Meeting Details

The Chair

Since the last Full Council meeting, the Chair attended:

 East Suffolk Youth Council meeting – 27 February 2026 at Riverside.

The Chair referenced the East Suffolk Youth Council trip to Parliament on 6 March 2026.

The Chair updated that the next East Suffolk Youth Council meeting will be on 21 April 2026 at East Suffolk House.

Vice Chair

Since the last Full Council meeting the Vice Chair attended:

 Ipswich Mosque 'Community Iftar Event' - breaking fast together – 1 March at Ipswich Mosque.

 Chair of West Suffolk Council’s Annual Civic Dinner – 6 March at Edmunds Restaurant, West Suffolk College.

 Chair of Babergh’s Charity Curry Night – 23 March at Melford Valley Tandoori.

 Suffolk County Council Chairman’s Civic Reception – 24 March at Trinity Park, Ipswich

Leader’s Announcements

To enable key Members to attend an upcoming Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee has agreed to a request to move the meeting in April 2026 from Thursday, 16th April to Thursday, 23rd April at 6.30pm at ESH.

In order to meet the external audit backstop, the following Audit and Governance Committee meetings have changed from, Monday 8 Feb 2027 meeting will be held on Monday 25 Jan 2027 and the meeting scheduled for Monday 12 April 27 will now be held on Monday 22 March 2027.

Councillor Green had taken the vacant position on Licensing Committee / Licensing Sub-Committees.

The Leader commented on the LGR announcement that had been made earlier that day, which stated there would be three unitary councils in Suffolk.

The Leader welcomed Councillor Scrancher back to the Chamber.

Members of the Cabinet

Councillor Packard provided an update on Thorpeness and that some homes were still under threat from coastal erosion. The Council had invested in rock bags which would provide additional protection to the coastline in Thorpeness. Councillor Packard updated that phase one and two had been completed and that work would continue. Councillor Packard thanked the officers involved in supporting residents and carrying out the required work.

Councillor Daly shared information on the launch of the Community Energy Programme. After a competitive tender the Council would be working with Community Energy England, the Centre for Sustainable Energy and the climate change charity, Ashton to deliver the programme of work. Councillor Daly added that the purpose was to work collaboratively with local communities across East Suffolk to identify and implement community owned and community led renewable energy projects. The initiative would empower communities to take control of their energy future, reduce carbon emissions, create local benefits and contribute to a more sustainable energy system.

Councillor Langdon-Morris updated that he had attended Anglia Revenue Partnerships (ARP) Q3 meeting December 2025 financials. The Councillor was pleased that ARP had already started to look at positioning itself within a new unitary structure.

The Section 151 Officer had arranged meetings with Officers and Cabinet members in July, for initial budget discussions. Further information would be provided to Councillors.

Councillor Whitelock highlighted the importance of culture and the updated Cultural Strategy which would be available in the next few days.

Councillor Whitelock mentioned the Festival of Careers which had taken place on Friday 20 March 2026 at East Coast College. The event had expanded from the previous year with 60 business and 24 educational providers present. The event was well attended, it was hoped to continue to expand it next year and to get funding so young people from further afield could attend. Councillor Whitelock encouraged Members to consider their enabling community’s budgets to support the event.

Chief Executive – Made no announcements.

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

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2026, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

1. Question from Councillor Byatt, Leader of the Labour Group to Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

East Suffolk Council has Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with providers of key services from organisations defined as being from the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector. 

These SLAs are written agreements that explain responsibilities and state the expected levels of service, quality standards, performance metrics etc. The SLA will likely include a monitoring and reporting element throughout its duration. This would be a tailored, defined process for reviewing performance against agreed targets over time. For us, in the public sector, these agreements ensure taxpayer money is spent appropriately, and the organisations provide good value.

As part of this Council’s risk management function, what process do we have in place to monitor and review the performance of our service providers with SLAs from the VCSE sector, and does this include liaison with Trustees, oversight of the organisation’s financial situation, visits to the places where they operate or interviews with service users?

Response from Councillor Caroline Topping, Leader of the Council

Councillor Byatt followed with a supplementary question, querying if the Leader agreed that any organisation that received funding from East Suffolk Council should have representation on their boards of trustees or board of governance.

Councillor Topping responded if a representative was required on every funded organisation the workload for already busy members would hugely increase. There was a number of organisational representations through the Executive and Non-Executive Outside bodies. 

2. Question from Councillor Jepson, Leader of the Conservatives to The Chair, Councillor Dr Speca

Part of my speech at the last Full Council meeting was to encourage and motivate all Councillors to be prepared, to understand the papers and to challenge the Administration whether positively or constructively.

