1

EAST BERGHOLT PARISH COUNCIL
DRAFT MINUTES – THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED AND ARE
SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING

Thursday 14 November 2024 at The Lambe School, Gaston Street, East Bergholt

Present – Parish Councillors
Councillor J Miller (Chairman)
Councillor M Burns
Councillor S Davies
Councillor P Dent
Councillor R Elmer
Councillor M Hockley
Councillor L Matthews
Councillor J Price
Councillor N Roberts
Councillor R Wombwell
Councillor G Woodcock

In Attendance
County Councillor G Hall
G White, Parish Clerk
N Reed, Consultant
Sixteen members of the public

Open Public Session

The Chairman was aware that the majority of the public present were interested in planning
application DC/24/02093 concerning Hill’s development in Heath Road. She said that the Council
was unable to make a recommendation at this meeting as there were a number of questions which
required answers before the full extent of the changes to the original application were clear. The
Council had obtained an extension to the consultation to 20 December 2024 which would enable
the questions to be agreed at this meeting and sent to the planning officers with a view to answers
being given by the applicant/planners in time for the Council meeting on 12 December when a
recommendation would be made. Comments by the public at this meeting would inform the Council
and assist in this process.

Rob Smith – Noted that the application had been modified as a result of comments made from the
original consultation and the applicant could pursue a similar approach again. Minimum changes
sufficient to obtain permission could still be subject to later applications to vary any consent. The
applicant should have been required to submit a new application.

The array of documents lodged on 31 October are difficult to navigate and there has been no
consultation with local people upon the changes, which are at odds with the needs of those people.
The planning statement and the design and access statement are contradictory making it hard to
work out what is being proposed.

2

The published pre-application advice from Babergh DC stated that the application materially
diminishes the scheme that has been granted permission and should be refused, and so it should.

The densely packed development on the west of the site continued to push it tightly behind
Richardsons Road and up to the bund and impacted on the Constable views. The application will
add additional pressure on local resources and traffic.

The only positive was the renewed promise of a swimming pool but there is a real fear that in the
future that the applicant will seek a variation in this regard.

Mr Smith listed the various instances where the developer had acted contrary to law and to the
planning conditions which did not bode well for the future.

Nothing had really changed. The application was as unpalatable as it had been in June. It was
overdevelopment of the site to extract as much profit as possible.

Adrian James agreed with Rob Smith’s comments and enquired whether the amendment proposed
smaller houses. The Chairman said it depended on where they are counted from. There are more
than 75 but less than 108.

A resident asked who would pay for the maintenance and the staffing of the pool. The Chairman
said that the usual route was for someone to purchase the built facility from the developer and then
maintain it.

The resident enquired how many affordable houses were proposed. The Chairman said 24
affordable houses were proposed at 80% of market rent plus 10 shared ownership properties.

Councillor Wombwell added that the pool had been reinstated because the Parish Council had
objected to its removal but there was nothing to stop the applicant seeking its removal again. He
thought it would be reasonable to ask the applicant the nature of the commercial arrangements they
would propose, to establish whether it was a sham.

Councillor Davies noted that if the swimming pool was removed, it should be replaced by another
social amenity and not by housing.

The Chairman explained that ‘viability’ was not just the view of the developer but a technical
process and as far as she was aware Hills had not submitted any formal viability assessments for
any part of the development that they stated was not financially viable.

Julia Jenner asked why the viability of the swimming pool had not been established before
permission was granted.

Councillor Roberts answered that the planning application was approved or refused on its planning
merits. If approved, then if the developer shows something is non-viable, something else can be
approved in its place. He added that at the moment it is totally unclear as to what is in the
application. There are 267 documents in total and many are contradictory. This needs to be
clarified.

Peter Cook – commented that those backing onto the site will lose their views with houses instead of
bungalows being placed there close to the boundary.

3

A resident – explained the issue concerning the Richardsons Road boundary. His title shows it at
the centre of a ditch at the edge of a field whereas Hills have shown it through the tree line at the
rear of his property. He had applied to Babergh for a Tree Preservation Order upon their own tree
but this was not granted as Babergh said the developer would preserve the tree when installing the
fence. He regarded this as nonsense.

