Meeting Details

On the proposition of Councillor Gandy, seconded by Councillor Jepson, it was

RESOLVED

 
That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 July 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received ES/2504 the joint report of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council.  At the Chair's invitation to introduce their report, the Leader began by thanking her Cabinet for the amazing work they were doing, the GLI Group and remaining Council Members cross party for their proactive engagement and support of the Council in general and their valuable input and ‘watchful’ eye.  She thanked all Council Officers who were doing amazing work to make East Suffolk Council the success it was and, in particular, the Chief Executive and her PA.  She added that East Suffolk was the envy of lots of other Council Leaders.  She stated that she was taking this opportunity to announce she was the nominated Green Party candidate for the Norfolk and Suffolk Mayoral Combined Authority election but reassured everybody that she would not be stepping down as Leader so it was business as usual, although she hoped her candidature would bring extra attention upon East Suffolk collectively so others could see all the amazing initiatives being undertaken.

The Chair thanked the Leader and the following responses were given to Members’ Questions:

• Further to this Committee's previous recommendation to employ an Empty Homes Officer, it was confirmed that there was sufficient Officer capacity to continue with this valuable work.  
• The Tenant Services Satisfaction measure was currently 10% below target, however, it was anticipated that the Housing Improvement Plan would help improve the situation eg by addressing decent homes standards. 
• It was acknowledged that the target for planting trees was ambitious, however, it had never been envisaged that a significant number would be planted in the first year.  An asset audit was being undertaken which included open spaces to see if trees could be planted on them if they could not be used for other things.  The Council was also working with the Forestry Commission and other organisations to plant the trees.
• Staff turn over had increased last year and in some teams Sizewell had had an impact but in general it was not currently a particular problem.
•  The national trend for footfall in town centres was down but East Suffolk's dip was not as significant - it was agreed that further details on what was being done to increase footfall would be circulated to the Committee in due course.
• The net zero target would be achieved by undertaking several initiatives eg the new HGV fleet now ran on HVO fuel, funding had been received to decarbonise the leisure centres and plans were underway to retrofit housing.
• The Council had a certificated supplier of HVO fuel and could prove all the way back to the source that it was sustainable but it had been very difficult to find a supplier that met the international standard mark as there were only two that did and imported it to the UK. 
• Whilst East Suffolk's Community Partnerships were recognised as best practice, it was difficult to measure their success as the only data available was the number of projects delivered, however, discussions were ongoing with the Communities Team to determine what a new KPI would be, including exploring measuring the social value of projects.
• Although some of the links in the report did not work, it was confirmed that the KPI dashboard was available on Sharepoint for Councillors to view at any point.
• Many residents were concerned about the impact of Sizewell C on accommodation etc, but it was acknowledged that perhaps more could be done to make the workers feel part of the community so everyone benefitted especially economically.
• It was acknowledged that to address the Tenant Services Satisfaction target, more would be required than just the Housing Improvement Plan and delivering the Action Plan and it was agreed that further details would be circulated to the Committee in due course.
• The KPI for flytipping was being reviewed as currently the measure was for it to have been looked at or responded to within two days rather than for it to have been cleared.  The point was made that sometimes it could not be removed quickly if it was needed as evidence.  Lowestoft Town Council had paid for extra services including bulky waste collections which had helped reduce the amount of flytipping, although there was a long waitlist for the service. 
• There was a national need to train more planners and, although the Council now had a fully resourced team, the issue was whether the developers had the capacity to build even if they had planning permission.  The number of dwellings built was down in the last year but it was difficult to determine how much of that was within the Council's gift to improve.  Work was underway on the new Local Plan to meet the new housing target but Sizewell C was an issue as it was taking skilled labour away and a lot of Council properties that needed retrofitting required those same skills, so it was very challenging.
• Council Tax arrears had increased because some people were struggling to pay it over 10 months.
• Rent arrears and rent collection rates were a recently added KPI but the target had not yet been agreed as there was a need to look at trends.  The point was acknowledged that a number of KPIs did not have targets and, therefore, should not be depicted as green. It was hoped that more targets would be agreed in time for the Committee's informal Review of Performance in March 2026.
• It was acknowledged that, although the figures for the number of dwellings delivered, those granted consent or under construction were available in the report, there were no details on the number of planning applications being considered so it was difficult to know if the Council was likely to meet the Government's new housing target, therefore, it was agreed this information would be included within the report in future.
• The net number of businesses in Suffolk was a good indicator of the number of companies closing down and it showed there had been a decrease of businesses in East Suffolk.  Nationally, the High Street was changing as more people shopped online so East Suffolk was trying to develop leisure opportunities to entice people into towns.  The data on the number of businesses being supported, which had increased last year, was being used to target the Council's resources and activity.
• The Council had some discretion around business rates with some small businesses having zero rates depending on the type of business they were.
•  Ideally there would be more dwellings above shops as that helped with town centre footfall and ASB. Footfall was monitored daily during certain events such as the First Light Festival and Felixstowe Carnival, however, the footfall counters were all following the national trend downwards.
• Moving forwards, Officers would be exploring the use of AI to analyse data.
• The East Suffolk Marmot Programme's official launch was in November and was jointly funded by the Council and Integrated Care Board.  A Member Briefing Session had been arranged for October.
• Whilst the question about whether the Environmental Impact targets were stretched enough was taken on board, the point was made that most were wrapped up in the one KPI to make net zero carbon emissions by 2030.  The other KPIs were about Better Recycling and it was acknowledged that the Council needed to show leadership and change household recycling behaviours to improve recycling rates.  The Council was also reviewing flytipping measures to ensure they were what was most important to residents; piloting community transport initiatives with the County Council; had an aggressive target for planting trees; and were looking at introducing other environment related measures.

