Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

 
That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 October 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee noted the Update Sheet which gave responses to the questions raised at the meeting on 16 October 2025.

Councillor Beavan arrived at the meeting at 6.32pm.

The Chair explained that the Extraordinary Meeting called to consider the updated confidential East Suffolk Services Ltd report, originally considered on 27 November 2025, had been cancelled due to the inclement weather forecast.  Committee Members had met informally online instead with the proviso that any resolutions would need to be made at this formal meeting.

The Committee confirmed that no formal recommendations to Cabinet in relation to ESSL were required at this stage but they agreed to undertake a further review in September 2026.

The Committee received report ES/2686 and the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money stated that, as part of the annual budget setting process, the Council was required to agree a programme of capital expenditure for the coming four years and any revisions to the current financial year.  The timeline for the report following this meeting was outlined and he explained that the report set out the General Fund Capital Programme and the Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme separately in appendices along with a brief description of each project. The Capital Programme had been compiled taking account of the following main principles:

• To maintain an affordable four-year rolling capital programme.  
• To maximise available resources by actively seeking external funding and disposal of surplus assets.
• Not to anticipate receipts from disposals until they were realised.
• To focus on the deliverability of the current projects within the programme; and
• To minimise the impact of capital charges to the General Fund revenue budget.

The Cabinet Member explained that the updated Capital Programme had been reviewed by the Corporate Project Programme Board and CLT prior to being presented to this Committee.  The General Fund Capital Programme for 2025/26 through to 2029/30 had a total financing requirement of £106.87m. This would be financed by £46.21m (43%) of external grants and contributions, the use of £4.27m (4%) of reserves and a borrowing requirement of £56.39m (53%).  The HRA Capital Programme for 2025/26 through to 2029/30 had a total budget requirement of £84.14m which would be financed by £8.79m (10%) of external grants and contributions, the use of £50.02m (60%) of capital reserves & direct revenue financing (HRA), £14.13m (17%) of capital receipts and £11.20m (13%) of borrowing.

The Cabinet Member stated that, since this report had been written and published for this Committee, the report submitted to Cabinet on the 3 February would include an additional general fund capital budget of £1m for Market Towns which was to be funded from internal resources. This would provide opportunities to foster inward investment for improved community facilities in market towns throughout the district.  The new project was subject to a full business case being presented to Cabinet and Council in 2026/27 for approval. The project had the support of the Green Liberal Independent Group.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and the following responses were received to Committee Members' questions:

• Lowestoft and Felixstowe had received a lot of funding over the last 5/6 years so the Leader wanted to provide some inward investment for other towns across the district but what constituted a "market town" would be defined as part of the Business Case.
• The Council internally borrowed money from our own cash balances rather than external but with that came a revenue charge which appeared in the revenue programme.
• The Coastal Management expenditure was mainly for ongoing maintenance and works had increased significantly this year but the forward budget was reduced as the approach now was about resilience, although what that looked like still needed to be clarified. Grants were available for schemes if they met technical and economic criteria. The Government had also made £18m available but this could not be spent on emergency works or used as extra Environment Agency funding, although it could help fund schemes to adapt the coastline and support residents who lived in those areas.
• It was hoped St Peter’s Court would be demolished this financial year but there had been delays due to the removal and relocation of the telemast and, in the meantime, the Council was entering into a contract for asbestos removal so hopefully once that was done, the building would be demolished quickly.
• The most significant change to the capital budget was for the Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood Area project.  The largest element of the 2026/27 budget had been to start building the new leisure centre, however, the project delivery date had slipped so the capital budget had been changed to the smaller figure which would be used to continue work on the concept design.
• Safeguarding any investments from future changes due to LGR were part of the conversations taking place and Officers were looking at what was in the Capital Programme to make sure it was realistic.  Some costs for signage were relatively low eg the cost of rebadging vehicles was a few hundred pounds, similarly car parks.  The impact of LGR and whether something was still a worthwhile investment was being discussed.  
• Assets were reviewed as part of the Asset Strategy eg using the East Point Pavilion all year round was really challenging due to heating but the Property Team was looking at ways to maximise its use, or if it would be better to dispose of it to get a capital receipt.  It was hoped that there would be some proposals going to Full Council shortly to increase its use.
• Arguably all of the £2m maintenance programme was essential because condition surveys had highlighted that some assets had not been maintained properly for years, therefore, higher costs needed to be borne to carry out the necessary works.  Some revenue budget had also been added to reflect the Asset Team's survey work.  The Finance Team reviewed the Capital Programme and the Corporate Programme Board reviewed any project that was not committed to or not considered essential.
• If work on the new Felixstowe Leisure Centre progressed and it became a project then the Capital Programme could be reviewed - amending the budget relieved pressure on the Capital Programme and the Revenue Budget so it was just about moving things around and freeing up revenue funding. The Leisure Team would need to determine if the renovations to the existing Felixstowe Leisure Centre could be more extensive than planned due to the delays in building the new facility. 
• The loan to ESPIL, the Council's property arm created to build housing, was no longer required as there had been a change in approach with the use of S106 receipts instead. 
• Contingency was built into project business cases which were then reviewed by the Finance Team who increased contingencies where necessary.  The Capital Programme was affordable but the risk was exposure if the Council did have to externally borrow, therefore, projects were reviewed and re-engineered if necessary.  
• There had been some underspend of the Towns Fund due to slippage within the Cultural Quarter project because of work with Anglian Water which had delayed the project.  
• The idea of the new Market Town Funding was that a small sum could be used to leverage other funds such as CIL or grants to try to spur investment in infrastructure and enable communities to look at their facilities. Each project idea would need to have a business case as there needed to be a return on investment.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet  Members and Officers and invited the Committee to debate and make any recommendations. 