Adrian James said that the 1817 Enclosure Act went into great detail as to the positioning of the
boundaries which may help and the resident should contact him for more details. Rob Smith added
that the shape of the western boundary on Hill’s plans had changed considerably over the course of
this application.

Gordon Cochrane noted that the actual working hours on the site are not compliant with the
management plan agreed in January 2023. The work starts at 7am every Saturday. It is not just an
early start, the work is also late finishing every day. The Chairman asked residents to document
non-adherence to working hours conditions to provide a body of evidence which the Parish Council
could report to Babergh.

Mrs Shackleton – expressed her disappointment concerning the amended pre-school proposal.
Such a facility requires green space and Hills have reduced it by a half. Studies show that
vocabulary and development grow when little children are allowed to run outside.

Rob Smith – With reference to traffic, at least 48 additional parking spaces are being proposed so
traffic movements must increase by more than the 16 estimated. The previous arrangements did not
get officer support and these do not improve the situation.

The Chairman thanked members of the public for their contributions and closed the open public
session.

85.24.25 Apologies for absence

Apologies for absence received from Councillor Allen and Councillor Hurley, were NOTED.

Councillor Hurley had got married yesterday and the Council was unanimous in sending him its
congratulations and best wishes for the future.

86.24.25 Declaration of Interests/Dispensations

Councillor Burns declared a pecuniary interest in Item 7.1 (Item 5) which was her own planning
application for tree works. She would leave the room during its consideration and would not
participate or vote.

87.24.25 Minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Price, seconded by Councillor Roberts and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the minutes of the meeting of 10 October 2024 be approved as a correct record.

88.24.25 Matters Arising/Updates

Minute 66 The Granary, Flatford – Councillor Roberts enquired if any progress had been made with
the listing. Councillor Davies said that this was not something that Babergh do. The Chairman noted
that it could be something that the Parish Council decided to do.

4

Minute 68 EB United Charities – Councillor Hockley reported that no progress had been made. The
Clerk was requested to write formally inviting attendance at a future meeting by a representatives of
the Trustees so that matters of mutual interest beneficial to the village could be discussed.

Minute 80 EB Tennis Club – The Chairman reported upon a positive meeting with the project team.
The survey will take place and the Parish Council will pay only £5,000 towards it with the Tennis
Club paying the rest. The planning application had now been submitted.

The sports clubs were uncertain as to the role of the Parish Council with regard to the playing field
and Councillor Woodcock will invite the clubs to meet the Playing Fields Committee in January.

89.24.25 County and District Councillors’ Reports

County Councillor Hall presented her report which had been circulated and expanded upon it. She
was pleased to announce that 38 new gritters were now operative.

Improvements to the walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure in Suffolk are the subject of a
consultation by Active Travel England and whilst this does not affect East Bergholt specifically,
routes including Copdock to Capel St Mary are included.

The Chairman reported a very productive meeting with Wayne Saunders, a new Highways Officer,
who demonstrated a fresh approach to local concerns which was much appreciated. She hoped that
a more co-operative relationship with the highway authority would develop.

District Councillor Davies presented her report which had been circulated and expanded upon it.

Community Energy is a Babergh priority and Babergh DC was trying to get a group of villages
together to develop a scheme. District Councillor Davies was seeking volunteers from East Bergholt
but so far had not identified anyone to get involved. She advised the Parish Council to keep an eye
on progress and may wish to re-visit it in due course.

District Councillor Davies has been working with Councillor Price on establishing a cycle route to
Manningtree and she thanked the latter for his endeavours. Colchester City Council have
established separately a cycling project which includes this route to Flatford and there is an
opportunity to form a partnership with them.

Three years ago, the Parish Council submitted a proposal to Babergh to extend the Conservation
Area. Since then, Babergh have sat on it and done nothing. Now, due to the 250
th
Anniversary of
Constable’s birth in 2026, Babergh have suggested undertaking a Conservation Area assessment.
This requires funding but might result in limiting the encroachment upon Constable landscapes. The
Chairman said that the Parish Council should support the Tourism Officer who has gained the
support of the planning department. Some funding via the Neighbourhood Plan group may be
available.

Councillor Price enquired about road sweeping as there was currently a surfeit of leaves and debris.
Councillor Wombwell said that Gaston Street had been swept two days ago.

The Chairman thanked the County and District Councillors for their contributions.