It was distracting that when Councillor Mallinder and I spoke that messages through the GLI private Teams Group increased significantly. I did not witness that same level of debate on what were important papers.

Would the Chair agree with me that private messaging at Full Council should be kept to a minimum and that all Councillors should concentrate on open and transparent debate, rather than negative and potentially cynical communication which does not respect the ‘Debate not Hate’ policy we endorsed at Full Council?

Could the Chair also remind Council what the role of the opposition is, so there is not doubt that when we challenge, why we do?

Response from The Chair, Councillor Dr Speca

The Chair responded that there were two elements to the question the first being the use of Microsoft Teams and the second the role of opposition.

 
The Chair considered Teams first – acknowledging that Teams was a useful tool for all, (except the Chair) to use for sensible purposes such as exchanging information or coming up with an order of speaking, for example.

The Chair followed on to provide three reminders to Councillors, firstly that it should be secondary to what happens in the chamber. Secondly that written text should be as respectful as open speech and thirdly that the Team's channels were not private channels, being owned by the Council and so communications should respect the fact that they were council tools rather than private tools.

Regarding the role of opposition, the Chair responded that the duty of the opposition, was to oppose. It was part of the system of government, as Councillors would be aware. The Chair believed that better policy comes from a clash of opposing ideas and the purpose was to oppose. The role of the opposition was not to praise or list accomplishments of the administration. The role of the opposition was to criticise and to oppose. Such criticism and opposition should be given with a smile, and it should be received with grace and as long as that a level of respect is maintained then the opposition is doing its duty and it's doing its duty well. The Chair believed it was something that members as democrats should welcome.

Councillor Jepson followed with a supplementary question, commenting that he felt opposition was not always to criticise and accomplishments were acknowledged.

Councillor Jepson asked the Chair if he would encourage all Councillors, some of whom have never spoken at Full Council, to engage in debates and have their views and thoughts on important papers bought before members heard.

The Chair responded that by referring to 'criticise' he was using word that in a broad way, Councillor Jepson would know more about the nuances of various ways of criticizing and challenging. The Chair took Councillor Jepson’s point in his supplementary question. The Chair followed that he would encourage every Councillor to speak. The chamber was for all Members as well in some respect to the public also. Members were representatives of the public each in their own wards and Councillors should always feel free to speak.

The Chair highlighted that his style of Chairing was one that meant to ensure that all who wish to speak shall speak and that all voices were heard. Because another part of the democratic system was not just that good policy comes from opposition and a clash of ideas, but also that good policy comes from a plurality of voices. 

3. Question from Councillor Mallinder to Councillor Sally Noble, Cabinet Member with responsibility for The Environment

When I was cabinet member for the Environment, I spent time working with villages in dealing with bins on pavements and worked hard to keep our footpaths clear for all our users. 

In particular, I worked with the town councils in Southwold and Aldeburgh to try and bring order to our bins.

That said with the upcoming changes to waste collection methods in 2026, especially with reference to the increase in the number of bins, what steps are the council taking to ensure these operational changes do not negatively impact the visual heritage and neatness of our towns and villages? 

Response from Councillor Ashton, Deputy Leader - in Councillor Noble's absence

Most people across East Suffolk put out their bins close to the time they are due to be collected, often the night before, and take them back in again soon after collection has taken place, usually the same day. I would like to thank people for their cooperation with bin collections and the way many people help their neighbours, reminding them which bin it is this week, putting bins out and away for others. I don’t want to overdo things, but bin day is something of a shared weekly ritual and a good example of our communities in action.

Unfortunately, some people are not so timely with putting their bins away. There are various reasons for this. People work away, it can be dark and wet when they get back then they forget. We also have a specific problem with some holiday lets. Whatever the cause, lots of bins does detract from the street scene.

We are updating our enforcement policy for bins. I am happy to share this with councillors for when it is ready and would welcome their comments on it.
We have recruited two more Waste and Street Scene Monitoring Officers which will increase our capacity to engage with residents about bins being left out.

Over the next few months we have the Better Recycling changes. Once that has settled down, we intend to have a push on encouraging people to put bins away after collection. We hope to achieve improvements by working with people and communities but we will resort to enforcement if people refuse to cooperate. But that will be a last resort.

Councillor Mallinder followed with a supplementary question and sought reassurance that as weeds start to grow in the Spring that there would be will a focus by the administration to remove and control the weeds to allow full access to the pavements and to keep district looking smart and tidy.

Councillor Ashton responded that he writes to Suffolk County Council on an annual basis asking them to improve the clearing of weeds on the roads and pavements. Councillor Ashton acknowledged there were challenges, as an Administration they were keen to use less of glyphosate which was difficult to remove weeds without. Councillor Ashton acknowledged that it was an issue.