Councillor Jepson expressed concern that the new Market Town fund would be considered by Cabinet on Tuesday without details being defined and he suggested, therefore, that perhaps it would be advisable for Cabinet to approve the funding in principle with the recognition that further work on the detail still needed to be done.  He added that he would like some feedback regarding the timelines eg if Cabinet made a decision on Tuesday, when would they define what exactly it equated to and who would be able to apply for that money and what was the criteria.  He suggested that no funding should be spent until those definitions were agreed.  

Councillor Lynch agreed that it was very concerning that this Committee was being asked to agree to a £1M fund without guidelines on how and when it would be spent prior to that fund being allocated.  

Councillor Ninnmey  queried how the Council could ensure that projects residents had been waiting a long time for such as the North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood project would still come to fruition, and whether they could be sped up to ensure the new unitary authority would commit to delivering them before East Suffolk Council disappeared.  

Councillor Clery suggested that saying there was "extreme concern" over the £1m market town fund was overstating it.  He pointed out that the fund had been suggested in the spirit of levelling up those market towns that had not seen the level of investment that Lowestoft and Felixstowe had, so it would be fair to give Cabinet time to get a definition for that.

Councillor Thompson queried if the £1m was for all the market towns or just one bearing in mind that some projects would not cost a lot.  He also asked how the money would be invested.  

Councillor Jepson pointed out that £1m was a relatively small amount when looking at the whole of the Capital Programme and he felt reassured that the Finance Team would identify any risks but if there were any delays then he suggested it come back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee not just Cabinet, so this Committee had a better understanding of what those financial pressures were.  

Councillor Bennett stated that he generally supported the concept of the Market Town Fund as long as there was a transparent process for how that money would be invested.  In relation to leisure spend/investment, he referred to the point made earlier that there was planned investment to keep the existing Felixstowe Leisure Centre going, therefore a reassurance should be sought that an opportunity was not being missed to do that job more thoroughly and upgrade facilities perhaps more generously than originally intended given the new Leisure Centre was now on hold.  The Chief Finance Officer stated that she would speak to the Leisure Team.  

Councillor Ninnmey stated that he welcomed the principle of a Market Towns Fund but agreed that there should be more clarity on who would be eligible etc.  

Councillor Deacon recommended that, in general terms, the Capital Programme budget be accepted with the proviso that there should be a clear definition of what constituted a "Market Town" etc before any spend was made and for a conversation to be had with the Leisure Team to understand what was going on regarding Felixstowe leisure centre provision.

Councillor Gooch stated that it would be good for Cabinet to sign off the £1m Market Towns Fund in principle but there was a need to look at the whole thing eg processing applications and whether staff were available to do this extra work given they were stretched with LGR.  The Chief Executive stated that a review of grants in the Communities and Economic Development space had been undertaken and a lot of those grants were already spent in market towns, therefore, the new fund would be administered in a similar way by existing teams.  He added that the application process would also be reviewed to streamline it and make it clear for applicants. 