The Chair thanked the Leader, Cabinet Member and Officers for their responses and invited the Committee to debate and make any recommendations.

Councillor Jepson reiterated his concern as to whether the Environmental Plan was ambitious enough and queried what the impact was of the field to fork programme and what had happened to East Suffolk's Amazing. 

The Chair agreed, stating that East Suffolk's Amazing had been doing some good work but seemed to have stopped meeting.

Councillor Leach pointed out that East Suffolk was a coastal district with 4 rivers that needed action taken but there was no mention of any of these within the report.

 Councillor Lynch reiterated his point that, where no targets had been set, it should not say that progress had been good.

Councillor Bennett referred to the Katch and Buzzabout Community transport initiatives and pointed out that, whilst the passenger number trend was up, it was difficult to put a target on how many passengers used them so his view was that there did not necessarily need to be a concrete target for something but if it was going down and given a red then that was fair.  He  agreed with Councillor Jepson but added that, as Chair of the Cycling, Wheeling and Walking Working Group, he could see how challenging it was to make things happen on the ground so there was a need for the Council to focus on implementing what it could within the Plan over the next two years.

Councillor Molyneux agreed with Councillor Jepson's point and queried if it was possible to broaden the scope within the Local Plan to influence developers and consultants to assess their carbon impact when granting planning permission.

In response to Councillor Cawley's question, the Deputy Leader confirmed that there had not been any targets previously for those measures that were in development or under review and he added that he accepted Councillor Lynch's earlier point that measures should not be depicted as green if there was no target.

Councillor Jepson queried what environmental impacts could be measured and suggested that each action be reviewed to see if they were ambitious enough, if they were still the priority and what measurements could be achieved with an associated action plan being drawn up, but if they could not be achieved then they should be deleted.

Councillor Molyneux suggested that retrofitting Council stock should come under our scope for carbon emissions because that was within our remit.  He also expressed concern about the increased cost of temporary accommodation. 

Councillor Lynch suggested that the measures should be less broad with a focus on specific things that could be achieved and then dropped off the plan.

Councillor Ninnmey pointed out that some of the measures such as the number of businesses and footfall in town centres were not within the Council's gift whereas the number of planning applications determined was.  He suggested, therefore, that the Council should only measure things it had data available for and separate out those that the Council could not influence.

