet member for Corporate Services confirm that none of the solar panels used by the council, or our planned purchases will be manufactured in countries suspected of installing these hacking tools?

Response from Councillor Paul Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet with responsibility for Corporate Services – Digital, Customer Services, HR and Assets

 Councillor Ashton stated he shared this concern. Inverters do have remote communication devices for legitimate purposes such as maintenance, however there had been investigations into using these for malicious intent. At the time of speaking there had been no confirmation from this from the US government. East Suffolk Council did have solar panels which were produced in China, but at present there did not seem to be enough evidence to prompt a change in policy, and the Council did not have the skills to assess this. The Council would be writing to the government to raise this issue and to seek guidance going forward. Any equipment that had an IT component and therefore was a potential cybersecurity risk would involve the IT team in procurement. 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Starling to Councillor Ashton

Councillor Starling asked in regards to IT involvement with procurement, will there be any insurance as to how secure items were.

Response from Councillor Ashton

 Councillor Ashton stated he could not provide this assurance at present, and he was unsure whether this could be reported on as it would be sensitive information. The intention was to ensure the Council and it's IT was as robust as possible. 

The Lead Petitioner addressed the Council and stated that the petition had been started to bring the Southwold beach dog restrictions in line with the rest of Suffolk and most of the UK. There were currently 13.5million dogs in the UK, and 36% of adults owned a dog. The Lead Petitioner was born in Southwold and stated that dogs enjoyed the beach just as much as humans did. Currently there is a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) on the beach from April 1 to 30 September, set out in 2017 when the last enquiry into the issue had been made. 

Southwold has a high proportion of older residents and residents with mobility issues, the current areas allowed for dog walkers north of the pier or around the dues had easy access for those with mobility issues and older residents wished to be able to walk their dogs closer to their homes in more accessible areas. Business owners with dogs were also time limited, and walking to the dog friendly areas took up more time. Dog owners bought a huge amount of revenue to the area, and many of the towns businesses were dog friendly. Dog walkers also contributed to the town by picking up litter, and there had been comments on the petition about their being more human made litter than dog waste. Whilst there were irresponsible dog owners, the town also needed more dog waste bins and better signage to explain where dogs were allowed. The ward Councillor had stated that the Council did not want to pay for new signage with changed dates, but these signs needed replacing anyway. There had also been comments about losing the blue flag status of the beach, but Suffolk's other blue flag beaches in Felixstowe had a May 1 dog ban as do many other blue flag beaches in the UK. Many beach hut owners have also expressed the wish to enjoy the beach with their dogs during the summer season. The Southwold Sausage Walk also bring thousands of visitors to the area and are supportive of a change in the PSPO to allow for events later in the year. April is not high season, while easter sometimes falls in April it is not generally warm enough for visitors to sit on the beach and dog owners and walkers would appreciate this extra month to walk on the beach. 

The Lead Petitioner concluded that it was only fair that Southwold be bought into line with the rest of Suffolk and asked Council to give serious consideration to either changing the dates of the ban wholly, or a compromise such as requiring dogs on leads or a daytime ban with evening dog walks allowed. 

The Chair invited members to address the petition.

Councillor Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment, stated that the central part of Southwold beach was a very special place which was well used by families to picnic and play games. Each beach had to be considered on its own merit, and at Southwold the dog free zone was a very small section of the beach and dogs were allowed off lead only a short walk away. It was also a blue flag beach and was well used by swimmers. Southwold beachfront was also smaller than others in the area. Instances of irresponsible dog owners in the district was increasing. A timed ban would require a wardens which would be expensive and would potentially create confusion. When the initial PSPO had been put in place there had been a request for a complete dog ban, but the Council had pushed for the current system. There had been subsequent consultations including this year and no responses had been received during the consultation that this should be changed. Councillor Noble put forward a recommendation that the petition be noted during the next consultation on the Public Space Protection Order and that for the duration of the current PSPO this be kept as 1 April to 30 September.  This was seconded by Councillor Beavan.

