> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.ipswich.co.uk/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Live: Suffolk County Council meets to consider asylum housing referendum and A14 resilience motions - URL: https://www.ipswich.co.uk/live-suffolk-county-council-meets-to-consider-asylum-housing-referendum-and-a14-resilience-motions/ - Published: 2026-10-08T13:17:04.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-08T15:53:15.000Z - Description: Suffolk County Council’s full council meeting begins at 14:00 today at Endeavour House in Ipswich, with councillors due to consider four motions, including a proposed referendum on housing asylum seekers in Suffolk and a call for a costed package of resilience measures for Ipswich and the A14. - Author: Oliver Rouane-Williams ## 16:51 **That concludes our live coverage of today's Suffolk County Council full council meeting** I'm afraid I need to shoot off for the school run! Councillors voted to approve the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027 and backed motion 1, which asks the council to explore a referendum on housing asylum seekers in Suffolk. The meeting is expected to continue with Motions 2, 3 and 4 and cabinet member reports and questions. We will report on the outcomes tomorrow. ## 16:17 **Council backs motion to explore referendum on housing asylum seekers** Councillors have voted to approve the motion, which asks the council to explore holding a referendum on Thursday 6 May 2027 on the issue of housing asylum seekers in Suffolk. The result was: - **For:** 60% - **Against:** 20% - **Abstentions:** 20% The motion asks the council to explore holding the referendum. The notice of motion describes it as advisory. The Chairman then proposed a 10-minute break before the next motion. ## 16:15 **Proposer closes debate, saying refusing referendum would ‘deny democracy itself’** Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton has closed the debate, saying it is a Suffolk-wide motion and that rejecting it would be to deny democracy. He said the Reform administration represented all of Suffolk, not only the centre but its edges. He said asylum seekers are people, but so are the residents the council was elected to serve five months ago. He said Councillor Armstrong had been clear about concerns for local women, and that wellbeing was a statutory responsibility of the council. Councillor Faircloth-Mutton made these points: - If the motion passes, the council will seek advice as part of its exploration exercise - Section 116 of the Local Government Act, as he described it, also mentions wellbeing, which he said the council would bring into the debate - A budgeted sum will be confirmed and the question will be set, working with the Electoral Commission, as other authorities have done - He said Councillors Stringer and Patchett had disagreed on the cost of the referendum, which he called "glaring divisions" in the opposition - He said the council had not yet received planning dates for the Home Office consultation, which he said was expected to be a 30-day period before any work to make the site habitable - He said the 21 councillors who voted to close down the debate were "probably the very people that don't want to go to the people and give them their say" He said the referendum would give residents the opportunity to make their voices heard on an issue that would affect the county for years to come. He said: "To deny this motion is to deny democracy itself." Councillors are now voting. ## 16:12 **Councillor Downing says RAF Barnham plan would remove police training site and raises safety questions** Councillor Asa Downing has backed the motion, saying the RAF Barnham plan would remove a valuable policing asset. He said the housing of asylum seekers was an issue residents felt strongly about, and that it presented a risk to the safety of communities. Councillor Downing said Norfolk and Suffolk constabularies used RAF Barnham as a specialist operations and training centre. He said they were, until very recently, in the process of purchasing the site from the Ministry of Defence, and that the two chief constables had jointly written to the Minister of State for Policing and Crime about their concerns. He said army cadets also still used the site. He said that, according to MI5, the terrorism threat level in the UK was currently "severe", and that the government wanted to strip Suffolk residents of an asset that had been used to improve safety. He asked: "What next is going to be sacrificed?" He said many military personnel and families living and working in the area did not feel safe because of the proposals. He asked what risk assessments had been carried out to make sure "young men of fighting age" posed no threat to servicemen and their families. He called the proposal "ill thought", saying it carried security risks locally and nationally and would remove a vital police training and community asset. He said the facility would be used to house asylum seekers for a minimum of 10 years. He said Suffolk residents deserved to have a voice on a proposal with long-term effects. ## 16:10 **Councillor Tim Buttle says referendum is about all of Suffolk, not just Barnham** Councillor Tim Buttle has said the motion is about the whole county, not only RAF Barnham. He