This council notes:

1) As of 2028, all district and borough councils in Suffolk will be replaced by new unitary authorities; current proposals would establish one or three.

2) The future of the East Suffolk Youth Council (ESYC) is in doubt due to this local-government reorganisation, as it exists as a part of East Suffolk Council (ESC).

3) The democratic powers of ESYC are one-of-a-kind in England, and perhaps the UK, due to the amended ESC Constitution, which provides robust connections to ESC and capacity to influence the ESC agenda.

This council resolves to:

1) Declare our support for the ‘Three Councils for Suffolk’ proposal for the new unitary authorities, and our opposition to the ‘One Suffolk’ proposal on the grounds that there will be greater opportunity for youth representation and voice across Suffolk under three unitary authorities.

This council calls on East Suffolk Council to:

2) Demonstrate its support of the ESYC by calling for a successor Youth Council to be established by the unitary authority succeeding ESC. 

3) Engage the ESYC in the work of the Local Government Reform Working Group on youth matters, and to suggest ideas for a future Youth Council under the unitary authority succeeding ESC.

4) Prepare, for the unitary authority succeeding ESC, a briefing paper on a successor Youth Council, which includes:

a) Background on the structure of ESYC, its main functions and its successes.

b) A strong proposal that the Constitution of the new unitary authority should provide any successor Youth Council with the same robust connection to the new unitary authority, and capacity to influence the new unitary authority’s agenda, as ESYC currently holds.

5) Involve the ESYC in the preparation of the briefing paper above, including seeking approval from the ESYC on its contents, ideally before the current ESYC term ends in September 2026.

Councillor Topping outlined that the Youth Council was calling upon East Suffolk Council to demonstrate its support for the Youth Council but calling for the Unitary Authority which would succeed East Suffolk Council, to establish a Youth Council.

Councillor Topping proposed to accept that part of the motion along with support to engaging with young people as much as possible in the future. The announcement on LGR had just been made and there would be lots of unknowns, however Councillor Topping would look to bring the voice of young people through the process to ensure their voices continue to be heard.

 The Chair clarified that the motion proposed would have one clause that East Suffolk Council supports the continuation of the Youth Council and will call on or lend all of our aid to establishment of a successor Youth Council within the Unitary Council that succeeds East Suffolk.

The second clause would state that the Council would endeavour to give all support to the Youth Council so that they are part of the process of determining the look of that council.

Councillor Topping reiterated that the current East Suffolk Council could not impose anything to the incoming Unitary but could make recommendations. The Chair reiterated that the clauses were a demonstration of the support of the current authority has  and that the new Unitary authority should consider actioning them. Councillor Graham seconded the motion.

Councillor Jepson clarified the two clauses which were being considered.

Councillor Ewart congratulated the Youth Council on what they had achieved. Councillor Ewart discussed the accessibility of Young People in the new unitary area being able to attend future meetings and the Chair utilising their budget to achieve that. The Chair clarified that the Youth Council did not have its own budget, however the Chair had a small budget, as Chair of East Suffolk Council.

Councillor Back offered his support to the Youth Council. 

Councillor Thompson queried if East Suffolk would lobby the Ipswich / Southern area to implement a Youth Council too. Councillor Topping responded that they would continue to champion it across other areas and with the other Suffolk Leaders. Councillor Topping added that she often speaks of the brilliant work being done by the Youth Council. 

Councillor Ninnmey asked if there was a positive appetite for Youth Councils in other areas and emphasised the importance of youth engagement in politics.

Councillor Topping responded that she meets with the other leaders and talks about it frequently. Councillor Topping talked about a Mid Suffolk Officer and Councillor coming to Youth Council meeting and being so impressed they are going to be introducing their own youth council.

Councillor Graham stated that the Youth Council was promoted to central government as part of the earlier submissions and consultations preparing for transition to the new unitary model. Councillor Graham highlighted that the new Unitary would include parts of what is currently Mid Suffolk Council, who were in the process of setting up a Youth Council, which would be good momentum to continue the model of work into the new councils.

On the proposition of Councillor Topping, Seconded by Councillor Graham, the motion was unanimously passed. 

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

 Motion 1

Proposer: Councillor David Beavan
Seconder: Councillor Mark Jepson

This Council notes that:

Our stock is past its prime. ‘More than 65% of our homes are over 50 years old with fewer than 3% being less than 20 years old.’  These older buildings become more expensive to maintain and harder to retrofit to modern standards. St Peters Court is an example where demolition was the only sensible answer.

East Suffolk Council faces eight figure cost pressures to remediate regulatory compliance lapses, meet a requirement for EPC C on all stock by 2030, address a repair backlog and finance a loss-making legacy project.

