Live: Suffolk County Council cabinet to decide on devolution consent

16:04

Armstrong and Aalders back Healthy Child Services changes but admit 'difficult decisions'

Two cabinet members have spoken in support of the Healthy Child Services recommendations.

Cllr Vicky Armstrong, finance

Cllr Vicky Armstrong said the financial position the council inherited from the previous administration had left its finances at a critical point. She said the service had been propped up by one-off funding and reserves, which were not a long-term solution.

She said that without change the cost was forecast to rise to £17.7m in 2027/28 and £18.6m in 2028/29, which she said was not sustainable. She said Suffolk received the lowest public health grant per head in the East of England, while being expected to deliver the same outcomes as better-funded areas. She backed Cllr June Mummery's work in making the case for a fairer funding settlement.

She said the proposals would add £3.7m a year from the ring-fenced public health grant and a further £1.4m of council funding, to be considered as part of the 2027/28 budget process alongside the council's wider commitments. She said that would keep community staff nurses in the health visiting team.

She said: "The financial position remains tight, and there will be difficult decisions within these proposals."

Cllr Simon Aalders, children and young people

Cllr Simon Aalders thanked Cllr Mummery, saying she had worked "tirelessly" on the proposals. He said the Healthy Child Service could not be looked at in isolation, and that health visiting and school nursing were part of a wider system of support for children and families.

He pointed to other changes across children's services, including family hubs, a single request-for-support route through the integrated front door, SEND reforms with inclusion bases, and expanding NHS mental health support teams. He said about 70% of referrals into school nursing in 2025/26 related to mental health and emotional wellbeing.

He said none of these services replaced health visitors or school nurses, or recreated the intensive support currently provided through the Family Nurse Partnership.

Cllr Aalders welcomed the decision to keep community staff nurses, saying it showed the council had listened to the consultation.

He said there were difficult decisions within the paper and "we should not pretend otherwise". He said the changes to support for young parents and school nursing needed careful implementation, and that the council would need to monitor any additional demand on family help and other children's services. He said: "But the direction is correct."

15:58

Mummery: change to Healthy Child Services plans is 'a consultation working exactly as it should'

Cllr June Mummery has introduced the Healthy Child Services report, saying the council had changed its proposals after listening to the consultation, but that the family nurse programmes would still end.

Finances

Cllr Mummery said officers had made her aware in her first few days in the role of significant financial pressures on the service. She said the previous Conservative administration "left difficult decisions unresolved", and that one-off funding used in previous years to keep the service going was running out.

She said Suffolk did not receive a level of public health funding that reflected the needs of its population. She said she had written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care calling for an urgent review of Suffolk's public health grant allocation and the funding formula. She said: "Suffolk families deserve a fair deal."

Without change, she said the forecast cost would rise to £17.7m in 2027/28 and £18.6m in 2028/29, after partner funding decisions removed £3.1m.

Consultation

Cllr Mummery said: "Consultation is not a swear word." She said the council had received almost 2,000 responses, and had extended the consultation after representations from unions.

She said she did not regard the changes as a U-turn: "I regard it as a consultation working exactly as it should."

Staff nurses

She said the clearest message from the consultation was the importance of community staff nurses. Cabinet is asked to approve up to £1.4m a year from core council funding to keep them, alongside £3.7m from the public health grant.

She said all staff nurses would be offered a role in the future service, though not necessarily the same role. The detail would be worked through in a formal staff consultation with staff and their trade unions.

Family Nurse Partnership and Young Parents Pathway

Cllr Mummery said the recommendation to end both as separate programmes remained, and that she recognised this was one of the areas of greatest concern in the consultation.

She said the Family Nurse Partnership was not a statutory service, and that most other areas in the East of England did not provide it despite receiving more public health funding than Suffolk. She said: "Some young parents will receive less intensive support under the new model."

She said every family currently receiving either service would have a transition plan lasting up to six months, with a named health visitor.

School nursing

She said school nursing would focus on prevention and early identification, and be "digital first, but not digital only". She said clear support routes would be in place for the school holidays before the changes were introduced. She said around 70% of school nursing referrals in 2025/26 related to mental health and emotional wellbeing.

Timing

Cllr Mummery said the council planned to introduce the new service in July 2027, but would phase changes if any part was not ready. She said: "We will not force them through, simply to meet a deadline."

She said cabinet was being asked to approve the overall service model, not a detailed staffing structure or individual jobs.