On the proposition of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Bennett it was

RESOLVED

1.         That Cabinet be recommended to approve the following:

(a)  The General Fund Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 including revisions to 2025/26 as shown in Appendix B, and the principle of an additional £1m being allocated to support Market Towns, subject to clarification on the definition of a “Market Town” and the process for applying etc, before any spend was made.

(b)  The Housing Revenue Account Capital Programme for 2026/27 to 2029/30 including revisions to 2025/26 as shown in Appendix G.

2.         That the Finance Team liaise with the relevant Cabinet Member and officers to see if it would be possible to expedite and obtain a commitment to the Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood Project before Local Government Reorganisation took place and, in view of the slippage, to see if it was possible to extend renovations to the existing Leisure Centre and progress them as soon as possible.

The Committee received report ES/2687 and the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing explained that it provided an opportunity for this Committee to submit any comments to Cabinet on the proposed 2026/27 to 2029/30 Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget, before making recommendations to Council on 25 February 2026 as required under the Budget and Policy Framework.  He added that, as set out in the Council’s Financial Procedure Rules, the Chief Finance Officer was responsible for preparing and submitting reports on revenue budgets to Cabinet and Council and he outlined the timeline for when the 2026/27 budget and the indicative figures for 2027/28 to 2029/30 would be considered.  He concluded that the report also noted changes in welfare and benefits and the impact of external and internal requirements which had been considered when completing the budgets.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and the following responses were received to Members' questions:

• It was estimated that 45-50 properties would be lost this year due to Right to Buy (RTB) changes being implemented in November.  This was a disaster for the HRA because once they were in the system, the tenants could not be given notice and a lot of people were applying before it changed.  The number of RTB applications was expected to drop off to about 8/10 properties per year in future.
• It was unlikely any major works such as new roofs had been planned for those properties where an RTB application had already been received and, in future, any major works carried out on a property could be taken account of as part of the sale price. 
• Members were reassured that any necessary health and safety works to properties would be undertaken.
• The "Cash to Move" incentive was available to those tenants that could move to a more appropriate property size but were suffering financial hardship. Tenants were encouraged to move to smaller stock where appropriate but would remain a tenant choice - the cash incentive would be promoted during the next financial year.  The percentage of tenants under-occupying properties would be circulated to the Committee after the meeting.
• The surge in RTB applications was because in future the discount would reduce to a maximum of £34K. 
• Previous Suffolk Coastal District Council tenants were now part of a Housing Association, therefore, they would have the Right to Acquire rather than a Right to Buy.  It was agreed that further details on this would be circulated to the Committee after the meeting.
• Disabled adaptations were now managed by the same team that managed the entire District but there had been a lack of investment in that area so the budget needed to be increased.  The Council could not deny applications from tenants who needed a stairlift or wet room etc but they could be offered already adapted properties, however, if they did not wish to move then they did not have to which was why the budget had increased.
• The HRA had been impacted greatly by new legislation over the last few years and the Council needed to find ways to pay for it eg the introduction of more homes standard requirements such as paying for solar panels even though the Council would not get any benefit from them.  One positive impact on the HRA was rent convergence which meant rents could be increased by a marginal amount of £1 per week from April 2027 and £2 from 2028. One way to pay for the these requirements was to look at the reserves not being used and move things around, or borrow if there was income available to pay for it. 
• A lot of the new legislative requirements had been built into this budget eg clearing backlogs and meeting Decent Homes Standards.  The Warmer Homes project was a three year programme requiring housing stock to meet EPC C standard by 2028.  It was hoped there might be another 600 properties next year if Government funding was available.  There were also several big projects such as St Peter's Court and Avenue Mansions where, once complete, the money could be reinvested to improve the rest of the stock.  There was a need to look at the type of income the HRA could get such as rent convergence which would help.
• Risk was monitored across all areas of the budget with bi-monthly meetings across the projects.  The stock condition survey data was now available and, although contracts were not in place for those works yet, once they started, budgets would be monitored to make sure there was enough funding.  At the moment it was at the inventory stage but they would be monitored.  All HRA projects also went through the Capital Programme Board to evaluate each project and see if there were any risks.  Risk was reduced because through the stock survey we now know the condition of our stock and were investing heavily in IT to ensure we can monitor performance.  The risks that the Council could not manage were interest rates and build costs.  Cabinet also received quarterly finance reports and if necessary a project could be added to the Corporate Risk Register too.
• Garages had been looked at as part of the stock condition survey work but historically they had not had as much maintenance as they should have done, therefore, a five year programme had been put in place to review each garage to see if could be demolished or invested in.  Once upgraded, the Housing Investment Team would try to get as much money as possible for it in rent.  It was not thought they were available to purchase but details would be circulated to the Committee after the meeting.  
• The Stepping Home project released beds at the James Paget Hospital and it was hoped it would be extended.  Although the Suffolk Housing Board had put nearly half a million pounds into it, the problem was that the Council did not get any income from doing it.  The Housing Team had picked up a lot of problems from others organisations such as the NHS and County Council.  
• External grant funding was used to pay for adaptations to private housing but it could not be used on HRA properties. 6/7 units were now available to help people who could leave hospital but could not go back home.  For those people who needed hand rails etc, the team delivered them across the district and that was all currently externally funded. 
• It was not thought that the Stock Condition Survey had covered flood risk to properties but details would be circulated to the Committee after the meeting.
• It was acknowledged that there were some differences to the budget from what had been forecast eg there had been a large programme to install CO2 detectors in all the housing stock but, where inspectors went out, they found they had not been installed properly.  Once all the information from the Stock Condition Survey was put into the IT system, everything would be able to be monitored more efficiently in future.
• The Asset Programme calculation was based on the housing stock the Council had and also the Capital Programme so any investment in properties went in the Asset Register that  gave a depreciation value which then fed into the Major Repairs Reserve and Capital Programme.  There was potentially more work coming down as a result of new legislation so it was important that the HRA was monitored closely and any need for external borrowing would need to be considered as part of the whole Council budget.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers and invited the Committee to debate and make any recommendations.

