1

EAST BERGHOLT PARISH COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING

Thursday 9 March 2023 at The Lambe School, Gaston Street, East Bergholt

Present – Parish Councillors
Councillor J Miller (Chairman of the Council)
Councillor N Roberts (Vice-Chairman of the Council)
Councillor C Cathcart
Councillor S Davies
Councillor R Elmer
Councillor M Hockley
Councillor M Hurley
Councillor S Mills
Councillor J Price
Councillor S Rothwell
Councillor R Wombwell
Councillor G Woodcock

In Attendance
G White, Parish Clerk
L Smith, Assistant Clerk
District Councillor J Hinton
Two members of the public

Open Public Session

District Councillor Hinton referred to the Chairman’s article in the recent Parish Magazine which
made reference to the possible acquisition of the Congregational Church. He asked if there was a
business plan for its refurbishment and subsequent use and when would that be made public?

The Chairman replied that the Council was still in negotiation over the acquisition. Once there is an
agreement in principle the Council will consult the village upon future use. The negotiations had
been conducted in strict confidence and would have remained so until the transfer was settled but
for Babergh DC’s inappropriate disclosure of a confidential document in response to a FOI request.
The Chairman and Clerk had met Babergh officers, including the Monitoring Officer, and made it
clear to them why the Parish Council considered that the disclosure should not have been made as
the document was exempt form disclosure under several sections of the Freedom of Information
Act. Out of respect for the Congregational Church, the Council will not discuss future plans until the
final negotiation position is clear.

With regard to agenda item 7.3 Street Naming, District Councillor Hinton suggested that the Wake-
Walker family might be considered for nomination.

1. Apologies for absence

Apologies received from Councillor Allen and County Councillor Hall were NOTED.

2

2. Declaration of Interests/Dispensations

None.

3. Minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Rothwell and RESOLVED
(ten voted for, none voted against) that the minutes of the meeting of 9 February 2023 be
approved as a correct record.

4. Matters Arising/Updates

Minute 7.2 – The Chairman referred to the resolution authorising her to write to the Chief
Executive of Babergh DC and circulated a draft letter for consideration and subsequent
comment by councillors.

Minute 5 – Councillor Hockley asked for an update on the use of the Manningtree Tip. The
Chairman replied that pursuant to a cross border initiative Essex CC had promised to give
access to those with a CO7 postcode but their software required updating. County Councillor
Hall had been chasing this and could be asked for her further assistance. The Chairman
considered this to be a matter where Babergh DC and Suffolk CC need to be working
together and she asked District Councillor Hinton for his assistance in chasing the officers of
both authorities.

5. County and District Councillors’ Reports

County Councillor Hall’s written report had been circulated and was NOTED.

District Councillor Hinton presented his report which had been circulated and expanded
upon it.

Babergh’s Cabinet had now approved charges for private landlords; the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee was looking at public realm issues and talking to Anglian Water about
sewerage capacity. New residential developments with no upgrade to the sewerage system
was leading to unacceptable discharges. More forward planning was required from the water
authority and not just reaction after the event.

As this was his final report in the current term of office, the Chairman thanked District
Councillor Hinton for his efforts on behalf of East Bergholt over the last four years and for
making the Parish Council’s voice somewhat louder at the District Council. District Councillor
Hinton responded by saying that he will stand for election for one more term as he wants to
contribute towards the conclusion of important unfinished business.

6. Correspondence

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

3

Date

Sender Subject
1. 15/02/23 Terence W Cook Grange Country Park
2. 20/02/23 St Mary’s Church
Preservation Society
East Bergholt Open Gardens 4 June and
request for grant aid.
3. 21/02/23 Dedham Vale AONB Thanks for grant aid
4. 23/02/23 Suffolk CC New Greenest County Communities
Network
5. 27/02/23 AONB Youth Rangers press release
6. 28/02/23 Maxine Twemlow Application DC/22/05433
7. 28/02/23 AONB Amenity & Accessibility Fund
8. 28/02/23 Suffolk Accident Rescue
Service
Request for grant aid
9. 01/03/23 Babergh DC Major developments and announcements
10. 08/03/23
&
09/03/23
Maxine Twemlow 4 emails re Application DC/22/05433

Item 1 – This correspondence, forewarning of a probable planning application, was noted.
The Council will give thought to the matter and form a view upon it when the application is
received.

