Agenda and minutes

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor MacDonald, Councillor M Cook and Councillor Trenchard.

In the absence of Councillor MacDonald, Councillor Rudkin chaired the meeting.

To consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2024.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 November 2024 be signed as a true record.

It was RESOLVED:

that the Order of Business be confirmed as printed on the Agenda.

There were no Declarations of Interest.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Alasdair Ross

To ask Executive to recommend to Council:

·       An increase in 2025/26 for social housing rents, in line with the Government guideline rent increase;

·       An increase in 2025/26 for affordable housing rents, in line with the Government guideline rent increase, to be capped at Local Housing Allowance (LHA) Rates;

·       An increase in 2025/26 for garage and hard standing rents to mirror guideline social / affordable rent increase of 2.7%;

·       To amend the service and utility charges for the sheltered housing schemes removing the £2 cap and introducing a phased approach to increases.

70.1.     Councillor Ross introduced the report that recommended to Council an annual rent increase of 2.7% for council-owned properties, which was far less than the previous year’s increase but was necessary to continue to maintain council housing stock and address issues relating to fire safety, RAAC and mould whilst providing a good service to tenants.

70.2.     Councillor Ross highlighted the good work of Tenancy Services, in particular its Income Team, for the high level of rent collection achieved, even after the high rent increase last year, by offering support to tenants and targeting visits to those tenants who most needed help.

70.3.     Councillor Fisher welcomed the good recovery of housing debts and asked whether, given the ongoing cost of living pressures, it was possible to limit the rise in council rents, instead of applying the maximum increase. Councillor Fisher asked whether sheltered housing tenants had been consulted on the increase of service charges over the next 3 years and whether it would be affordable for them.

70.4.     Councillor Ross commented that failing to increase rents sufficiently would only build up problems for future years and make it difficult to recover costs in the longer term, especially if future years required a much higher rent increase to be applied due to inflation rates; a cap had been introduced for sheltered housing service charges, but these charges were no longer covering costs.

70.5.     The Head of Tenancy Services, Arron Samson, reported that consultation on the proposals had been undertaken in October 2024 via the Customer Engagement Panel, comprising tenant representatives, and at the Area Housing Panels in December 2024, but not directly with sheltered housing tenants. Once the proposed increase was agreed, it would be discussed with sheltered housing tenants.

70.6.     Councillor Fisher asked whether the sheltered housing service charge was payable as a one-off yearly payment at the beginning of the year or as payments spread across the year.
The Head of Tenancy Services confirmed that it would be proportional payments spread across the year.

70.7.     Councillor Jones highlighted paragraph 2.16 of the report and the disparity between private sector rents and council rents in Ipswich, and added that council tenants also benefitted from decent homes, support from Housing Officers and security of tenure in a highly pressurised housing market.

It was RESOLVED:

That Executive recommends to Council that it:

a)             Approves an increase to council housing rents, both social and affordable, from 1 April 2025, in line with the Government guideline of 2.7% for the financial year 2025/26 in time to give written notice to tenants by the 3^rd of March 2025.

Reason: In order to implement an appropriate rent level in line with Government guidance and comply with legal notice requirements.

b)             Approves a cap at Local Housing Allowance rates for any affordable council house rent annual increase.

Reason: In order to implement an appropriate rent level in line with Government guidance.

c)             Approves the charges set out for sheltered schemes at Appendix 1 for the financial year  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Alasdair Ross

This report provides Executive with an update on each of the housing developmentschemes beingdelivered onits behalfby Handford Homes.

71.1.     Councillor Ross introduced the report which was the latest update on the progress made by the Council and its housing delivery partner, Handford Homes, on council housing developments. Councillor Ross highlighted that the demand for social housing was the highest it had ever been, and the Council was keen to deliver more social housing. The Government’s review of the Right to Buy scheme should help to return more money back to the Council from the sale of its council housing.

71.2.     In accordance with Part 4, Section 4, Paragraph 3.9 of the Constitution, the following questions were asked:

Question 1 – Councillor Holmes
In light of the assurances given to local residents in Ravenswood of the mix of housing to be provided in this scheme, which included these 10 discount market sale homes for first-time buyers, should an apology be given to residents for the proposed change to market rent?