Councillor Folley stated that in her ward of Felixstowe areas of the SSSI had been destroyed by dogs coming in from the off lead areas. Unfortunately the minority seemed to ruin things for the majority of good dog owners.

Councillor Ninmey stated he was a dog owner, and it seemed odd that beaches were being treated differently when visitors to the area might expect them to be the same. Perhaps new signage could be supported by local dog owners.

Councillor Beavan stated that he had posted about the consultation for the PSPO on social media due to the lack of engagement. In 2017 a full ban had been proposed. Councillor Beavan had engaged local dog walkers to propose the system currently in place as a compromise. Councillor Beavan shared maps showing where dogs could and could not go during the summer season. The main beach at Southwold was a blue flag beach, and blue flag guidance stated that there should be no dogs on the beach during the bathing season which included April. When the initial ban had been proposed there had been consideration of a timed ban but it was felt this was too costly to enforce. Councillor Beavan stated he had been contact by people who were against this petition, and although many people on social media were supportive of the petition this was not the whole story. 

Councillor Noble stated that there had been a lot of good points made and the views expressed in the petition would be taken forward to the next PSPO review. 

On the proposal of Councillor Noble, seconded by Councillor Beavan and by a majority vote it was

RESOLVED

That the petition be noted during the next consultation on the Public Space Protection Order and that for the duration of the current PSPO this be kept as 1 April to 30 September. 

Chair of East Suffolk Youth Council

The Chair of East Suffolk Youth Council stated that during their last meeting they had agreed the motion that was on the agenda. The meetings were working well and Councillors were attending meetings and contributing their opinions. Focus groups had also been formed on the recent CIL, Local Plan and Youth Safety Motions. 

Today the Youth Council was presenting a flooding motion. This was important to Youth Councillors due to the long term economic and environmental impacts of flooding and the motion had been quickly agreed upon by the Youth Council. The Chair stated this was highly relevant to the local area. Flooding is an issue the Council would always face.

The following motion was received from East Suffolk Youth Council in pursuance of paragraph 31.2 of the Council Procedure Rules:

Flooding Motion


This Council notes: 

1. Floods, like those on the 20th of October 2023, can have devastating impacts on local communities.

2. More than 14,900 properties in Suffolk as a whole are at risk of flooding.

3. Flooding can cause damage to the mental and physical health of residents of towns and villages affected, damage to properties and businesses and can cause pollution in the local environment.  

4. Climate change is increasing the strength and regularity of flooding and the vulnerability of properties and businesses to flooding. 

5. East Suffolk Council has already established a new £500,000 fund to provide immediate, short-term responses to emergency events in their 2024-2025 budget.  

6. The Lowestoft tidal barrier project, aimed at reducing the impacts of flooding in Lowestoft was halted due to a £124 million funding gap. 

7. Lots of towns across East Suffolk, including Woodbridge, Aldeburgh, Beccles, Framlingham and Lowestoft have a high chance of flooding according to the Long-term flood risk page on the Gov.uk website. 

8. Trees and plants can limit the impact of flooding by intercepting rainfall and stopping soil erosion. East Suffolk Council has an aim to enable 250,000 trees to be planted and new hedgerows to be created across East Suffolk by the end of 2027. This is part of a new tree and hedgerow strategy announced in July 2024.

East Suffolk Youth Council calls on East Suffolk Council to: 

1. Acknowledge that East Suffolk Youth Council has declared its support for the construction of the Lowestoft Tidal Barrier and believes the scheme to play an important role in the Lowestoft Flood Protection Project.

2. Continue lobbying the Government to provide funding to enable work on the Lowestoft Tidal Barrier to resume. 

3. Involve East Suffolk Youth Council in the implementation of the East Suffolk Council Tree Strategy, and to consult the Woodland Trust regarding the possibility of planting sedges and Typha to effectively mitigate flooding impacts. Additionally, to keep East Suffolk Youth Council informed of progress with regular updates. 

4. To support East Suffolk Youth Council in writing a letter to the Suffolk County Council Cabinet Member with responsibility for Highway Drainage and Flooding to stress the importance of clearing drains during extreme weather and to ask whether they utilise their long-term flood risk technical map to prioritise areas for cleaning where flooding is more frequent. 