Item 2 – It was proposed by Councillor Mills, seconded by Councillor Hurley and
RESOLVED (unanimously) that pursuant to Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972
a grant of £300 be awarded to St Mary’s Church Preservation Society to assist with the costs
of the Open Gardens event.

Items 3, 5 and 7 – The Chairman noted that there were various opportunities for volunteers
in the AONB and that grants were available for projects in the AONB.

Items 6 and 10 – The Council noted the representations from Mrs Twemlow though it had
responded to the planning consultation at its last meeting and unless there was significant
new information, pursuant to Standing Order 9, it was bound by that decision. The
information provided was not considered to be significant enough for that decision to be
superseded.

Item 8 – It was proposed by Councillor Hockley, seconded by Councillor Elmer and
RESOLVED (unanimously) that pursuant to Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972
a grant of £200 be awarded to Suffolk Accident Rescue Service.

7. Planning

7.1 Planning Applications received

The Council considered the planning applications received from the Local Planning Authority
since the last meeting as follows:

4

DC/23/00660 Elmhurst, Slough Road, East Bergholt, CO7 6XP – Householder
Application – Erection of garden office/storage building (following
demolition of existing shed).

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by Councillor
Hockley and RESOLVED (ten voted for, none voted against) that
approval be recommended.

DC/23/00704 The Gables, The Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6TB – Application for
works to trees in a conservation area – Fell 1no Larch

It was proposed by Councillor Rothwell, seconded by Councillor
Woodcock and RESOLVED (eleven voted for, none voted against) that
approval be recommended.

DC/23/00705 Short Acre, Gaston Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6SD – Application
for works to trees in a conservation area – Reduce crown of 1no
Oak by 30%.

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

DC/22/06326 Land east of the Constable Country Medical Practice, Heath Road,
East Bergholt – Application under S73 for the removal or variation
of conditions following approval of B/16/01092 dated 09/02/2018
T&CPA 1990 (as amended) Outline – (all matters reserved) mixed-
use development including up to 75 dwellings, a pre-school and a
neighbourhood hub, comprising a swimming pool, office space
and a local shop, public open space and associated infrastructure
and landscaping as amended by drawings received on 11
November 2016 (omission of school land) – To vary condition 7 –
To link the completion of the S278 works to pre-occupation rather
than pre-commencement thus enabling commencement of works
on site.

In January 2023 the Council had considered the change to Condition 7
and resolved that refusal be recommended on the ground that the
condition is appropriate and the applicant had given no justification for
its variation. There remains no reason given for the change to the
condition.

It was noted that the developer had commenced work before the pre-
commencement conditions had been satisfied and Babergh’s planning
enforcement team should be notified.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by Councillor
Hockley and RESOLVED (unanimously) that the Council reinforces its
previous decision and recommends refusal on the grounds that the
condition is appropriate so that the estate roads are properly
constructed prior to commencement of the building works. In addition,

5

the local planning authority be notified that tree replacement/restoration
is required and should be undertaken immediately; that there needs to
be a temporary 20 mph speed limit for an appropriate distance on both
sides of the access to the site in the interests of safety; management of
mud on the road needs to be undertaken by the developer and
monitored by the local planning authority.

DC/23/00859 Hill House, Rectory Hill, East Bergholt, CO7 6TH – Notification of
works to trees in a conservation area – Fell 1no Maple (T1)

It was proposed by Councillor Rothwell, seconded by Councillor
Wombwell and RESOLVED that approval be recommended.

DC/23/00985 7 Collingwood Fields, East Bergholt, CO7 6QN – Householder
Application – Installation of 6no solar panels.

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

DC/23/00767 The Red Lion, The Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6TB – Application
under S73 for the removal or variation of a condition following
approval DC/22/01688 T&CPA 1990 (as amended) – Use of first
floor and second floor as 5no Bed and Breakfast rooms with en-
suites, change of use of retail shop to bed and breakfast room with
office for pub at first floor, siting of storage container, water tank,
erection of a cold store and screen fencing. To remove Condition
Number 5(Scheme of parking management) as per planning
statement.

