Meeting Details

Members are invited to a Meeting of the Full Council

to be held in the Deben Conference Room, East Suffolk House, Melton

on Wednesday, 22 July 2026 at 6.30pm

This meeting will be broadcast to the public via the East Suffolk YouTube Channel at https://youtube.com/live/b-E9RHoA-xg?feature=share

To receive apologies for absence, if any.

Members and Officers are invited to make any declarations of interests, and the nature of that interest, that they may have in relation to items on the Agenda and are also reminded to make any declarations at any stage during the Meeting if it becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

To receive any announcements from the Chair, the Leader of the Council, members of the Cabinet, or the Chief Executive, in accordance with paragraph 28.2 of the Council Procedure Rules.

The following question has been submitted by the public in pursuance of paragraph 29.1 of the Council Procedure Rules:

The following questions from Members have been submitted in pursuance of paragraph 29.4 of the Council Procedure Rules:

Question from Councillor James Mallinder to Councillor Sally Noble Cabinet Member for the Environment

 Tetra Paks are notoriously difficult to recycle because they fuse paper and plastic together to create a waterproof membrane.  As they are now being collected as part of the Better Recycling programme, what contractual guarantees do we have with our waste management partners that these cartons will be processed efficiently? 

Question from Councillor Peter Byatt to Councillor Paul Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services - Digital, Customer Services, HR, Assets and Car Parking

As we are all very well aware, the introduction of Better Recycling has experienced a number of operational problems district wide that have likely caused this council serious reputational damage. 

Will you, therefore, provide a detailed open report to this Council as soon as possible, to include information on the elements that failed, and any update on longer-term changes as a result of the lessons learned?

Question from Councillor Tess Gandy to Councillor Paul Ashton, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Corporate Services - Digital, Customer Services, HR, Assets and Car Parking.

The failure of a smooth implementation of Better Recycling has led to large numbers of concerned residents contacting Councillors, MPs or East Suffolk’s Customer Service Teams, or posting comments on social media. Some of the concerns relate to residents trying to do the right thing but others have been anxious about rat infestations or the proliferation of maggots in bins that remain in the heat uncollected.

Unfortunately, the failure of the operation has been compounded by a lack of communication that would have helped limit public concerns. 

Can you explain why communication from this administration apologising for the bin system failure and explaining what has happened was non-existent? It would have been really helpful to have addressed this via social media, the press, etc so our residents knew what was going on, when their bins would be collected and also to be reassured that engaging and supporting the new bin system was worthwhile.

Question from Councillor Peter Byatt to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Topping

East Suffolk is now a Marmot Place. This means the council is more acutely aware of its power to impact the factors that influence inequalities in peoples’ health, such as providing good quality housing or plenty of open, free, green space. Every council department needs to consider the eight Marmot Principles in their decision making to ensure there is no negative impact on this programme’s target ambitions.

Even though the full roll-out of East Suffolk’s Decision Wheel is postponed until a Unitary Council has been established, to embed these Marmot Principles in key decision-making processes and to provide a visual aid, can we still re-visit our Wheel to find out if it is feasible to add a further ring to the ‘doughnut’? Or could we create a separate wheel to include the Marmot Principles that can be used now?

The following motions have been received from East Suffolk Youth Council in pursuance of paragraph 31.2 of the Council procedure rules:

MOTION TO FULL COUNCIL:

This Council notes:

1. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee have invited participation from ESYC.

2. The ability to meaningfully engage in annual council processes represents a precedent being set by ESYC by continuing to embed youth input in vital ESC functions.

3. There are challenges to ESYC regularly featuring in ESC ’s social media posts due to the anonymisation of the youth councillors to the general public.

4. The Communications Team has expressed their willingness to collaborate with the East Suffolk Youth Council in designing, planning and sharing promotional content, specifically social media posts.