5

90.24.25 Correspondence

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

Date

Sender Subject
1. 30/10/24 John Hinton on behalf of the
Royal British Legion
Thanks for purchasing poppy wreath and
for making contribution.
2. 08/11/24 Tony Brigden Application DC/24/02093.
3 08/11/24 James Cartlidge MP South Suffolk Seniors Fair.

91.24.25 Planning

91.1 Planning Applications received

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

DC/24/04696 Woodlands Farm Park Road, East Bergholt, CO7 6XT – Planning
Application – Demolition of existing farmhouse and pole barn.
Erection of replacement self-build dwelling with attached annexe
and detached garage. Installation of solar panels. Change of use
within red line to residential.

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

DC/24/02093 Land east of the Constable Country Medical Centre, Heath Road,
East Bergholt, CO7 6RT – Full Planning Application – Mixed use
development of two phases comprising of 40 dwellings in Phase 1,
and 68 dwellings in Phase 2 (38 in total affordable). In addition, the
proposals include a pre-school and a neighbourhood hub,
comprising office space and a local shop, public open space and
associated infrastructure and landscaping.

Re-consultation due to documents received on 31/10/24

The Council was unable to make a recommendation upon this revised
application as there were many questions arising from the
documentation which were unanswered. The Council has obtained an
extension to the consultation until 20 December 2024, which will enable
it to make a recommendation at its meeting on 12 December if the
questions listed below are answered in time for consideration at that
meeting.

6

The Council’s questions to the applicant are set-out at the foot of this
table.

DC/24/04805 65 Broom Knoll, East Bergholt, CO7 6XN – Full Planning
Application – Change of use of ground floor shop to residential
dwelling and alterations to entrance of 1st floor dwelling.

It was noted that Neighbourhood Plan policy EB16 stated that there is a
need to advertise for 12 months with no takers before a change of use
could be approved.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock and seconded by Councillor
Hockley that approval be recommended. The motion was LOST (three
voted for, seven voted against).

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Roberts
and RESOLVED (seven voted for, three voted against) that refusal be
recommended on the ground that the requirement of Neighbourhood
Plan Policy EB16 had not been met.

DC/24/04962 Playing Field, Gandish Road, East Bergholt – Full Planning
Application – Erection of changing and toilet units, new shed and
associated landscaping for East Bergholt Tennis Club.

All councillors declared non-pecuniary interests as the application had
been made by the Parish Council.

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

DC/24/04942 Pound House, The Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6TE – Notification of
works to trees in a conservation area – crown reduction of 2 no
Silver Birch by 30%.

Having declared a pecuniary interest, Councillor Burns left the room and
did not participate or vote.

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

DC/24/04979 Little Spencers, Gaston Street, East Bergholt, CO7 6SF –
Application for works to trees in a Conservation Area – Crown lift
1No Holly tree by up to 3m and remove 1No Holly and replant a
more suitable shrub. Fell 1No Laburnum due to stem lean.
Remove larger and inner dead sections of 1No Lilac to leave outer
young growth.

7

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

APPLICATION DC/24/02093
QUESTIONS ON REVISED PROPOSAL REGISTERED ON 31/10/24

This site already has the benefit of planning permission for a mixed-use development (under
B/16/01092) and development on the eastern side of this site is currently under construction.
An application (DC/24/02093) was submitted in May 2024 which sought to amend the
consented layout and increase the number of dwellings on the western side of the site.
During the course of the application, the applicant and local planning authority had detailed
discussions regarding the proposals, which have led to amendments to the scheme. This
Planning Statement Update document has been prepared in support of those updates and
superseded the Planning Statement dated April 2024.