Councillor Roberts reminded the Parish Council that Condition 5
requires an agreed parking scheme and this was imposed on the
granting of approval for DC/22/01688. This was Babergh’s decision, in
order that the impact on the public car park‘s capacity/use from the 6 x
B&B units which had been given permission would also be a material
consideration when DC/22/03043 was determined.

This added a further 2 x B&B units. In the event DC/22/03043 was
refused, however we now have a new application DC/23/00740 which
also adds 2 x B&B units so the need for the cumulative impact of 8 x
B&B units to be considered, and the justification to retain Condition 5,
both remain.

It is considered that in strict planning terms, to retain this Condition is
entirely reasonable and necessary. It supports the Neighbourhood Plan
(and Babergh’s Development Plan) because policy EB11 protects the
car and coach park for public use. With the proposed intensification of
business use at the Lion, there is a very real risk that with the need for
parking arising from the Lion’s 19 employees, from 8 x B&B units,
further pressure from proposed residential backland development plus
parking required by the Brasserie’s restaurant customers, that there will

6

be very few, if any, of the 32 space capacity remaining for the village
and wider public use. The resulting impact on The Street from further
cars necessarily being forced to park on this already congested road
through the village, because the car park is full, must be avoided.

It is important to note also that the Condition does not specify where the
parking scheme for the 6 x B&B units should be located. The applicant’s
planning consultant had assumed wrongly that this must be in the
already busy car park. There is however very good reason why this
scheme for 6 dedicated spaces should be located on the Lion’s own
garden land at the rear of the Brasserie where sufficient space with
access through the existing car park is possible, so as to deliver the
required off road parking.

As well as planning grounds to refuse this s73 application there are also
significant practical and legal (landlord and tenant) concerns over the
statements made by the applicant’s planning consultant.

• The tenant retains its right for the “quiet enjoyment” of its
leasehold interest. The applicant does not have unfettered use
of the car park. This resides with the leaseholder.

• Paragraph 4.5 of the Lease only permits access to the car park
for customers of the Red Lion Public House. There is no
mention and certainly no absolute right reserved for overnight
B&B guests who might not even use the pub, especially since
the pub is now a Brasserie and traditional pub goers are no
longer catered for. So, the Lease is also not a helpful basis for
the applicant to be requiring Condition 5 to be removed.

It was proposed by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor
Woodcock and RESOLVED (eleven voted for, none voted against) that
refusal be recommended on both planning grounds and leasehold
considerations highlighted above,

DC/23/00740 The Red Lion, The Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6TB – Full Planning
Application – Construction of 4no dwellings, storage building with
2no bed and breakfast rooms for the Hotel and Brasserie, public
convenience building (following demolition of existing toilet block)
and alterations to car park.

The Council’s representations are set out below, immediately following
this table.

Application DC/23/00740

Councillor Roberts outlined the details of the latest application on this important village
centre site. The application has three main changes from DC/22/03043 which had recently

7

been refused: the proposal reduces the number of homes from five to four with nine
residential car park spaces now also located largely within the boundary of the Lion’s back
garden. The proposal also no longer appears to encroach on the existing village public car
and coach park.

The Planning Statement from Ben Elvin points out that the reduced size of the car park
proposed in DC/22/03043 was the only reason for refusing that application, because it was
contrary to policy EB11 of the Neighbourhood Plan. He suggested that it would be
unreasonable to refuse this one (DC/23/00740) on any grounds not introduced in refusing
DC/22/03043.

Councillor Roberts stated that all of the Planning objections to DC/22/03043 that had been
made by the Parish Council in relation to that application remain valid and are material
considerations for the current application. It is a concern that these objections had not been
adequately presented to Planning Committee members by the case officer when they
considered DC/22/03043 and this has been documented in a letter from the Chairman of
East Bergholt Parish Council to the Chief Executive, Arthur Charvonia which is appended
to this submission. The reasons to refuse this application are set out below.

1. The proposals remain contrary to CS11 as no local housing need is evidenced and
clearly there is none to be met, given policy EB1, recent Housing Needs Surveys and the
241 homes already approved and already in the pipeline in East Bergholt. So this
scheme remains a clear departure from the Development Plan and Babergh would be
wrong to ignore this because it is clearly a material consideration given the sensitivity of
this site.

2. The proposals are contrary to many Neighbourhood Plan Policies;

– EB2 Impact on AONB, and local green space, failure to respect the Conservation Area and
heritage assets, impact on highway network, and outside BUAB with no affordable homes
proposed.

