Meeting Details

The Democratic Services Officer opened the meeting and explained that apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Deacon, Chair of the Committee, and also Councillor Clery, Vice-Chair.  She, therefore, requested nominations for a member of the Committee to Chair the meeting and on the proposition of Councillor Back, seconded by Councillor Gooch, it was:

RESOLVED

That Councillor Jepson be appointed as Chair for this meeting only.

Councillor Jepson duly assumed the Chair.

The Committee was informed that Councillor Green was attending as Councillor Deacon's substitute.  An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Thompson. 

It was also noted that, in accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Bennett had recused himself as a Member of the Committee for this meeting as he was the Assistant Cabinet Member to the Leader of the Council, however, he attended remotely on Zoom to support the Leader for item 5 on the agenda.

(a) 12 February 2026

The Chair reported that, in relation to item 3 of the Minutes relating to the £1.5m allocated to market towns, the draft Minute reflected what was stated on the night, however, the Committee was recently informed that there had subsequently been some changes and they had received a briefing note giving an update on the Thriving Places Fund. He added that a copy of that briefing note would be added to CMIS for the public to view if they wished.

In the absence of any comments or changes to the Minutes, on the proposition of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Back it was

RESOLVED 

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 February 2026 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(b) 19 March 2026

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

RESOLVED 

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 March 2026 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(c) 23 April 2026 

On the proposition of Councillor Leach, seconded by Councillor Cawley it was

RESOLVED 

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 23 April 2026 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Chair stated that he felt the report was a skeletal framework which needed more detail on how LGR would be implemented including how the Council would work with its various partners and how it would be delivered.

At the Chair's invitation, the Leader gave a brief introduction to her report by explaining that the Government's objective was to transform Suffolk's six existing Councils into three Unitary Councils by 1 April 2028.  She added that the decision to have three rather than one Unitary had been supported by residents as it provided more democracy and local connection.  The Councils were all working together in the "discovery" phase which involved baselining, asset mapping and identifying risks. Staff were given regular updates on progress and the cross party Member Development Steering Group would continue to provide training and briefings so Members could understand what it meant to be a Unitary Councillor.  The cross party LGR Member Working Group met regularly and fed bi-monthly into the other Suffolk meetings to drive things forward.  It was expected that the Structural Change Order (SCO) would be in place in November and once that happened everything would be set in stone.  The Leader stated that Suffolk County Council had put in a Judicial Review against the Government and they would have to prove that the Government did not make a sound decision in choosing three Unitaries over one.  Formal Joint Committees would be set up once the SCO was in place, although it had been agreed that Voluntary Joint Committees would be set up before the SCO went live.  East Suffolk Council would have one representative on the Ipswich and Southern Joint Committee and two on the Central and East Suffolk Joint Committee.  A Programme Management Office would be formed to deliver support to all the Councils and Workstreams had been set up which would be led by Officers from across the Councils so that all the Unitaries would operate similarly when Vesting Day happened.  Risks identified throughout the LGR process would be logged on the Council's own corporate Risk Register.  The "design" phase would start in autumn 2026 leading to "implementation".  The Leader stated that the Chief Executive would provide a Member briefing before the next Full Council in July to keep everyone up to speed but that, whilst she appreciated some Members might not feel they had had as much input as they would like, she hoped the cross party LGR Working Group Members felt they had their voices heard.

The Strategic Director stated that details of the approximately 30 Workstreams would be circulated to the Committee.  The Workstreams involved a large number of Officers from across Suffolk, with several being led by Officers from this Council.  He explained that the initial objective in the "discovery" phase was to capture the world as it was eg taking the Waste and Recycling Workstream - where were the depots, how many staff were there, how many and what type of vehicles were there, what tonnages were collected, what contracts were in place, whether any services were contracted out and, if so, how long would they run. The information was captured on spreadsheets and then fed into the Programme Management Office.  The "design" stage would ask the question of what was the best way to do the system and might lead to some Workstreams being changed at that point.  Workstreams were grouped into seven themes, each sponsored by one of the Chief Executives, and were very focussed and detailed in order to create the new systems.

The Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services reported that, alongside the work involving all the Suffolk Councils, East Suffolk had its own LGR programme to determine what this Council needed to do for the period up until 31 March 2028.  The programme included a plan on how to support staff and Councillors, making sure data was ready, and that the Council was in the right place financially and governance wise.  She explained that, in relation to the Suffolk wide LGR Programme, the Programme Management Office was made up from Officers representing all the Councils in Suffolk.  She was working closely with the Interim Programme Director who had been appointed to ensure that a robust programme was in place during the "discovery" phase and whilst a Programme Director was being recruited. The Implementation Board would contribute to the Structural Change Order and the transitional governance arrangements with other early scoping pieces of work going to the Board to make sure everyone understood what needed to be done between now and April 2028.  

The Leader stated that part of the reason Government was moving forward with LGR was to save money and she was pleased to be able to inform Members that this Council was forecasting a £1.7M surplus in the outturn report for 2025/26 which could be added to reserves.  This improvement was largely due to one-off items.  The outturn would be reported to Cabinet next month but it strengthened the Council's financial resilience.  She reminded the Committee that, as presented in the budget report to Full Council in February, the General Fund reserves would be increased from £2M to £8M in 2026/27.  They had a balanced budget for the current year, however, she remained mindful of the £12.3M budget gap in 2027/28 and added that budget meetings between Cabinet Members and Officers would start next month to look at solutions.  She stated that they would need to address transition costs linked to LGR with options including the use of reserves and capital receipts, and they continued to press Government to reconsider elements of the finance settlement to support Councils at this critical time.  She concluded that, while the current financial position was positive, they remained focused on the challenges ahead and maintaining financial stability.

The Chair thanked the Leader and reminded the Committee that this review was about the process of delivering LGR not about the detail of what LGR looked like eg boundaries etc.  The following responses were received to Members' questions:

• Cumbria had the same timeframe to implement LGR as Suffolk.  Norfolk and Suffolk had chosen to fast track which was why it was happening so quickly and it was acknowledged that it was a challenging timeframe.  Unitary Councillors had said that Councillor resilience was important and that savings could take five years.  Those Councils who had already become a Unitary were still having problems eg Cumbria had over 400 Workstreams and were still trying to marry them up ie waste had still not been lined up.
• Suffolk County Council had submitted a Judicial Review letter and they had three months to issue a claim.  No Judicial Review relating to LGR had ever been upheld.  The only thing they might be able to challenge on was the 500,000 residents threshold for each unitary area as having three unitaries meant the number of residents would be below that.  In the meantime, everything was continuing unless the High Court told Government to review their decision.
• Shadow Unitary Authority Councillors would be appointed in May 2027 and it was confirmed that, if they were an existing District/County Councillor, they would receive an allowance from each Authority.  The money to pay for the Shadow Councillor Allowances would come out of the transition costs.  They would not be able to interfere with any District or County functions, but would undertake the functions prescribed in the SCO eg appointing statutory officers and members of the Independent Remuneration Panel, and agree the Unitary Council's Code of Conduct and Constitution in preparation for April 2028.
• The £1.7M budget surplus had occurred because some projects had not come to fruition and the Council had earned more interest than expected but details would be circulated to the Committee in due course.
• Existing projects were in line with Our Direction 28 so had been ringfenced as a priority but a challenge of LGR was the resource it would take to implement everything and this Committee would be asking each Cabinet Member about that.  There were several capital projects that, in the context of LGR, it made sense to pause eg it had been planned to move to a new housing operations depot to an adjacent site in Lowestoft at a cost of £2.5M but as it was not yet known what the shape of housing would be under the new Unitary it did not make sense to continue, although some scoping/prep work could still be done.  Officers had gone through the capital programme and identified where it made sense to stop or get to a certain point, eg secure a site, decontaminate a site, obtain planning permission etc but those projects were in the minority.
• Officers were doing the LGR preparation work and Members would scrutinise and shape that.  Officers were under pressure as they were trying to do their day jobs and implement LGR as well as extra pressures from the Government re housing, planning, waste management etc.
• There would be democratic oversight at each stage of the LGR process.  Joint Committees would have democratic oversight of the work now, the Shadow Authority would be in place from May 2027 and they could set up a Shadow Scrutiny Committee if they wished.  East Suffolk's Scrutiny Committee could scrutinise the impact LGR was having on work now.
• Suffolk County Council was co-operating and work continued in tandem with the Judicial Review process so everything would be ready if LGR went ahead.
• The Council had engaged Trueman Change, an organisational change firm, who had also been engaged by Babergh and Ipswich and they continued to work with Cumbria.  They worked with managers on how to deal with change and uncertainty as the biggest question staff had was "what does this mean for me" but the Council was not in a position to answer that yet and there was still nearly two years to go.  Some staff were disengaged, anxious and some would leave but Senior Officers would work with the Wellbeing staff group and the Leadership Forum to hopefully steady the ship and coach the some 270 identified managers through it all.
• Conversations had been held with Town and Parish Councils as part of the Annual Conference, in relation to assets they might want to take over, however, that created a lot of work for Officers so it might need to stop eg Halesworth had already applied and Woodbridge were saying they might be interested but at some point this would need to be parked due to Officer capacity.
• The cross party Member Development Steering Group was devising a package of support for East Suffolk Councillors who might want to stand as Unitary Councillors eg several attended the recent LGA session where three Unitary Councillors explained how they had transitioned from a District to a Unitary Council, the expectations and how they carried out both roles at the same time. 
• East Suffolk Council would not be responsible for training and inducting the new Unitary Councillors so it was important that parties put out information to prospective candidates on what would be expected.  All a District Council could do was some Be A Councillor activities prior to the May 2027 elections.
• One of the Workstreams was looking at the Unitary Councillor Induction Programme including that they had laptops and ID passes etc, although there was a need to decide how it would all be funded in the transition. 
• The Member Development Steering Group had discussed existing Councillors offering the new Unitary Councillors peer support during the Shadow year including perhaps asking some previous portfolio holders to speak to them.  The Group had also talked about the current Group Leaders creating a video or something to explain to candidates what was expected of them.
• Preparations for a new Local Plan were already underway on existing boundaries because East Suffolk did not have a five year land supply anymore as the Government had increased the target by 80% so it was difficult to challenge developers if the Council did not have an up to date Plan.  All the Suffolk Councils were going through the process so they could be aligned following LGR.  It was a statutory obligation to have an up to date Local Plan and the Council was vulnerable without one in place so, although it would not be completed before East Suffolk ended, the process had to be started now.  The Head of Planning and Building Control would be asked to provide the Committee with further details.
• Nothing could be imposed on the new Unitary, however, Sovereign Councils could put forward things they did now and cherised, for example East Suffolk would put forward the Youth Council, Community Partnerships, Place Boards etc as good practice and hope the Unitary Council adopted them.  Part of the current "discovery" phase was about identifying what each Council did with a view to the Unitary deciding what it wanted to take forward.
• The Member Development Steering Group had agreed to having an East Suffolk Council legacy workshop in October 2026 which all Councillors would be invited to so they could reflect on things they would like to continue with and put forward recommendations to the new Unitary.  It would also be an opportunity to ask how they wanted to mark the end of East Suffolk Council. 
• During the "discovery" phase, all the asset registers across Suffolk would be collated and at "design" stage, recommendations would be put forward on how assets might work better eg if highways and street cleansing were more joined up, would there be an opportunity to maximise the benefits but have a more local responsive service?
• It was anticipated that if a Town or Parish Councils took over responsibility of any assets, they might need some financial support.
• The role of this Committee had been discussed with Councillor Deacon and it had been agreed to continue scrutinising East Suffolk Council's services and finances using the Cabinet Member Scrutiny Sessions to see if LGR would have any impact eg some projects might have to stop because of LGR due to staff capacity/financial resources.