5. Facilitate a meeting between any or all four MPs with responsibility in East Suffolk and a delegation from East Suffolk Youth Council to request their support for the Lowestoft Tidal Barrier and to discuss coastal protection and the impacts of flooding. 

Councillor Graham stated that when the Youth Council had first met they had drawn up a priority list of items to bring forward to Full Council. Flooding and coastal erosion had been very high on this list, resulting in this motion. Many of the Youth Councillors had lived through flooding from Storm Babet in Framlingham, flooding in Lowestoft in 2013 and the withdrawal of funding for the tidal barrier in 2024. Climate Change was not an abstract issue for the Youth Council and this motion reflected that. The Council had undertaken work following these events including clearing ditches and drainage, and setting up an emergency fund to help provide immediate support during future events.

Councillor Graham stated she had attended an event during the last parliament where it had been shown that a quarter of flood defence schemes were not being taken forward, and the government was working to an outdated flood resilience strategy from 2011 which did not take the most up to date climate science and modelling into account and that funding for schemes did not include the costs of repairing current schemes or the impact on new housing schemes and investment into towns. Councillor Graham welcomed the calls for action the Youth Council had included in their motion and proposed that their motion be accepted. This was seconded by Councillor Noble. 

Councillor Patience stated that he supported this motion. He had been involved in the flood resistance for Lowestoft for a number of years and noted a proposed barrier on the Wash which would have a knock on impact on flooding in Lowestoft and other communities on the Norfolk and Suffolk coast. 

Councillor Langdon Morris stated he was involved in the response to Storm Babet. He noted that the relief fund was aimed at town and parish councils for them to provide resources. East Suffolk Council had employed a Resilience Officer and this person should be involved in this issue. The towns also had a flooding resilience group which met regularly and fed into Suffolk County Council and helped towns ensure they were prepared. Councillor Langdon-Morris stated he supported this motion.

Councillor Ewart stated that she sat on the Internal Drainage Board and was a member of the Alde and Ore Association, both groups which were involved in flood preparation and asked that the Youth Council be involved in these groups.

Councillor King asked if 'Use Your Voice Lowestoft' had been consulted on lobbying government as they could provide useful input.

Councillor Byatt stated this was well presented and was essentially the Youth Council chasing up Full Council to ensure they did the things they had promised and showing the support of younger members of the community. 

Councillor Ashton thanked the Youth Council for the motion. Various Councillors had been involved in the response for Storm Babet and a lot of the issues here had been a result of the lack of maintenance and this was still an issue. The Environment Agency were responsible and also had to be held to account. Councillor Ashton shared an example from Wrentham where the Environment Agency had failed to act to clear a waterway which could have flooded the A12 and so this had to be done by the Parish Council instead. 

Councillor Jepson agreed that this was a good motion, and noted the challenge of getting answers to the issues that were causing flooding. 

Councillor Noble stated this was a topical motion as there were lots of issues with flooding in the area. She welcomed the Youth Council's involvement in this issue going forward.

Councillor Graham summarised that local campaign groups would be involved going forward and thanked Councillors for their support.

On the proposal of Councillor Graham and seconded by Councillor Noble it was 

RESOLVED

That the Youth Council motion on flooding be noted. 

The following Motions were submitted in pursuance of paragraph 31.1 Council Procedure Rules:

MOTION TO FULL COUNCIL

Proposer: Councillor Caroline Topping
Seconder: Councillor Peter Byatt

This Council notes that:

Suffolk’s five district and borough councils have conducted an engagement survey about Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the most popular priority from over 1,500 respondents is: “Being Local - Ensuring decisions that affect you, and where you live, are made close to you - by councillors and a council that understand your needs and represents your area”. This is consistent across each district and borough in the county.

The voices of residents, businesses and organisations are essential in shaping the future of Suffolk.

Research from the University of Cambridge’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy has found that ‘public satisfaction is higher with authorities that are smaller in size’.