– EB3 Back land development on large garden

– EB5 Failing to provide homes for older people

– EB7 Developing Protected Green Space

– EB8 Fails to protect or enhance biodiversity. Rather the opposite given loss of trees and
planted areas and fails to provide Habitat Regulations Assessment.

– EB10 Impact on Non-Designated Heritage Asset with proposed houses pressed up against
boundary of the Congregational Church

3. The cumulative impact of another 2 x B&B units on top of the 6 approved in DC/22/01688
has to be given due consideration. Babergh’s Chief Planner made clear to the Parish
Council that this would be a material consideration when considering DC/22/03043, which
is why Babergh applied Condition 5 to DC/22/01688; because of the concern over the
limited capacity of the public car park. It remains a material consideration here now.

8

4. This proposal still rips up and redesigns the existing village car park which is protected by
EB11.
– amounts to unsustainable development, is unwarranted, and pays no regard for the
£80,000 of public funds invested in the car park’s refurbishment in the last two years.

– removes one large island/planted area and three mature trees

– reduces the number of coach bays from two to one

– specifies the need for yellow lines to prevent parking on the perimeter but this is not a
public highway so these restrictions are not enforceable in law. Just yellow paint!

– involves the demolition of 7 public toilets to be replaced by just two.

– locates the new public toilets in a position that blocks a protected right of way contrary to
the terms of the Lease.

– marks out car park bays that are too small and hence will be unusable and locates these
too in a position that blocks the public right of way

– configures the car and coach parking bay lay-out in a manner which will constrain vehicular
movement and which is significantly inferior to the existing car park design.

In light of these points, there is a strong case for suggesting that the village car park is
seriously harmed by this proposal. It therefore remains contrary to EB11 which states that
“the village car and coach park will be safeguarded”

The Council considered all of the above arguments. Each Councillor was given the
opportunity to express their thoughts. and with widespread support it was proposed by
Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Woodcock and RESOLVED (ten voted for, one
voted against) that refusal be recommended on the grounds set out above.

Appendix

To Arthur Charvonia; cc Tom Barker, Phil Isbel, Samantha Summers

Dear Arthur

I am writing on behalf of East Bergholt Parish Council to express the Parish Council’s
concerns about the events at the Babergh Planning Committee meeting on 25 January 2023
in relation to the presentation and debate about planning application DC/22/03043.

We note that the planning application was refused by the Planning Committee on the basis
of the car park space reduction and the registered need in the village for the car park, it is an
Asset of Community Value. We appreciate that councillors took notice of our Neighbourhood
Plan policy 11 to protect this facility for the village.

However, and especially in view of the potential appeal and the new application
DC/23/00740, we would like to express concern on three major points. The first points may
help you with defending the appeal. The second is one of due process. Let me take them
each in turn.

9

1. The balance of the Parish Council’s representation and the applicant’s representation
were not fairly balanced in the presentation to Committee

The Parish Council has misgivings that the full case with counter views (ours and other
consultees) was not adequately represented. If they had been it would have strengthened
the case to refuse.
• The applicant’s submissions were in places represented as facts in the Officer’s report
instead of just a point of view – for an example see the points on coach parking made below.
• We question the officer’s simple dismissal of the relevance of housing need in considering
the failure to meet CS11 as an “acceptable departure” from the Development Plan, so
leaving EB11 to do all the work.
• We are concerned at the failure to address the impact of DC/22/01688 on car park capacity
and the importance of Condition 5
• There was no consideration of car park capacity constraints with reference to survey of the
car park use (today) supplied by the Parish Council, nor was the added pressure from Lion
business growth, the cumulative impact and hence material consideration of DC/22/01688,
the impact of Lion’s staff (19)
• Nor was there any consideration of the future impact on car parking in the village centre with
241 new homes in play.

2. Car Park and Toilets.

The Parish Council is concerned that at the committee meeting the information presented to
councillors relating to the space and manoeuvrability around the car park was
misrepresented. There are a series of issues that were not mentioned. The evidence is all
there in the material and emails sent to the planning officer but we believe it was not
presented in a balanced way.