15:43

Cabinet considers Healthy Child Services changes, including community staff nurses

Cabinet has moved on to the Healthy Child Services proposals (agenda item 11). Cllr June Mummery, cabinet member for coastal affairs, communities and public health, is the lead councillor.

Cabinet is asked to approve a revised delivery model for the service following a public consultation that ran from 8 July to 18 October.

What the report says

• the consultation generated 1,928 responses across three surveys, though the report says this does not represent 1,928 individuals, as people could respond to more than one
• the most frequently selected response was that the proposals would have a negative impact
• concern was greatest about support for young parents, and the proposed removal of community staff nurses was the principal issue raised in health visiting feedback

What has changed

The report says the recommended model differs from the one taken to consultation. The council is no longer proposing to remove community staff nurses from the health visiting skill mix, and resource has been added back into the revised school nursing model.

Keeping community staff nurses would need an extra £3.7m a year from the ring-fenced Public Health Grant and up to £1.4m a year from the council's core funding.

What has not changed

The report still recommends ending the Family Nurse Partnership and Young Parents Pathway as separate programmes, and moving to a more targeted, term-time school nursing model.

It says young parents will continue to receive the universal Healthy Child Programme and additional support, but that these arrangements "will not reproduce the frequency, intensity, continuity or specialist relationship" provided by the two programmes, and a "residual adverse impact will remain for some families".

Why the council says change is needed

The report says the current model is not sustainable within long-term funding. It says partner funding decisions have removed £3.1m from the service, and that without changes it would cost £17.7m in 2027/28 and £18.6m in 2028/29.

15:39

Suffolk cabinet unanimously consents to devolution

Suffolk County Council's cabinet has voted to consent to the Government laying the statutory instrument that would establish the Norfolk and Suffolk Mayoral Strategic Authority.

Cllr Michael Hadwen, the chairman, called for a show of hands and said the recommendations were carried unanimously.

Cllr Tristan Gale confirmed what cabinet was being asked to decide. It agreed to:

• consent to the making of the Norfolk and Suffolk Combined County Authority Regulations, so Suffolk County Council becomes a constituent council of the authority
• delegate to the chief executives, in consultation with the council leader and the monitoring officer, the approval of any final technical amendments to the regulations, and all steps needed to finalise the authority's establishment, including giving any further consent required on the council's behalf
• appoint the leader and the relevant cabinet member as Suffolk County Council's constituent members of the authority

What happens next

The report says the Government will now be able to lay the regulations before Parliament. The first mayoral election is currently anticipated for May 2028, though the report says that could be brought forward to May 2027 if the Government acts.

Norfolk County Council's leadership renewed its consent on Monday, 26 October.

Earlier, we reported talk within the Reform UK group that Cllr June Mummery might vote against the paper. She did not speak in the debate. The chairman said the vote was unanimous.

No dissent from Mummery

There was no dissent from Cllr June Mummery, the cabinet member for coastal affairs, communities and public health, when cabinet voted to consent to devolution.

Cllr Mummery did not speak in the debate and was not invited to do so.

Earlier, we reported talk within the Reform UK camp that she might vote against the paper. No such opposition was voiced in the meeting.

15:38

Cabinet asked what new powers devolution deal brings compared with earlier plan

A councillor has asked what new powers Cllr Tristan Gale has negotiated to be devolved from central government, and how the new proposal is better than the previous arrangements.

The questioner said the previous deal was negotiated by the previous administration, in which the current deputy leader had played a major part. They said much of what they had heard in the debate was about responsibilities currently held by the county and district councils, which could involve duplication or the transfer of staff from councils to the authority.

Gale: safeguards

Cllr Gale said that, compared with the deal set up before, "there were no safeguards put in between the two counties by the previous administration that we're aware of". He said it had been a case of whatever the Government offered being what was on the table.

He said the Government had taken that deal away and come back to it, and that the safeguards the council was putting in place would "look after the Suffolk area". He said other councils would have some say in the statutory instrument, hopefully, if things went forward.

Ash: legislation

Mark Ash, joint chief executive, said the deal was in effect "quite similar" to the previous devolution deal, but that legislation had since changed, setting out different powers and duties for the mayor.

He said the renewed emphasis on devolution, as outlined in the report, brought further prospects of financial devolution, including retained business rates and income tax. He said that meant the authority's ability to raise its own money was "far enhanced" compared with the previous deal, because of the change in legislation and a renewed emphasis by the Prime Minister on what devolution should look like.

