Meeting Details

On the proposition of Councillor Candy seconded by Councillor Whitelock it was   

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2026, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Clery, Vice Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee introduced the item, which related to the Review of the Planning Advisory Service’s (PAS) report.

One of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s functions was to review Council services, so the Committee was happy to agree to the request to Review the PAS Report into the way in which the Planning Committees operate.

The Committee gave detailed consideration to the Cabinet Member’s report and comments from East Suffolk Planning Alliance (ESPA), heard from the Cabinet Member, Head of Planning and Building Control, and Councillor Ewart who had requested to speak.

The Committee was satisfied that no changes needed to be made to what had already been agreed by the Strategic Planning Committee in relation to the PAS recommendations, however, in light of some of the issues raised during the meeting, the Committee felt it necessary to make several additional recommendations that Cabinet was asked to consider:

1. That a specific Planning Protocol be developed.

2. That Members of the Planning Committee receive Annual Refresher Training.

3. That “How To” Planning Guides and videos be created and uploaded to the Council’s website to provide Councillors and members of the public with a greater understanding of the whole of the Planning process eg whether an application was needed; how to submit an application; what constituted a material consideration; making it clear speakers could only submit unedited or otherwise unmanipulated visual material in advance of any Committee meeting not on the day itself; and also detailing the procedure for a Planning Committee meeting eg to illustrate the space, layout and order of the meeting.

4. That laminated A4 sheets be created detailing how the Committee meeting would proceed, including the process for public speaking, and these be made available in the public gallery during Committee meetings so the public were clear on what would happen in which order.

Councillor Packard thanked Councillor Clery and the committee which considered the PAS review. The focus was on the experience of those who attend Planning Committees, especially for the first time. The recommendations were focussed on making it easier for people to go through the process of attending and speaking to Committees. 

There was a discussion around the decision to not allow photographs being added to Committee on the day of a meeting. Photographs should be submitted prior to the date of the Committee taking place. Councillor Packard was happy to accept the recommendations and for the team to progress the work.

The Chair clarified the PAS stood for the planning advisory service which was part of the Local Government Association (LGA). The Chair highlighted that it was not unusual for councils to do peer work, where service areas are assisted by external partners to enable them to add better value or make improvements if identified. 

The Chair confirmed that Cabinet was a stakeholder in the process and it was required to go back to Strategic Planning Committee for the July meeting as that Committee implemented decisions in relation to Strategic Planning. The Chair had contacted the Monitoring Officer to confirm that the correct process had been followed as per the constitution. 

Councillor Ashton requested clarification on what the Committee meant by ‘Planning Protocol’.  The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that it was a recommendation which the team had hoped to implement regardless. It had been discussed with the Constitution Review Working Group (CRWG) the previous year. The team were mindful of LGR and the wider national changes which are planned in the planning space.

The Head of Planning and Building Control added that Councillors and Officers had been involved in the task and finish group as well as the PAS review, which was a rigorous process which produced positive feedback regarding how East Suffolk Council taking forward planning committee decisions. The the PAS review brought forward improvements on what is a good functioning part of the planning system.

Councillor Noble added that the recommendations sounded sensible as it could be difficult to understand the process. Councillor Noble thanked the Committee and the Planning Team for their work.

Councillor Langdon-Morris recognised there were lots of positives and he was interested to see how the training evolved, it was a complex area of council business. The Councillor was grateful for ESPA’s comments being incorporated and the professional engagement.

Councillor Daly supported the recommendations.

Councillor Candy supported the recommendations to make the process easier for people to understand what to expect and how Committees operate.

Councillor Whitelock stated that managing expectations was important, and understanding the legislation that underpins planning needed to be recognised as it is a complex area for residents to understand.

Councillor Packard thanked members for their comments and highlighted that appeals were often won within East Suffolk,  which also showed the process was running well.

The Chair queried how many planning applications the Council had each year and how many appeals there were because of decisions made. The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that there were over 2000 applications a year, the majority were approved and dealt with as delegated decisions. The Council did have success on appeals which was as also down to Local Plans.

Councillor Byatt endorsed the work of the planning team and recognised the need for Councillors to have planning training. He felt that the review showed that the department was working effectively.

Councillor Topping accepted the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Packard, it was 

RESOLVED 

That Cabinet noted the Overview and Scrutiny Committee's recommendations and agrees to refer them with the Cabinet's comments to the next meeting of the Strategic Planning Committee as the decision-making committee for planning.