• Building on Right of Access The proposed new layout of the car park is impossible to
achieve because it places the proposed new toilets and several car park spaces right on top
of a right of access for vehicles driving from the entrance of the car park to the Cemetery
gates. This right of way, established in 1986, runs along the northern boundary of the car
park and then turns south along the western boundary of the car park to the cemetery gates.
The proposed toilet block and car parking spaces are built right over the right of way which is
regularly used by hearses and other vehicles needing to access the cemetery. This was
material consideration was not pointed out to councillors.

• Smaller and fewer car park spaces. The proposed new car park arrangements provides no
additional car park spaces, but it does propose to black parking in the entrance road which
currently takes about 4 cars when the car park is full. Thus there is an overall reduction in
spaces. The spaces have always been tight in the car park, hence the realignment of spaces
at an angle in the middle part of the car park undertaken by the Parish Council last year in
response to many car parkers requests. The new arrangements reinstate the difficult 90
degree angle to enter these spaces. This material consideration was not pointed out to
councillors.

• Coach parking. The applicant provided swept path diagrams and his own assertion that
there is no place for 2 coach spaces in the car park. The planning officer pointed this out in
paras 6.7 and 6.8 of the officer’s report and tabled two late additional papers of the

10

applicant’s evidence at the planning meeting (these papers do not by the way appear on the
planning portal). However the Parish Council had challenged the assertions of the applicant
on this point but this evidence was not presented, the planning officer in her paper, and at
the planning meeting only said “there was a difference of opinion”, without giving the Parish
Council’s view point. To summarise the Parish Council’s evidence presented to Babergh in
respect of this planning application is:

o The applicant used a swept path diagram to try to demonstrate the lack of room for a
coach to manoeuvre in and out of the spaces when a second coach was already
parked in the other space. Swept path diagrams are only necessary on highways to
show uncompromised movements of vehicles on roads. In car parks it is perfectly
acceptable for a vehicle to make 2 or 3 manoeuvres to exit or enter a space, around
other vehicles.

o The coach parking space guidance produced by the applicant is from the British
Parking Association which is a private advisory body or club rather than an official
body. The coach spaces marked out by the Parish Council fully confirm to “Parking
Standards UK” guidance and their websites show that both Suffolk County Council
and Babergh District Council state that they have adopted this guidance.

o There are only 2 coach spaces and there is additional room on the outer sides of
each of the coaches for loading and unloading luggage, which would also meet the
guidance from the British Parking Association. The white lines on the car park give
guidance for vehicle parking. They do not restrict ancillary activities such as loading
and unloading, which are not bound by the lines.

o The current coach spaces have been used in this exact location for over 50 years.
There is no record of an accident or complaint that the spaces are too small. On the
contrary we have many satisfied coach drivers who use our car park. The assertion
that Mr Peachey makes about the space leading to a wall being knocked down is
irrelevant as the wall is at the end of the coach space not the side, and is most likely
to have been caused by a dustcart or delivery vehicle moving back to far in the
space.

We believe presentation of this evidence is critical to balance out the misleading views put
forward by the applicant.

• Toilet Design. The current toilets were built by Babergh District Council in the 1980s. In
stark contrast to most toilets built at that time (typically flat roofed) the toilets in East Bergholt
were built in red and brown brick under a steeply pitched pyramidal shaped clay tile roof,
intended to reflect the famous East Bergholt Bell Cage. Taste is a personal concept, and
clearly the applicant does not like them, but none the less the toilets in our car park are well
built and have an authentic local historic interpretation. The interpretation made by the
planning and heritage officers missed this historical connection.

• Toilet size. There are currently 3 ladies toilet spaces, 2 gents urinal spaces, 1 toilet cabin
and 1 separate (access with a RADAR key) disabled toilet. These toilets were built with
enough numbers to serve coach parties. The proposed new toilets offer only 2 toilets. This is
insufficient for the purpose. There is no dedicated disabled toilet. This significant decrease in
toilet facilities in unacceptable for the use that is made of current facilities but this decrease
was not highlighted to councillors, albeit it being in the Parish Council’s submission

11

There is of course more to say, and we would be happy to advise you further on evidence for
any planning appeal.