71.3.     Councillor Ross commented that the Council was reluctantly proposing this change due to rising house building costs, which had meant that discounted market sale was no longer financially viable for these units. The next most accessible tenure of private market rental was being proposed. The scheme would still deliver the same number of mixed housing units and the 10 homes affected by the change were a small proportion of the total of 96 homes that were being provided. The recommendation was a pragmatic response to market conditions and Councillor Ross did not agree that an apology was required. This situation had not happened today; Officers had been monitoring the situation for 2-3 years and had tried to estimate how the market might change, but to wait any longer would push the costs even higher.  

Question 2 – Councillor Holmes

Will there be any practical difference between the homes let on affordable rents and those let at market rents?

71.4.     Councillor Ross commented that the homes were built to an excellent quality and were much better than those provided by other developers. The only difference was that the market rented units would include some white goods, e.g. fridge freezer and washing machine.

Question 3 – Councillor Holmes

Will the private letting scheme for the 10 homes through General Fund capital loans, including the finance required to meet minimum revenue provisions, mean the value to the Council of this investment is questionable?

71.5.     Councillor Ross commented that given that market sale tenure was not viable, the private rent tenure represented the best financial option. On the basis that this would be a lease, the payments received should cover the revenue cost of the associated fixed loan within the 40-year breakeven period that the Council used as the benchmark for domestic property investments. Councillor Ross added that he hoped that there would be changes from the new Government as the current payback system made it very difficult for Councils to build council homes on a short timeframe given how long it took to pay back.

Question 4 – Councillor Holmes

Will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Alasdair Ross

The Ipswich Borough Council Housing Strategy and Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategies have been updated to reflect:

·       Outcomes and achievements from the existing strategies (2019-2024).

·       Changes in legislation or new requirements.

·       Data, insight and intelligence on trends and the evidence base for change.

This report outlines the proposal for updated Housing and Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategies 2025 - 2030.

The report recommends that Executive approves the updated Housing Strategy and Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategies for adoption.

72.1.     Councillor Ross introduced the report highlighting that the Council’s housing strategies and policies had been updated over the last 18 months to make them easier to understand for tenants and provide the best service. Councillor Ross thanked the Council’s Tenancy Services for all the work on these strategies, and for the input from tenants and its partner agencies, especially in relation to the Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategy. Councillor Ross recommended the two strategies for approval ahead of the inspection by the Housing Regulator next month.

72.2.     Councillor Fisher was proud of the housing offered in Ipswich and of the work done to tackle homelessness, and congratulated officers on their continued success in securing government funding for homelessness initiatives. Councillor Fisher noted from the Housing Strategy that the Ipswich population was projected to decrease by 2% by 2043 whilst the number of households was projected to increase by 3% and commented that there had already been greater demand for smaller houses and flats. Councillor Fisher questioned why the housing targets for Ipswich were so high given that the number of households were only due to rise by 3%, which he calculated as a further 97 houses per annum.

72.3.     Councillor Ross reported that half of the data had been provided by the Suffolk Office of Data and Analytics (SODA), as commissioned by Suffolk County Council, and added that there was a trend towards more people living separately in the future; however, it was often difficult to encourage people to downsize. There was also a drive to support people to stay in their own homes for longer to limit the impact on NHS services.

It was RESOLVED:

that Executive approves the final draft Housing Strategy and Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategy for adoption.

Reason: To facilitate a clear and transparent direction for housing services and meet the legal requirement to publish a homelessness and rough sleeping strategy.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor John Cook

The report details the results of statutory consultation on the recommendations of the 2024 Detailed Assessment for air quality within Ipswich Borough.

The Detailed Assessment gives specifics of revising the designation of Air Quality Management Area No.1 following ongoing monitoring results within the town.

The report also includes the draft Air Quality Action Plan 2025 - 2030.

The report requests that Executive decides if the Assessment’s recommendations should be implemented in full via the authorisation of the appended Order and seeks authority to consult on the draft Action Plan.

73.1.     Councillor J Cook introduced the report which recommended the revocation of Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) No. 1 following the statutory consultation; there had been no instances of the statutory levels of air quality being exceeded in the last 5 years.

73.2.     In accordance with Part 4, Section 4, Paragraph 3.9 of the Constitution, the following question was asked:

Question 6 – Councillor Holmes

Given the proposed revocation of the AQMA 1 Order, has any consideration been given to the re-location of the continuous monitor in Chevallier Street?

73.3.     Councillor J Cook commented that any consideration would have been brief as the monitor was 18-19 years old and had been assessed as being near the end of its viable life; therefore, it was not sensible to relocate this monitor due to the costs of relocating it when it might then need to be replaced within a matter of months.

