CC04/2 MINUTES of the meeting of SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, St Helen Court, County Hall, Ipswich on Thursday, 22 January 2004 at 2.00pm. PRESENT: Helen Whitworth - Chairman of the County Council Ron Snell - Vice-Chairman of the County Council Peter Aldous, Tony Andrews, Sue Back, Trevor Beckwith, Peter Bellfield, Bill Bishop, Malcolm Cherry, Jeremy Clover, Mary Crane, John Field, Wil Gibson, Joan Girling, John Goldsmith, Terry Green, David Grutchfield, Russell Harsant, Jane Hore, Peter Howard, Steven Hudson, Brian Hunter, Nick Irwin, Richard Kemp, Gerry Kiernan, Adi Lavender, Maggie Lee, Rae Leighton, Don Levick, Tony Lewis, Kevan Lim, Inga Lockington, David Lockwood, Duncan Macpherson, Harold Mangar, Graham Manuel, Sandy Martin, Guy McGregor, Charles Michell, Jane Midwood, Betty Milburn, Peter Monk, Ray Nowak, Patricia O’Brien, Stefan Oliver, Jeremy Pembroke, Kathy Pollard, Selwyn Pryor, Bill Quinton, Keith Rawlingson, John Wyn Roberts, Marie Rodgers, Morris Rose, David Rowe, Bryony Rudkin, Bill Sadler, Robin Sargent, Janet Sibley, Don Smith, Joanna Spicer, Jane Storey, Julian Swainson, John Taylor, David Thomas, Sue Thomas, Alan Thwaites, Bob Tostevin, Ron Ward, Leslie Warmington and David Wood. The following Councillors were unable to be present: Jane Andrew-Smith, Nigel Barratt, Roger Bellham, John Kelso, John Le Grys, Roger Pendleton, Ross Scott, Sue Sida-Lockett and Val White. [At 1.50pm, councillors had the opportunity of gathering for prayers, which were led by the Reverend Keith Morrison, Curate at St Augustine’s, Ipswich.] 1. CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS Before the formal business began, the Chairman made a number of announcements: (i) Photographs. She advised councillors that the press (Evening Star) would be taking a number of photographs at the start of the meeting so that they could show people what a council meeting in progress looked like. It was intended that it would only take a few minutes and would be as unobtrusive as possible. -1- (ii) Extraordinary Meeting of Council Further to the Chief Executive’s letter of 15 January, the Chairman confirmed that an extraordinary meeting of the Council had been called on Thursday, 4 March. This meeting would look specifically at the Boundary Committee’s proposals on Electoral Arrangements and the proposal to establish a Regional Management Board for certain Fire and Rescue Service strategic matters. She added that as this was an extraordinary meeting, the agenda would deal with those two items only. The meeting would not, therefore, include questions to Executive Committee portfolio holders. (iii) Environment & Transport IIP The Chairman was pleased to announce that the Investors In People Assessors had confirmed that Environment & Transport had achieved the standard of an Investor In People. The former Highways Department originally met the standard in 1995, and this was the third time Environment & Transport had been reviewed and succeeded in achieving the standard. This was an excellent achievement and a credit to the Council in achieving external recognition of the way staff were developed. Her thanks went to the 60 people who were interviewed by the Assessors. The Assessors had enjoyed their visits and went away with a very positive view of Environment & Transport. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST AND DISPENSATIONS The following declarations were noted: (i) Jane Hore and Betty Milburn declared a personal interest in Paper CC04/1 (Strategy for Learning) as Board members of the Learning and Skills Council; (ii) Steven Hudson declared a personal interest in Paper E04/4 relating to Strategic Technological Partnering; (iii) Bryony Rudkin also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Paper E04/4. 3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 18 December 2003 were confirmed by the Council as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman. 4. SUFFOLK STRATEGY FOR LEARNING 2004 - 2009 Paper CC04/1 by the Acting Director of Learning referred to the Government’s intention to remove all the statutory planning obligations -2- currently required of local education authorities and instead require them to develop a ‘Single Education Plan’ covering all the responsibilities of the Council as Local Education Authority. Suffolk was one of 12 local authorities that had been invited to pilot the introduction of this Plan and a draft was attached to the report which appears in the Minute Book. Decision Council agreed to:- (i) endorse the Authority’s participation in the pilot stage for the Single Education Plan; (ii) authorise the Acting Director of Learning in consultation with the Portfolio Holders for Children & Young People and for Economic and Social Regeneration to agree any changes that were required in the light of further discussions and points made at the Council meeting and then submit the final document to the Department of Education and Skills by 31 January 2004. Reasons for Decision The Council recognised that participation in the pilot would bring early benefits from the