An analysis of existing unitary councils has further identified that there is no link between councils’ size and their performance. For example, almost twice as many councils with the smallest populations obtained the CQC’s (Care Quality Commission) highest ‘outstanding’ rating than councils with larger populations.

A vast Suffolk-wide council would most likely create a barrier to truly local representation, reducing the total number of Councillors from c.300 to between 90 and 140 and therefore significantly increasing the number of residents represented by each elected member, risking poor democratic representation.

New financial analysis by KPMG, based specifically on Suffolk, shows that a three-unitary model is affordable'
 
This Council resolves to:

Further develop the case which presents a preferred option for a three-unitary model. This will enable decision-making to remain close to communities and offer genuine value for money.

 
Consult further with KPMG to present the detail which establishes that a three unitary model provides high quality, sustainable public services whilst delivering efficiencies.

Prioritise the needs of our residents throughout the process of Local Government Reorganisation by engaging with them throughout.

The Leader, Councillor Topping introduced the motion and stated that the Local Government Review (LGR) had become a prevalent matter, discussed at most meetings. There needed to be a full debate and careful thought regarding the recommendations which would impact on how local government would be run for many decades. There was a time pressure from government to implement LGR and it was hoped that after submitting the interim plans there would be a steer from government regarding the desired outcomes.

 It had been indicated that 500,000 residents per unitary was a starting position and that authorities could propose they go above or below that number, as long as an evidence base was provided to support any proposal. It was also clear that a robust, sustainable and viable proposal was required. 

 The Council's consultation had received nearly 2,000 have responses to date. The top response across all of Suffolk was that residents wanted local accountability and local decision making. A lot of residents felt that Suffolk County Council (SCC) was already too remote. Councillor Topping commented that there were successful unitary councils running adult and social care and children's services,  which were smaller than the ones being proposed. 

The motion before council proposed a preferred option of three unitaries in Suffolk which would be developed by prior to submitting the final plan to government on the 26 September. Councillor Topping outlined some of the evidence base to support a three unitary model. Three provided more councillors than the other options, there were three county towns and three clear geographies around these towns in North, South and West. A three unitary model would be financially viable and adult and children’s services were already being delivered from three bases in North, South and West of the county. Three unitaries would deliver local accountability, flexibility and deliver agility.

The mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk would have a board with Norfolk districts and boroughs pressing ahead for a three unitary model. Suffolk should have a three unitary model to balance this and ensure there was as many voices as possible to influence outcomes and not have a concentration of power in one place.

Councillor Topping advised that the proposed boundaries would be shared within the next few weeks and there would be guidance regarding how many councillors would be needed per ward so that communities were not divided. Councillor Topping stated that under a 'One Suffolk' unitary residents would have fewer councillors, less democratic representation, and one member on the mayor’s board for the whole of Suffolk resulting in a concentration of power. A 'One Suffolk' unitary would not be a once-in-50 years transformation of local government, but business-as-usual with the district council’s services bolted on. This was not what devolution should be about.

Councillor Byatt seconded the motion.

Councillor Reeves stated he could not support the motion as it stood. He did not believe that government would accept three unitaries with 255,000 – 270,000 residents based on current data. If the Council only puts in a proposal for three unitaries there would be a good chance this gets rejected, with a single unitary the only option left. Councillor Reeves proposed an amended motion:

This Council notes that:

Suffolk’s five district and borough councils have conducted an engagement survey about Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the most popular priority from over 1,500 respondents is: “Being Local - Ensuring decisions that affect you, and where you live, are made close to you - by councillors and a council that understand your needs and represents your area”. This is consistent across each district and borough in the county.

 The voices of residents, businesses and organisations are essential in shaping the future of Suffolk.

 Research from the University of Cambridge’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy has found that ‘public satisfaction is higher with authorities that are smaller in size’.

 An analysis of existing unitary councils has further identified that there is no link between councils’ size and their performance. For example, almost twice as many councils with the smallest populations obtained the CQC’s (Care Quality Commission) highest ‘outstanding’ rating than councils with larger populations.

 A vast Suffolk-wide council would most likely create a barrier to truly local representation, reducing the total number of Councillors from c.300 to between 90 and 140 and therefore significantly increasing the number of residents represented by each elected member, risking poor democratic representation.