As a result of the proposed design changes, the description of development has been
amended as follows:

Full Planning Application – Mixed use development of two phases comprising 40 dwellings in
Phase 1, 59 dwellings in Phase 2, (34 in total affordable). In addition, the proposals include 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

DC/24/02093

The resubmission documents of 31/10/24, seek to amend the revised application

In summary it seems the intent of the documents are to:
– REDUCE the added 33 homes in the May application to an added 24 homes, to
deliver 99 in total of which 34 are affordable. (Current planning permission is for 75
homes with 25 affordable homes)
– REINSTATE the proposed swimming pool and hub
– RETAIN the shop with 8 flats above
– REDUCE the proposed pre-school open space by a half
– DELIVER Phase 2 with 59 houses, realigned with spacious houses/gardens to south
of the Phase 2 site and with the majority of the 24 new homes added to the north of
the Phase 2 site south of the pre-school facility
– DIMINISH the spacious organic layout of the approved plans with the proposal for a
high density or “urban” density (Planning Statement page 14) in the area earmarked
for northern part of phase 2 homes
– REDUCE significantly the public open space approved in the original design
– REMOVE 18 homes for the over 55s altogether, but build 9 market price bungalows
– DELIVER completion of Phase 1 homes as originally approved, including the shop
– CHANGE the consented layout for homes, roads and footpaths

Proposed build schedule shows:
– 10 shared ownership (10%)
– 24 affordable rent
– 65 privately owned

8

This to include:
– 8 flats
– 48 houses
– 9 bungalows

However, there are multiple contradictory statements in the documents registered since
31/10/24 which leave us confused about the exact changes that the developer seeks. In
consequence we seek clarification of the applicant’s intent through answers to the following
questions.

QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT

1. FLOOD PLANNING How will the applicant respond to the question put about
drainage, ie the questions asked by SCC, GH1 Floods planning team relating to the
proposed surface water drainage solution design as they tell us that the proposal
does not currently meet LLFA design criteria (Suffolk SuDS appendix A, 2023):
– Side slopes no greater than 1:4 (max)
– Shall have 1.5m wet/dry bench every 0.6m depth of water
– Max depth water no greater than 1m
– 3m width maintenance strip inside of security fencing around the basin

2. DENSITY OF AFFORDABLE HOMES
In reference to the Design & Access Statement page 10, and the Planning
Statement. The original planning permission showed affordable homes spread across
the site. Has the application now moved all of these, with the exception of 4 in Phase
1 to a ghetto in the northern part the Phase 2 homes build area? If so, why, when
good practice guidelines and the clear preference displayed in the permitted plan is
to integrate affordable homes with the market price homes?

3. REMOVAL OF A COMMUNITY BENEFIT
What has happened to the over 55s dedicated dwellings?

4. BOUNDARY DISPUTED
Has the ownership of the western boundary of the Phase 2 site been determined?
EBPC has received conflicting advice as to the ownership of the ditch along this
border. The boundary seems to change with each new drawing submitted. If land
areas along the western boundary shown in the current plan belong to the owners of
houses in Richardsons Road, how does this affect the application drawings? NB: the
gardens of houses along this boundary could be reduced by 1-1.5 meters.

5. SWIMMING POOL
The new Design and Access statement submitted 31/10/24, Page 6, states “The
proposals now show the removal of the previously anticipated swimming pool due to
a lack of demand following well documented viability issues with such a use largely
driven by the substantial increase in energy costs.”
How does this reconcile with the Planning Statement that says that the swimming
pool and hub is reinstated?
If indeed the first statement is true, will the applicant guarantee the benefit of this
asset by

9

– agreeing to a condition that requires the building of the swimming pool and hub first,
before the homes are built?
– agreeing to a high sustainability specification for this building which includes solar
panels on the roof and adequate insulation and heating design that is fuelled by
sustainable energy?

6. DENSITY
Please could the applicant provide the total number of homes planned for Phase 2?
There are inconsistencies across the documents registered as part of the revised
application after 31/10/24, perhaps because some documents have not been
updated.
The applicant gives no densities for Phase 2 homes. Please can the applicant supply:
• Total density of the Phase 2 homes development (within the blue line of the
application plan)?
• Separately tells us the density of the 18 homes numbered 8, 9 and 44 to 50?
• Separately tell us the density of the remaining 41 homes in the Phase 2
development and compare this figure to the density in the Richardsons Road
housing?

7. URBAN DESIGN IN A VILLAGE
Design & Access Statement page 14 states “the application site is within an
established urban area…”
Official definitions of urban:
• Oxford dictionary; “relating to or characteristic of a town or city”
• Collins dictionary; “belonging to or relating to a city or town”
• Gov UK; The Rural-Urban classification for output areas states “urban areas
are the connected built-up areas identified by Ordinance Survey mapping that
have resident population above 10,000 people”, “rural areas comprise open
country and settlements with fewer than 2000 housing units and 5000
residents. Urban areas comprise densely developed areas with 2000 or more
housing units or 5000 or more residents.”
• Office of National Statistics; “urban populations are over 5000”

Does the applicant understand that for East Bergholt with a population of 2750 and
housing units of well under 2000 even when the 2 big new estates are completed,
we cannot be described as an urban environment, nor should we expect to build to
urban density standards?

