Meeting Details

Chair’s Announcements

The Chair requested that on the rise of Full Council members cleared the room so that the Extraordinary Cabinet meeting could commence straight away. The Chair invited members to stay to observe if they wised.

The Chair announced a recent clarification to the constitution regarding Cabinet Member announcements, speeches and motion in the glossary of the constitution.

The Chair attended the following events 

Flag Drop for the Start of the Men’s Tour of Britain on 2 September in Woodbridge

RABI (the farmer’s charity) Vineyard Tour on 4 September in Stanton, near Bury St Edmunds

VIP Visit to Lowestoft’s Citizens Advice with HRH The Princess Royal on 18 September in Lowestoft

Battle of Britain Commemoration Service on 21 September at St Mary’s Church, Bury St Edmunds

Note:   Councillor Reeves, Armed Forces Champion, attended the County Service of Commemoration for the 80th Anniversary of VJ Day on 15 August at St Mary’s Church, Bury St Edmunds


The Vice Chair attended the following events

The Mayor of Ipswich’s ‘At Home’ on 18 July at Ipswich Transport Museum

 Care Fare 2025 on 20 August at Kesgrave War Memorial Community Centre

 1 Big Multicultural Festival 2025 on 31 August at Alexander Park, IpswichRABI (the farmer’s charity) Vineyard Tour on 4 September in Stanton, near Bury St Edmunds

 Leader’s Announcements – Due to the Mayoral elections next May, the Cabinet meeting has been moved to Tuesday April 21st at the usual start time of 6pm. The meeting will be held at Riverside.

With effect from 17 September 2025 Councillor Mark Packard will deputise for Councillor Beavan on the LGA SIG Executive Outside Body.

With effect from 1 July 2025, Councillor Ruth Leach replaced Councillor Lee Reeves on the Audit and Governance Committee.

With effect from today, Councillor Sarah Plummer will fill the vacancy on the East Suffolk Travel Association (ESTA) Non-Executive Outside Body. 

Cabinet Members

 Councillor Whitelock discussed the success of the recent Tour of Britain event which was held in the district. Councillor Whitelock thanked the officers who were involved in the organisation of the event. 

 Councillor Whitelock promoted the upcoming Community Partnership Forum which was due to take place on 27 October 2025 at Lowestoft Sixth Form College. Spaces were still available.

 Councillor Langdon-Morris commented on the ongoing work regarding the council’s finance in a challenging financial landscape. There was a great deal of uncertainty and lots of work was taking place to prepare budgets ahead of coming forward to Cabinet and Full Council for consideration.

The Chief Executive made no announcements.

 On the proposition of Councillor Topping seconded by Councillor Hammond it was by majority vote 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Question from Councillor Robert Cawley to Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment

I attended the Local Government Association conference in July where participants heard about the successes Solihull has had with their automated recycling plant, the selling of the end waste products, and how they successfully resolved the issue of contamination.

At July’s Overview and Scrutiny meeting, I highlighted the benefits of investing in technology for a fully automated recycling plant ahead of implementing the planned ‘Simpler Recycling strategy.’

 I appreciate how far we have progressed, however moving to having 5 bins per household for me seems like a costly step backwards. 

Can this administration halt its current plans and investigate how we can lead the way in east Suffolk in fully automated waste recycling? By successfully replicating Solihull, we could save taxpayers money and make additional financial gains by selling our recycled waste products.

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

East Suffolk Council are currently part of a two-tier system, whereby ESC are the Waste Collection Authority (WCA) and SCC are the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA). This means that we are responsible for collecting waste from residents within East Suffolk, and SCC are responsible for the disposal of whatever we collect. To this end, over the years, SCC have built the EfW facility for turning black bag waste into energy, and the MRF (materials recycling facility) where currently the comingled recycling collections are taken for sorting and then resale to commercial markets. Along with these facilities, SCC also arrange our green waste disposal contracts. We work very closely with SCC on all these arrangements, as part of the Suffolk Waste Partnership.

 There is a legal framework behind all of these processes, which would not necessarily be easy to renegotiate or exit.