Given several Members had expressed concern regarding the tight timeline and the resources needed to support the LGR process, the Leader suggested that the Committee might want to consider these as possible recommendations to Cabinet.  She also asked the Committee to let her know if there was anything more that could be done to keep Councillors informed of progress.

The Chair stated that he was reassured Councillor Deacon had been consulted and commented that the Committee was always willing to look at anything that was referred to them if Officers were not happy about something.  The Chair then invited the Committee to debate and make any recommendations if necessary.

Councillor Lynch suggested that the focus should be on East Suffolk this year rather than on LGR because the priority should be what affected residents today.

Councillor Ninnmey disagreed, stating that this Committee should be updated as to where the Workstreams were heading and how they would impact on East Suffolk Council.  He added that, given the timescale to prepare for LGR and continue Business As Usual, it was clear more resources were needed from Government or an extension of time.

Councillor Cawley stated that it was important this Committee continued to follow the money and that there was a smooth transition of projects, especially those that affected residents, to ensure they did not just fall off a cliff.  He suggested that the Committee still needed to keep an eye on LGR progress but perhaps not a deep scrutiny as there were other areas Members needed to focus on, and they needed to be given the right information eg when they had looked at the budget, projects totalled about £8M but there was no information on those that had been held or delayed so the Committee did not know if they were important projects or not.  He concluded that the devil was in the detail and stressed that this Committee needed to be given that type of information.

The Chair stressed that, if this Committee was minded to recommend Cabinet consider asking Government for additional resource or an extension of time, then they would need to be clear on exactly what they were asking for and what it would be used for. 

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

RESOLVED

1. That Report ES/2823 be noted and Cabinet be recommended to consider whether Government should be asked for additional resources and potentially an extension of time to support the implementation of LGR in Suffolk.

2. That the Committee be provided with the following:

• Information on the LGR Workstreams.
• How the Council had achieved a budget surplus of £1.7M in 2025/26.
• The reason East Suffolk Council was starting the new Local Plan process on existing boundaries given it would no longer exist from 1 April 2028.

The Committee adjourned at 7.45pm and reconvened at 7.55pm.

The Chair thanked the Leader for her report and she explained that she had not been sure what part of the Portfolio Members would be particularly interested in and, given how pressed Officers were as already discussed, she had not wanted them to spend a lot of time providing information the Committee did not want.  She added, however, that she did want to particularly highlight the following two areas of her portfolio:

• Thriving Places Fund: Grant forms were now available for seed funding for communities not in Felixstowe or Lowestoft as they already received a lot of Government funding.  One of the criteria was that Ward Councillors would need to support an application so they would be able to keep an eye on what was coming through.  Capital and revenue funding was available that could be used to leverage in funding from other organisations.   
• Lowestoft, Felixstowe and Leiston Place Boards: These were locally based involving business people and stakeholders.  Ward Councillors could be more involved in the Boards by having an input on what they saw as important matters to focus on and legacy work. 

In relation to the Thriving Places Fund, the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration reported that there had been over 40 expressions of interest so far but he would have to check if there had been any from Woodbridge.  Applications that met the criteria were moved forward to full application stage and were assessed by a panel involving the Leader, Cabinet Member for Resources and Value for Money, the Cabinet Member for Communities, himself and the Head of Communities and Leisure.  Those that were unsuccessful would be able to appeal and any that did not meet the criteria would be signposted to other sources of funding where possible.

The Committee Members raised the following:

• The criteria for the Sizewell Community Fund.  Further information on how funding was awarded would be circulated in due course.
• The difference between the Towns Development Fund criteria and that of the Thriving Places Fund.
• The Martello Tower P feasibility study.
• The financial oversight for the First Light Festival.
• An update following on from the Committee's previous Cultural Quarter Review.
• North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood Leisure Centre delay and investment in the existing Leisure Centre facilities.