73.4.     In reference to the consultation response from a member of the public, Councillor Fisher welcomed the work being undertaken with Suffolk County Council and schools to tackle idling vehicles outside schools, and asked whether this work could be extended to other areas where idling could be an issue, for example, taxi ranks.

73.5.     Councillor J Cook commented that it was annoying to see vehicles generating noxious fumes unnecessarily and if drivers could be prevented from doing so, people could be living in a much cleaner town.

It was RESOLVED:

That Executive:

a)             Authorises the revocation of Ipswich AQMA No. 1 as detailed in paragraph 4.2 of the report.

Reason: To ensure the Council fulfils its statutory duty under the Environment Act 1995 and maintains an accurate record of air quality.

b)             Subject to a) above, authorises the Head of Legal to make the Ipswich Borough Council (Air Quality Management Area) (No. 1) Revocation Order 2025, in accordance with the draft Order in Appendix 1 of the report, to come into effect on 22 January 2025.

Reason: The Order is required to formally revoke AQMA No. 1.

c)             Subject to a) above, authorises the Head of Public Protection to take all necessary steps to publicise the authorised Order and to forward it to DEFRA and other statutory consultees.

Reason: To ensure the Council complies with current statutory guidance [LAQM.PG22].

d)             Authorises the Head of Public Protection to undertake consultation with the general public and statutory consultees on the content of the draft Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) 2025-2030 in Appendix 6 of the report and requests that the outcome of the consultation be presented to Executive at a future date.

Reason: To ensure that the Council complies with statutory guidance [LAQM.PG22].

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Carole Jones

The draft Ipswich Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (‘LCWIP’) identifies an Ipswich-specific vision to encourage walking, wheeling and cycling across the Borough. The term ‘wheeling’ refers to people who use wheelchairs, mobility scooters, pushchairs, non-motorised scooters, rollerblades and similar forms of wheeled mobility who may not identify with walking. 

The draft Ipswich LCWIP supports both the national and local objectives of reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality, and increasing physical activity.  It also consists of a prioritised list of schemes which has been prepared by collating, appraising and prioritising all the walking and cycling schemes identified in the adopted Ipswich Local Plan (2022), Cycling Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Ipswich Town Centre and Waterfront Public Realm SPD.

The schemes have been cross-referenced with the Ipswich schemes contained in Suffolk County Council’s more strategic, Suffolk-wide LCWIP.  There is alignment between the two, but the Ipswich LCWIP drills down to a finer level of detail with the result that more town centre improvements are identified.

The report seeks approval to undertake public consultation on the draft Ipswich LCWIP.

74.1.     Councillor Jones introduced the report which sought to consult on a draft Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) as part of a countywide initiative; SCC had already produced its own LCWIP and had requested that district/borough authorities produce their own local based plans.
The Ipswich LCWIP provided a list of schemes to enable SCC to bid for funding to support these schemes as and when funding opportunities arose; the schemes had been prioritised on the basis of what would be useful for most people. Councillor Jones thanked the Planning Policy Team for all the work undertaken to produce the draft plan.

74.2.     In accordance with Part 4, Section 4, Paragraph 3.9 of the Constitution, the following question was asked:

Question 7 – Councillor T Lockington

Noting the 3.6 Figure 10 Healthy Streets indicator, could the Portfolio Holder ensure that the Draft LCWIP Consultation specifically includes frailer people and people with conditions such as stroke or Parkinson’s Disease regarding safe pedestrian surfaces that would enable “relaxed” and “safe” walking in and around Town, and that people with limited mobility or stamina are consulted on the identification and installation of appropriate rest places to assist planned walks?

74.3.     Councillor Jones thanked Councillor Lockington for the very helpful question because it was a signpost for how the Council should go ahead to consult. The Council would be making sure that it would proactively consult with as many groups as possible. Councillor Jones noted that Councillor Lockington had raised a range of groups that it would be good to pay attention to, and would welcome any contacts that Councillor Lockington had being sent to Officers so that the groups could be approached and asked specifically for their comments. Councillor Jones suggested that the Communities Manager be asked to review the groups that should be consulted with Councillor Lockington’s question in mind, as this question would help the Council to reach larger numbers of people than it would otherwise have done.

74.4.     Councillor Fisher was concerned about rushing to prioritise some of these schemes without considering the wider implications: the provision of a crossing on Star Lane/Key Street that prioritised non-car traffic could increase congestion in the one-way system and worsen air quality; reducing car trips to the town centre by 50% by 2030 would seriously impact car park income and the Council’s finances.