The Leader introduced report ES-2815 which related to the Appointments to Outside Bodies for 2026/27 (Executive). 

The report contained recommendations about Appointments to Outside Bodies for 2026/27 (Executive), for the 2026/27 municipal year.  The Cabinet appointed annually to a wide range of diverse outside bodies; some appointments were made because of a statutory requirement to appoint one or more Cabinet Members to them, most appointments were discretionary taking into consideration how representation adds value.  Appointment of Cabinet Members provided support to the organisation concerned and enabled Cabinet Members to fulfil their community leadership roles.  Cabinet Members appointed were able to work with and alongside various groups, helping to empower them in terms of addressing local issues and delivering sustainable solutions.

For information, the Ipswich Strategic Planning Area Board (ISPA) would be changing over the coming weeks to cover the whole of Suffolk.  Further information, including the Board’s new name will be provided at a future meeting.

The Chair thanked the other leaders for supporting the work across all Outside Bodies.

Councillor Daly recognised the importance of the demanding and rewarding work.

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

RESOLVED

 That Cabinet: 

1. That Councillors be appointed to those (Executive) Outside Bodies listed in Appendix A for the 2026/27 Municipal Year. 

2. That the Leader of the Council be authorised to fill any outstanding vacancies left unfilled by the Cabinet. 

3. That the Leader be granted delegated authority to make any necessary changes to the membership of the (Executive) Outside Bodies for the remainder of the 2026/27 Municipal Year.

The Leader introduced report ES-2817 which related to the Suffolk Economy and East Suffolk Thriving Economy annual review.

The overall position was that there was strong progress across economy, skills and business resilience. Performance was mixed and some ambitions were ahead of targets while others were lagging. Continued delivery depended on partnership working and future funding. The Chair thanked the Strategic Director and the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration for their work with other Districts and Boroughs to enhance collaboration with the Suffolk Business Board. 

The Head of Economic Development and Regeneration added that the Suffolk Business Board oversees the local growth plan which is also known as the Suffolk Economic Strategy. The County Council mobilised the Business Board and it was made up of members from private sector, public sector, academia, voluntary and a range of stakeholders.

Overall progress was above target. There were couple of areas which were behind, actions were being put in place to mitigate that. In addition, the opportunity was taken to look at the progress against ‘Thriving Economy’ of the Strategic Direction.

Councillor Daily queried the mention of the countryside in the report, such as sustainable agriculture, bio systems or soil health. Head of Head of Economic Development noted the comment and would explore further. 

Councillor Beavan commented on the concern around young people engaging with regard to health and well-being and fears of the impact of AI. The Councillor was keen to get a task force together to address the concerns.

Councillor Candy commented that there had been a Marmot Advisory Board meeting the previous day and queried the alignment of that work with the 'Thriving Economy' work if there was help from the government to address some of the issues being experienced in areas.

Councillor Whitelock highlighted the importance of the coastline economy and that it should be in the scope of the 'Thriving Economy'. Councillor Whitelock also agreed with Councillor Daly’s points on the importance of the natural environment.

The Strategic Director added that there were parallel conversations happening regarding skills and Julia Nicks from DWP now sat on the Lowestoft Place Board. There had been a conversation around challenges particularly in the Lowestoft area. There was an intention to develop a Youth Hub in Lowestoft which would work to engage those hard to reach. It would likely operate as a pilot scheme. The Chief Executive referred to the Coastal Navigators programme which was an NHS / DWP partnership programme which were also involved in looking at employment opportunities for young people in coastal towns. These were predominately focussed on Felixstowe and Lowestoft. The Chief Executive added that the Marmot Place work was looking at joining up Coastal Navigators and the Youth Hub, as there were various areas of work addressing the issue from different angles. 

The Chief Executive referenced the point raised regarding the natural environment. The report being considered was the 'Thriving Economy' element and the Growth Strategy. The Environmental Impact Strategy was coming to the next Cabinet meeting and there would be an opportunity to see where the priorities align. The sustainable growth aspirations sat in the Environmental Impact Strategy, not necessarily in the driving growth area. The Chief Executive was part of the Local Visitor Economy Partnership for Norfolk and Suffolk and there was a huge amount of work around natural visitor tourism and how we keep East Suffolk, Suffolk and Norfolk special. Regenerative tourism was also part of local visitor economy partnership work. 