It might be useful to remind the applicant that the landscape subject of this
application and directly bordering the Dedham Vale National Landscape, is depicted
on page 112 of the applicants’ Design and Access Statement. It cannot be
described as “urban”.

8. CHANGE IN LAND USE
In the Planning Statement the applicant says in para 1.5, “ the Applicant has now
found that some of the land within the red line area is no longer required for the
uses that were originally intended…”
Please can the applicant tell us which areas this refers to?
Please can the applicant tell us what evidence they use to reach this conclusion?

10

9. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
Please can the applicant tell us how much open space has been deleted from the
original planning permission granted and what % of the open space in the approved
plan this represents?
Please can the applicant tell us the % of open space for the whole site?
Please can the applicant tell us the % of open space for Phase 2 of the site?
Please do not include the SUDs area as open space, as this will be off-limits for
people.

10. BUND
What are the future arrangements for managing the bund?
How will these arrangements ensure the planting on the bund’s sustainability over
time?

11. LOCAL NEED
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 met by the provision proposed in
their latest application when the local need identified in East Bergholt’s Local Plan is
fully met by the current development approved?
For the avoidance of doubt the housing need for East Bergholt and its hinterland
villages is outlined in full in the Neighbourhood Plan and Appendix D

12. PRE-SCHOOL ADDITIONAL SPACE
Planning Statement, para 4.10 and 6.11. Please can the applicant identify the
“additional land shown for pre-school outdoor play area if required” is on the plan?

13. PRE-SCHOOL NEED FOR OUTDOOR SPACE
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 pre-school providers, so please can
the applicant show us their evidence?

14. EAST BERGHOLT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN POLICIES
Planning Statement, para 5.22 5.31, 6.30. Does the applicant acknowledge that
policies within the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan, specifically EB1, EB2, EB4,
are not out of date having been adopted by Babergh in Autumn 2016.

15. TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
Planning Statement, para 6.21. The applicant recognises the additional need for
parking to satisfy the needs of the additional 24 homes proposed by providing a
minimum of another 48 parking spaces. How does the applicant calculate that all this
extra parking will provide only 16 additional vehicle movements during AM and PM
peak times?

16. BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN

11

Large trees along the B1070 border of the site have been felled, along with hedging.
A row of trees along the whole of the north south boundary to the east of the site
have been felled.
Please can the applicant show us how these losses have been calculated in the
biodiversity net gain assessment for the site?

17. Would the applicant like to comment why the proposed replacement of a modest
number of bungalows along the western border with Richardsons Road that
appeared in the approved planning permission has been replaced by a larger number
of taller two-story buildings?

18. How does the developer propose to find a Registered Provider for the affordable
houses?

79.2 Planning correspondence

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

92.24.15 Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee

92.1 Schedule of Payments and Income – It was proposed by Councillor Elmer, seconded
by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED (nine voted for, none voted against) that the
schedule of payments and income and the bank transfer be noted and the payments
due for October 2024 amounting to £24,915.90 be approved.

92.2 Bank Reconciliation Statement – The bank reconciliation statement for October 2024
was NOTED.

92.3 Applications for grant aid – The Council considered the minutes of the Strategy, Policy
and Finance Committee which met on 24 October in relation to applications for grant
aid by East Bergholt Tennis Club and East Bergholt Bowls Club, as follows:

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Woodcock and
RESOLVED (unanimously) that Parish CIL funds of up to £25,000 be earmarked for
expenditure in connection with the Parish Council Project in support of the East
Bergholt Tennis Club.

It was proposed by Councillor Elmer, seconded by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED
(ten voted for, none voted against) that the resolution of the Strategy, Policy and
Finance Committee be approved.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodcock, seconded by Councillor Miller and
RESOLVED (unanimously) that reserves of up to £6,146 be earmarked for expenditure
on cladding materials in connection with the Parish Council Project in support of East
Bergholt Bowls Club.

