1

EAST BERGHOLT PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEE TING
Thursday 13 November 2025 at The Lambe School, Gaston Street, East
Bergholt

Present – Parish Councillors
Councillor J Miller (Chair of the Council)
Councillor N Roberts (Vice-Chair of the Council)
Councillor M Burns
Councillor S Davies
Councillor R Elmer
Councillor M Hockley
Councillor M Hurley
Councillor L Matthews
Councillor J Price
Councillor R Smith
Councillor G Woodcock

In Attendance
G White, Parish Clerk
N. Reed, Media Consultant
Five members of the public

OPEN PUBLIC SESSION

The Chair welcomed members of the public to the meeting and invited them to address the
Council.

Peter Metcalfe referred to DC/24/04500, the Hills application, and expressed concern about
the loss of green space around the nursery and whether the swimming pool would ever be
built. The Chair agreed with him and said that was why the Council may insist on conditions
to safeguard both elements of the development.

Mr and Mrs Metcalfe live on Richardsons Road and have been dismayed to see the bund of
significant height behind their house and the top soil heap along the lower field was also
discussed. The Chair explained that both the Parish Council and District Councillor Davies
had been pressing Babergh DC planning enforcement for action to remove the top soil heap
in the lower field. The bund has planning permission, the heap does not.

Adrian James wondered why this site had been highlighted for development by Babergh DC
when it was already being developed. The Chair explained that at the time of Babergh DC’s
report this site had not commenced so was shown as available. Houses built at Constable
Gardens and St James Place will however both count in Babergh DC’s calculations for East
Bergholt’s future allocations.

Mr James enquired if the south east area of the site was to remain open and was advised
that it was, for drainage purposes. He also referred to a potential racetrack around the pre-
school area and asked when the footpath was likely to be dedicated. District Councillor

2

Davies said the top soil mound had been raised again with officers but any enforcement
action would follow determination of the current planning application.

Angela Day, a new resident of Phase 1 of St James Place, expressed her great concern
about the increasing speed of traffic on the B1070, particularly when coming round the bend
from the Brantham direction now that there were two new left turns into the development
which vehicles are encountering at too great a speed. The B1070 should have a 30mph limit
all the way to Brantham and the present speed limit signs need to be extended.

Councillor Roberts said the Parish Council had been concerned about speed on the B1070
for years and had engaged in a long and ongoing conversation with Suffolk highways. The
Parish Council wants to change the road configuration to slow traffic and have a 30mph limit
along the entire route. However, Suffolk highways do not think the speed limit is important.

Councillor Price added that the primary efforts of the Roads, Footpaths and Flatford
Committee had been over the Gandish Road crossroads where little progress had been
made with Suffolk highways, despite the numerous accidents at that location. A speed
indicator device is now present on the road by the development and may prove to be a
deterrent to speeding. He was aware that there would be more traffic on the B1070 if Stage
2 of the development is permitted in some form and he suggested that Mrs Day may wish to
alert the MP and the County Councillor of her concerns as the more representations they
receive, the more notice they will take of the matter.

Councillor Smith welcomed Mrs Day to the village and wished to squash any feeling that
newcomers were unwelcome which was not the case. The concern was not the residents but
the potential for overdevelopment by the developer.

Mrs Day added that the footpaths in the village are very narrow in many places and must
impair access for those with limited mobility. Councillor Roberts replied that the Parish
Council was on to this problem but regrettably had little influence with Suffolk highways who
bore the legal responsibility.

The Chair thanked all contributors and closed the Open Public Session.

97.25.26 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence received from Councillors Allen and County Councillor Hall were
NOTED.

98.25.26 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST S OR DISPENSATIONS

None.

99.25.26 MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 9 OCTOBER 2025

Councillor Price pointed out a typographical error in Minute 95.4 Para 2 line 4 where the
word ‘bee’ should state ‘been’.

It was proposed by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(eight voted for, none voted against) that subject to the above amendment the minutes of the
Council Meeting of 9 October 2025 be approved as a correct record.