 With regard to developing our own facilities – this would take several years to bring online, when you consider identification of a suitable site, planning applications, tendering, procurement, construction and so on. In addition – recycling is very much a volume business. The more material that an operator can process during a year, the more economical it becomes. In the case of some streams of material – it is not economically viable unless a certain volume is available to process. It is unlikely that East Suffolk Council would be able to operate commercially given the volume of material collected, in a market dominated by large, multinational firms with access to global material markets for resale.

 Better Recycling has to be introduced next year unless an exemption has been granted, so there isn’t sufficient time to change direction at this stage.

 Better Recycling itself represents progress for residents – we are providing residents with extra capacity to allow them to recycle more. Our current recycling rate of c.40% has plateaued in recent years, and to achieve legislative targets of 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035 we have to make significant changes, hence the introduction of twin-stream recycling and food waste collections, alongside moving to a three-weekly residual waste collection, which has been shown by other authorities to achieve recycling rates of 55%+.

 When it comes to the resale of recycled commodities – this can be a very volatile market, with plastic and cardboard mountains having been highlighted on a couple of occasions in recent years. By using the MRF operator, Biffa, to handle this, we benefit from economies of scale and have consistently outperformed national benchmarks when it comes to revenue achieved. These revenues are used by SCC to help offset our gate price at the MRF so we do directly benefit. Solihull are working in partnership with some other authorities. 

Supplementary Question from Councillor Cawley, to Councillor Noble 

Councillor Cawley queried if the Council would conduct a site visit and report back to Full Council.

Councillor Noble responded that she would discuss the viability of a site visit and report back.

 Question from Councillor James Mallinder to Councillor Mark Packard, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management

Would Councillor Packard agree that the successful building of homes should also incorporate improvements in infrastructure, so communities do not suffer negative impacts from any additional house building? And that due to lack of improvements for the Deben peninsula there shouldn’t be new houses built there until such improvements have been agreed and authorised?

Response from Councillor Mark Packard, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management

As Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management I recognise the importance of new homes we need to deliver across the District and importantly the Infrastructure required to support those homes. As a result of our Local Plans, adopted in 2019 and 2020, which allocate a substantial number of homes across all of our towns and many of our villages, most communities are successfully delivering the homes we have required and planned for over recent years to meet our then housing need. As was clear in the Local Plan Cabinet Report earlier this month, the government has substantially increased our Local Housing Need of homes to deliver by 82%. This places us in a position where we must achieve a new Local Plan to positively plan for more many more new homes and in the meantime, due to a lack of a Five Year Housing Land Supply, unplanned further housing sites will need to form a necessary part of our housing delivery across the District.

 Importantly, in 2013 in the former Waveney area and 2015 in the former Suffolk Coastal Area, we introduced Community Infrastructure Levy. Thanks to the wise agreement of the previous administration to undertake a CIL charging review and then our administrations’ agreement to adopt that at our very first Cabinet meeting in June 2023, we have been able to increase the amount of CIL we achieve from developments to benefit our communities.

 We are nationally very well respected for effective infrastructure delivery through CIL and importantly substantial CIL distribution to Town and Parish Councils through Neighbourhood CIL. We have a highly effective and dedicated cross-party group of members who sit on the CIL Spending Working Group to consider and guide CIL spending. The Cabinet will receive a report in October setting out this year’s CIL spending proposals, at a record amount of funding. I understand that Cllr Mallinder’s ward will be a beneficiary within that as will Melton. Engagement with parish Councils in the Deben ward is close on CIL spending opportunities, including through the Joint Parish Transport Initiative meetings.

 We do spend a lot thanks to CIL method and most …. Get the benefit I cannot say to any community in the District that they will not be subject to further homes. But, this administration are clear, that in embarking on our new Local Plan it must be infrastructure led, continuing our effective work through annual Infrastructure Delivery Plans to achieve infrastructure in the right places at the right time. This has been well explained to Town and Parish Councils at our Planning Forums with them. We will also maximise the CIL investment opportunities gathered from any unplanned sites, combined with any Section 106 delivery of infrastructure and infrastructure directly delivered by developers, as we have been to date

 Supplementary question from Councillor Mallinder to Councillor Packard

 Councillor Mallinder queried if the Councillor Packard would agree to a meeting to discuss the issues further.