The report says the Government's 'Rewiring the State' statement in July set out an intention for devolution including control over local tax revenue.

15:36

Cabinet told Suffolk-Norfolk agreement is not part of devolution consent decision

Cabinet has been told that the agreement between Suffolk and Norfolk county councils is not part of what it is being asked to consent to today.

Cllr Martin Cook said neither the regulations nor the agreement signed off yesterday had been published, and that the report did not mention the agreement. He asked for clarity on what cabinet was consenting to: the regulations, the agreement, or both.

In reply, it was said the deal was between Norfolk and Suffolk, and was not part of the consent. The consent set out in the report, it was said, was to agree to the statutory instrument being laid by the Government.

Cllr Cook then asked whether the protections for Suffolk that had been said in September needed to be "hardwired" into the governance were in the instrument.

The reply was that conversations with the Government continued. It was said the agreement between Norfolk and Suffolk had been shown to the minister, Jim McMahon, and that the Government would look at what could be included in the statutory instrument, which was a matter for the Government rather than the councils. It was added that most of the agreement was guidance on how the authority's constitution would be written if it was set up.

The report says the draft statutory instrument cannot be shared publicly, because it first enters the public domain when it is laid before Parliament.

Other questions

• District and borough voting rights: a councillor asked whether the council would propose voting rights for district and borough members who become members of the authority. In reply, it was said that not every district and borough could attend, because it would become too big, but that the council was open to including them in conversations and ensuring the authority reflected the whole of Suffolk and Norfolk. No commitment on voting rights was given. The report says district members appointed to the authority would, by default, not have voting rights
• Funding limits: Cllr James Patchett asked whether there would be limits on the council's financial liability if its contribution to the authority's budget proved insufficient. Cllr Gale said a "blank cheque" was not in the equation, and passed the question to Mark Ash, joint chief executive. Mr Ash said all the funding came from the Government, including capacity funding and infrastructure funding, and that at present there was no expectation of funding contributions from the county councils. The report says the statutory instrument is expected to include a default mechanism under which the two councils would meet the authority's reasonable costs, where they could not be met from other resources, but only where the authority sets a budget it cannot meet
• Scrutiny: Cllr Dylan Roques asked how opposition parties would be involved in the authority's scrutiny and audit. Cllr Gale said this would be set out in the statutory instrument, which would be "written for all parties", and was about "looking after Suffolk". It was added that, as part of the deal, the chair of scrutiny of the authority has to be independent of the mayor

15:30

Gale answers questions on planning powers and Reform's share of authority votes

Cllr Tristan Gale has answered questions from two non-cabinet councillors on the devolution paper.

Planning and housing

Cllr Alistair Jeffreys asked whether the new authority would be given devolved planning powers that could prevent new housing being concentrated in existing communities.

He said a development of 2,000 homes, which he called Brightwell Lakes, was under way in one of the parishes he represents. He said an application for a further 1,200 homes had just been submitted immediately opposite. He said the site was farmland with green corridors, and contained prehistoric burial mounds, traces of Anglo-Saxon settlement and remains of a Second World War airfield.

Cllr Gale said the authority would have oversight of planning in and around both counties and could call in planning applications. He said the statutory instrument would allow the councils to safeguard areas "being overdeveloped without infrastructure", and areas unsuitable for housing developments on a mass scale.

The report says mayoral planning powers are most relevant to major, complex or strategic sites, and would not remove the need for local planning authority involvement, consultation or statutory safeguards.

Voting on the authority

Cllr Lindsay said only four voting members were proposed for the authority, two each from Suffolk and Norfolk county councils, both under Reform UK control. Cllr Lindsay said two thirds of people who voted in May backed another party, and that no district authority in Suffolk or Norfolk was under Reform control, and asked how those views would be reflected in the authority's decisions.

Cllr Gale said safeguards had been put in to protect Suffolk after the council had scrutinised the plan. He said the previous Conservative administration had signed up to devolution and its cabinet had voted for it to go ahead, but no statutory instrument policy had been put forward to safeguard Suffolk.

He said: "We are here about Suffolk. We're not here about ourselves."

He said the two members from each county were only there to put together the statutory instrument, and not to run the two counties as the authority. He said it was for any party that won the mayoral election to "take the reins and run with it", and that voting patterns within the two counties were "completely irrelevant" when it came to voting for a mayor, because every party would put forward a candidate.