3

100.25.26 MATTERS ARISING/UPDATES

Minute 90.25.26 – Neighbourhood Plan Committee Chair – The Chair reported that although
it was not his personal preference, for the good of the Council and the parish, Councillor
Roberts had put himself forward as a candidate for Chair of the Neighbourhood Plan
Committee. It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Burns and
RESOLVED (ten voted for, none voted against) that Councillor Roberts be appointed Chair
of the Neighbourhood Plan Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2025/26.

Minute 95.3 Playing Field Committee – The Chair reported that she was working with John
Hambrook, Chair of the Sports Council, in progressing with the Football Club its future
requirements, which will arise in the imminent budget and council priorities discussions.

Minute 95.5 Young People Committee – The Chair reported that Councillor Burns had been
appointed Chair of the Young People Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year
2025/26.

Open Public Session 9 October – Councillor Roberts asked District Councillor Davies
whether any progress has been made in respect of the Grange Country Park. District
Councillor Davies said that she had been in touch with the site agents and requested that a
meeting with residents be arranged. The agents said they considered a meeting premature
prior to Babergh DC determining the planning application.

Upon the second issue of how Babergh will monitor the arrangements once approved,
District Councillor Davies said it was evident that the relevant officer knew little about how
this was to be administered but she would continue to press the new case manager.

The Chair noted that there was no red line drawing with the application to identify the site
and that it could not be a valid application without it, as councillors would need to know what
they were managing the approval of.

Councillor Roberts referred to the piece on the Council’s website which was inaccurate and
required amendment. The Clerk undertook to look into the matter.

District Councillor Davies referred to the position of residents concerning Council Tax and
individual liability if not identified from amongst the 80 designated units. Babergh DC had still
to resolve this and also whether the 80 would reduce the village’s housing requirement.

The Chair updated the Council on the meeting with Henry Fairbanks, Director of the
Chestnut Group regarding the Group’s development proposals for the back land of the pub.
The intention is to submit a planning application for bed and breakfast accommodation
comprising 2 x 2 storey blocks of 8 and 6 bedrooms which is more compliant with
Neighbourhood Plan policies than housing. Mr Fairbanks will take back the Parish Council’s
request for pedestrian access through the site to the Congregational Church.

Minute 93.6 Supplementary Estimate – Playing Field Committee – Councillor Roberts
enquired about progress with the quote for the rabbit-proof fencing. Councillor Hockley
advised that the relevant quote had been accepted and the work was almost completed.

4

The Chair updated the Council that she had spoken with the agents for Pond Field who may
consider an offer for it if the Council sought to buy it.

The Chair informed the Council that the Co-op had agreed to install a litter bin outside the
store and was happy for the Council to install a dog bin in the vicinity.

101.25.26 COUNTY AND DISTRICT COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS

The report from County Councillor Hall had been circulated. If councillors had any questions
upon it they should contact County Councillor Hall by email.

District Councillor Davies presented her report which had been circulated and expanded
upon it. The Babergh DC Cabinet had decided to increase the fees for litter and dog bin
collection for 2026/27 in order to achieve full cost recovery, a necessary measure due to
financial constraints.

Regarding the High School rebuild, representatives wish to attend the Parish Council
meeting in January 2026 to commence public consultation upon the proposals.

Councillor Hockley asked why the Football Club was being charged £5k for the hire of
pitches at the High School. The local teams were being priced out of the market by those
from outside the village who could afford the fees. District Councillor Davies said this was
not the school levying the charges but the contractor, Abbeycroft, who run various sports
centres and have been contracted by Babergh DC. She added that a new sports centre will
be provided as part of the rebuild.

The District Councils in Suffolk have written to the relevant Government Minister concerning
Suffolk County Council’s campaign for One Suffolk (a single unitary council). The districts
accuse the County of using public money unlawfully to lobby for the County’s preferred
solution.

Councillor Price referred to his previous remarks upon the standard for homes in compliance
with policy LP24. The policy seeks 50% of developments to meet the specified house
building standard. He asserted that Hill’s proposal is for the minimum standard only and not
M4(2). The Chair invited Councillor Price to submit a paragraph of evidence in this regard
which can be added to the Council’s submission upon Hill’s application.