Councillor Jepson stated that it was clear there were significant risks but he was reassured that the management team were considering those risks.  He added that he was also worried about external borrowing but had been reassured by the Chief Finance Officer's comment that any proposal to do so would be looked at in the round.

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

RESOLVED

1. That, having noted the projected outturn position for 2025/26 and changes affecting public and private sector housing and welfare, Cabinet be recommended to approve the draft HRA budget for 2026/27, and the indicative figures for 2027/28 to 2029/30; and the movements in HRA Reserves and Balances.

2. That a response to the questions asked at this meeting be provided to the Committee in relation to the following:

• Percentage of tenants under-occupying their property.
• Details of Housing Association Right to Acquire.
• Whether tenants could purchase Council garages or if they were just for renting.
• Whether flood risk had been included within the Stock Condition Survey.

Councillor Beavan left the meeting which was adjourned at 8.10pm and reconvened at 8.21pm.

The Committee received report ES/2685 from the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money who explained that the report presented an update on the Medium-Term Financial Strategy and the draft budget for 2026/27. He added that it brought together relevant information to provide the Committee with an opportunity to review and make recommendations upon the Cabinet’s recommendations on 13 January 2026 for the proposed Budget and Band D Council Tax for 2026/27.  Recommendations from this Committee would then be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 3 February 2026.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that a balanced budget for 2026/27 was being presented and had been achieved by using £2.272m from the Business Rate Equalisation Reserve.  A Band D Council Tax of £197.82 was being proposed, an increase of £5.67 or 2.95%, which was the maximum permitted under the referendum limit. He stressed that the Government assumed that councils would apply the maximum permitted Council Tax increase when determining funding to local authorities.  To strengthen financial resilience, the General Fund Balance would increase from £6m to £8m in 2026/27, representing around 4% of gross expenditure (circ. £190m). This was the first increase to the General Fund balance since East Suffolk had been formed in 2019 and reflected the importance of maintaining adequate reserves and balances to manage risk. 