Councillor Packard responded that he would be happy to have a meeting, which included the CIL Officers also.

 Question from Councillor Amanda Folley to Councillor Sarah Whitelock, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Culture, Leisure and Tourism

It seems the online system to book an event to be held on East Suffolk land is the same process for a large festival or for a single stall, or playgroup picnic, for example.

Though the need to assess risk and ensure safety remains crucial, as a way of encouraging more events and activities, particularly from voluntary groups that may have the capacity to address social isolation, could we look at simplifying the process for very small events?

Response from Councillor Sarah Whitelock, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Culture, Leisure and Tourism

Whilst we understand the reason why the question was asked, it doesn’t matter how large or small an event is the correct relevant terms still need to be carried out.

The event process is designed to send notifications to a number of departments for consultation regarding the event plan arrangement.  It involves a wide consultation process with various stakeholders, regardless of size of event, which includes Health and Safety, licencing, parking, waste, grounds team, Police, FM, Estates, land and on it goes.  Each department has the opportunity to comment or request for further information.  Public liability and RAMS will need to be produced for any event being held on East Suffolk land and £10m public liability has to be proven before permission is granted.

In regard to the app, the bulk of the work for organisers is in their supporting documents.  The Event Management Plan and risk assessment will obviously require more work for larger events.   Officers have tested the app and the process is not too time consuming and gives organiser a handy check list of things they may not have considered.   
 
The app also acts as an audit trail in case of any incidents.

Supplementary question from Councillor Folley to Councillor Whitelock

As you will be aware, there have recently been some misinformed comments on social media about Abigail Court and St Peter’s Court in Lowestoft being used to house asylum seekers.

As social media operates at speed, how can this council ensure that ‘fake-news’, such as this, is rapidly challenged with the facts?

Response from Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

The Council’s Communications Team regularly monitors social media channels and will always liaise with both councillors and service areas if it feels that action needs to be taken to correct information which is ither false or misleading.

 In the case of St Peters Court, for example, a statement was issued with comment from Cllr David Beavan, in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Housing, explaining the plans for the demolition of the building and refuting any suggestions that the building was to be used for other purposes.

 Social media is certainly a fast-moving environment, and the Communications Team are geared to respond at pace to developments which relate to the council and its services. However, our presence on social media is carefully managed and the policy for our corporate accounts, established by the Communications Team, is to avoid entering into discussions or commentary on third party pages, particularly on Facebook.

 Were the Team to regularly engage in commentary on these pages, it would set a precedent where responses would soon be expected across multiple, different feeds, at all times, and this would be impossible to resource adequately.

Nevertheless, councillors are invited, and always welcome, to draw attention to social media posts which are causing concern and to liaise with the Communications Team to consider appropriate action to seek remedy for the the issues raised.

Supplementary question from Councillor Gandy to Councillor Topping

Councillor Gandy added that social media is so fast paced, and issues can escalate quickly. The councillor asked if there was a process, particularly over the weekend for Councillors to follow to get support in managing social media or press issues.

 Councillor Topping responded that she could understand the issues raised and she had experienced it herself. Councillor Topping recommended that should issues arise a screenshot could be taken and sent to the comms team who could support. There could not be a guarantee it would be picked up over the weekend, but they would be able to assist when it was received. 

Chair of East Suffolk Youth Council

The Chair of East Suffolk Youth Council updated that with assistance of Councillor Dr Speca there were plans to meet with local MP’s to discuss local flooding issues. A visit to parliament for Youth Council members was being explored. 

The Chair of the Youth Council added that elections were taking place for the Youth Council, which included inviting new schools to take part. There had been some interest from new schools, which was very positive. The Chair was looking forward to welcoming new members and continued to be very proud of the work the Youth Council was doing. 

There was an upcoming meeting on Wednesday 5 November to 2025 to welcome new members and set priorities for the following year. 