Councillor Hurley recalled that the Council had previously asked the High School if it could
be invited to nominate governors. As there a been a passage of time with no invitations he
thought the Council should ask again. The Clerk was requested to write to the High School.

The Chair thanked District Councillor Davies for her contribution.

102.25.26 CORRESPONDENCE

The correspondence set out in the Correspondence list circulated with the agenda and
subsequently was considered and NOTED, comprising:

Date Sender Subject
1. Undated Headway Suffolk Request for grant aid
2. 08/10/25 Councillor Davies DC/24/02093

5

3. 13/10/25 National Grid Norwich to Tilbury Devt. Consent Order
4. 17/10/25 Suffolk County Council Norwich to Tilbury line – PC reps at EIP
5. 20/10/25 Babergh DC Call for sites and draft land supply
consultation.
6. 23/10/25 PCC Thanks for YP grant aid
7. 31/10/25 National Grid Community Benefit Fund
8. 07/11/25 Tony Brigden DC/24/02093
9. 10/11/25 Babergh DC Norwich-Tilbury NSIP -Babergh DC drop-in
surgery
10. 10/11/25 Babergh DC Adoption of Capel St Mary Neighbourhood
Plan 2024-2037

Items 1 – It was proposed by Councillor Hockley, seconded by Councillor Hurley and
RESOLVED (unanimously) that pursuant to Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 a grant of
£500 be awarded to Headway Suffolk.

Items 2 and 8 – The Chair said that these letters will be taken into account when the
planning application is considered.

Item 9 – The Chair noted that the pylons will finish at Holton and the electric wires will
continue underground to Ardleigh. Councillor Roberts had visited Capel and Manningtree
Libraries though there were no exhibitions as advertised in National Grid’s advance publicity.
Councillor Roberts said had heard there will be a new roundabout and spur road were being
discussed to provide access to Raydon airfield where plant and equipment for the pylons
would be stored. This required further investigation. Councillor Smith commented that the
overhead and underground cabling would cause A12 disruption causing traffic to re-route
through East Bergholt. The Council was unsure how best to make its points and Councillor
Smith agreed to investigate. Councillor Roberts observed that the correspondence does not
say when or where the EIP will take place.
Item 5 – Councillor Roberts said that the 5 Year Housing Land Supply consultation draft
showed a requirement for 2184 houses over the period 01/04/25-31/03/30 based on 416
dwellings per annum and a 5% buffer. The assessed supply over this period amounted to
2349, giving 5.38 years of housing supply, which for now achieved the required level.
However the new method for calculating the numbers of new houses required will use 779
dwellings per annum and on this measure, Babergh DC would not be able to prove a 5-year
supply. As this is a real prospect in upcoming years it is important that the Parish Council
moves with urgency to get its Neighbourhood Plan revisions approved as soon as possible.
It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED (ten
voted for, none voted against) that the Parish Council is pleased to see that Babergh DC has
a 5-year housing land supply and supports the methodology used for the 2025 report.

103.25.26 PLANNING

103.1 Planning Consultations received

6

DC/25/04500 Riber House, Rectory Hill, East Bergholt, CO7 6TH –
Notification of works to trees in a conservation area –
Crown lift 1no mixed tree/hedge row – mainly comprising
of Limes and Hollys (G1) to 2.6m over footpaths and
5.2m over highway.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by
Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED (unanimously) that no
objection be recommended.

DC/24/02093 Land east of the Constable Medical Centre, Heath Road,
East Bergholt, CO7 6RT – Full Planning Application –
Mixed use development of two phases comprising 40
dwellings in Phase 1 and 59 dwellings in Phase 2
(including 34 affordable units in total); swimming pool;
pre-school; neighbourhood hub comprising office space
and a local shop; public open space, associated
infrastructure and landscaping.

The Council’s comments and recommendation are set-out
below this tabulation.

DC/25/04652 Binfield, Gaston Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6SS –
Notification of works to trees in a conservation area –
Reduce 3no Silver Birch (TI, T2 and T3) by 30%.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by
Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED (unanimously) that no
objection be recommended.

DC/25/04655 Holly Orchard, Gaston End, East Bergholt, CO7 6SU –
Householder application – Erection of detached
outbuildings, conversion of garage to form gym/games
room.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by
Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED (eight voted for, one
voted against) that approval be recommended.