The report says the authority will have four constituent members, two from each county council. It says the authority can appoint up to four other members, such as a district council representative, who by default do not have voting rights, and that once a mayor is elected, decisions are generally made by simple majority, which must include the mayor.

15:27

Mummery not invited to speak in devolution debate

There has been talk from within the Reform UK group that Cllr June Mummery, cabinet member for coastal affairs, communities and public health, may vote against the devolution paper.

Cllr Mummery has not spoken in the debate, and was not invited to do so by the chairman, Cllr Michael Hadwen.

15:26

Gould says devolution would give Suffolk stability to meet education and SEND needs

Cllr Tony Gould, cabinet member for education and SEND, has said he fully supports the devolution paper.

He referred back to the £147m discussed earlier in the meeting, which he said came from the Government with certain conditions attached, which the council had met. He said this dependence, at a time of rising statutory requirements, was very difficult for the council.

Cllr Gould said devolution would give the council "a chance for our own destiny and stability" by guaranteeing funding for future years. He said this would help it meet the requirements of education and SEND for all residents in Suffolk.

He said: "It has my full support."

15:25

Armstrong: devolution offers 'long-term certainty' as public finances stay under pressure

Cllr Vicky Armstrong, cabinet member for finance, economic development and efficiency, has said she supports the devolution recommendations.

She said devolution presented an opportunity for Suffolk "at a time when public finances remain under significant pressure". She said it was about bringing decisions, funding and influence closer to the communities and businesses they affect, giving the county greater control over how investment is prioritised.

Funding

Cllr Armstrong said the new authority would bring £37.4m of investment funding every year for 30 years, along with funding to get it up and running. She said this gave long-term certainty and allowed the council to plan strategically, rather than competing for short-term pots of funding.

She said other devolved areas had used funding to attract more investment, improve infrastructure, support town centres, create jobs and grow their local economies.

She said devolved powers over skills, transport, infrastructure and economic development would put the council in a better position to support local businesses, improve productivity, attract investment and ensure local people have the skills needed to succeed.

Public money

Cllr Armstrong said that by working more efficiently, making decisions closer to communities, and investing in prevention and growth, the council could make better use of public money while protecting frontline services.

She said: "Devolution is not a solution to every challenge we face, but it is a significant opportunity to secure greater investment, strengthen our economy, and give Suffolk a stronger voice in shaping its future."

15:23

Aalders: devolution skills powers could help young people into work

Cllr Simon Aalders, cabinet member for children and young people, has said he supports the devolution paper, pointing to the skills element as an opportunity for young people.

He said the Government had made it very clear that devolution was "the only game in town", and that keeping Suffolk at the top table through the mayoral structures must be a key priority for the administration.

Skills and young people

Cllr Aalders said it was incumbent on him as cabinet member to ensure children and young people in Suffolk had the best opportunities to turn hard-earned qualifications into employment that delivers lifelong advantages for them, their families and communities. He said the skills element of devolution provided such an opportunity.

Bury St Edmunds

He said devolution offered his constituents and the businesses in his area, in Bury St Edmunds, a growing industrial, housing and historic farming area, an opportunity.

He cited local businesses including British Sugar, which he said had operated there since 1925, and a Skechers distribution centre, which he said holds more than a million pairs of shoes.

He said infrastructure was fundamental to ensuring the area remained a leader in these industries.

Cllr Aalders said he supported the motion and would support the leader and other members "to get the best deal for Suffolk".

Cllr Vicky Armstrong, cabinet member for finance, economic development and efficiency, is next to speak.

15:21

Mulcahy rejects 'power grab' criticism as she backs devolution

Cllr Patti Mulcahy, the new cabinet member for transport and highways, has said she will vote in favour of the devolution paper.

She replaces Cllr Christopher Hudson, who was removed from cabinet. Cllr Mulcahy said it was an honour to be at the table as a new cabinet member and thanked the leader for his "display of faith" in her.

Funding and decisions

She said devolution would bring long-term funding from a 30-year investment fund, giving leaders financial certainty to plan and invest, rather than relying on "piecemeal, short-term bidding grants".

Cllr Mulcahy said decisions on transport, adult skills and economic growth would be taken in Suffolk and Norfolk "rather than by a civil servant in London". She said a regional mayor could implement plans addressing the area's distinct rural, coastal and urban needs.