The annual meeting of the Youth Council was due to take place on 10 December 2025

 Councillor King offered to support the Youth Council in their endeavours to visit parliament.

The following Motion was submitted in pursuance of paragraph 31.1 Council Procedure Rules:

Proposer; Councillor Louise Gooch
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 Gooch introduced the motion and detailed the issues of plastic litter which caused damage and pollution to streets, waterways and wildlife. The motion was about investigating what West Suffolk Council was doing about some of its plastic and aluminium waste that should be recycled - not thrown away as litter, incinerated or left to rot in landfill. 

The concept of Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) operated where empty drinks cans and plastic bottles were ‘posted’ in conveniently placed machines, and the user receives a reward for doing so. 

Machines were in use in various different countries including within Europe, Australia and the United States. There were positive impacts noted on the levels of plastic pollution and container litter and the way these products were used.

Plans in England to introduce a deposit return scheme had been pushed back to 2027 but West Suffolk was taking the initiative forward, which was the first in the country.

Councillor Noble thanked Councillor Gooch for bringing the motion forward. The scheme had been explored, and the report could be shared with members. Councillor Noble advised that a report had concluded the scheme would not be viable to pursue at the present time. 

There was support for the motion from Councillors Folley, Ashdown and Byatt. Councillor Mallinder also supported the motion adding that it was a refreshing idea, and the council should be proactive to addressing issues of recycling. 

There was discussion regarding the viability of the scheme, Councillor Smith-Lyte adding that she supported the premise of the motion, however the report conclusion that the scale of the scheme needed would not be viable. Councillor King suggested the option of a pilot scheme with Lowestoft Vision. 

The Leader, Councillor Topping read from the report which outlined that the machines were expensive to buy and lease.  If there was an appetite to trial, an outside company would need to be commissioned to deliver on the Council’s behalf. The Leader stated there was no officer capacity to take the scheme forward with Better Recycling work underway. 

Councillor Wilson was confident that the scheme would not be viable, based on the investigation carried out and confirmed he was happy for the report to be circulated to members. 

Councillor Gandy added that sight of the report would be helpful to understand further why the initiative would not be viable. The Councillor stated there would be potential for the machines and a pilot scheme could be set up. There would also be increased footfall to the locations of the machines, which could positively impact on the local economy. The Councillor also highlighted the potential social benefits the initiative could offer. 

Councillor Gooch concluded that there were options to consider and urged members to support the motion and working together to tackle issues. Councillor Gooch stated she was not aware of a report, which would have been useful to know about. 

The Monitoring Officer conducted a recorded vote and 23 members voted against the motion and it was not carried. 

Councillors present and voted ‘against’ were Councillors Ashton, Beavan, Bennett, Clery, Daly, Fisher, Graham, Grey, Hammond, Langdon-Morris, Leach, Molyneux, Noble, Packard, Plummer, Reeves, Rumble, Smith-Lyte, Speca, Topping, Thomspon, Whitelock and Wilson. 

Councillors present and voted ‘for’ were Councillor Ashdown, Back, Byatt, Cawley, Craig, Deacon, Folley, Gandy, Gee, Gooch, Green, Hedgley, King, Lawson, Lynch, Mallinder, McCallum, Parker, Pitchers, Smith, Robinson.

There were no abstentions 

Councillor Packard, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, introduced report ES-2508 which related to the Otley Neighbourhood Plan.

The purpose of the report was to ‘make’ the Otley Neighbourhood Plan part of the development plan for East Suffolk assuming there was a positive result of the Referendum on 18th September 2025. 

The referendum question asked: ‘Do you want East Suffolk Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Otley to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood plan area?’ If more than 50% of those voting in the Referendum vote ‘Yes’ to the question and East Suffolk Council must now ‘make’ the Neighbourhood Plan unless it considers the Neighbourhood Plan would breach or be incompatible with any EU obligation or any of the Convention Rights. Once ‘made’ by East Suffolk Council, the Neighbourhood Plan will become part of the Development Plan for East Suffolk alongside the adopted East Suffolk Council Suffolk Coastal Local Plan. The Development Plan is used to determine planning applications.