 Although welcome, the curtailment of right to buy by the present government means a loss of sale receipts to finance new building.

 Whilst the new 10-year rent settlement helps in the longer term, it doesn’t provide the cash injection that is required immediately. 

 All reserves are fully utilised, and we are borrowing near to our prudent council limit of £130m. There is no money to respond to the government’s launch this month of the £39bn affordable housing grants.

 On top of this we are required to pay the Treasury £10m this year for our self-financing agreement from 2012.

 At the present rate, the HRA will atrophy and go bust by 2050. Older homes mean higher costs, means less spare margin for new build, means older homes, and so on.

 The only solution is a radical and urgent injection of capital to boost the HRA into an upward spiral of more homes, younger stock, greater margins, and yet more homes.

 The government is offering 25 year 0.1% loans to private registered providers.

East Suffolk Council resolves to:

Continue to lobby government to extend these 25 year 0.1% loans to local councils to enable them to protect their communities by ensuring the viability of social housing stock.

Leverage the building of 500 social homes in the next 5 years to save East Suffolk Council’s HRA, contingent on the extension of the government’s 25 year 0.1% loans to East Suffolk Council’s HRA, subject to business case.

Councillor Beavan stated that most of the Council’s housing stock was built decades ago in the post war era, with some around a century ago by the old Southwold Borough. Over time, the Council had to sell off some of the homes at knock down prices, while being prevented from charging the rents needed to replace them. The older homes left were increasingly expensive to maintain and difficult to retrofit to modern standards. As maintenance costs rise, profit margins shrink which results in building fewer homes and the housing stock continues to get older, which creates a downward spiral.

Housing associations face similar financial pressures with some selling off isolated social homes in villages. Councillor Beavan posed whether the current status was desired for East Suffolk, where poorer residents are bussed out of towns every day to serve affluent rural communities.

Councillor Beavan believed that across all parties, there was an understanding of the moral and economic necessity of ensuring that people in East Suffolk can afford to live in East Suffolk.  Homelessness devastates lives and economy and finances; the Council spends a million pound a year on temporary accommodation because it is a legal duty. The money could be invested in permanent housing instead.

Councillor Beavan believed it could be turned around. With targeted investment, the Council could borrow to build, social homes pay for themselves within 40 years—even at current Public Works Loan Board rates—and then generate a surplus for decades.

Councillor Beavan added that reserves were exhausted and borrowing was near its prudent limit. The Council were due to give the Government £10 million to buy back the Council’s own housing stock. Councillor Beavan considered an alternative option of using that £10 million to leverage a major house building programme. The Council could deliver 1,000 new social homes over the next decade, doubling the annual target from 50 to 100. The Council could partner with the Government’s £39 billion Social and Affordable Homes Programme starting this year. 

Councillor Beavan concluded that newer homes would mean better margins, which would lead to more investment, which would in turn mean homes, creating an upward spiral. Councillor Beavan urged members to support a long term, cross-party strategy to end the housing crisis and build the future that East Suffolk deserved. He believed housing was not just a policy area but the foundation of dignity, security, and opportunity for all.

Councillor Gandy welcomed the motion and offered support to lobby government. The Councillor echoed the importance of decent housing of all residents being a fundamental duty and biggest responsibilities as a Council.

Councillor Daly expressed support for the motion, stating that security of a home is basic requirement to allow people to live decent lives. The Councillor commented that there was lots of building developments but was any of it reaching where the need was. 

Councillor Ewart urged consideration on how the new arrangement could strengthen the ability to respond to challenges in rural communities, particularly where housing policy and school sustainability would intersect. Some rural schools have small numbers of pupils and are dependent on families being able to live locally if it they are to remain viable. Councillor Ewart described a local example where social housing was with a third party provider but were up for sale due to refurbishment costs. Councillor Ewart commented that the newest estate included no affordable homes at all with most properties purchased by higher income households who were in their later years.

Councillor Ewart asked Councillor Beavan if he could reassess what influence the council Could have in the future with regards to the three council structure and over registered providers when they choose to dispose of social housing in these vulnerable rural locations. Councillor Beavan responded that he had spent a lot of time with cases in rural areas and the reason third party providers were moving stock into sale, was due to the cost. Councillor Beavan added that he would like to take them over, however it was not always economically possible.

Councillor Langdon-Morris offered his support for the motion and considered the position of the new Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans in looking at the placement of different types of housing to meet the needs of local areas.

Councillor Folley commented that a number of social housing in Felixstowe were sold off because of the retrofit expense, however they were then renovated and back on the market within three weeks, selling for huge profits. Councillor Folley added that there should more scrutiny over this taking place. 