Transport

In her own portfolio, she said transport networks, bus routes and economic corridors do not stop at county borders. She said a combined authority would allow a unified regional transport plan, better coordination of roads and rail links, and adult education programmes matched to local employer demand.

Responding to critics

Cllr Mulcahy said the authority would not replace the county and district councils, which would still run day-to-day services including council housing, social services, waste collection, street cleaning and council tax collection.

She said critics would "no doubt" argue that devolution was an undemocratic power grab from local councils and created extra layers of bureaucracy. She said: "It's nothing of the sort."

She said a regional mayor would be a high-profile champion for the region. She pointed to the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, whose mayors have held the role for a number of years and make the case directly to ministers for investment.

She said: "We need to be at that table, and that is why I will be voting in favour of this paper."

15:18

Brobyn backs devolution but says it must not become 'another expensive layer of bureaucracy'

Cllr Morgan Brobyn, cabinet member for food, waste and rural affairs, has said he supports the devolution deal, citing water resilience and infrastructure investment.

Water resilience

He said Suffolk had experienced both severe drought and significant flooding in recent years, and that improving resilience for residents, businesses, agriculture and the natural environment was important.

Cllr Brobyn said the mayoral strategic authority's investment fund, and its ability to bring together national, local and private sector investment, could help create the conditions for projects that improve water security, flood resilience and environmental sustainability.

He said the council was already working closely with partners on a number of integrated water management projects and environmental initiatives. He said devolution could help support and accelerate this kind of "strategic, cross-boundary thinking".

Decisions made in Westminster

Cllr Brobyn said Suffolk's energy sector, agriculture and business were vital to the national economy, but decisions about infrastructure, transport and prosperity were too often made in Westminster, "far removed from the communities actually affected by them".

Investment and caveats

He said: "Is it perfect? No." He said the opportunity was to secure potentially more than £1.1bn of investment over 30 years, and greater local influence over decisions.

Cllr Brobyn said Suffolk's business community, including the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce and the Suffolk Business Board, recognised the opportunity.

He said the authority "must not become another expensive layer of bureaucracy" and must be lean, accountable and focused on delivery, with Suffolk retaining a strong and equal voice.

15:15

Faircloth-Mutton backs devolution, citing farming, fisheries and business rates

Cllr Philip Faircloth-Mutton, deputy leader and cabinet member for adult social care, has said he will support the devolution paper.

He said he wished to speak "from the heart", and that rural isolation was one of the main reasons he stood for election in 2021. He said he believed devolution was the best possible opportunity to deliver for the residents he serves.

Farming and fisheries

Cllr Faircloth-Mutton said decisions should be taken within the nation state, but that did not mean they should always be taken centrally in Westminster. He said the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy, when vested in the European Union, "did not work" for this area.

With those powers now in Westminster following Brexit, he said: "Now is the opportunity to go one step further and have greater control of those two areas of policy within Suffolk and Norfolk."

He said farming and fisheries should be dealt with in an approach that works for local farmers and local fishermen, rather than a single approach.

Business rates and adult social care

Cllr Faircloth-Mutton said a stronger local economy would mean greater business rates proceeds flowing to the county council. He said this would mean improved adult social care and greater funding for investment in the future and for the council's most vulnerable residents.

He said better strategic infrastructure would also mean a more interconnected Suffolk.

He said rural and urban isolation were of particular importance to him as the cabinet member for adult social care, because of the pressure isolation puts on care services.

Enhanced agreement

Cllr Faircloth-Mutton said he was "very, very pleased" with the enhanced agreement this administration had undertaken, compared with the one presented to the previous administration.

15:11

Gale: devolution decision is 'of real significance for Suffolk'

Cllr Tristan Gale, cabinet member for planning, devolution and the fire service, has introduced the devolution report, which asks cabinet to consent to the laying of the statutory instrument that would establish a mayoral strategic authority for Suffolk and Norfolk.

He said: "Today, we are being asked to consider a decision of real significance for Suffolk."

Cllr Gale said devolution meant "more decisions being made close to the people that they affect, rather than by central government in Whitehall".

Funding

He said devolution would bring an investment fund worth more than £37m a year for 30 years. He said it would also bring additional capacity funding, greater control over adult skills funding and further investment to support economic growth across both counties.

He said devolved areas elsewhere in the country had gone on to secure additional powers and funding over time, and that devolution remained a key priority for the Government.