said Suffolk had about 30 to 35 disused military bases and that the motion was for a Suffolk-wide referendum on the future of housing asylum seekers in the county. He said he appreciated points made about timing and urgency, and that these could perhaps be reflected on. He said the government had no mandate for the plan and had used its executive powers. Councillor Buttle said Suffolk hosted the largest number of nationally significant infrastructure projects in the country, including Sizewell C and Lion Link, along with several green energy projects. He said these had gone ahead despite "vehement local opposition". He also said the Port of Felixstowe handled the largest share of the country's freight and that Suffolk's farmers "are the bread basket of the nation". He asked what Suffolk got in return. He said Suffolk children got less funding for education and social care than the national average, and the transport network was less resilient yet asked to do more. He said the Suffolk Coastal MP, who is the Minister for Nature and Rural Affairs, had told residents that a warm ale and a black Labrador in a pub was a fantasy. He said this was the reality for many Suffolk residents. He said the plan for RAF Barnham was "a slap in the face" for Suffolk residents who had already made great sacrifices. He said: "Enough is enough." He closed: "The government has no mandate to force asylum seekers on us, and this referendum will allow Suffolk residents to stand up for ourselves." ## 16:06 **Councillor David Hill says he would be ‘very proud’ to vote for the referendum motion** Councillor David Hill has said he would be "very proud to vote for this motion". He said: "Give the people what they want." He asked opponents of the motion to drop their "technical objections" and said some of the opposition should welcome what he described as the motion's moderation. Councillor Hill asked how the council could hold another referendum when the other side of the chamber had "not recovered yet from the last one". He then suggested other referendums the council might hold, including one among asylum seekers themselves, which he said would be in a private ballot. He also said that, as the motion asks the council to "explore" the issue of housing asylum seekers, the council should also explore: - Whether there is a moral duty to check asylum seekers against global police and intelligence databases - Establishing their real ages and medical statuses - Whether they hold information that would benefit the security services of partner nations - Whether they have paid all the taxes due He said the motion was an "olive branch" and urged opponents to take it. ## 16:02 **Cabinet member says RAF Barnham plan is ‘the wrong country’ and attacks European Convention on Human Rights** Councillor Christopher Hudson, cabinet member for highways, has backed the motion, saying the RAF Barnham plan was imposed without anyone being asked. The Chairman said Councillors Hudson, Hill, Buttle and Downing would speak, followed by a closing address from Councillor Faircloth-Mutton and then a vote. Councillor Hudson said his side of the house listened carefully to "the wishes of the people. Indeed, the prejudices of the people". He said councillors were bound to listen to them. He said: "RAF Barnham is not just the wrong village, the wrong Air Force base, it's the wrong country." He said nobody had been asked whether they wanted it, which he called "a democratic deficit of mammoth proportions". He said the European Convention on Human Rights "binds the British people to a dangerous nonsense" and that the sooner it was cast "into the dustbin of history", the better. He criticised the government's proposal to use RAF Barnham for 10 years, and said the justice system was "two-tiered". He said 38,086 people were detected entering the UK through illegal routes, including 33,374 by small boat. He said this showed borders were being breached "on an industrial scale". We cannot verify those numbers. He said: "We are here to speak for the people." He said anyone who said the referendum was pointless had "forgotten your democracy. Shame on you." ## 15:59 **Councillor urges ‘middle ground’ on referendum motion** Councillor Julia Ewart has asked councillors to find "some middle ground" on the motion. She said councillors could not go back and say they would talk about it in May, because that was "too far". She said she had met "many great people from the other side". She asked the administration to "climb down", saying the council needed to make a plan and to be practical and wise. Councillor Ewart said the scrutiny committee would discuss major incidents on 5 November, and that the next major incident might come from Barnham. She said: "I don't know what next time looks like." She suggested taking action by getting everyone round the table. She told the leader of the council: "You run this county at the moment. So don't feel excluded. Let's invite them to us, and sit down together." She said: "You need to go home with the result today. Let's just work together." ## 15:57 **Council leader says referendum is not his ‘favourite form of democracy’ but defends it** Councillor Michael Hadwen, leader of the council, has defended the motion, saying a referendum is not "perfect" but that the council must "find