3. Applicant’s misrepresentation of the truth in his evidence.

In his evidence to the Planning Committee, Mr Peachey made several errors of fact and
misinterpretations of reality. Having been questioned by one of the planning committee
members a couple of days after the meeting I can guarantee that these misrepresentations
influenced at least one committee member. The issue is that Mr Peachey is reported as having
said that both I and the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan say that the sort of housing in the
application is welcomed/needed in the centre of East Bergholt. This is not true, in fact it is a
complete reinterpretation of the truth.

Policy EB3 says:
EB3 Village Heart
Within the Village Heart, housing development that satisfies the requirements of Policy EB2 will
be supported only for small scale infill development that does not harm the character or
appearance of the Conservation Area (Map 18), nor adversely impact on the setting of a
designated heritage asset. Development should reflect the traditional scale, form, massing and
siting of buildings in the area.
Development, including back land development, on large gardens that adversely affects the
character of the Conservation Area (Map 18) and setting of listed buildings will not be
supported.

And Policy EB5 says:
EB5 Increasing the choice of housing options for older people
Up to one third of new housing developed in the plan area should be designed to
meet the needs of older people. The development of homes suitable for older people, including
affordable and market housing, of types and sizes that meet local housing need will be
supported on sites that satisfy the requirements of Policy EB2. Small scale infill development of
older people’s housing within 400 metres of St Mary’s Church (Map 8) will be supported where
they provide homes with easy access to the facilities in the Village Heart (Map 7), subject to
conforming to other policies of the development plan.
Subject to the need and viability being demonstrated, the development of a care home in the
village will be supported.24/1/23

You can see from the highlighted yellow paragraphs that the NP (a) does not support back land
development in the heart of the village, which is precisely what this application is, and (b) that
the only housing we support in the heart of the village is for older people. 2 storey houses with
steep stairs do not qualify as houses suitable for older people. Nor would I, as an experienced
Parish Council chair, say anything that the NP would disagree with, and I confirm that I did not.

There is one final issue. One of the Planning Committee councillors is quoted as having a
personal antagonistic view of East Bergholt. Our Vice-Chairman has made a specific complaint
to the monitoring officer about this point. However we do not see how this can affect a planning
appeal so I will leave it with the monitoring officer to deal with.

Please do let me know if you have any questions or require any further evidence.

12

Best wishes
Joan Miller
Chairman East Bergholt Parish Council

District Councillor Hinton left the meeting.

7.2 Planning correspondence

The correspondence received from the Local Planning Authority concerning determined
planning applications was NOTED.

7.3 Street Naming

The Council had been invited by Babergh DC to suggest street names for the Moores Lane
development. Discussion ensued as to whether the Council ought to make a submission
having regard to its opposition to the development or rather to accept that permission had
been granted and move forward to work towards the best possible integration of the
development and its occupants into the village.

Councillor Hockley left the meeting.

It was proposed by Councillor Hurley, seconded by Councillor Cathcart and RESOLVED
(eight voted for, 3 voted against) that the Council submits suggestions for street names to
Babergh DC.

A further discussion ensued on the best way to involve East Bergholt residents in making
suggestions in the short time available. The Assistant Clerk was requested to invite public
suggestions via social media, the website, noticeboards and other suitable locations and
following the closing date it was AGREED that the Chairman, Clerk and Assistant Clerk be
authorised to select and submit appropriate names.

8. Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee

8.1 Schedule of Payments and Income – It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by
Councillor Rothwell and RESOLVED (unanimously) that the schedule of payments and
income and the bank transfer be noted and the payments due for February 2023
amounting to £15639.57 be approved.

8.2 Bank Reconciliation Statement – The bank reconciliation statement for February 2023
was NOTED.

9. Other Committee matters

9.1 Roads, Footpaths and Flatford Committee – As Councillor Hockley had left the
meeting, Councillor Price informed the Council of footpath proposals which had been
put in the Suffolk CC programme for 2024/25 concerning the footway from the Hare
and Hounds to the Medical Centre and on Gaston Street. These works will tie in with
certain s106 footway works. The Chairman congratulated Councillor Price on raising

13

the profile of inadequate footways. Councillor Roberts noted that these proposed
works need to link into the PJA report for consideration by the new Parish Council.

9.2 Burial Grounds Committee – The Clerk reported that cemetery fees had increased
over recent months and there was now the prospect that the assumption made in the
committee’s budget would be realised by the end of the financial year.