The Leader also gave an update in relation to the Community Wealth Funding element of her portfolio and she stressed that it was early days but they were exploring opportunities to work with anchor institutions to provide social value and enable residents to earn a living or help themselves, which also fitted in with the Marmot Place Programme.

The Chair thanked the Leader and Officers and it was agreed that further information on the following would be circulated to the Committee in due course:

• Thriving Places Fund applications received to date.
• The criteria for the Sizewell Community Fund. 

The Chair reminded the Committee that they made appointments to Scrutiny related Outside Bodies on an annual basis, therefore, an appointment was needed for the Suffolk County Council Health Scrutiny Committee.  It was noted that a nomination had been received for Councillor Thompson to remain as the primary appointee and Councillor Byatt as the nominated substitute. 

Councillor Ninnmey stated that it would be useful to receive a report on how the new Integrated Care Board was working.

In the absence of any further nominations for either the primary appointee or nominated substitute positions, on the proposition of Councillor Gooch, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey it was 

RESOLVED

1. That Councillor Thompson remain as the primary appointee on the Suffolk County Council Health Scrutiny Committee for the 2026/27 Municipal Year.

2. That Councillor Byatt remain as the nominated substitute for the Suffolk County Council Health Scrutiny Committee for the 2026/27 Municipal Year in the event that the primary appointee was unavailable.

3. That the Leader of the Council fill any outstanding vacancies left unfilled by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

4. That the Leader of the Council make any necessary changes to the membership of the Suffolk County Council Health Scrutiny Committee for the remainder of the 2026/27 Municipal Year, in consultation with the other Group Leaders.

The Chair reminded the Committee that, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, they were required to provide an Annual Report to Full Council on their activities.

In the absence of any comments on the draft Annual Report and on the proposition of Councillor Green, seconded by Councillor Back it was

RESOLVED

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee's draft Annual Report for 2025/26 be approved and referred to Full Council in July 2026.

The Committee was reminded that they received regular updates on their recommendations so they could track progress, and this report provided an update on the recommendations made throughout the last Municipal Year.

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

RESOLVED

That the Update Report on Committee recommendations for 2025/26 be noted.

The Committee received the draft Work Programme and were reminded that it had been agreed to include Better Recycling as part of the review of ESSL in September, however, given the problems being experienced with the roll-out, the Chair suggested that, if Councillor Deacon agreed, it should be dealt with as a separate item and the meeting be split as it would be too much to cover all the items in one meeting.

Councillor Gooch endorsed the proposal to split the items across two meetings and referred to comments made at the Environmental Task Group who had felt that greater communication was needed for the roll-out so they would also be looking at the matter.  She added that she was concerned that the meeting venues were weighted towards East Suffolk House.  The Democratic Services Officer explained the reasons for this but stated that she would review it to see if any could be swopped to Riverside.

Councillor Ninnmey suggested that the Committee should look at the effectiveness and reach of the Marmot Place Programme and the Chair suggested this be covered as part of the Cabinet Member for Communities Scrutiny Session in November.

The Chair commented that this Committee tried not to duplicate the work of other meetings so if the Environmental Task Group was also considering the roll-out of Better Recycling then it might not be helpful for this Committee to do so as well, however, he suggested leaving that decision to Councillor Deacon.

Councillor Cawley queried who scrutinised the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Democratic Services Officer responded that Full Council scrutinised it by way of the Annual Report and the Committee also reviewed itself annually.  Councillor Gooch added that the external trainer they used also scrutinised them as he watched some of their meetings and provided feedback.

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

RESOLVED

That the draft Work Programme for 2026/27 be approved, subject to the meeting venues being reviewed and delegated authority being given to Councillor Deacon to decide if the September meeting should be split over two meetings.