DC/25/04782 Flatford Mill Field Centre, Flatford Lane, East Bergholt,
CO7 6UL – Application for listed building consent –
replacement of damaged windows.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by
Councillor Roberts and RESOLVED (unanimously) that
approval be recommended.

Planning Application 15/10/25 DC/24/02093
Land east of the Constable Medical Centre, Heath Road, East Bergholt, CO7 6RT

7

Full Planning Application – Mixed use development of two phases comprising 40
dwellings in Phase 1 and 59 dwellings in Phase 2 (including 34 affordable units in
total); swimming pool; pre-school; neighbourhood hub comprising office space and a
local shop; public open space, associated infrastructure and landscaping.

Resolution of East Bergholt Parish Council, 13.11.25

East Bergholt Parish Council RECOMMEND REFUSAL of planning application 15/10/25
DC/24/02093

The reasons for recommending refusal are outlined in full below. The 2 core reasons
summarised are:

1.Unsuitable housing with no identified need.
There is no demonstrable need for the new housing in East Bergholt and the new housing
proposed is unacceptably high in density and unsuitable for a rural village environment.

2.Removal of Community Benefits associated with the original planning permission.
The revised proposals either remove entirely or threaten removal of the community benefits
associated with this application. The proposed new homes require the removal of the 2 x
Public Playing Fields, the removal of half of the pre-school garden, removal of 15 public car
park spaces. The remaining community benefits, the construction of the swimming pool and
the pre-school facility are also called into question by the applicant in previously submitted
documents on the grounds of financial viability.

Overall, this application fails to deliver the required community benefits and the 24 additional
houses are contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan policy and are not justified on any measure
of local need.

The detail which supports the Parish Council’s recommendation to refuse this application are
set out below.

Background

This is a complex and often revised application with over 353 detailed documents attached,
as well as a preceding application B/16/01092 that established the outline conditions for
approval.

The original application, along with 2 other development sites proposed in East Bergholt at
Moores Lane (144 houses) and Hadleigh Road (10 houses, was refused through Judical
Review in the High Court by Lord Justice Mitting in 2016 on the basis that the District
Council had not considered in full the local planning policies and East Bergholt
Neighbourhood Plan (EBNP) policies. The process had specifically misjudged the local need
for these houses and that the community benefits proposed did not outweigh the effect of
approval. Lord Justice Mitting defined “Local need” to apply to the locality of East Bergholt
and hinterland villages where the evidence of need identified through a series of Housing
Need Surveys was identified as approximately 25.

After a long period of meeting Housing Land Supply (HLS) targets, Babergh failed to have a
5-year HLS, but in 2018 it was able once again to meet the 5-year threshold. During the
short period of 2017/18 the application to build was resubmitted and approved due to the

8

local Babergh Local Plan and EBNP policies being set aside in favour of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) presumption of approval. This would give greater
emphasis on the community benefits achieved. A Judicial Review of this approval failed in
the High Court in 2018 due to the local planning policies being set aside because of the
failing HLS figure.

The key changes in revision 15/10/25 DC/24/02093 from original planning consent are:

•The revised application shows an additional 24 houses (99 revised plan as opposed to 75 in
approved plan), all concentrated on the western, Phase 2, part of the site.

•This has been achieved by significant reduction in community benefits, that is:
o deletes 2 x public playing fields
o halves the outside play area of the pre-school facility
o reduces the size of house gardens and less space for parking making it more likely
that cars will park along the roads
o reducing the width of internal site roads
o reducing the number of public car park spaces by 15.

•The design shuffles the homes in Phase 2 of the site to move the private market homes to
the south and west of the Phase 2 site and concentrates the affordable homes into a ghetto
to the centre north of the Phase 2 site.

•The design adds in maisonettes to the east of the pre-school facility

•The design places one market home immediately to south of pre-school facility instead of 4
affordable homes, though the assessment still shows a probable noise nuisance

Phase 1
homes
(east half
of site)
Phase 2
homes
(western
2/3 of site)
Flats
above the
shop
Total Community Benefits
The original
application
33 34 8 75 Community shop
Swimming Pool
Pre-school facility with
large garden
Public car parking for 84
cars
2 x Public Playing
Fields
Drainage Lake and open
space restricted access
for safety.