 New financial analysis by KPMG, based specifically on Suffolk, shows that a three-unitary model is affordable'

 However, this council recognises that central government originally mandated that new unitary councils should comprise at least 500,000 residents. Council therefore recognises the potential danger that the Government may reject a three unitary model and impose a single unitary Suffolk unless the two unitary option is left on the table.      

 
This Council resolves to:

Further develop the case which presents our a preferred option for a three-unitary model for multi-unitary models. This will Both of these would enable decision-making to remain close to communities and offer genuine value for money.

Consult further with KPMG to present the detail which establishes that a three unitary model both multi-unitary models provides high quality, sustainable public services whilst delivering efficiencies.

Prioritise the needs of our residents throughout the process of Local Government Reorganisation by engaging with them throughout.

This was seconded by Councillor Candy.

The Chair invited debate on the amendment.

Councillor Jepson asked for clarification on whether this proposed one, two or three unitaries as the wording seemed contradictory. Councillor Reeves stated that the government mandated a minimum of 500,000 people and so a two unitary option had to be left on the table. This amendment was to ensure both the two and three options were considered. 

Councillor Bennett stated that his main concern was that the last government review lasted half a century, and so there is a need to really think about what was best for residents long term. One council would be too big and remote. Three seems too small and therefore more likely to fail. Two unitaries in East and West Suffolk has a historical precedent, and represents a 'sweet spot' of accountability and efficiency. Councillor Bennett stated the option for two unitaries must be kept in play and looked at in more detail. 

 Councillor Byatt stated that East Suffolk would be totally dominated by Ipswich. The principles which East Suffolk Council had been formed on in 2016 still applied to any new unitary, and would apply to a three unitary option. This was a chance to go for real change and to be bold by stating our intention for three unitaries in Suffolk.  

 Councillor Daly stated he agreed with Councillor Byatt. There needed to be a vision for devolution. One Council was not devolution, it was the opposite, as was two. Two massive geographic areas would not allow for meaningful local representation. We needed to present one voice with the other district and boroughs, not dilute the approach, and represent local communities. County services were already split into three areas, it was a viable option which would not cost a huge amount to implement. 

Councillor Ninnmey stated people were underinformed on the issues. Whatever happens will endure for 40-50 years and it needs to be right. The example of Cumbria was provided, which had been split into two unitaries with a sufficient population and budget.  The Councillor added that the process was being rushed, and there needed to be a comprehensive view on how both two and three unitaries would function.  There was little feedback and inadequate information and consultation from government with local groups. East and West would mean the whole coast would be under one authority and would cause issues. 

Councillor Folley stated she could not support the amendment. It was clear that Felixstowe would go with Ipswich whatever happened, but communication needed to be clearer. Residents wanted councils to be as local as possible, with local provisions and budgets. 

Councillor Lynch stated he supported the amendment. He did not support the separation into three which would result in Ipswich dominating the surrounding areas. 

Councillor Wilson stated this was a difficult decision. Councillor Wilson asked the Leader how the option for two could be left on the table in the original motion if all the district and borough Councils were putting a motion forward for three unitaries. 

Councillor Ashton stated the GLI group was united behind East Suffolk, but this motion and plan was not about the governance of East Suffolk it was about Suffolk as a whole and the guidance issued by government. Councillor Ashton stated his concern was not with three as an option, but with presenting this as the only alternative. We needed to state that we strongly supported a three unitary option, but allowing for a two unitary option so a whole county option was not the only alternative.

Councillor Pitchers stated that many members would want East Suffolk to remain as it is, with a joined up coast as it was now. Councillor Pitchers stated he had been sceptical when East Suffolk had been formed but it worked well. We needed to ensure this could be maintained and the area would not be dominated by Ipswich. 

Councillor Langdon-Morris stated that the Mayoral Council from 2026 would only have one person representing Suffolk on this Committee if the single unitary went through. A lot of touch decisions had to be made, for example on coastal change, and these needed to be taken by a smaller group who were focussed on their local area. Having three unitary councils would be more democratic. 