Councillor Beavan responded that at the last Council meeting there was provision of the S106 in the budget. A new team within the housing department had been set up to look at S106 and it was hoped to have more scrutiny over sales and to be able to make the most of opportunities that might arise. 

Councillor Jepson thanked Councillor Beavan for bringing the motion and new through previous employment the challenges faced by providers and community members. Councillor Jepson discussed the motion with the Head of Housing and Chief Finance Officers Fully. Councillor Jepson recognised Councillor Beavan’s motivation to take the work forward and it was felt that whilst the challenging situation was understood it needed to be addressed.

Councillor Beavan was heartened to see the Council coming together to agree a long-term plan.

By a unanimous decision the motion was passed. 

Motion 2

Proposer: Councillor Peter Byatt
Seconder: Councillor Tess Gandy

 
This Council notes that: 

East Suffolk Council continues to recognise the need for an effective Flood Barrier for Lowestoft, given that Lowestoft is the only major UK town without appropriate permanent defences against the sea.

The lack of a Flood Barrier not only continues to put at a risk a significant number of homes and businesses around Lake Lothing, and beyond, but also adversely affects the development of Kirkley Waterfront, preventing the provision of much -needed affordable and social housing.

Whilst recognising that funding is a major hindrance to a Flood Barrier, this Council is keen to find a solution.

East Suffolk Council resolves to: 

Investigate the possibility of a public-private partnership to develop new funding proposals for a barrier.

Councillor Byatt referenced the flood of 6 December 2013, within a very short space of time, the tide rose to threaten local homes and businesses on either side of Lake Lothing. Councillor Byatt witnessed firsthand the brutality of the North Sea. The consequences were devastating and brought home the lack of a flood barrier for Lowestoft harbour. The tidal barrier scheme was designed as the final and most essential part of the flood protection program. It was designed to protect Lowestoft for the next 100 years. A century of greater safety, greater certainty, and greater opportunities. The barrier would have protected homes, families, and livelihoods for future generations. It would have created the confidence that investors needed to bring their businesses there. A barrier would support jobs and growth in developing brownfield sites around the Harbour and strengthening Lowestoft’s key role as a major green energy hub for renewables and part of the supply chain of other major projects. It would have supported the Kirkley water hub project so that we could provide affordable housing alongside private sector provision without any flood risk to deter investors. Construction of such a barrier would have been destructive, but the evidence was clear. Short-term inconvenience but with resulting transformational benefits. It was understood that the barrier was suspended due to funding issues and the motion was seeking to commit to renewed engagement by the council with government and any other relevant agencies, organisations or businesses to find a way forward to construct it. Delaying re-engagement on this issue increases risk to residents, the local economy and to critical infrastructure. Every flood brings financial loss, emotional strain and environmental damage. Councillor Byatt referenced Suffolk County Council’s recent Full Council meeting where a similar motion was unanimously agreed. Councillor Byatt concluded that Lowestoft deserved safety, stability and a future where families do not fear the next spring tide and businesses do not have to gamble with every storm.  

 Councillor Ashdown supported the motion and recognised it would not happen overnight with lots of work having historically taken place. The Councillor encouraged the new authority and mayor to take on the responsibility. Councillor Ashdown felt that Lowestoft could have been in a different place if the barrier had been completed.  

 Councillor Langdon-Morris discussed the National Wealth Bank and National Wealth fund a precedent for leveraging public / private partnerships. 

 Councillor Robinson added that he felt it was an obvious choice which Lowestoft needed. There was a lack of investment in areas to due to the vulnerability from flooding. Councillor Robinson was concerned that with the three unitary model getting funding for such projects could be more challenging.  

 Councillor Topping stated that would be a Mayoral project and recognised that the issue of a flood barrier is a huge problem as there was not £300 million of funding available. Councillor Topping referenced ‘Use your Voice’ who have carried out some engagement work with businesses regarding their perceptions of flood risk and vulnerabilities to them Councillor Topping proposed an amendment to the motion: 

 East Suffolk Council resolves to:  

 Continue to lobby national Government to fund the Lowestoft Flood barrier and to create a position of Coastal Minister whilst exploring alternative funding options, such as private businesses. 

Councillor Packard seconded the amendment. 

 Councillor Hammond stated he supported the amendment as it underlined the fact that central government were responsible for funding. During the last general election this issue had been raised during hustings. Peter Aldous MP had stated he had been told there was no funding for it, the then Labour candidate Jess Asato had stated she would push the Secretary of State to agree funding. Despite being elected, funding had not materialised. Councillor Hammond stated that while a public/private partnership would be beneficial, the government should not be left off the hook.  

 Councillor Jepson asked what a Coastal Minister would do and whether this would over complicate the issue. Councillor Topping stated she pushed for a Coastal Minister as this would ensure that someone was responsible for the important area of work.  