In relation to the wider context, the Cabinet Member explained that the Government’s new multi-year funding settlement for 2026/27 to 2028/29 was the first in a decade and introduced major changes to the funding formula. The changes included a stronger link to deprivation, removal of sparsity and remoteness adjustments, abolition of the New Homes Bonus, and consolidation of smaller grants into the main settlement. Whilst this aimed to create a fairer system, it significantly disadvantaged councils like East Suffolk that had historically benefited under the current business rates system and had maintained healthy reserve balances.  To manage this transition, East Suffolk would receive transitional protection, but at a reduced level compared to most councils. Our funding was protected at 95% of current levels until 2028/29, rather than 100%, because our current share of funding was more than 15% above the new target allocation. This meant that while most councils would see increases, East Suffolk faced a funding cliff edge in 2029/30 when the current proposed transitional support ended.  Over the three-year settlement, East Suffolk would receive £16.8m in transitional funding, which represented 73% of the total transitional support provided to all Suffolk authorities. However, this was temporary and did not remove the need for prudent financial planning over the multi-settlement period.  Importantly, this budget delivered and supported the administration’s strategic ambitions, including environmental sustainability, housing, community wellbeing, and economic growth across East Suffolk. 

The Cabinet Member stated that, whilst future budget gaps remained challenging: £8.6 million in 2027/28, £10.4m in 2028/29, our strategy remained focused on efficiency, maximising income, and careful use of reserves.  He added that the final Local Government Finance Settlement was expected in early February. The 2026/27 budget would be considered again by Cabinet on 3 February with the final proposed budget being presented to Full Council on 25 February 2026.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and the following responses were received to Members' queries:

• The possibility of increasing Council Tax to over the threshold for a referendum had been discussed but it was decided not to until the Government provide a really clear steer on how to progress this.  There was a view that the referendum limit needed to be revisited and a push back through the provisional settlement to try to lift it to give councils more opportunity.  The Government had said if councils wanted to think about raising it to above the referendum limit they could but that had come out before the Settlement.  The Government had given greater flexibility to some Councils.  £2.72m of reserves had been forecast to balance the budget but every year the actual amount was slightly under by 2-3% so hopefully reserves would not be used too much.  It was clarified that the Council had to produce a MTFS that covered 2029/30 even though LGR would have been implemented by then. The Government's line was that the quantum of money in the system would stay the same this side and around LGR and councils would need to harmonise Council Tax - the one unitary model had brought it down to the lowest Council Tax in Suffolk and the three unitary model would harmonise within referendum limits but that would be a political decision as to whether it should be raised above the 5% limit without a referendum.
• It was not envisaged that only essential services would be undertaken to maintain the budget, although service reviews were starting to be carried out.  Some policy decisions would also need to be taken eg continuing to support Community Partnerships.  The service reviews would likely provide efficiencies such as reducing headcount – the biggest proportion was externally funded eg sizewell and reviewing data on demand and vacancies etc.  Fees and charges would be reviewed and ways to maximise income, as well as using technology to reduce the demands on staff eg using AI to take customer service notes.  The Council was looking at a savings target for the organisation next year before it would look at political decisions around projects.  The multi-year settlement meant that East Suffolk was still not reaching the level of funding it should be at so whilst there were no immediate concerns, there was a need to look at everything.  
• The Council had had to deal with a number of moving parts over the last few years eg LGR, bespoke systems for flood management, and provide services as well.  There were lots of layers that had to be done over and above just normal district council service provision so it would be very hard to cut anything back.  As part of the normal budget process, we have Cabinet Member portfolio meetings as well as budget meetings in July and October so we can continue that review process.
• The dashboards showed key measures against Our Direction 28 priorities and on the last page was a series of projects that the Council was delivering and covered by the budget which was checked regularly to make sure it was affordable.
•  It was acknowledged that there had been a growth in staff numbers, however, many of them were funded by external projects eg Sizewell and Active Suffolk.  It was important to have capacity to be able to do what we wanted eg the number of apprentices had increased; the new operating model at Port Health had resulted in a significant number of staff because of checks at the border; Housing staff could be funded by New Burdens Funding; there had been growth in Planning.  Many of the Fixed Term Contract employees were tied to funding and, where possible, their terms of employment matched those of permanent staff.
• The number of second homes had dropped to around 4000 resulting in £100K less income to East Suffolk Council so an analysis of complaints about second homes against the Government's information would be undertaken to try to understand why the number had dropped so significantly.  
• The New Homes Bonus had been scrapped and the Business Rates system was changing but it was not yet known what impact that would have.
• The cost of conference fees, accommodation and travel expenses had increased, however, it was felt that this was mainly due to general costs rising.  Managers were being asked to prioritise staff attendance at professional conferences to those that would have the most impact as costs needed to be managed, however, it was a balance because networking was useful.  Generally, attendance was managed through the HR team to get the best value as possible and encourage people to travel together.
• The Council was also reviewing fees and charges, statutory fees and others that we had more control over but Central Government needed to look at some of the statutory charges which had not been increased for 10 years.
• ARP dealt with second homes tax implementation and, although there had been some pitfalls when it first started, it was being implemented as laid out in the guidance, however, the Government needed to review it.
• Parking income had increased by 40-45% compared to the previous year due to the changes to fees and charges as the profile of those using the car parks had changed with more people taking longer sessions etc.  The budget had been revised downwards as it had been envisaged the changes would take place from April, however, there had been a delay in implementing them.  If a comparison on income was made year on year and taking account of the fact that, for the first time, it covered its own significant costs, the changes had been a success, albeit controversial.  An analysis of the first full year since the changes, including income and parking trends, would be circulated once available. 
• The earmarked reserves had been increased from £6m to £8m to build the Council's resilience and this was the first time since becoming East Suffolk Council that they had been increased.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers and invited Members to debate and make any recommendations.