Councillor Topping thanked Councillor Reeves and Councillor Candy for their amendment which allowed an open, collaborative discussion. The Council had to go with one option to government. There were six Council's in Suffolk, and each in theory could present a different option however it would be far better for all the districts and boroughs to present a unified approach. It would be great to keep East Suffolk as it was but this was not an option.

There had been a huge amount of time and work across the Councils on this proposal. This Council meeting was slightly too early for all information to be available, and the next Council meeting too close to the deadline. Councillor Topping stated no boundaries had been decided as yet, this is currently being prepared to make sure parishes were not being split. Maps, financial statements, viability, and boundaries would be published in the first week of August. Councillor Topping reiterated that the Council could only put in one option and we needed KPMG to focus on the one option.

Councillor Topping agreed that the whole process had been rushed. 

Councillor Ninnmey noted that there had been guidance issued that all new unitary Councils should be made up within the boundaries of current district and borough councils. 

On the proposal of Councillor Topping, seconded by Councillor Byatt and by a unanimous vote it was

RESOLVED

That Council Procedure Rule 51.1.6 relating to the 45 minute time limit for motions be suspended. 

The debate continued.

Councillor Candy summarised that this had been a well thought out debate. Councillors were being asked to make a very important political decision without seeing a detailed report. We must not dilute focus, adding a two unitary option increases our focus and makes it stronger. The proposal was not to remove the option for three but to add an option for two so that when the final report was ready in September everyone was fully informed. Councillors must vote for their own communities, not be guided because other district and boroughs voted another way.

 Councillor Reeves stated that the original motion does not present any facts to Council that three unitaries would be a better or more workable alternative than two or even one Council. This decision was being made without research and fact.

 Voting on the amendment – 17 for the amendment

 Against the amendment – 27

 Abstain 2

 The amendment was lost.

 The debate continued on the original motion.

 Councillor Robinson stated he was a member of the LGR working group for Suffolk County Council. While social services and other services were done in sectors, there was a tremendous crossover between. Splitting up the County would affect children, schools and transport. Councillor Robinson stated he would oppose the motion for multiple unitaries and support a single unitary. 

Councillor Jepson stated that in reality none of us wanted to be having the conversation as all members were proud of East Suffolk. East Suffolk Council was only six years old and the money spent by government in forming it had not yet delivered value for money. Looking at examples from the police such as the Met and Greater Manchester, bigger was not better. We needed to deliver at a local and more accountable level. More detail is needed, but this decision should not be purely made on finance, local accountability and recognition was important. Three unitaries might not deliver savings as quickly as liked, but examples of existing unitaries showed this was difficult and they were struggling to deliver for the public. 

Councillor Beavan stated that each political group was focussed on the areas they thought they could keep, the Conservatives on the whole Suffolk, Labour in Ipswich, Liberal Democrats on the coast and Green party on the rural north. There are three major towns in Suffolk where people live work and shop. Three unitaries therefore makes sense. Suffolk County Council is not anymore efficient, and so we must join the other districts with a united voice.

Councillor Lynch stated we have not been given the facts and so he could not vote for a motion without this information.

Councillor Folley stated that several members have stated they have not had information but briefings and sessions have been run in the last few months by officers and Councillors. There has been information made available where possible.

Councillor Daly stated that the motion was to 'Consult further with KPMG to present the detail' on the three unitary model. Councillors were being asked to commission work to get the detail needed. There was enormous pressure from central government and officers had done an amazing job to get all of the information as possible and to prioritise locality. 

Councillor Ninnmey stated that without the information from KPMG Councillors are voting blind. The belief that a Council only slightly bigger than East Suffolk Council would be delivering social care, highways, education, on top of current commitments without having Felixstowe was not practical. Councillor Ninnmey feared we would be now looking at a one Suffolk solution imposed by Westminster. 

Councillor Smith-Lyte stated this was a sad discussion as East Suffolk was a good Council which members could be proud of. This was an unwelcome distraction from central government. 