Councillor Ewart asked whether this amendment would exclude other opportunities and close the door to industry involvement, for example insurance companies could put funding in to help reduce insurance payouts. Councillor Topping responded that the option for public-private partnership had not been removed from the motion, the phrase ‘continue to lobby the government’ had been added so that the government was still held responsible.  

 Councillor Smithson stated that a Coastal Minister would be helpful for a number for reasons and she would be happy to support this amendment.  

 Councillor Langdon-Morris stated that he had experience of using existing legislation and frameworks to deal with coastal flooding issues, and supported the introduction of a Coastal Minister to bring policy together it more fit for purpose.  

 Councillor Byatt stated that he was concerned that two issues had been conflated in one sentence and asked whether the amendment should be separated into two sentences with the lobbying for a Coastal Minister split out.  

 This was accepted as a friendly change to the amendment. The amendment now stated that 

 East Suffolk Council resolves to:

 1. Continue to lobby national Government to fund the Lowestoft Flood barrier whilst exploring alternative funding options, such as private businesses.

 2. To lobby national Government to create the position of Coastal Minister.   

 Councillor Beavan stated that he sat on the LGA special interest group for coastal communities and they also lobbied for the creation of a Coastal Minister.  

 Councillor Ashton stated it needed to be clear who was responsible for the funding of the barrier, and it needed to be clear that governments were fundamentally responsible for this. If there was some potential for support from private business this was fine, but this should not be the primary focus.  

 

It was by a unanimous vote resolved to accept the amendment.  

 

Councillor Back stated he had supported the motion as it had been put to Suffolk County Council. Lots of money had been spent putting flood walls up around the harbour. The intention had been that the barrier would protect 1500 homes and businesses, and the tidal barrier was the missing piece of the puzzle to protect the area. It would also unlock the potential of the Kirkley Waterfront area and allow for it to be developed and invested in. Councillor Byatt recognised that it was important that government stepped up to protect coastal communities.  

Councillor Graham stated the tidal barrier was incredibly important to Lowestoft. The funding model for flood defences was from 2007 and required investment from central government, local authorities and private business and in the case of Lowestoft this could not be met. The funding mechanism was very out of date and did not take into account future investment, regeneration and housing growth and government also needed to be lobbied on this point. 

 

Councillor Gee stated she had attended a meeting of the Broadland Futures Initiative. Within 50 years, if Lowestoft does not have a tidal barrier the water would overtop Mutford Lock and the whole of broadland would be impacted. The ramifications were much wider than just Lowestoft.  

Councillor Pitchers stated his home had nearly been flooded in 2013, and he fully supported the motion.   

Councillor Gandy stated that Lowestoft businesses and residents should be allowed to thrive without the threat of flooding. Businesses should be encouraged to invest in Lowestoft, and the lack of flood barrier was preventing this. Councillor Gandy thanked members for their constructive comments and hoped a solution could be found. 

Councillor Byatt concluded and thanked members for sharing their experiences with flooding and the coast. The barrier would also provide opportunity to create more housing, regenerate the area and allow the town to thrive in the future. Councillor Byatt also noted the comments from MPs and agreed it should be pushed.  

By a unanimous decision the motion was passed. 

The Leader, Councillor Topping, introduced report ES-2756 which related to the consideration the waiver of the 6-month rule for two Councillors’ attendance.

As outlined in the report, on behalf of Councillor Craig, a formal request had been made to the Council for approval of an extended leave of absence to 31 August 2026 in order that she is not disqualified by virtue of non-attendance within a six-month period.

Councillor Byatt thanked Council for the consideration and was sure that Councillor Craig would be back in the Chamber.

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

1. Agreed an extended leave of absence for Councillor Craig until 31 August 2026 acknowledging she can return to her duties before the end of the extension if she is able.

The Leader, Councillor Topping, introduced report ES-2751 which related to the 
Community Governance Review 2026.

Councillor Topping outlined that at Full Council on the 28 of January 2026, it was agreed to commence a Community Governance Review for Bramfield, Eyke and Thorington parishes. It was also agreed to establish a Members Working Group to consider the requests and carry out consultations with stakeholders. The initial consultation period closed on the 10 March 2026. The Working Group had agreed draft recommendations to take forward for further consultation before making the final recommendations.

The draft recommendations were included as Appendix A of the Full Council report, they aligned with the original requests from the parish councils. The consultation on the draft recommendation will run from the 1st of April to the 19 of June after which the Members Working Group would consider the responses and put together the final recommendations for July’s Full Council.

Councillor Ashton seconded the item and added that that Bramfield and Thorington were in his Ward and he was in support of the item of business.