East Suffolk Youth Council resolves to:  

1. Establish a small committee group of youth councillors to meet with Cabinet Member for Resources and Value for Money at relevant moments in the year, preferably after the GLI budget session in the Autumn, to make advisory suggestions on particular areas of the budget, like spending related to young people - This committee should be made up of a maximum of 5 councillors who volunteer. If more than 5 volunteers, it should be up to the ESYC to vote for the representatives on the committee.

2. Vote on the suggestions to the budget discussed between the Cabinet Member for Resources and Value for money and the committee before they are formally submitted to the cabinet member.

3. Request that Councillor Katie Graham (Assistant Cabinet Member for Energy and Climate Change with responsibility for liaison between the administration and ESYC), asks Councillor Vince Langdon-Morris (Cabinet Member for Resources and Value for Money) if he is open to working with the self-elected committee of ESYC representatives and, if so, extend an invitation for them to participate in the development of future budgets regarding areas which impact young people.

 
East Suffolk Youth Council calls on East Suffolk Council to:

1. Advocate for the continuation of an appropriate mechanism to facilitate input from young people into budget processes by a successor council and involve ESYC in creating these plans.

2. Encourage the communications team to regularly promote ESYC on ESC ’s social media page. The promotion should focus on the activities, motions and meetings of ESYC, and anonymise the youth councillors unless specific permission is granted.  

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

Motion to Full Council

Proposer: Cllr Sarah Whitelock
Seconder: Cllr Tom Daly

This Council notes that:

Changing Expectations of Environmental Protection

• The Government Response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review (2025) confirms that they ‘will legislate to clarify that developers of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects are not required to pay financial compensation in order to comply with the Protected Landscapes Duty’ (Recommendation 19, p. 32) . 

• Despite its focus on nuclear regulations, elements of this review are now being applied to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects generally.

• The Nuclear Regulatory Review (2025), also known as the Fingleton Review, recommends the establishment of a new nature fund which ‘should be sufficiently large that it exceeds the likely cost of any harm to nature’ (286-88) in the form of a substantial fixed contribution to Natural England (Recommendation 12, p. 71) .

• The Government have not explicitly confirmed the creation of this fund. The response to this recommendation states that they will identify opportunities by Autumn 2026 to ‘accelerate the development of nuclear projects’ through the targeted use of Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs) under the Nature Restoration Fund (p. 28-9). 

• EDPs ‘remove the requirement for project specific surveys, HRAs (Habitats Regulations Assessments) and bespoke mitigation. Instead, developers can make a single payment that discharges relevant obligations’ (p. 28-9) . 


• In their response, the Government also confirms that they will develop a bespoke regulatory pathway to allow rapid development on Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE) sites, with detailed plans to follow in summer 2026 (Recommendation 12, p. 28-9).

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm

• SSE Renewables/ RWE Offshore Wind initially offered £10,000 for impacts on National Landscapes. The National Landscapes team calculated these costs to be closer to £465,000. The Examining Authority (ExA) encouraged discussion, which resulted in the applicant offering £50,000. This was reliant on the Secretary of State considering that a financial contribution was appropriate.

• The Government decision notice stated that ‘Accordingly, the Secretary of State disagrees with the ExA and considers that the duty can be discharged without the need for further mitigation measures or enhancement in the form of compensatory financial contributions.’ (4.126, p. 33) 

• This decision has been made ahead of the legislation outlined in the Government Response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review (2025) being put forward.

Centralising Decision-Making Powers and Distancing Communities

• East Suffolk Council has written to Lord Vallance of Balham  to express significant concerns regarding the government’s intention to establish a unit at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) to discharge Development Consent Order (DCO) requirements for nuclear and transmission projects . This would take these important decision-making powers away from local planning authorities; this approach may be extended to all energy projects.

• East Suffolk Council believes that the discharge of requirement process is essential to ensuring applicants are held accountable with their DCO consents, and in enabling affected communities to raise concerns.

• Reducing the role of local councils to a pre-submission consultee role only creates greater distance between decision-making, impacted communities, and the knowledge of local Councillors. Essentially, relevant powers are centralised.