It was proposed by Councillor Elmer, seconded by Councillor Woodcock and
RESOLVED (ten voted for, none voted against) that the resolution of the Strategy,
Policy and Finance Committee be approved.

12

Councillor Roberts referred to the responsibilities of the Council as landowner of the
playing field and that in the light of the discussions as to how best to administer its
responsibilities as Landlord towards the sports clubs, the Council should approve a
policy as to the different way of dealing with grant and other applications.

It was proposed by Councillor Elmer, seconded by Councillor Roberts and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that sports club projects should be fronted by the Council as owner of
the playing field in support of the relevant club.

Councillor Davies referenced the CIL application by the Cricket Club and that Babergh
DC were asking questions as to why the Parish Council had not part funded the project
from its own CIL fund. CIL funding generated by developments in East Bergholt was
split 75-25 between Babergh and the Parish Council and it may be appropriate for
funding for this and other sports club projects to be awarded by the councils in similar
proportions. Councillor Davies agreed to discuss this with the relevant officer at
Babergh and to report back to the Parish Council. Councillor Woodcock will discuss
with the cricket club the option to submit a CIL application to the Parish Council.

92.4 Office Lease – The Clerk reported that the office lease expired at the end of the year
and that at its recent meeting the Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee had
considered the terms offered for a new three year lease. The rent was higher as the
20% discount offered two years ago was no longer available, but the cost of the office
per square foot remained less than comparable facilities in the area. The Committee
had approved the terms for a new lease subject to a rolling break clause of three
months’ notice exercisable at any time during the duration of the lease, which would
enable the council to relocate the office at short notice. The new lease will extend from
1 January 2025 – 31 December 2027. The report was NOTED.

93.24.25 Reports from Council Representatives on Outside Bodies

Constable Hall Management Committee – Councillor Price reported that the management
committee was continuing to talk to contractors regarding necessary roof repairs; The
Black Box application had now been financed by District Councillor Davies’ locality fund
and from others; There will be a warm space/community event at the Hall on 20
December with a hamper donated by Tesco.

East Bergholt Community Land Trust – Councillor Matthews had nothing to report.

East Bergholt/Barbizon Twinning Association – The Chairman reported a very successful
quiz night which raised nearly £1,000 which will go towards the expenses of the Barbizon
visit to East Bergholt in 2025. The total costs are likely to be in the region of £5,000

East Bergholt Futures – Councillor Woodcock had nothing to report.

East Bergholt Society – The Chairman reported that the Society’s first public meeting had
been very successful with an attendance of 60/70 people and a moving presentation
about soldiers from East Bergholt. The next meeting will have a presentation from Adrian
James upon the Brazier Map.

13

East Bergholt Sports Council – Councillor Woodcock reported that a meeting was
scheduled for the next week when the latest developments in all the projects from all the
clubs will be discussed.

SALC – No report.

Council Nominated Trustees to Outside Bodies

East Bergholt United Charities – Councillor Hockley reported that there has been no
meeting since the last report.

Lettice Dykes Foundation – Councillor Woodcock reported that there has been no
meeting since the last report.

Lambe School – Councillor Elmer reported that the locks to both doors had been
changed. Old keys can be disposed of.

94.24.25 Review of Council Policies

The Clerk presented his report on the review of the Reserves Policy and the Council
Code of Conduct. The Reserves Policy had been amended to take account of the
Council’s decision to retain unallocated reserves amounting to half the precept, for use in
emergencies and to earmark the remainder. The revised Model Code of Conduct had
been approved a year ago and had not caused any issues requiring of amendment.

It was proposed by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Elmer and RESOLVED
(ten voted for, none voted against) that the amended Reserves Policy, circulated with the
report be approved and adopted and reviewed in a year’s time.

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the current Code of Conduct be approved and adopted and reviewed
in a year’s time.

95.24.25 Urgent Communications

Councillor Price reminder members of the presentation by the Clerk on 5 December 2024
upon Powers and Duties and encouraged as many councillors as possible to attend.

Councillor Matthews informed the Council of the Drop-in Group’s meeting with other
organisations in the village on 27 November.

The meeting closed at 10.28 pm.

Date of the next Council Meeting – Thursday 12 December 2024 at The Lambe School.

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