Councillor Candy left the room at 8:06pm and did not participate in the vote.

On the proposition of Councillor Topping, seconded by Councillor Ashton it was 

RESOLVED

That Full Council:

1. Agreed to take the draft recommendations as agreed by the Community Governance Review Member Working Group to consultation.

2. Agreed that the Community Governance Review Member Working Group be authorised to amend draft recommendations and re-consult where necessary.

The Leader, Councillor Topping, introduced report ES-2757 which related to the Temporary appointments to Sutton Heath Parish Council.

Sutton Heath Parish Council had not quorate since August 2025. There was currently only one Parish Councillor on the Council. The purpose of the report was to seek Full Council approval to making of an Order under Section 91 of the Local Government Act 1972 to appoint five East Suffolk Councillors to Sutton Heath Parish Council to restore quorum. The appointments would be temporary until an election had been held, or new Councillors have been co-opted onto the Parish Council, whereupon the temporary appointments shall cease.

Councillor Mallinder thanked Councillor Topping and Monitoring Officer for their work. Councillor Mallinder added that parish councils were the backbone of communities and without these there would be a gap for residents. The Councillor added that once the Council was up and running that would be better for all residents in Sutton Heath. Councillor Mallinder personally supported the district councillors who had agreed their support, particularly Councillor Leach whose support and guidance was appreciated.

Councillor Topping concluded the item by added that she came from a Parish Council background and understood how important they are. Councillor Topping was delighted to work cross party to achieve Councillor Mallinder’s idea. It was a temporary and Councillor Mallinder continued to work to re-engage the local community to get some stability to carry out business.

On the proposition of Councillor Topping, seconded by Councillor Mallinder it was

RESOLVED

That Full Council: 

1. Revoked East Suffolk Council’s Order of 29 May 2025 appointing Mr Rob Hadley as a member of Sutton Heath Parish Council in view of his resignation from the Council on 20 August 2025.

2. Approved the making of an Order, under Section 91 of the Local Government Act 
1972, to appoint five East Suffolk Councillors (Councillor James Mallinder, Councillor Ruth Leach, Councillor Tim Wilson, Councillor Rachel Smith-Lyte and Councillor Noble) as members of Sutton Heath Parish Council until an election has been held, or new Councillors have been co-opted onto the Parish Council, whereupon these temporary appointments shall cease.

Councillor Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for Corporate Services to introduced report ES-2754 which related to the Acquisition of new refuse collection vehicles and approval for hire budget.

Councillor Ashton provided background information to support the report. There had been work alongside Better Recycling and whilst there were some interdependencies, the report could be considered as separate. Collection routes, working practices and some of the vulnerabilities that some of the existing routes had been reviewed and there was a lot of work looking to make improvements across each.

Councillor Ashton talked through the budget implications and moved the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Langdon-Morris.

Councillor Cawley queried the savings in the proposed report, the viability of electric vehicles and the consideration of buying power with the budget in question. Councillor Cawley was curious if there could be negotiations for a better deal around long-term leases or lease purchase.

Councillor Ashton referenced the report which provided information regarding the cost of purchasing versus leasing. The Councillor added that the Council’s buying power was significant, but the issue lies with the lack of supply of vehicles, which was due to all councils being in similar positions. There were 56-week lead times in places. Councillor Ashton was unable to provide actual savings figures as it was challenging to extract such information, however there was a significant overtime savings in changing working practices.

Councillor Ashton concluded that they would not be electric vehicles. It would be considered in the future and when certain vehicle require replacing electric options could be considered if they could be procured.

Councillor Lynch referenced a question asked Overview and Scrutiny Committee requesting to see the routes, which had not been forthcoming. Councillor Lynch stated her had conducted some research and could see electric and diesel vehicles available. He encouraged the administration to think outside the box. 

Councillor Parker left the meeting at 8:25, Councillor Gandy and Rumble left the meeting at 8:27.

Councillor Ashton responded that the amount being asked for the hire was £322,000 however recognised Councillor Lynch’s point of view and confirmed it would go through a standard procurement process with value for money being a key part of that.

Councillor Jepson recognised that Councillor Ashton had provided additional information to support the report and sought clarification regarding hiring vehicles versus purchasing.

Councillor Ashton responded that ideally, they would be purchased and if / when the lead time reduces then purchase will be reviewed. Councillor Ashton acknowledged he had provided additional information to support the paper.

Councillor Mallinder added that he was delighted the current fleet could run on HVO and recognised the intensity of the waste collection and the use of vehicles to carry it out, even more so with the changes mandated by national government. Councillor Mallinder reminded members that it was about reducing the amount of waste produced.