Safeguards

Cllr Gale said the decision was not one the council approached lightly, and that it had given "considerable attention" to the proposed governance arrangements and safeguards. He said they include:

• fair representation across both counties
• strong and independent scrutiny
• fair distribution of investment funding
• protections for areas that matter to residents, including agriculture and the fire and rescue service

He said the council had recently signed off an agreement with Norfolk County Council that ensures that, should devolution go ahead, both counties would be equal partners in the authority.

Cllr Gale said the decision was about whether Suffolk takes its place in shaping the new authority from the outset and ensures its voice is "at the heart of its future development".

He commended the report and recommendations to cabinet.

15:09

Cabinet unanimously accepts access forum report

Cabinet has voted unanimously to accept the Suffolk Local Access Forum annual report for 2025/26.

Cllr Morgan Brobyn confirmed that cabinet was being asked to accept the report and its recommendations, and to confirm the actions the council is taking in response to them.

The chairman, Cllr Michael Hadwen, thanked Andrew Woodin and Barry Hall.

15:07

Councillors question access forum on energy project funding and coast path costs

Councillors have questioned the Suffolk Local Access Forum's chairman, Barry Hall, and council officers on the annual report.

Unused cycle path

Cllr Inga Lockington said it would be four years at Christmas since a cycle and footpath was installed, but because of arguments between developers and the county council there was no access to use it. She said: "We really need to have that access", and asked the forum to push for it to be opened.

Funding for energy projects

A councillor asked whether there was enough member capacity and funding for the forum's work on large energy projects other than Sizewell C.

Mr Hall said funding goes to the county council, which negotiates with the developers. He said Sizewell C was "a really hefty chunk of money" for the council and was index-linked. He said he hoped Sea Link and LionLink would be similar.

He said Saxmundham needed good green routes around the planned converter stations, and that funding should come from developers for cycleways and rights of way connecting Saxmundham Garden Village to the coast.

Andrew Woodin, the council's rights of way development and improvement manager, said officers respond on two fronts. He said they want to protect on-site access and see it restored, and also seek off-site improvements so there is a legacy for the public, even from so-called temporary schemes.

He said the council had secured a public rights of way fund from the Sizewell C company.

Coast path maintenance

Another councillor asked what the annual cost of maintaining the King Charles III England Coast Path was likely to be, and whether repairs would be carried out in a timely way.

The response was that Natural England provides 75% of the maintenance cost, with the county council funding 25%, and that sponsorship could help. It was also said Natural England had funded signs, fencing and steps, as well as a project officer at the council.

Litter and overgrown paths

Cllr Dylan Roques asked what was being done about litter and overgrown rights of way, particularly beside rivers in his division.

An officer said riverside and coastal paths pose problems with erosion and grass cutting. Promoted routes such as the Gipping Valley Path and Lark Valley Path normally receive two cuts a year within the existing budget, and priority paths used by the public are cut.

Saxmundham

The last councillor to speak, a county councillor of six months, offered the forum her support. She said it was important the forum secured funding, given the Sea Link and LionLink projects, and asked for its help in keeping local green spaces green during the district council's call for sites.

14:57

Access forum chair expects further rail crossing closure proposals

Barry Hall, chairman of the Suffolk Local Access Forum, has told Cabinet the forum expects a further round of footpath crossing closures from Network Rail.

Mr Hall said it was the 10th time he had appeared before members to report on the forum's activities over the past year. He explained that the forum was set up as a statutory adviser following the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Network Rail closures

He said the forum had spent a long time responding to Network Rail proposals, including a transport and works order to close more than 25 footpath crossings on the main London to Norwich railway line, and some on the line towards Peterborough.

The forum opposed these on the grounds that many suggested diversions were long and impractical, and required road safety audits of the narrow roads chosen.

Mr Hall said only around a third of the closures were approved, and the forum was still awaiting some of the work being carried out. He said it also expected, at some stage, a further round of closures and another transport and works order.

Major projects

• Sizewell C: the forum responded to four consultations on the project. Mr Hall said it welcomed the commitment to a substantial fund for rights of way and access improvements, and a county council team, including a rights of way officer, to monitor construction regularly
• National Grid schemes: he said the forum was concerned about the effect of Sea Link on the Saxmundham area, and the need for permanent diversions, connections and mitigation for the communities affected
• Large developments: he said rights of way had in the past been absorbed into footways or hemmed in by fences, and should instead form part of a green access strategy within each development

He thanked the council's rights of way and access officers who support the forum.

