1

EAST BERGHOLT PARISH COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE STRATEGY, POLICY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

24 April 2025

Present – Parish Councillors
Councillor R Elmer (Chair)
Councillor M Hurley
Councillor J Miller
Councillor J Price
Councillor N Roberts
Councillor G Woodcock
Councillor M Hockley (by invitation of the Chair)

In Attendance
G White, Parish Clerk
One member of the public

OPEN PUBLIC SESSION

Brantham Parish Councillor Abi Edevane spoke in support of the application from Brantham Parish
Council for support for their Skatepark project by means of a CIL award. In a rapidly growing area there
were few facilities for young people and this project would provide an asset to the area and surrounding
environs and a community hub. The facility would last for generations and would combat anti-social
behaviour.

Brantham PC had provided £40k towards the total costs of £180k-£200k and were looking for grant aid
from a variety of sources including crowdfunding. If the latter proved to raise £15k or more, Sport England
may match fund.

Councillor Miller pointed out that developments in Brantham would have generated a large reserve for
Babergh CIL and that an application to Babergh might be expected to be awarded the maximum award of
£100k. Abi Edevane should also contact Simon Lanning at Babergh DC who can provide contacts details
for potential grant-awarding organisations.

Councillor Hurley considered the view from Brantham to be very positive and in particular the outcome of
the parish consultation and the Skatepark event which Abi Edevane had mentioned. The facility would be
free of charge and maintained by Brantham Parish Council.

Councillor Miller said that it was usual for villages to spend their CIL funds on assets within their own
Parish where they can be managed and maintained by the parish council. She noted that it was more
usual in our collection of local villages to fund assets within the village from village resources and that
neighbouring village residents would also be free to use them as a cross-border benefit. She also pointed
out that EBPC CIL funding had already been earmarked for identified projects within the village and if an
application were to be considered from a neighbouring village then one of these projects would have to
fall. Important issues of partnership arise in this and perhaps similar cases where working together in
partnership is very different from merely providing financial assistance to another council’s project should
be subject to a joint initiative rather than a single grant donation.

Th Chair thanked Abi Edevane for her contribution and closed the open public session.

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None.

2

2. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
None.

3. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of 23 January 2025 were approved as a correct record.

4. MATTERS ARISING/UPDATES

CIL Policy and PiiP Review – Councillor Roberts noted that a review of these policies was still
outstanding and it was agreed that a working group meeting be arranged after the Annual Council
meeting.

Hopper Bus – In response to a question from Councillor Roberts, Councillor Miller informed the
committee that whilst this proposal had not been approved by Suffolk County Council, it had advanced
to a list of projects which might advance further to approval, in due course and that a Babergh officer
was still working on it.

5. CONTINGENCIES

The Committee reviewed the Contingencies which had been allowed in 2024/25. The Media Package
featured prominently as there had been no budgetary provision for such a contract. Councillor Miller
explained that the arrangements were for weekly posts, a monthly article for the Parish Magazine and
any other communications required for the village. Councillors Miller and Roberts had conducted an
annual review with Nicki Reed earlier in the week and noted from her analytics that interactions had
risen from 2,000-7,000 per month to 30,000-50,000 Facebook views, all of which was very positive.
Additionally, it relieved Councillor Miller as Chair of the Council of a lot of regular work. Councillor
Hurley noted the positive impact via social media engagement which he thought was good. The report
was noted.

6. EXPENDITURE OFF-SET BY INCOME

The Council had asked the committee to give further consideration to this accounting practice which
had been raised at the last Council meeting. The Clerk presented his report and identified two
methodologies. The first was to keep income and expenditure completely separate which would result
in higher SPF and Burial Grounds budgets being required. The second was to off-set those committee
budgets with bank interest and cemetery fees respectively whereby income raised by those
committees’ activities was used specifically for the committees’ purposes and not simply slip into
reserves.

Councillor Miller noted that the second methodology had been used successfully by the Parish Council
for the best part of forty years, but either methodology was acceptable. The committee decided to
retain the current methodology (three voted for and one voted against).

7. PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL HARDSHIP FUND

The committee considered the application made for grant aid and the Council decision to make an
interim award of £250 whilst this committee gave greater consideration to a longer term and more
sustainable methodology to assist in the alleviation of hardship.

In discussion the committee identified the issue of a financial award to the fund being quickly
exhausted with no funds then available for the rest of the financial year and how best to avoid that.
The current informal arrangements between the PCC and the Primary School Headteacher needed to
be formalised in a tri-partite agreement with the Parish Council and the first step would be for a
meeting between the Church Warden, the Headteacher and a couple of Parish Councillors to agree
the methodology and how to deal with any shortfall of resources.

SPF agreed that a formal agreement should be made between the Church (representative Fiona Trott)
and EB Primary School Head so that the scale of the problem (how much money pa would be

3

required) is known; that there is a fair and equitable process for decision making; that the Parish
Council can assess if this is a one-time payment or whether it is a longer term commitment.

Councillors Hockley and Hurley agreed to meet with Fiona and Primary School Head and come back
to SPF with a draft agreement on just how the process would work and for SPF/PC to agree the
arrangement. The agreement should include:
– the criteria used to make a payment of food vouchers
– who is delegated to decide if the criteria are met (likely to be the Primary School Head)
– what is the likelihood of the demand (there will 1 month’s experience to date)
– note of the other organisations that are funding this initiative together with the amount.

8. CIL APPLICATIONS

Brantham Parish Council – Further to the discussion in the open public session (above), the
committee considered that if financial resources were to be employed for something in another parish,
it would have to be a co-operative project taken forward in partnership as a joint project, which this
was not, rather it was simply a request for financial assistance. The project was a great idea which will
benefit surrounding areas and which the Council supports in principle, but the Parish CIL fund has
been earmarked for other projects in East Bergholt.

East Bergholt Bowls Club – The Committee considered the application from the Bowls Club for a CIL
award to cover the costs of a new storage shed on site. Whilst the committee saw the need for the
shed, as it was to be located on the Council’s land it considered that the Council ought to buy and own
the shed which would be used by the Bowls Club. Consequently, this application for a CIL award was
refused and instead an allocation of funds from the Parish Council budgets to purchase the shed was
approved.

9. APPLICATION FOR GRANT AID

The committee consider the application for grant aid from Lighthouse Women’s Aid and under Section
1 of the Localism Act 2011 awarded a grant of £500.

10. URGENT COMMUNICATIONS

None.

The meeting closed at 9.40 pm

Chairman…………………………………………………………………………………….Date………………………………………..