Councillor Molyneux left the room during the introduction of the report and did not take part in the vote. 

Councillor Clery added that the Parish council of Otley worked really hard to bring their vision together and he congratulated them for their work. 

Councillor Hedgley thoroughly supported the plan and echoed that all involved had worked very hard with the support of the electors. 

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

Made the Otley Neighbourhood Plan (Referendum Version 3.6, received August 2025) part of the statutory Development Plan for East Suffolk for the whole of the Otley Neighbourhood area.

The Leader, Councillor Topping, introduced report ES-2511 which related to the Local Government Reorganisation. On 5 February 2025, the Government announced that Suffolk had been accepted onto the Devolution Priority Programme, alongside Norfolk. The significant step meant that Suffolk had agreed to progress the creation of a Mayoral Combined Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk.

Since then, the Districts and Boroughs across Suffolk had been working closely together. On 21 March 2025, local Councils submitted our ‘Interim Plan’ for Local Government Reorganisation, alongside the submission from the County Council.

Following a motion brought before Full Council in July 2025, it was agreed to: “Continue to work in partnership with other district and borough councils in Suffolk to develop a preferred proposal for three new, locally focused, sustainable unitary councils for Suffolk…”

The motion was unanimously supported by all individual District and Borough Councils in Suffolk. Since then, the districts had been working collectively, with expert support from KPMG to develop the proposal.

The next key milestone was the submission of the full business case proposals, or ‘Case for Change’, which must be completed by 26 September 2025. Following that, the Government will conduct a public consultation between November and January, and we expect a final decision in March 2026.

The Mayoral election was scheduled to take place in May 2026, and the new unitary councils were expected to be established in April 2028, with shadow arrangements put in place prior to their formal inception.

Following the motion passed in July, an informal cross-party Member Working Group was established. This group has been meeting weekly, and has played an important role in informing the development of our Case for Change. Their contributions have been invaluable, from examining the financial case, to reviewing proposed boundaries, warding processes, council tax harmonisation, and the overall structure of the Case for Change. The Leader thanked Members of this Working Group for their time, effort, and constructive engagement throughout.

In addition to the work of Members, the Leader acknowledged that the process had placed significant additional demands on council officers. Despite this, they have continued to carry out their day-to-day responsibilities and deliver the high-quality services that our residents rely on. The Leader thanked the officers and the Corporate Leadership Team for their professionalism, dedication, and ongoing support. Local residents rightly expect a high standard of service from their council, and it is to the credit of our teams that we have maintained that standard while also contributing to this vital transformation programme.

Councillor Ashdown thanked officers for the time spent and the work involved in getting ready for the submission of the Case for Change. The Councillor stated that it was an individual vote according to each member’s own opinion and members should be able to vote however they felt was right for them.

Councillor Deacon added that he had supported the unitary authorities, however believed the process had been rushed and he was disappointed that it was not an option to keep East Suffolk as it currently stands. The Councillor felt that Felixstowe had been put into a difficult position.

Councillor Whitelock briefly left the room.

Councillor Reeves supported the unitaries option and was concerned about the impact of the recent changes in government. The Councillor suggested adding a covering letter to the proposals, adding that if government was minded, would they consider consulting on a two unitary option for Suffolk. 

Councillor Hedgley did not support the proposal. The Councillor stated he did not feel the current authority would have the expertise to manage the additional services.

Councillor Bennett added that it was a very important matter for consideration, and he was disappointed in how the process had been rushed and party politics had played a role in what has come forward. The Councillor had considered that the two unitary option could work better than one or three. Councillor Bennett added that he would be consistent in not supporting the motion.

 Councillor Ashton stated that he was aware of the differing views regarding the two or three option. The proposals needed to work for all as much as possible and keeping East Suffolk as is would not be viable.

Councillor Folley was disappointed that Felixstowe would become part of the wider Ipswich area and felt residents would find it more challenging to get work done with a one unitary option being successful. The Councillor felt torn with supporting the proposal as the three unitary option would mean Felixstowe was not part of the Eastern area which was not desired. 