74.5.     Councillor Jones commented that, whilst being aware of air quality and its impact on young children, the aim of the Ipswich LCWIP was to improve the streets and make them safe and pleasurable for people to cycle/walk in and therefore improve people’s health by getting them out and about rather than being in a car.

74.6.     Councillor P Smart commented that it would be helpful to look at the LCWIP alongside SCC’s Local Transport Plan; the Council had requested a greater Park and Ride provision in the consultation on the Local Transport Plan as it was not a matter of preventing car use but looking at the proportion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Carole Jones

A replacement of the Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD 2021 is proposed. This is a regular review process leading to the publication of the Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD, which will replace the 2021 SPD.

The Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD was first adopted in 2013, with amendments to the list being adopted in a 2016 review. The entries were consolidated in the 2021 SPD, and the number of entries increased following consultation with the public. The 2021 SPD also adopted an illustrated, more descriptive format in line with Historic England guidance.

It is proposed to undertake a Call for Ideas, inviting nominations to the Local List through formal consultation with the public, including the Ipswich Society and the Conservation and Design Panel. Nominations will be reviewed by an internal panel comprising Councillors, members of the public and officers with an interest in the historic environment of Ipswich, following which a draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest SPD) will be prepared for public consultation.

The report recommends that Executive approves both stages of the public consultation on the Draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD.

The first stage being a ‘Call for Ideas’ consultation with the public, inviting nominations to the list.

The second stage being the consultation on the draft SPD incorporating the public nominations, following shortlisting by an internal panel.

A further covering report to the final SPD will be brought back to Executive and Full Council for authorisation to formally adopt.

75.1.     Councillor Jones introduced the report which sought approval for a ‘Call for Ideas’ public consultation for buildings to be included on the Local List and subsequent consultation on the draft revised Local List SPD. The Local List SPD offered protection to the Ipswich built environment for buildings of value within Urban Character areas where it was not possible to grant Listed Building status.

It was RESOLVED:

a)             That Executive authorises the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Museums, the Head of Legal Services (Non-Contentious), the Portfolio Holder for Communities and the Assistant Director – Communities & Sport, to progress with the ‘Calls for Ideas’ public consultation for the Draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD.

b)             That Executive authorises the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Museums and the Head of Legal Services (Non-Contentious), to form an assessment panel who will consider the nominations received from the ‘Call for Ideas’ public consultation for the Draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD and make recommendations on which nominations are to be included within a Draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD.

c)             Subject to a) and b):

That Executive authorises the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning & Museums and the Head of Legal Services (Non-Contentious), to create the Draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD on the basis of the recommendations of the assessment panel and to progress with the public consultation for the Draft Local List (Buildings of Townscape Interest) SPD in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Communities & Sport and the Assistant Director – Communities.

Reason: To comply with National Planning Policy Guidelines regarding the maintenance of an up to date register of undesignated heritage assets.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Alasdair Ross

This report recommends the approval and adoption of the new Income Management Strategy to ensure it guides the service to deliver consistent, fair, and compliant services relating to the collection of rent in addition to a strategic approach for sustainment of tenancies.

76.1.     Councillor Ross introduced the report, highlighting the excellent work of the Income Team within Tenancy Services in the collection of £46million of rent and service charges per year. In 2017, Tenancy Services achieved accreditation from the Housing Quality Network (HQN) for its income management service and introduced its Income Management Strategy in 2018; this strategy was now being reviewed, especially in light of the Social Housing Act 2023, which placed greater focus on the consumer standards and its 4 principles. The recent review of the service by HQN highlighted a high level of performance across the service area, which placed the Council’s Housing Services in a good position ahead of its inspection by the Housing Regulator in February 2025.

It was RESOLVED:

a)             That Executive approves and adopts the Income Management Strategy 2025-27 as appended to the report.

Reason: The Income Management Strategy provides a consistent, complaint and proportionate response to delivering a Housing Management Service.

b)             That Executive authorises the Assistant Director for Housing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing, to make minor amendments and updates to the approved Strategy to reflect changes in legislation, regulations or best practice.

Reason: So that the Council’s Income Management Strategy can be kept up to date.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Executive is requested to authorise the award of a fit-out grant for the premises of the Creative Hub.

77.1.     Councillor Rudkin introduced the report highlighting that £875k had been awarded by the former New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (NALEP) to deliver a Creative Hub in Ipswich following research undertaken in 2021 that had identified this need. A thorough selection process was undertaken to identify a suitable tenant to deliver the Creative Hub and this report sought agreement for the use of the funding to fit out the former Customer Service Centre in the Town Hall for this purpose.