The Chief Executive discussed the Pride in Place initiative in which £20 million of funding was going to be distributed through Local MPs in designated geographic locations in Lowestoft and Felixstowe over a ten-year period. Community Groups would be set up with a Chair from those communities. 

Councillor Byatt queried if the recent announcement from the County Council which was going to abandon their net zero objective would impact on local ambition. The Chair responded that she was aware of the press that Suffolk County Council's administration had decided to abandon net zero and it was a concern to everybody.

On the proposition of Councillor Topping seconded by Councillor Candy it was   


RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Cabinet: 

1. Noted the Suffolk Economy Annual Review

2. Noted progress against the Thriving Economy priorities during 2025/26

Councillor Beavan Cabinet Member with responsibility for Housing introduced report ES-2816 which related to the Housing Regulation – Quarterly Update to Cabinet

The report provided an overview of the statutory housing regulatory requirements and the progress being made to meet them. The report was one of the agreed quarterly updates to cabinet and was for information only. Members were aware of the context including the C3 grading issued by the regulator for social housing in July 2025 following identified failings in the safety and quality standard. The report set out the progress being made including the development of the improvement plan and the steps officers were taking to strengthen compliance, improve service delivery and prevent recurrence of these issues. It also reflected the ongoing commitment to work constructively with the regulator. 

The Head of Housing described the Housing Improvement Oversight Board which was in its second iteration. The board meet on a quarterly basis and was chaired by the Leader and in her absence Councillor Beavan as Cabinet Member for Housing. The proposal going forward would see the quarterly update report that goes to the Housing Improvement Oversight board being present to Cabinet, instead of there being two separate reports. There would also be a tenant friendly version which would be able on the website. 

The Head of Housing added that the Local Government Association had been invited to complete a peer review of elements of the landlord service provision. They will be looking at governance, financial capabilities, safety and policies within the housing stock. The team have also been asked to focus on neighbourhoods, anti-social behaviour and domestic abuse to see how well the Council support tenants. 

The peer team will spend two full days interviewing and meeting with Members, Officers and tenants. Following which a short update would be provided to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT), then a more detailed report would be produced.

The Head of Housing added that tenant engagement was an area of focus for the team, there was considerable work to continue to encourage as many tenants as possible to volunteer and be part of the Housing Scrutiny and Oversight mechanism. 

The Chair asked the Head of Housing to update on the dashboards. The Head of Housing responded that the team had been working with the digital team, who were creating number of dashboards. At present, the dashboards were internal only due to containing detailed personal information. The was an aspiration to progress to share more information publicly. and the team are working on alternative dashboards which could be public facing. 

Councillor Packard was curious to understand if the team understood the reasons why tenants might be reluctant to engage. Councillor Beavan responded that he believed people were busy and that provided a barrier to engaging. The Head of Housing added they believed there were a number of factors and there has been work to try to understand the barriers. The Head of Housing believed it varied from people working full-time, having families, busy lives and the roles are voluntary which could also be a challenge. The team have been trying to develop a suite of offers so people could be involved as much or as little as they wanted to be. The Head of Housing added that there had been successes with the estate days, which provided an opportunity to talk to tenants. One had recently been held and there was a programme of others planned over the summer. 

Councillor Candy queried customer satisfaction and how information was given to tenants. The Head of Housing responded that there was some information provided through the dashboards, where personal information was redacted. The team were looking to develop a complaints review group, where tenants would review anonymised complaints to explore the way it was managed and dealt with and provide recommendations on the process. 

The Head of Housing added there was published information on the website, and following the report being considered, the intention would be to publish more information on a quarterly basis. Some of the publicly available information showed how compliant the housing stock was and how the council was performing against the tenant satisfaction measures. Tenant satisfaction measures were completed on a monthly basis and reported quarterly. 

Councillor Byatt sought an update on St Peters Court. Councillor Beavan responded that progress was being made. The Head of Housing added that they were now making good progress and had appointed a company who have started to remove the asbestos, the process being used meant the flats were taken back to just the bare brick walls. A lot of the asbestos was removed when fire safety work was carried out a few years ago and it was understood they were not currently finding significant amounts which was positive. The Head of Housing was optimistic the actual demolition will commence in the early part of 2027.

On the proposition of Councillor Beavan seconded by Councillor Daly it was

 RESOLVED

That Cabinet: 

1. Noted the information contained within this report and endorses the work of the Housing service who are working towards ensuring the Council is compliant with the Regulator of Social Housing Consumer Standards, including the Safety and Quality Standard.