Councillor Bennett stated that the only option which would maintain the idea of East Suffolk staying together was the two unitary option. This was also the option which was not party political. The government was clear that savings and efficiencies were needed, three would be the least efficient. A two unitary option was still local and would provide local democracy. 

Councillor Lawson stated two unitiaries had been taken off the table. The motion could be stronger and provide more clarity. 

Councillor Candy stated she was sorry the amendment failed and she could not support voting on the current motion. 

Councillor Ashton stated there was a need to steer government away from a whole county unitary if they had concerns about the size of three. Councillors were not being asked today to make a decision but to put together the case for recommending three unitaries. The vote on submitting this to government would come in September. The issue with the whole county unitary was around representation. A division for a unitary for the whole of Suffolk assuming 100 Councillors would be twice the size and with double the workload. This was not possible for someone working full time, Councillors would then be less diverse and would be less able to represent their local communities. 

 Councillor Byatt stated that this had been a good debate and he understood comments about the lack of detail and how rushed this was. Communities deserve a Council that understands and delivers for them. The County Council has had years to deliver, why should they be given more power when they have not delivered. The three council model was visionary, at nearly the optimal population level, and with the support of other districts. This would deliver local understanding, resilience and capability, the ability to deliver and improve services and to create a stronger foundation for public services. Local democracy and more accountability, closer to the people being represented and a stronger voice on the Mayoral Authority. This was an opportunity to shape a Suffolk that worked for everyone, not just the centre and we should build on the success of East Suffolk since 2019. 

Councillor Topping summarised that there had been good debate by all. This Council was not being set up to fail. Some Councillors had been through this before and could do it again. The finances for a one, two and three unitary council were being modelled and more detail would be published well in advance of the final decision as soon as it was available. This was not a binding decision but a directive to focus on the three unitary model with the full case being voted on in September.

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote.  35 members present voted in favour of the motion.

Councillors present and voted ‘for’ were Councillor Ashdown, Ashton, Beavan, Byatt, Clery, Craig, Daly, Ewart, Fisher, Folley, Gandy, Gee, Graham, Green, Grey, Hammond, Hedgley, Jepson, Keys-Holloway, King, Langdon-Morris, Lawson, Molyneux, Noble, Packard, Parker, Pitchers, Plummer, Rumble, Smith-Lyte, Starling, Topping, Wakeling Whitelock and Wilson.

Councillors present and ‘abstained’ from voting was Councillor Bennett

Councillors present and voted ‘against’ were Councillors Back, Candy, Cawley, Ceresa, Lynch, McCallum, Ninnmey, Reeves, Robinson, Scrancher and Thompson

MOTION TO FULL COUNCIL (WITHDRAWN due to Councillor Smithson being unable to attend the meeting)

Proposer; Councillor Rosie Smithson
Seconder; Councillor Tess Gandy

This Council notes that

Our environmental impact strategic priorities include a focus on reduction, re-use and recycling of materials through our own practices and by encouraging others.

In East Suffolk the percentage of household waste sent for recycling or composting remains below target at around 40% of all domestic waste we produce. A key area where we could easily do better is in the recycling of drinks cans and plastic bottles.

A simple yet highly effective way to increase recycling and reduce litter is the installation of public reverse vending machines (RVMs) that accept bottles and cans, giving back rewards such as points, money or vouchers. Ubiquitous in many parts of Europe, RVMs are usually part of a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), under which people pay a small deposit when buying a drink and are refunded the deposit when they return the bottle or can for recycling.

West Suffolk Council has recently installed RVMs in three Suffolk towns that earn users points for each item recycled. These points are then used to redeem rewards from local and national retailers. The scheme incentivises recycling, reduces the carbon footprint, fosters greater public engagement in environmental initiatives and helps local businesses by encouraging footfall.

This Council resolves to 

Investigate the West Suffolk Council deposit return scheme for cans and plastic bottles with the ambition to adopt the same initiative here.

Provide Full Council with a report on the investigation with recommendations within six months.