lifting of current planning requirements and give the opportunity to review and improve current approaches to planning. It was a welcome step forward in terms of a reduction in bureaucracy. It was also noted that the Learning for Life Overview and Scrutiny Committee had looked at the strategy in detail at its meeting in December and the document reflected its observations on key areas of activity and aspirational learning goals. There were a number of comments made by Councillors that were noted: (i) There were some of areas of work where it was felt that in the future other bodies might develop a lead role, including extended schools projects in local communities and also the development of youth facilities. There were arguments therefore that the Local Education Authority should be prepared to play more of a facilitating role; (ii) The role of school governors should be given greater prominence in the document; (iii) Aspirations for improved participation and achievement in education and training post-16 were hampered in certain areas of the County by limited access to public transport; (iv) There was a suggestion that the document title should incorporate the phrase ‘Single Education Plan’ to link it explicitly to the Government’s initiative. -3- The Portfolio Holder for Children & Young People acknowledged the point about facilitation but impressed that this was a timing issue. As for post 16 transport, this was being reviewed nationally which might lead to some relevant developments. The title of Suffolk’s Plan reflected the broader cross-cutting approach to learning developed by the Council over a number of years. Alternative Options Council could have decided not to take part in the pilot but it was recognised that such a delay would have little advantage and would postpone the benefits of deregulation. While consideration would be given to the points raised above, there were no formal proposals put forward for an amendment to the Plan. Declarations of Interest As noted in item 2, Jane Hore and Betty Milburn had declared an interest in this report. Dispensations Not applicable. 5. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PORTFOLIO REPORTS AND QUESTIONS The Council received the report by each portfolio holder which were circulated with the agenda and copies appear in the Minute Book. Under Rule 7.3 a period not exceeding 60 minutes was allowed for questions and answers and the following Councillors had submitted their question in writing to the Monitoring Officer prior to the 10am deadline two working days before the day of the Council meeting. Councillors were only allowed to ask one question during that period, although they were entitled to one supplementary question arising directly out of the original question or reply. (i) From Councillor Richard Kemp to Councillor David Rowe: “Your comments are noted regarding the tax on second homes; also the fact that this will be applied to reduce the impact of Council Tax. This county has a serious problem with the price of property in general and in particular to the plight of our young people. Therefore, is Mr Rowe aware that in many similar counties, this money has been invested with district councils specifically to deal with such problems? Was this course of action considered by Suffolk County Council?” David Rowe said that he was aware that some counties were sharing the money for reducing the discount on second homes but the numbers doing so were very limited. From his sources he knew of far -4- more counties who were using the extra income to hold down the level of Council Tax. The course of action to devolve extra income to Districts was considered but the people of Suffolk said their primary concern was the Council Tax increase and the Administration decided to use the income to offset against that increase. While some communities with second home were likely to have unique problems, so did other areas of the County. The County Council was in discussion with Districts and Boroughs to get real evidence of the impact of second homes on local communities. That would assist all authorities in deciding how best to address this issue. By means of a supplementary question, Richard Kemp was of the view that next year the settlement was likely to be good and he asked for serious consideration to be given, with Districts and others, to the problems of the county in terms of affordable homes for young people and putting real money towards that cause. David Rowe said again that he wanted to see the evidence before coming to a view and would then look at the issues with partners including housing associations and the voluntary sector. He had no information in terms of the settlement for 2005/06 and was not in a position to pledge any money to particular causes. (ii) From Councillor Jeremy Pembroke to Councillor Bryony Rudkin: “Would the Leader of the Council agree with me that the Alastair Campbell type leak of the proposed increase in Council Tax for the next year is not a satisfactory way of informing the overtaxed people of Suffolk let alone your fellow councillors?”.