Councillor Cawley suggested that the document might be useful to businesses if they had access to it.

Councillor Bennett suggested that the targets for footfall in town centres and Community Partnerships should be reviewed and sharpened up.

Councillor Gooch pointed out that Local Government Reorganisation was the elephant in the room and she suggested that the measures be put in priority order as there was a need to be realistic about Officer capacity and have a pragmatic approach to the best outcomes for the remaining two years of this Council.

On the proposition of the Chair, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was

RESOLVED

1. That the Annual Report 2024/25 be noted and the Committee be provided with further details on:

(a) the situation regarding town centre footfall and any plans to increase it; and

(b)   plans to increase Tenant Services Satisfaction to meet the target.

2. That the Leader and Deputy Leader of Council and Officers be asked to reflect on the comments and suggestions made with a view to reporting back on these at the Committee's Informal Review of Performance meeting on 12 March 2026.

The Committee received ES/2505 the joint report of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council who reminded Members that Full Council had approved investigations into adopting an East Suffolk version of Cornwall’s Decision Making Wheel.  Accordingly, a pilot version aligned with the Our Direction Strategic Plan had been developed and considered by CLT who had expressed some concerns which were detailed in the report.  He requested the Committee's comments prior to it going back to Full Council for a decision.

The Chair thanked the Deputy Leader and invited Members' comments.

Councillor Jepson pointed out that Cornwall had taken two years to fully develop their Decision Wheel and whilst it was a good idea and worth investing in, given Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) he was not sure it would be worth continuing now for East Suffolk Council. 

Councillor Ninnmey agreed, commenting that this could be a distraction and that the new authority would have to make up its own mind what it wanted to do, so developing this further was not likely to deliver any benefits for East Suffolk.

Councillor Gooch referred to paragraph 2.5 which detailed how long it took Cornwall to fully embed their version of the Wheel and the benefits and drawbacks listed in 2.4.  She stated that, whilst she could see the benefits of having the Wheel, Members had been given seven options at the end of the report and her view was that East Suffolk should make the most of what had been done so far without expending too much more Officer time bearing in mind East Suffolk was now on a limited time frame. 

Councillor Plummer stated that it was a very different way of working and she could see so many benefits to it including making sure departments did not work in silos, so her view was that East Suffolk should look at the different options available to use some of the benefits without going whole hog.

Councillor Thompson stated that he was in favour of continuing with the Wheel even if it could not be fully implemented as it could be taken up by the successor council.

Councillor Bennett agreed, stating that the successor council may not want to "reinvent the wheel" and he suggested that East Suffolk should be looking at all our areas of work to see what impact unitary would have and that might help with prioritising and tailoring our work in the meantime. 

Councillor Lynch disagreed citing what happened during the transition to East Suffolk because the shadow and successor authorities would be different, therefore, his view was that it should be dropped and Officer time be used for other things.

The Chair suggested that a decision be parked until the outcome of LGR was known and then review it as a successor council might see the value of it.

Councillor Cawley agreed, adding that if something already worked but could potentially be improved gradually then it could be parked for now and see what happened with LGR.

Councillor Gooch stated that she favoured the "redesign at an appropriate time" option as redesigning it to cover the UN sustainability goals and potentially Marmot would make it more measurable and more valuable as a Wheel to pass on to the successor authority.

Councillor Plummer agreed but suggested a limited adoption so if any managers wanted to use some of these ideas they could, bearing in mind it had gone this far.

Councillor Jepson suggested adopting the first 2 bullet point options listed in paragraph 7.1 eg limited adoption and policy only. 

Councillor Molyneux queried how resource intensive it would be and stated that if it was just a  way of deciding how to do things rather than actually getting on and doing them then he was not in favour of that.

Councillor Gooch suggested a compromise of options 1 and 2 (limited adoption and policy only) in its current iteration with no more Officer time expended to its development until after Members were briefed on Marmot and the outcome of LGR, then consideration be given to a further redesign at an appropriate time (option 5).

