Meeting Details

RESOLVED

 
That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 6 April 2021 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Cabinet received report ES/0748 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Leisure and Tourism which sought approval for the revised Enabling Communities Strategy 2021-2024.

Cabinet was  reminded  that the original Strategy was approved in  2015; it  had been updated to better reflect East Suffolk Council's (ESC's) new Strategic Plan and it also took into account the Covid-19 pandemic. The Enabling Actions section had been restructured around the four priorities in the Enabling  Communities theme of the Strategic Plan and the Strategy explained ESC's approach to enabling communities.  It also defined the  terms "communities of place" and "communities of interest" and it emphasised the importance of being data led so that  resources could be targeted towards the people, communities and places  that most needed help.  

Cabinet was advised that the Strategy included ESC's 12 step enabling communities model and it also signposted to ESC's on-line enabling communities toolkit which included a range of ideas that communities could  use to engage other members of their community in various projects.   In conclusion, the Strategy provided an overview of ESC's approach and the fact that ESC was keen to enable communities, to help them to do what they wanted to do, rather than doing things to them, or for them, on their behalf.  

Cabinet gave its full support for the Strategy, commenting on the work of community partnerships and how they were helping to get support to those who needed it most; Cabinet also emphasised the importance of supporting communities coming out of the pandemic.  

In response to a question from the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Customer Services, ICT and Commercial Partnerships regarding any elements of communities that had not yet been reached and, if so, how that was being addressed, the Leader referred to the membership of community partnerships; he referred to ward members being members of the community partnerships and he emphasised that they should all be engaging, as they were, with  their local town and parish councils.  The Head of Communities added that, in addition to the role of ward members, officers had been working closely with the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) and Community Action Suffolk (CAS) in two slightly different ways.  With SALC, ESC had funded a few hours of one of its officers to work with ESC to try and boost the input from rural parishes in the community partnerships; as a result of that, rural representation had been boosted.  Also, CAS had developed a rural proofing toolkit,  the aim being to encourage everybody to  think more about the rural areas.  Referring to the reach into individuals and families, the Head of Communities referred to work being undertaken to analyse the needs identified through work with clinically extremely vulnerable; a lot of intelligence had been gathered and this was giving clues about people within ESC's communities that it wanted to reach during the coming months.   

Councillor Topping praised the work of the community partnerships and highlighted in particular  the work of Councillor Cloke; she also referred to the importance of the  smaller parishes being involved and, in conclusion, thanked officers for defining "communities"; she referred to consultations undertaken by ESC, and engagement, and felt that the more ESC could do to make documents more understandable,  the more  the public would engage.   

Councillor Ashdown, speaking as Chairman of a Community Partnership, emphasised the importance of ensuring that  small parishes were involved.     

Councillor Byatt, after giving his  support for the updated Strategy, referred to inter-generational communities working together; he supported this.  Councillor Byatt also referred to the references to  voluntary, community and social enterprise groups, and how they  worked, particularly with regard to some of the health themes; he suggested that perhaps  ESC could look to try and find ways in which  these groups could become part of  ESC's own supply chain.  In conclusion, Councillor Byatt referred to  the community enablers, as referenced within the report, and noted that they would be coming to an end soon;  Councillor Byatt felt that it would be a shame to lose those valuable roles in the community, if the contracts were not renewed.  

Following Councillor Byatt's comments and questions, the Head of Communities felt that the comment made by Councillor Byatt about supply chains was a really good point; she added that ESC  did commission voluntary sector organisations to deliver a number of pieces of work.  She also referred to the CAS community enablers and said  that she understood that discussions were underway in respect of extending their roles slightly, due to some unspent funding; she agreed that some of the initiatives that they had begun should be continued.   

On the proposition of Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Kerry, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

That the revised Enabling Communities Strategy 2021-2024 be approved.

Cabinet received report ES/0749 by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, the purpose of which was to adopt the Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Supplementary Planning Document.  The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management reported that  the Supplementary Planning Document supported the implementation of the Suffolk Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy, which mitigated for the impact of increased housing growth on protected Habitat Sites. The Supplementary Planning Document provided a framework for implementing the provisions set out in the Strategy, and also included information for developers and applicants to assist them in meeting the other requirements under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

Cabinet welcomed the Strategy, applauding the measures to protect some of  the most important natural environment, recognised internationally for their ecological value, which would seek to protect and enhance the unique natural environment of East Suffolk.  

Councillor Byatt referred to the protected sites, and commented that the report referenced some of the sites being within 20 kilometres of ESC's boundaries; Councillor Byatt asked if ESC had any control over those sites, and if it did so ,he enquired about established fees and whey the money would go. It was confirmed that the zone of influence was a 13 kilometre boundary around  the designated sites and the overall area of the RAMS Strategy extended across the boundaries of neighbouring authorities; as such, sites could be looked at collectively.  With regard to the 20 kilometre distance, this  was in relation to when looking at screening of impacts of supplementary planning documents.  The funds would be collected and arrangements were still being finalised as to how they would be distributed; however, the idea was that the funds would sit in a pot and could be targeted based on where development had come forward from; they would be collectively held by the RAMS partner authorities and spent accordingly across the area where the impacts could be seen, rather than being too constrained by authority boundaries.  

Councillor Gooch gave her support for  the Strategy; she asked if  there was a plan with regard to future development, and the levy, for people to invest in the area, ie to look after and invest in the wider community.  Officers confirmed that one of the measures to be funded through the project was a Delivery Officer who would be tasked with that kind of information sharing, education and, potentially, behaviour change.  There would also be wardens at sites, who would provide information leaflets and engage with people.  

Councillor Topping, referring to wardens, was of the view that they should be in place long-term, and not  for a short period.  Councillor Topping also referred to mitigation, as referenced within the report; officers confirmed  that the funding was for the period of the local plans, but there was a review built in and, as and when a new Local Plan was to come forward, the impacts would need to be reviewed and perhaps a re-calculation of the tariffs would need to take place.  Also, probably every  two years, checks would need to take place as to whether the tariffs that were being collected did adequately mitigate for the impacts of the increased visitors to the sites; as such, it  would be a rolling project.

On  the proposition of Councillor Ritchie, seconded by Councillor Mallinder, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

1. That the Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Supplementary Planning Document be adopted.
2. That the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, be authorised to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Supplementary Planning Document prior to it being published.

The Leader stated that in exceptional circumstances the Council may, by law, exclude members of  the public from all, or part of, an executive decision-making meeting. The Council should, unless there were urgent circumstances, give notice of its intention to do so via the Forward Plan, which was updated and published on its website 28 clear days prior to the meeting. There were various reasons, the Leader added, that the Council, on occasions, had to do this and examples were because a report contained information relating to an individual, information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person, or information relating to any consultations or negotiations. Tonight, the Leader reported, the Cabinet would be considering two substantive exempt matters which were outlined in agenda items 9 and 10 on the published agenda.

First, Proposed Redevelopment off Newcombe Road and Trinity Road, Lowestoft, asked Cabinet to consider the concept design and delivery of a capital scheme for the redevelopment of an asset which comprised an industrial premises and storage land situated within PowerPark, an area that covered Lowestoft’s port, dock and industrial area.  The redevelopment proposed to demolish the current buildings on-site and re-purpose the asset to provide 14 high specification industrial units of various sizes.    

Second, Review of Outsourcing Arrangements, asked Cabinet to consider any actions it may wish to take in respect of a break clause that was coming up related to an outsourced contract.  

On the proposition of Councillor Gallant, seconded by Councillor Rivett, it was by unanimous vote

RESOLVED

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 involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.