Councillor Lynch stated that, given the substantial financial issues the Council had, this Committee should ask all the Cabinet Members how they were going to make savings across their portfolio to reduce the budget gap.

Councillor Cawley agreed, stating that the Council should be looking at ways to get savings and steamline things to save money without putting pressure on rents and businesses.

Councillor Bennett complemented the Cabinet Member and Finance Team on their work, stating that he felt a balance was being struck between creating a balance budget, doing what the Council wanted to do, whilst remaining reasonably financially prudent.

The Chair agreed with the comments made and added that he felt a discussion should be held with Cabinet and Finance Officers on how this Committee could be involved in the budget setting process at a much earlier stage, perhaps even in reviewing services and suggesting ways to make savings. 

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

RESOLVED

1. That Cabinet be recommended to:

(a) Approve the draft 2026/27 General Fund Budget and note the Medium Term Financial Strategy detailed in Section 2 and supporting appendices.

(b) Approve a proposed Band D Council Tax for East Suffolk Council of £197.82 for 2026/27, an increase of £5.67 (2.95%).

2. That an analysis of the first full year of car parking income and usage since the fees were changed be circulated to the Committee.

In response to the Chair's invitation, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Resources and Value for Money introduced his response to the pre-set questions and stated that he was very proud that the Finance Team continued to meet all their statutory deadlines despite all the additional work that had been piled on them.  In relation to the earlier Member comment made about "eating into reserves" he stated that, whilst reserves had been used this year, the actual was about £2m down and the Council had come in under budget.  He praised the Audit Team as being professional and well presented and commented that their work was extremely important and, in his view, the national audit slippage had to be caught up.  He also expressed his thanks to the Treasury Team whose investments had generated a great deal of revenue for the Council.  He commented that, whilst second homes tax had been challenging, it was used to provide a buffer to provide housing so he was glad they had introduced it.  He explained that an enormous amount of time had also been spent on Better Recycling and ESSL.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and invited Members' questions or comments.

Councillor Jepson congratulated the Cabinet Member stating that he clearly knew his portfolio which gave him reassurance.  

Councillor Ninnmey referred to the capital investment in the North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood Project and reiterated his earlier query about whether there was any way the project could be safeguarded and started ASAP.  The Cabinet Member responded that the slippage in the project had given them time and space to think about what was actually needed from the financial aspect.

Councillor Bennett agreed with Councillor Jepson's comments but pointed out that the idea behind introducing a Second Homes tax was not to raise money but to discourage people from having them so his expectation was that income would go down.

The Chair stated that the next formal meeting would be held on 12 February 2026 at Riverside rather than East Suffolk House to facilitate the attendance of representatives from several Lowestoft cultural venues as part of the Review of Lowestoft Cultural Quarter Business Plan.

Prior to that review, the meeting would start with the Cabinet Member Scrutiny Session of Councillor Topping, the Leader, who had taken over most of the Economic Development and Regeneration responsibilities after Councillor Wilson recently stepped down as the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Economic Development and Regeneration.