14:49

Brobyn praises access forum and calls for lasting legacy from energy projects

Cllr Morgan Brobyn has recommended that cabinet accepts the Suffolk Local Access Forum annual report and the council's responses to its recommendations.

He described Suffolk's public rights of way and access network, which extends more than 3,500 miles (5,633km) across the county, as "a highly valuable asset to our residents and visitors".

He said the forum, made up of local volunteers, provides independent advice on rights of way and countryside access.

Cllr Brobyn pointed to several achievements in the report:

• the forum helped secure better access in response to Network Rail applications and consultations to close level crossings without suitable alternative routes
• it supported work to protect rights of way affected by major infrastructure projects, and to secure access improvements linked to developments including Sizewell C
• the council's rights of way and access team attracted external investment to improve the network

He said that investment was delivering improved surfacing, accessibility upgrades and the removal of barriers that can prevent wheelchair users and families with pushchairs from enjoying the countryside.

Cllr Brobyn said: "These are often relatively small changes, but they can make a real difference to whether someone can confidently use a local path for a daily walk, reach the coast, or access our beautiful countryside for the first time."

He also highlighted the Sizewell C Public Rights of Way Fund and the continued rollout of the King Charles III England Coast Path.

On major energy and infrastructure schemes, he said the forum highlighted the importance of protecting and enhancing rights of way as projects progress. He said the cumulative impact of multiple schemes "presents a significant challenge", and that the forum was right to encourage the council to seek lasting improvements that leave a positive legacy for communities.

Cllr Brobyn then invited the forum's chairman, Barry Hall, to speak.

14:46

Cabinet considers Suffolk Local Access Forum annual report

Cabinet has moved on to the Suffolk Local Access Forum annual report for 2025/26 (agenda item six), presented by Cllr Morgan Brobyn, cabinet member for food, waste and rural affairs.

The forum is a statutory body of volunteers that advises on improving access to the countryside. This is its 23rd annual report and covers October 2025 to July 2026.

Cabinet is asked to accept the report and its recommendations, and to confirm the actions the council is taking in response.

Issues raised in the report include:

• Energy schemes: the forum says renewable energy generation should not come at the expense of public rights of way. It describes the cumulative impact of National Grid schemes and Sizewell C as a "high" concern for members
• Solar farms: the forum says their cumulative impact on the landscape is a "serious issue" and should be compensated with permanent, improved access
• Ipswich: the forum was told in July that Associated British Ports is seeking a permanent resolution to the obstruction of part of the restricted byway at Stoke Quay
• Coast path: the forum says it has been encouraged by accelerated progress on the King Charles III England Coast Path over the last 18 months

The report says it does not directly add any resource pressures or risks.

14:43

All community staff nurses will be offered a role in future service, cabinet told

Cllr June Mummery, cabinet member for coastal affairs, communities and public health, has said all community staff nurses will be offered a role in the future Healthy Child Services model.

Responding to a question on the issue, she said the consultation had made clear that staff nurses were valued and that people wanted those skills to remain.

She said: "We listen to that feedback, which is why the recommendation before cabinet today is to keep community staff nurses as part of the future service model, and to commit significant additional funding to make that possible."

Cllr Mummery said: "That doesn't necessarily mean that every role will remain exactly the same as the service evolves, but everyone will be offered a role."

She said that, if approved, the arrangements would be explored further through a formal staff consultation process, giving staff and their unions the opportunity to share their thoughts, contribute ideas and help shape developments.

Background

Under agenda item 11, the council is no longer proposing to remove community staff nurses from the health visiting skill mix, as it had at consultation. The report says keeping them requires up to £1.4m a year from Suffolk County Council core funding, alongside an additional £3.7m a year from the ring-fenced Public Health Grant for the service.

Staff nurses demand clarity after Suffolk's 'political spin' row

A Suffolk County Council staff nurse has urged the authority to come clean about whether jobs are truly safe, branding this week's U-turn announcement "political spin."

Ipswich.co.ukJoão Santos

14:39

Cabinet asked why council faces £0.7m in SEND complaint compensation

A second question on SEND services has asked why the council is expected to pay out £0.7m in compensation. The questioner was not present, so the question was read out on their behalf.