77.2.     Councillor Fisher noted the £750k contribution towards fit out costs and asked whether this was only for changes to the building to make the area suitable or if it would also provide items to fit out the Hub, e.g. desks, computers.
The Assistant Director for Place, Tomasz Kozlowski, commented that it was mostly for alterations to fit out the internal space, but it would include some minor equipment.

77.3.     Councillor Fisher commented that there was a number of empty town centre buildings and asked whether there was a more suitable building that would cost less to fit out so that more of the grant could be used on the Hub itself instead of on the alteration of a Council building.
The Director for Operations & Place, James Fairclough, commented that other buildings had been considered over a period of time. The NALEP funding could only be used for the delivery of a Creative Hub and if the funding was not allocated to this tenant, it would have to be returned to SCC who was now administering this funding. The Director for Operations & Place had visited the Chelmsford Hub operated by the proposed tenant and the Hub had 5 or 6 businesses working there and also offered welfare facilities.

77.4.     Councillor Fisher commented that he had seen the other Hub locations provided by the proposed tenant and added that it was surprising that there wasn’t another building where the Hub could be created and fitted out for less than £750k and asked whether the Hub had to be in a Council building.
The Assistant Director for Place commented that the alterations would not only include internal partition works with new walls and doors, but also improvement to facilities (toilets, kitchenette), provision of furniture to create the space and IT provision/connections.

It was RESOLVED:

that Executive authorises the Director of Operations and Place, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Place, Section 151 Officer, Head of Property and Head of Legal Services, to enter into a grant agreement with the proposed tenant, as identified in exempt Appendix 2 of the report, for the provision of a Creative Hub within the ex-Customer Service Centre unit in the Town Hall on such terms as he sees fit, but that meet the criteria of the grant award received from NALEP now being managed by Suffolk County Council.

Reason: To enable the Council to secure a Creative Hub in Ipswich Town Hall with a view to supporting an improved town centre and job creation.

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Bryony Rudkin

Executive is asked to consider the outcome of an open market procurement for a Human Resource Information System (HRIS) and to consider awarding a five-year contract, with an option for two one-year extensions to the successful bidder.

78.1.     Councillor Rudkin introduced the report highlighting that the contract for the current Human Resources Information System (HRIS) was due to expire in September 2026. The open procurement had resulted in just one compliant bid for a system that would provide a variety of uses, e.g. recruitment, payroll, data storage, and would support the Council to be able to work more effectively in the future. The report was seeking authority to enter into a 5-year contract with the option for further extensions.

78.2.     Councillor Fisher highlighted the increased cost of the system and questioned whether it was appropriate to enter into a contract of this length given the potential changes to council structures arising from the Local Government Reorganisation.
The Chief Executive, Helen Pluck, clarified that the increase in the cost of the system was due to the natural increase in costs over time, plus the procurement of additional modules to improve management information, onboarding and modernising of current manual HR processes. The added investment should generate productivity benefits and headcount reduction over time. In terms of the initial length of the contract, the procurement had commenced before the White Paper announcement on future local government structures; it was anticipated that the earliest that any new councils would be established would be mid-2028 and it was likely that existing payroll systems would need to run in parallel until new employment structures could be harmonised, so the minimum contract term would probably be required.  As the proposed supplier was also used by some of the other local authorities in Suffolk, there could be the opportunity to extend the contract for a new council in the future.

It was RESOLVED:

a)             That Executive authorises the Head of Human Resources, in consultation with the Chief Executive, Head of Legal Services, Head of Procurement and Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Transformation, to enter into a contract of five years plus two one-year extensions with the successful bidder, identified in exempt Appendix 1 to the report, for the Human Resources Information System provided that it is within the budget set out in paragraph 10 of the report.

Reason: The Council requires a Human Resources Information System, and this represents good value for money following an open marked procurement.

b)             That Executive authorises the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Resources, to amend the budget and Medium Term Financial Plan for the financial implications identified in the exempt Appendix 1 to the report.

Reason: To ensure the financial accuracy of the budget and ensure sufficient resources are available.

To consider excluding the public (including the Press) from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it is likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

It was RESOLVED:

that the public (including the Press) be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items under Regulation 21 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as it was likely that if members of the public were present during these items there would be disclosure to them of exempt information falling within paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Neil MacDonald

Portfolio Holder – Councillor Bryony Rudkin