Councillors Pitchers supported of the motion, however, would have liked to keep Felixstowe in East Suffolk. 

Councillor Langdon-Morris thanked officers and members for the professionalism and the effort that has gone into bringing the papers forward for consideration. The Councillor believed it offered value for money based on grounded cost effective and realistic projections. 

Councillor Robinson did not support the proposal and did not believe three authorities would be cost effective compared to one. 

Councillor Clery represented a ward which would no longer exist and highlighted there were strong feelings from local parish councils that the rural parishes would be dominated in urban Ipswich. The Councillor was torn on how to vote and understood the feeling of residents in wards which would be part the wider Ipswich authority.

Councillor Gooch acknowledged the inefficiencies which existed in the current system. The Councillor was not convinced one unitary would work and that decision making would be drawn down to Ipswich. Councillor Gooch recognised that each area had large towns which could stand on their own. It was important to get the services right for residents and there was some regret to the lack of integrity for the coast. Councillor Gooch felt it would be an on-balance decision for members. 

Councillor Graham added that she felt the process had been rushed and hoped it delivered on the objectives it intended to fulfil. The Councillor acknowledged the difficult results for parts of district and hoped there would be an opportunity with KPMG to model an alignment with other services, such as healthcare, police and fire and rescue services. 

Councillor Byatt thanked everyone for positive comments during the debate and tremendous amount of work that had gone into bring the papers forward. The Councillor echoed that the process was rushed and that only a small percentage of the population had responded to consultation. Councillor Byatt had considered all options and was minded to support the three unitary option.

Councillor Smith-Lyte briefly left the room (20:17)

 The Leader acknowledged an email from a local parish council and recognised that it had been rushed. The Leader encouraged members effected by their wards being in a different unitary to utilise the consultation process which should commence in November 2025. In addition, the Leader encouraged communities to also have their voices heard through the consultation process when it opened. The Leader thanked members for a respectful debate.

 Councillor Byatt requested a recorded vote, The Monitoring Officer conducted the recorded vote of which 30 members voted in favour of the Local Government Reorganisation, Case for Change. 

 Councillors present and voted ‘for’ were Councillor Ashdown, Ashton, Beavan, Byatt, Clery, Craig, Daly, Fisher, Gandy, Gee, Gooch, Graham, Green, Grey, Hammond, King, Langdon-Morris, Leach, Molyneux, Noble, Packard, Parker, Pitchers, Plummer, Rumble, Smith-Lyte, Speca, Topping, Whitelock and Wilson.

 Councillors present and ‘abstained’ from voting were Councillors Bennett, Deacon, Folley, Mallinder, Reeves, Smith and Thomspon.

Councillors present and voted ‘against’ were Councillors Back, Cawley, Hedgley, Lawson, Lynch, McCallum, Robinson.

On the proposition of Councillor Topping seconded by Councillor Byatt it was by majority vote 

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

1. Considered and commented on the proposed Case for Change and Unmodified Submission at Appendices A and B to this report respectively; and

2. Recommended Cabinet to endorse the Case for Change and Unmodified Submission as the basis of the Council’s response to the Government’s invitation to submit final proposals in respect of Local Government Reorganisation in Suffolk. 

Full Council received report ES-2510 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 Grey left the meeting 8:25 and Councillor Parker left the meeting at 8:30.

Councillor Mallinder queried if there should be a recruitment freeze, considering LGR was on the horizon. The report noted expanding departments and some increased staff levels. The Leader responded that there was a lot going on and work that needed to be done. No projects were being put on hold and there was a need to fill vacancies. 

Councillor Byatt requested the social value report was shared with all Members. The Leader responded that officers would share the report.

Councillor Byatt was delighted to get a report on parking and queried if there was the ability to look at the effect of the weather on parking rates. Do we have correlate parking results to weather and if it affected our customers. Councillor Wilson responded that the date could show a breakdown, and the weather can be included in the last four months.

On the proposition of Councillor Dr Speca, seconded by Councillor Fisher it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item 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.