DC/24/02093,
revised
15/10/25
32 59 8 99 Community Shop
Swimming Pool
Pre-school facility
removing half of
previous garden
Public car parking for 69
cars

9

Drainage lake and open
space restricted access
for safety.

Changes -1 +25 0 +24 No Public playgrounds

In summary, the evidence for recommendation to refuse the application are:

Detailed Housing and Density recommendations:

1) There is no identifiable local need for further housing in East Bergholt and the majority of
the community benefits which were derived from the original approved application have
either been removed or their financial viability put in doubt by the developer, ie:
• In 2016 the original proposal for 75 homes was judged not to be compliant with local
policies, particularly the lack of identified local need, despite the significant community
benefits.
• In 2018 the application was approved based on NPPF criteria when a 5YHLS is absent
and so the “tilted balance and presumption in favour of sustainable development” was
invoked. In this judgement the community benefits that would result carried weight.
• In the 15/10/2025 revised application DC/24/02093 proposes:
• 32% more houses (+24) are proposed for the site making a total of 99 new
homes
• this requires a 75% increase in density for Phase 2 area
• a number of the community benefits have been removed to fit in the extra
houses (2 public playing fields, half the garden of the pre-school facility) and
there is doubt drawn to the attention of the planners in the applicant’s
submitted documents as to the viability of the remaining proposed community
benefits of a swimming pool and a pre-school facility

2) There is too much concentration of Affordable homes. The original planning permission
showed a strong requirement for the affordable homes to be pepper potted across the whole
development site as this will deliver stronger community benefit. This application has moved
all affordable homes to a site in the central northern part of Phase 2 housing build creating a
ghetto of affordable houses.

3) Removal of over 55s dedicated dwellings. With a population significantly titled towards
the over 55 population, the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan identifies a need for more,
not fewer, bungalows. The approved application provided this, but this application has
removed the allocation of over 55’s bungalows.

4) Density of affordable homes too high. The applicant does not tell us the density of the
Phase 2 development, especially the affordable homes units, but these are far too high,
presenting an urban design unsuitable for a rural village. The comparative layout on page 9
of the DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT (UPDATE) entirely misrepresents the actual
density of Richardsons Road houses and gardens and the proposed Phase 2 increased
number of houses. The actual comparison is more clearly shown on the document submitted
by the applicant’s PROPOSED LAYOUT DENSITY PLAN – 170120/PA/500/V15.

5) The application misrepresents the site character and its surroundings. The Design &
Access Statement, page 14 of the original revised application, states “the application site is

10

within an established urban area…” The site actually sits on the perimeter of a village of
2750 population, surrounded by national landscape, and is not urban by any measure, rather
we are by definition a rural village. The application fails to complement the environment in
which it would be introduced, and the density required for the housing proposed, in addition
to being thoroughly incongruous, the application would displace the larger gardens and open
space benefits of the original application.

6) No requirement as Local Need for housing has been met. The assessment of housing
need for East Bergholt is derived from “local need”. Lord Justice Mitting in his judgement on
our JR gave guidance that Local need relates to the need established for our village, not for
the whole District. Can the applicant describe how the local need for East Bergholt is not
overwhelmed by the provision proposed in their latest application? Housing Need Surveys
done over the past 8 years assess that up to 25 affordable homes would satisfy local need.
50 affordable homes have been built on the Moores Lane site with a further 33 due to be
built on this site. Thus the Local Need requirement has already been satisfied.

7) The EBNP policies apply. The Planning Statement in the first revised application, which
the applicant still relies upon in this new revision, at para 5.22, 5.31, 6.60 erroneously
suggests they are out of date.

Detailed Community Benefit recommendations:

8)The revised application removes 2 proposed public playing fields south of the pre-
school facility. The playing fields fulfilled two functions:
i) They provide a noise buffer area between the houses and the outdoor playing area
of the pre-school facility.
ii) East Bergholt is assessed in Babergh’s research papers for the Draft Joint Local
Plan to be the village that has the lowest open public space, with the exception of the
urban areas adjacent to Ipswich. The inclusion of these 2 Playing fields provided a
community benefit which would address that issue. With the removal of this benefit
and its replacement with houses, this application adds to the problem rather than
decreasing it.