This Council resolves to:

1. Lobby national Government to empower communities and stakeholders (including local councils, MPs, and protected landscapes) impacted by NSIPs to meaningfully contribute to the development of NSIP policy, particularly in response to the Fingleton review and regarding the provision for environmental protection.

2. Further lobby national Government to create a mechanism through which the local knowledge of communities and stakeholders, outlined above, can be optimised throughout decision-making processes, beyond formal consultation.

3. Call upon national Government to transparently convey policy changes related to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects to local stakeholders in a timely and accessible manner. This will ensure local government authorities are best prepared to support impacted communities, and allow informed residents to challenge, or be reassured by, changes as needed.

MOTION TO FULL COUNCIL

Proposer: Councillor Keith Robinson
Seconder: Councillor Paul Ashdown

This Council notes that:

• In 2020, East Suffolk Council assumed responsibility for on-and off-road parking enforcement.

• Over five years later, enforcement efforts have predominantly focused on car parks and parking restrictions within town centres.

• Out-of-town parking restrictions, particularly near schools, have been largely overlooked. This is a significant safety concern during school drop-off and pickup times. Despite substantial investment in double yellow line markings near schools and other key locations for safety reasons, these restrictions are frequently ignored by drivers due to the unlikelihood of enforcement. For example, repeated illegal parking on double yellow lines has resulted in several near misses involving pupils, as reported by staff and parents. 

• According to recent surveys, over 60% of school drop-off areas experiences illegal parking daily. The safety of children and the wider public must take precedence over the revenue generated from easier enforcement in central locations and car parks. The issue is repeatedly raised by schools and residents at parish council meetings.

This Council resolves to:

1. Implement additional resources for the policing of outlying areas of the towns, especially school zones. Specifically, the establishment of frequent patrols at school locations during drop-off and pick-up times.

2. Launch a public awareness campaign to reinforce parking restrictions in these areas. 

3. Collaborate with schools to identify problematic locations and times to further enhance the effectiveness of these new measures.

MOTION TO FULL COUNCIL

Proposer: Councillor Julia Ewart

Water Security, Infrastructure Planning and Statutory Consultation

This Council believes that the planning system must be capable of responding to the unprecedented infrastructure pressures now facing East Suffolk. The cumulative impact of major energy projects, including Sizewell C, Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, strategic housing allocations and significant speculative development is placing increasing pressure on water resources and wastewater infrastructure across a district already recognised as being under serious water stress.

Despite this, neither Essex and Suffolk Water nor Anglian Water are statutory consultees for planning applications. This represents a significant gap in the planning process. Early, formal engagement with both/all relevant water organisations would strengthen evidence-based decision making, improve transparency, reduce infrastructure risk and ensure that planning decisions properly reflect long-term environmental capacity rather than short-term assumptions.

Recent planning applications within East Suffolk have demonstrated the importance of understanding cumulative impacts on water supply, wastewater treatment and network capacity before planning permission is granted. Good planning requires good evidence, and good governance requires that decision makers receive consistent advice from those responsible for delivering essential public infrastructure. 

Whilst local government reorganisation remains proposed, with unitary elections currently anticipated in 2027, there is increasing uncertainty around the timetable. If, as appears increasingly likely, implementation is delayed, East Suffolk cannot continue to operate under arrangements that are no longer proportionate to the scale of development taking place across the district.

This Council resolves to:
1. Request that the Leader of the Council writes to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government seeking legislative change to designate Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water as statutory consultees for planning applications where water resources, wastewater infrastructure or network capacity may be materially affected.

2. Write to the Local Government Association, the District Councils' Network and Suffolk's Members of Parliament seeking their support for this change.

3. Request that Cabinet undertakes an immediate review of East Suffolk Council's validation and consultation procedures so that, pending any national legislative change, Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water are routinely consulted on all major and strategic planning applications, together with developments where cumulative impacts on water infrastructure may reasonably arise.

4. Request that Cabinet reports back to Full Council within six months on the outcome of this review and any recommendations for improving the Council's approach to water resilience within the planning process.

It is recommended that under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.     

• Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).