Councillor Bennett agreed with Councillor Gooch's suggestion but commented that he did not feel like he had enough information of what it would be like for Officers to implement the Wheel as some might feel it was helpful.  The Deputy Leader responded that he felt the Officers' views were clear in the report.  He added that poor decisions were usually because something had been forgotten, therefore, the suggestion for it to be adopted as a checklist for Officers if they wanted to use it and wait until the outcome of LGR was known before deciding whether to redesign it seemed a reasonable compromise, especially given Officers were being asked to deal with a lot and we had to be careful that we did not try do everything and end up doing something badly. 

On the proposition of Councillor Gooch, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey it was

RESOLVED

That this Committee recommend the adoption of Options 1 and 2 (limited and policy only) of the East Suffolk Decision Wheel with a decision being made on whether it should be redesigned once the outcome of Local Government Reorganisation was known.

The Committee adjourned at 8pm and reconvened at 8.13pm.

The Chair thanked the Leader for her response to the pre-set questions.  The Leader apologised as she realised she had delivered the speech she had prepared for this item earlier in the meeting.  The Committee raised the following matters:

• The need to encourage other councils such as Lowestoft Town Council to involve District Councillors in events and activities.
• The impact of LGR on the capacity of Councillors and Officers; the need to determine organisational priorities; the benefits of utilising the talents of Members from all political parties; the need for a summary of the Case for Change document for residents and to strengthen relationships with Parishes.
• Whether cuts, an increase in Council Tax or reserves would need to be used to balance the budget if there was a 0% increase in Government funding again next year.
• The continued recognition of LGA Charter Plus Status for Councillor Development and the need to continue providing Councillors with the necessary support during the next few years as the Council transitioned to a unitary authority.
• The Council's Treasury Management strategy including lending to other Councils in the short term and using reserves if necessary.
• The Leader remaining in post whilst she stood as a Mayoral candidate.
• The Leader's intention not to have a Cabinet reshuffle during the remainder of the term unless absolutely necessary.

The Chair thanked the Leader and reminded her that this Committee was here to provide critical friend support to both her and her Cabinet.

The Chair thanked the Chief Executive for his response to the pre-set questions. 

The Chief Executive referred to the earlier discussions and commented that CLT looked at Council performance on a quarterly basis.  He reassured Members that, whilst the Council may not have had KPIs on a dashboard, performance had been monitored for years.  He added that Councillor Ninnmey had a good point about looking at KPIs and the causal links eg footfall.  He acknowledged that, looking at the Forward Plan, there was still a lot to do but agreed with Councillor Molyneux that there was a need to concentrate on completing those things that could be completed in the time that East Suffolk had left.  He explained that there had been a number of barriers since the general election with a lot of new legislation being brought forward, the Fair Funding Review, Border changes which the Council had to respond to and there was still no news yet from the new Local Government Minister or the new Devolution Minster about their priorities.  He concluded that LGR was a learning experience and reassured Members that, if the organisation had capacity to service a cross party group earlier, it would have but now that it was in place, the group would continue all the way through.

The Chief Executive responded to a number of questions in relation to maintaining a positive morale; the need to innovate especially using technology; and biodiversity and tree planting.  He added that LGR and Devolution could bring some positive opportunities such as retaining aspects of East Suffolk's culture eg Member and Officer relations; bringing services under one organisation; and joined up working with other stakeholders. 

The Chair thanked the Chief Executive for his report.

The Chair stated that the next meeting would take place on 16 October 2025 when the Committee would sit as the Crime and Disorder Committee and review the Community Safety Action Plan which included the final update on progress of the Committee's recommendations following the ASB review.  There would also be a Cabinet Member Scrutiny Session with Councillor Candy, Cabinet Member for Community Health.

The Chair also referred to the Committee's decision at the last meeting to review the Temporary Accommodation Strategy and it was noted this had been pencilled in for the June 2026 meeting.