Councillor Langdon-Morris agreed with some of the questions raised and had looked at alternative providers of vehicles from overseas as well. Councillor Langdon-Morris commented on the supply of fossil fuels and the consideration of electric vehicles with a view to having a range of options available. The Councillor referenced collection challenged and the possibility of considering leveraging community ownership of waste collection in the future.

Councillor Ashton concluded and thanked Councillor Mallinder for his support. The paper was about getting the vehicles in place, with the important work of increasing recycling rates planned. Councillor Ashton wanted a focussed effort on reducing food waste.

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

RESOLVED

That Full Council 

1. Delegated authority to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Waste Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment, to tender and enter into a contract for the purchase of six refuse vehicles, pursuant to the Procurement Act 2023 and the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.

2. Delegated authority to the Strategic Director with responsibility for Waste Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment, to tender and enter into a contract for the temporary lease of 4 x 26t RCV’s and 2 x 7.5t RCV’s pending the purchase of the six refuse vehicles, pursuant to the Procurement Act 2023 and the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules.

3. Approved the carry forward of the existing £1.317m capital budget from 2025/26 to 2026/27.

4. Approved for an additional General Fund revenue budget of £322,400 in 2026/27 to fund a period of hire, and to be funded from earmarked reserves as directed by the Section 151 Officer.

Full Council received report ES-2755 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 Bennett queried the scale and ambition of the Community Energy Project. Councillor Daly responded that the potential was significant with it being spoken about as central to decarbonisation projects. There was a spoken desire for community energy to play a central part of the wider energy space. There were local areas where potential land was requested and significantly more than needed was offered. The potential was endless and it was an exciting opportunity.

Councillor Deacon asked if Councillor Candy could elaborate on a statement in the report – “The collaboration with the Port of Felixstowe examination team on the seal recording and checking process has brought significant environmental benefits as well as enhancing the customer experience and reduced delays”.

Councillor Candy responded that Port Health were asked by the Port if something could be done to about the delay of holding containers for up to two days. One of the delays was due to people having to go out to check the seals and then looked at. After some innovating thinking Port Health had tablets made which linked to the system and after training some Port staff, they could carry the checks out themselves and sent imaging back to Port Health. This innovation time and showed a good example of collaborative working. There were some snags to overcome, such as Port Health staff do not work in the same way operationally as the Port staff. 

Councillor Lynch queried how the weight management services and others would be affected by the upcoming changes to local community NHS services. Councillor Candy recognised the concern with such a transition. Weight management was overlooked by Feel Good Suffolk which was funded by the Councils, which had been very successful including the SiSu machines which were in operation in the district and linked to GPs.

Councillor Smithson queried if there had been any analysis carried out on the impact of the closure of Orwell Lorry Park and the welfare of drivers. Councillor Daly responded that he would respond outside of the meeting.

Councillor Jepson referenced the £80k to improve the Suffolk Coast Destination Management Organisation (DMO) website which was outlined in P66 of the meeting papers and queried if the Council was satisfied, they were delivering the services required, noting that they had been funded for a number of years. Councillor Jepson also queried if there were restrictions on how often organisations could apply for grant funding, so they do not come back for further funding become more sustainable.
Councillor Whitelock responded that she knew the DMO well through volunteer work and believed they always provided a good service. They had received a grant which would be due for renewal and Councillor Whitelock was not aware of any concerns raised. Councillor Whitelock agreed to respond outside of the meeting regarding the second part of the question concerning how often organisations could apply for grants.

Councillor Folley queried reports of some parking machines (particularly in the coastal towns) not taking cash and there being some faults with some of the new machines. Councillor Ashton responded that the new machines have been installed across the district and every single car park have at least one machines that takes coins. The had been a few issues reported and a firmware upgrade appeared to have resolved this. Councillor Ashton acknowledged some teething issues in terms of people’s expectations of how to use the machines, which included putting cash in along with the vehicle registration and not receiving a ticket to display in the vehicle. There were odd WIFI issues in some places, in particular a problem in Leiston which was a bandwidth issue, which mobile operators are addressing.

Councillor Ashdown referenced the successful opening of the new Hub in Lowestoft last week and the excellent work taking place to help residents.

Councillor Whitelock stated that she should have referenced it in her earlier announcements and agreed it was really successful event and opened the door to an important service which is very valuable to community members in Lowestoft.

Councillor Byatt stated that the Moors business park was running on heating oils and would there be consideration to using solar energy or small wind power generators. Councillor Topping responded that could be considered.

Councillor Byatt welcomed the ‘Eyes Wide Open’ campaign and queried if the council was encouraging other public facing team to be aware of the campaign in the work that they do. Councillor Beavan responded that there supporting the campaign.

Councillor Lawson left the meeting at 8:51.