The question cited paragraph 45 of the budget report on page 101 of the agenda. It states that the remaining £0.7m overspend within Inclusion "is due spend on investigation and compensation payments, which are either directed by the ombudsman, or offered as a resolution in response to an upheld complaint". The report adds that about 35 payments are agreed each month.

The question asked: "How are things going so wrong that the council has to pay out £0.7m in compensation?"

Cllr Tony Gould's response

Cllr Tony Gould, cabinet member for education and SEND, said: "£0.7m is a significant amount of money, and we should not seek to minimise it."

He said remedy payments are made where a family has experienced "identifiable loss, distress or injustice", and that the council should acknowledge this, put things right and learn from it.

However, he said the amount paid "needs to be understood carefully" and was not, in itself, a measure of the overall quality of SEND services. He said SEND was a partnership responsibility and that Suffolk's challenges sit within a national system under significant pressure.

Cllr Gould said the council works with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and follows its guidance on appropriate remedies. He said the council was increasingly trying to identify where something had gone wrong and put a remedy in place earlier, rather than requiring families to pursue matters further.

He said Suffolk was three times more likely than the county council average to have put an appropriate remedy in place before a case reached the ombudsman.

He added that this did not mean the council was satisfied with the underlying problems that lead to remedies being paid. He said complaints were looked at individually, to put things right for each family, and thematically, to identify recurring issues and inform wider improvement.

14:37

Resident asks if SEND reform spending should wait until current services improve

Mr Chakins has asked Cabinet whether it would be a better use of public funds to prioritise improving compliance with current legal duties on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), rather than preparing for future reforms.

He cited continuing complaints, tribunal appeals and concerns about compliance with existing SEND legislation within Suffolk's SEND services.

He said he was surprised to learn the council already has a SEND reforms planning team, including a consultant appointed to improve current services, and is now recruiting additional staff to support future reforms. He said the content of those reforms has not yet been finalised.

Mr Chakins suggested the money could instead go on:

• staff to implement existing law
• meeting children's needs more effectively
• reducing the costs associated with appeals and complaints
• improving staff knowledge and practice

Cllr Tony Gould's response

Cllr Tony Gould, cabinet member for education and SEND, said improving services and meeting statutory responsibilities "must remain a priority", but the council also needed to take part in the Government's SEND reform programme.

He said Suffolk's local SEND reform plan had been approved by the Department for Education, and that taking part was linked to government financial support. That includes an indicative £147m high needs stability grant, which he said addressed 90% of Suffolk's eligible historic dedicated schools grant deficit to the end of 2025/26.

Cllr Gould said: "It is important to be clear that this is not a new £147m budget for services."

He said the council believed reform was necessary so children received support earlier in their school life, with a central part of the plan being strengthening mainstream inclusion and local provision.

He said: "Improving today's SEND services and delivering reform are therefore not competing priorities. They are two parts of the same improvement programme."

14:34

Meeting is underway, with four public questions to be heard

Cllr Michael Hadwen, the council leader, has opened the meeting.

Cabinet has moved on to public questions (agenda item four), with four questions to be put today.

14:23

Welcome!

Welcome to our live coverage of Suffolk County Council's cabinet meeting in the King Edmund Chamber at Endeavour House, Ipswich. The meeting is being webcast live here, but you can follow our reporting for all the key takeaways.

The key item: devolution

Cabinet members are being asked to decide whether to consent to the Government laying a draft statutory instrument before Parliament that would path the way the East Anglia Mayoral Strategic Authority.

Also on the agenda

• Public questions (item four): members of the public can ask questions for up to 20 minutes.
• Suffolk Local Access Forum annual report (item six): cabinet is asked to accept the report and its recommendations.
• Adult social care financial opportunities (item seven): the report proposes investing £3.59m in extra support from an external organisation, Channel 3, to deliver additional savings of £42.55m by the end of 2029/30.
• Minerals and waste plan (item eight): cabinet is asked to approve the start of work on a new Suffolk Minerals and Waste Plan.
• Budget forecast (item 10): the quarter two report forecasts an overspend equal to 1.3% of the £850m net expenditure budget, plus a £109.3m overspend on schools-related budgets.
• Healthy Child Services (item 11): cabinet is asked to approve a revised model following consultation. The council is no longer proposing to remove community staff nurses from health visiting, but still recommends ending the Family Nurse Partnership and Young Parents Pathway as separate programmes.

We will bring you updates as the meeting progresses. The next scheduled cabinet meeting is on Thursday, 10 December at 14:00.