Councillor Packard, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES-2459 which related to the Ufford Neighbourhood Plan. The Neighbourhood Plan successfully passed its referendum on the 26 June 2025, 208 people voted (28.4% turnout) and 93% voted in favour of the Ufford Neighbourhood Plan. East Suffolk Council must now ‘make’ the Neighbourhood Plan, once ‘made’ by East Suffolk Council, the Neighbourhood Plan will become part of the Development Plan for East Suffolk and used to determine planning applications. 

Councillor Packard proposed the recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor Noble who stated a huge amount of work had gone into the plan, including protecting biodiversity and green spaces around the village. 

 Councillor Ninmey asked whether Westminster had withdrawn support for Neighbourhood Plans and queried if there was District support to areas which wanted to develop their own neighbourhood plan. Councillor Packard responded that Westminster had withdrawn funding, but it was possible to use CIL money for neighbourhood plans in the future. 

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

Made the Ufford Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version, June 2025) part of the statutory Development Plan for East Suffolk for the whole of the Ufford Neighbourhood area. 

Councillor Clery the Vice Chair over the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented the annual report. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had a varied Work Programme in 2024/25 reviewing topics of importance to residents, scrutinising the Council’s budget and performance, and deal with the first Call-in.

The Committee reviewed its own processes and procedures to make any necessary improvements, which included making this year’s Review Topic Selection Workshop more inclusive by inviting the East Suffolk Youth Council to take part.

On behalf of the Committee, Councillor Clery formally thanked all the guest speakers that took part in the reviews, as well as all the Cabinet Members and Officers who participated.

Councillor Deacon extended his personal thanks to all the past and present Committee members, and the Support Officer, for everyone’s hard work throughout the year.

Councillor Topping valued the Overview and Scrutiny Process and thanked the committee and officers, including the Democratic Services Officer for their work and ongoing support.

Councillor Jepson endorsed the report and thanked Chair and Vice Chair for their work. Councillor Jepson also offered thanks to the Democratic Services Officer who support the committee. 

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

Received and noted the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Annual Report 2024/25.

Full Council received report ES/2460 which was presented by Councillor Topping, Leader of the Council, and provided individual Cabinet Members' reports of their areas of responsibility, as well as reports from those Members appointed to represent East Suffolk Council on Outside Bodies. The Leader stated that the written reports could be taken as read and she invited relevant questions on their contents.

Councillor Byatt queried if there would be any Outside Body reports coming to Full Council. The Leader responded that reports could be provided. 

Councillor Folley referenced p218 of the meeting papers and asked Councillor Candy if there was a reason all Felixstowe councillors were not invited to the multi-agency day of action. Councillor Candy responded that the decision was embargoed, and a partner agency led on the event. Councillor Candy advised Councillor Folley to let her know if she would like to be included on any future events.

Councillor Parker referenced sale of the Felixstowe Port and queried the potential impact on Freeport East. Councillor Candy responded that it whilst it was not in her portfolio there was positive effects of the sale of the port. Councillor Beavan stated it was positive to have a new owner to encourage new investment. 

Councillor Craig asked if Councillor Whitelock was satisfied that new play areas would have adequate seating for parents’ carers and access to play equipment for those with disabilities. Councillor Whitelock responded that the aim was to have sufficient play equipment. The Councillor noted there had been some recent maintenance issues which were being addressed. Councillor Whitelock understood the importance of play areas and would be happy to provide further updates. 

Councillor Gandy referenced p 228 of the report regarding public conveniences in Lowestoft town centre and Felixstowe and requested an update on how work was progressing. Councillor Ashton responded that in Felixstowe there had been vandalism and there was work to be done regarding cleanliness. There was ongoing work to address the issues being carried out by the assets team. Councillor Ashton advised work was continuing to provide temporary toilets in Lowestoft and he would provide an update when he was in a position to be able to offer a full update. 

Councillor Byatt queried how soon member input would be requested regarding parking and parking signage. The Councillor encouraged review of the Kings Lynn website. Councillor Wilson responded that he would look at the Kings Lynn website and that the signage was in draft. All Councillors were encouraged to submit theirs views on signage options. Councillor Ashton added that the IT team were working on a replacement content management system which would be reviewing various aspects of the website content which would include parking.