9) Should the applicant fail to find operators for the community benefit components of
the scheme a planning condition is required to ensure appropriate alternative uses with
associated community benefits are provided in their place.
In the original revised application Planning Statement, para 4.10 and 6.11, the applicant says
that they have evidence that “operators would not want or need additional outdoor space for
the pre-school”. EBPC has direct evidence to the contrary from a local pre-school provider
who place a high value on outdoor learning for pre-school children.

10) Reduction in public car parking spaces. The plan approved, DC/20/04663 8/12/21,
identified a total of 84 parking spaces for the coop store, swimming pool and pre-school
facility. This revised plan, DC/24/02093 15/10/25, identifies only 69 parking spaces. This is
an unacceptable reduction, especially as the car park currently provided for the new coop is
already overflowing at times

11) The plan approved, DC/20/04663 8/12/21, identified a total of 84 parking spaces for the
coop store, swimming pool and pre-school facility. This revised plan, DC/24/02093 15/10/25,
identifies only 69 parking spaces. This is an unacceptable reduction, especially as the car
park currently provided for the new coop is already overflowing at times

11

12) Ensuring the community benefit. In the event that an approved application be granted
we recommend that that the community benefit provisions (paras 8-11 above) should be
assured through either a firm condition or a Section 206 arrangement. The community
benefit areas itemised can clearly be seen in the document APPROVED LAYOUT DENSITY
PLAN – 170120/P75/03/J submitted by the applicant

Other issues to note:

13) Disputed site boundary. It is understood that the site boundary along the western
boundary is subject to challenge by the owners of homes in Richardsons Road. Whilst the
legal argument is between Hills and the home owners, the site boundary needs to be clear
for validating the application and any permission that could arise and we understand this
remains a live issue.

14) A 10 year plus management landscape plan needs to be a condition of any
permission and additional tree planting on the road sides within Phase 2

15) The extra traffic generation has not been addressed and will add (cumulatively) to the
B1070 volumes and safety issues. The increase in traffic has already had a detrimental
effect on safety along the B1070, especially at peak work/school times at the beginning and
end of the day.

16) There is no consideration or improvement to the energy and carbon performance
of the scheme. This fails to meet best practice and national climate goals and is contrary to
EBNP and BDC policies on sustainability and green energy.

103.2 Planning Correspondence

The correspondence received from the Local Planning Authority as set out on the planning
list, concerning determined applications was NOTED.

104.25.26 STRATEGY, POLICY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

104.1 Schedule of Payments and Income – It was proposed by Councillor Elmer, seconded
by Councillor Roberts and RESOLVED (unanimously), that the schedule of payments and
income and the bank transfer be noted and the payments due in October 2025 amounting to
£16,872.02 be approved.

104.2 Bank Reconciliation Statement – The bank reconciliation statement for August 2025
was NOTED.

105.25.26 REPORTS FROM COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES

Constable Hall Management Committee – Councillor Price had nothing of substance to
report though mentioned that two chairs had been stolen.

East Bergholt Community Land Trust – Councillor Matthews said there was nothing to report.

12

East Bergholt/Barbizon Twinning Association – Councillor Miller reported that the annual quiz
was scheduled for 22 November and was the association’s major fundraiser of the year. She
encouraged members to attend at Constable Hall.

East Bergholt Futures – Councillor Woodcock reported that this group had sprung into life
again following an initiative by Councillor Davies. However, meetings are on Monday
evenings when Councillor Woodcock is not available and thus resigned as Council
representative. It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Hockley and
RESOLVED (unanimously) that Councillor Woodcock be thanked for his work as Council
representative over the years and that Councillor Davies be appointed as Council
representative for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2025/26.

East Bergholt Society – Councillor Miller said this would be mentioned in the In Our View
report later in the meeting.

East Bergholt Sports Council – Councillor Hockley reported that he was happy with the way
things were going and that the Sports Clubs were participating well. The Sports Council is
putting together proposals for the future.