9.3 Playing Fields Committee – Councillor Woodcock reported that with regard to the
Pavilion heating it had been ascertained that British Gas had been charging VAT at
20% rather than 5% and re-calculation was required. In addition, bills were likely to
decrease with the imminent lighter evenings.

The situation concerning a water supply to the Tennis Club was under consideration at
the moment. Following the latest meeting with the contractor, both sewerage and water
pipes were in prospect of installation. In the short term it might be possible to link the
sewerage connection to the Bowls Club sewerage pipe though the longer
term plan was for more extensive works which would require Parish Council consent.

10.4 Neighbourhood Plan Committee – Councillor Roberts reported on the meeting of
27 February;

1. Village workshops will be arranged towards the end of May for businesses and the
entire community when it is anticipated that the PJA proposals will be available for
discussion.
2. Regarding the Aecom Call for Sites report, it was agreed that the Neighbourhood
Plan Group would confer with landowners and with Babergh DC.
3. The Group will also confer with the Playing Fields Committee.
4. Four consultants have been invited to submit proposals by the end of March as to
the preparation of a Regulation 14 draft plan, for which Locality funding will be
sought.
5. With the Parish Council’s agreement, the results of the three surveys will be
published at an appropriate juncture.

10.5 Website Working Group – The Assistant Clerk reported that the group has spoken
to three providers who had now submitted their proposals. Councillors Miller, Mills and
Wombwell will meet to assess the proposals with Councillor Wombwell advising on the
technical aspects of the proposals. The Chairman thanked the Assistant Clerk for her
work on the project.

The domain names owned by Paul Ireland had now been transferred to the Parish
Council.

10.6 County Broadband – Councillor Wombwell gave an update on information
received from the company. They were establishing their network and hoped to go live
from December 2023. It would take up to twelve weeks thereafter to connect all
customers to the network. It was currently unclear as to whether the contract price
would increase by then.

Councillor Woodcock reported that Gigaclear were currently establishing their own
network at East End.

14

10.7 TPO Group – Councillor Rothwell reported that he was submitting a FOI request
to Babergh DC regarding their criteria for a TPO. He had been unable to obtain the
information from the tree officer.

10. Cost of Living

Councillor Hurley reported that the Community Support Group had met at the end of
February. The Group had thanked the Parish Council for arranging the publication and
distribution of the flyer for the warm space at the Lion with CAB attendance which had been
a considerable success with some thirty residents attending to seek advice from the CAB
representative. The CAB wish to attend a follow-up event on 19 May and also to work with
other groups to promote events at other locations such as the Constable Hall Community
Café.

Councillor Davies reported that the Community Support Group had achieved some real
successes in the short time it had been operating. The Food Bank was being used and was
open 24/7. The Group had put the use of the Suffolk Rural Coffee Van on hold until the
summer months.

The Chairman requested that the Community support group be mindful that such events
should not take business away from the Fountain Tea Room.

11. Coronation Celebrations

The Assistant Clerk presented her report upon progress with the arrangements for the event
on 8 May and added that there were now 39 followers on the Facebook page and 17
participants for the Scarecrow trail. The Council was supportive of the Art Project which the
Assistant Clerk should discuss with the Sports Council.

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Rothwell and RESOLVED
(eleven voted for, none voted against) that £300 be provided from the Strategy, Policy and
Finance Committee budget for the Art Project.

12. Review of Council Policies

The Assistant Clerk presented her report upon the review of four Council policies which she
had undertaken with the Vice-Chairman.

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Rothwell and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the Complaints Policy attached to the report be approved and adopted for
the ensuing municipal year.

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Woodcock and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the Email Policy attached to the report be approved and adopted for the
ensuing municipal year.

The question of whether or not the Council should provide email addresses for members
was a matter to be considered by the new Parish Council.

15

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Roberts and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the Health and Safety Policy attached to the report be approved and
adopted for the ensuing municipal year.

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Rothwell and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that subject to the deletion of ‘in 2’ in the fourth paragraph and ‘Email’ in
Managing and Posting on Social Media Accounts the Media and Social Media Policy
attached to the report be approved and adopted for the ensuing municipal year.

13. Urgent Communications

None.

The meeting closed at 10.21 pm.

Date of the next Parish Council Meeting – Thursday 13 April 2023 at 7.30 pm at The Lambe
School.

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