SALC – Councillor Davies had nothing to report.

COUNCIL NOMINATED TRUSTEES TO OUT SIDE BODIES

East Bergholt United Charities – Councillor Burns reported that the Trustees met in October
and are seeking a new clerk. Recommendations from councillors would be welcomed.

Lettice Dykes – Councillor Hurley reported that a grant had been awarded to assist a young
person with the cost of musical instrument lessons.

The Lambe School – Councillor Elmer reported that the Trustees had met on 14 October.
Some new curtains for the main hall were in prospect. Disability assistance items were being
introduced in the toilets. Evidently there was a hiatus over the CIL application and who will
submit it to Babergh. The Clerk will resolve this with Linda Bestow next week.

106.25.26 COMMUNICATIONS REVIEW

Councillor Burns presented her report which reviewed current communications and made
recommendations for improvements. She invited questions from members.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Miller
and RESOLVED (nine voted for, none voted against) that:
1, The Chair/Vice-Chair should give verbal (or written reports to each Council meeting;
2. There should always be group emails to all councillors, from the Chair or Clerk, when
there is new information to share.

It was proposed by Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Roberts and RESOLVED (nine
voted for, none voted against) that:
3. Council meetings should end with a short discussion/agreement on the key
communication points/messages from that meeting which need to be publicised;
4. Committee Chairs/Councillors with particular interests or projects should take
responsibility for requesting updates/publicity for those interests or projects;

13

5. Requests for updates/publicity should go to the Clerk;
6. There are a number of key messages which should be permanently seen on all our
platforms. These are:
• The dates of council meetings
• A clear, friendly invitation to residents to attend council meetings;
• The Parish Council contact details, especially our website address.

It was proposed by Councillor Burns, seconded by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED (seven
voted for, none voted against) that:
7. Some existing website copy be re-written so it is more engaging and inclusive;
8. The Clerk to manage website updates (see also 5. above);
9. Make sure we submit 400 words to the parish magazine even if the deadline cannot be
extended to align with Council meeting dates;
10. Ask Griers if we can have a bigger noticeboard;
11. Councillors and staff to make sure they are aware of social media guidelines contained in
the Council’s Media and Social Media Policy.

Due to the lateness of the hour the Chair sought a vote as to whether consideration of this
matter should continue. Two voted for continuation and five voted for deferral and
consequently the remainder of the report was deferred to the next Council meeting or
alternative appropriate meeting.

107.25.26 IN OUR VIEW/CONSTABLE 250 UPDATE

Councillor Burns presented her report updating the Council on the latest position on the
various strands of this project. The report was NOTED.

108.25.26 REVIEW OF COUNCIL POLICIES

This item was deferred to the next meeting.

109.25.26 COMMUMITY EVENTS

Councillor Matthews presented her report which detailed events which had taken place from
September 2023 to March 2025. She hoped to continue the initiative throughout the next
financial year and sought a budget of £500 and the support of a Working Group of
councillors together with some appropriate outside persons.

The Clerk commented that as these activities did not sit comfortably with any committee and
as the Council did not have a budget of its own, any financial provision would have to be
assigned to the Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee.

The Chair reminded Councillor Matthews that a Working Group did not have decision
making powers and any decisions required would have to be reported to Council as
recommendations.

It was proposed by Councillor Matthews, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that:
1. Community Events of a broadly similar nature to those undertaken over the past year
continue for the financial year 2026/27;

14

2. A budget of £500 be provided for the purposes of booking rooms and refreshments,
which budget be administered by the SPF Committee through its General budget;
3. A Working Group comprising Councillors Matthews, Hurley and Woodcock be
established to plan and manage the events together with any outside persons
appointed to the Working Group by the Council.

110.25.26 CASUAL VACANCY

The Clerk reported that the Returning Officer had advised that an election had not been
requested by registered electors and so the Council could proceed to co-opt. The vacancy
had been advertised with a closing date of 16 November but to date no applications had
been received.

111.25.26 URGENT COMMUNICATIONS

None

The meeting closed at 10.48pm

Chair……………………………………………… Date…………………………………

Date of next meeting Thursday 11 December 2025