every way to fight" the RAF Barnham plan. He said he felt compelled to speak after hearing "such loose telling of facts". Councillor Hadwen told Councillor Richardson he was disappointed that, when the proposal was announced, most councillors had looked to work cross-party. He said he had attended the first protest at RAF Barnham, which was mostly Barnham residents, and told Councillor Richardson: "You weren't there." He said he had also attended Barnham Parish Council at the chair's invitation. He said he was heckled by a member of the parish council, and that the "ceremonial" Labour mayor of Thetford tried to silence him when he raised why the plan was happening. He said they were told they could only say they were against it. He made these claims: - He and his colleagues were the first to meet the government to challenge the plan, and the government had since refused to update them because "the points we made scared them" - He had told the leader of West Suffolk Council he had his full support, but they had since been cut out of all meetings - Thetford Town Council, Barnham Parish Council and West Suffolk Council were working together, but Reform UK was not invited to that table because "they're making it political" He said: "This isn't political for me." He said he had spoken to Barnham residents and described anger among parents who send their children to the school and people who know their lives will change. He said: "Is a referendum perfect? No. It's not my favourite form of democracy. However, when the government is no longer listening, when they're changing the rules as we're going along, we have to find every way to fight this." He said his party was "the only party that consistently reached out to every other party and every other group", and had not had that back. He said: "If it's a referendum that has to be held, then let it be a referendum, because I'm telling you now, we will not stop fighting for people at Barnham." ## 15:55 **Councillor Rupert Tonkin-Galvin asks "where are the women and the children?" in debate on asylum housing** Councillor Rupert Tonkin-Galvin has used the sinking of the Titanic to argue against the Home Office plan for RAF Barnham. He said that in 1912 a group of seafarers, largely economic migrants from what was then the United Kingdom, ran into difficulty off the coast of North America. He said the Titanic's name was famous because of the determination of those aboard to put women and children first. He said much had been made of the prospect of receiving 1,300 seafaring men, and that among the questions raised by "this absurd scheme" was a simple one: "Where are the women and the children?" He asked why the council was not being asked to house them. Councillor Tonkin-Galvin said that if women wished to escape those who run Afghanistan, he was sure Suffolk people would come to their aid. He said that people who come to the UK in small boats were breaking the law, as were those who smuggled them. He said many Titanic passengers were economic migrants, but "legal economic migrants", and that the people of the United States on the whole welcomed them. ## 15:53 **Councillors vote to extend debate on referendum motion** Councillors have voted to continue debating the motion beyond the 13 minutes allowed for each motion. A point of clarification was raised that the Constitution Working Party had discussed a right to vote on extending the time for a motion. The Chairman first asked whether the council agreed to continue by general affirmation, but was told an extension needed a proposer, a seconder and a vote. The extension was proposed by Councillor Faircloth-Mutton and seconded by Councillor Gale. Councillors were asked whether they wanted to continue the debate or close it with a final word from Councillor Faircloth-Mutton. The result was: - **For continuing the debate:** 41 - **Against:** 21 - **Abstentions:** 2 The Chairman then called Councillor Tonkin-Galvin to speak for three minutes. ## 15:50 **Councillor says motion should have called on government to clear asylum backlog** Councillor Inga Lockington has said she will not support Motion 1 and that the council should instead call on the government to speed up asylum decisions. The Chairman said the council was out of time, the speakers list was closed, and that after Councillor Lockington it would return to Councillor Faircloth-Mutton to close the debate. Councillor Lockington said: "I am not going to support the outcome of this motion." She said the cost, as heard in the debate, "can be anything", and that when she looked into it, it could be £2m to £3m. On legality, she said: - The poll would be advisory, not a standard referendum - There would be no legal basis for using the electoral register for such a poll, because its use is not prescribed in law - There is no legal framework that would require a district returning officer to run a non-statutory advisory poll at the request of another authority She said: "That's what I've learned." Councillor Lockington said the council should have asked the government to: - Clear the asylum backlog by increasing the number of caseworkers to speed up decisions - Lift the ban on asylum seekers working once they have waited more than three months, so they can support themselves and contribute to the economy - Provide safe and legal routes and family reunion pathways - Increase cross-border policing and tackle the gangs organising small-boat crossings She said she had seen figures that more than 17,000 people had waited longer than a year for an initial assessment as of September 2025\. She said this was expensive, because asylum seekers are not allowed to work and rely on government support. She said housing asylum seekers in army barracks or hotels did not address the breakdown in the system. She said her party did not favour large-scale accommodation and that the announcements did not "fix the fundamental issue, the slow application processing time". She said Councillor Faircloth-Mutton had been a member of the Conservative Party, and that the party had stopped assessing people, which was why there was a backlog. She said: "Get on with the government, and that's what this motion should have been about. And I think we could all have supported that." ## 15:46 **Conservative group leader says motion lacks detail on cost, legality and parish support** Councillor Richard Rout, leader of the Conservative group, has said his group supports asking Suffolk residents what they think but that it is "impossible to make a sound judgement today" on the motion. The Chairman said he had called Councillor Rout and then Councillor Lockington so that all groups were heard. Councillor Rout said the group supported asking residents their views where practical and affordable, outside elections. He paid tribute to Barnham residents, their parish council and local councillors, including Councillor Smith and Councillor Richardson. He said: "RAF Barnham is completely the wrong location to house over 1,000 single male asylum seekers, and we continue to oppose such use of the base." He said residents had approached the proposal "in a calm, considered, and careful manner", and that his group also supported Barnham's own idea of a parish poll or village referendum. Councillor Rout said the motion went further by suggesting the whole of Suffolk could be asked a question, with RAF Barnham as the context. He said information that would have taken a couple of hours to compile had been withheld, on three points: - **Cost:** He said the council's own officers estimated about £650,000, while district officers estimated £1m to £2m. He said the council was already overspending by about £7m and was projected to fall below required reserve levels - **Legality:** He said Councillor Cook had covered much of this, and that the Conservative group had put its legal points to the council before the meeting but the council declined to answer - **Local support:** He said the council could have asked Barnham Parish Council whether it would support being the focus of a countywide referendum. He said that, to his knowledge, it had not been asked and had learned of the plan from a press release He said: "We don't have a cost. We don't know if it's legal, and we don't know if the residents of Barnham support it." He said none of it required "investigation or exploration". He urged the administration to bring the motion back to full council with answers on cost, legality, parish support and timeliness. He said leaving it until next May was too late, and that he was sure it might then win more support. ## 15:43 **Leader of the opposition calls referendum motion ‘divisive’ and says it is about ‘political advantage next May’** Councillor Andrew Stringer, leader of the Green opposition, has said he will not vote for the motion. He began by speaking about people who come to Suffolk to claim asylum, including his own father. He said he knew one who runs a doctor's surgery and another who had reopened two post offices in his area and was training other sub-postmasters. He said he was close to someone who came to Suffolk to claim asylum in 1952 and was given it. He said he "really struggled" with the motion and could only think it was "completely divisive". Councillor Stringer said the motion had two important features: - **The date:** He said that if the matter was genuinely urgent, a date so far in the future would have no meaningful impact - **The word "explore":** He said this "gets them off the hook", because the council would only have to look at the idea He said the referendum would cost £2m minimum and that the council's section 151 officer had told councillors it would be £2m plus. Councillor Faircloth-Mutton said earlier that holding it on the same day as the district and borough elections would minimise costs. He said people should be heard but could be heard now, through parish, district and county councillors and MPs. He told the administration: "If this is that urgent, get down to Parliament and get those MPs round the table and sort this out." He said: "This is about political theatre and political advantage next May." Responding to a claim that asylum seekers have "no known history", he told the administration: "That's exactly the problem you created." He linked this to Brexit. He said people had been told by legal officers that leaving the EU would mean the UK could not share knowledge across Europe, and that family members who work in prosecution services had told him this was now happening. He called it a "silly referendum" and "perfectly a stunt". He said: "If it was really that urgent, you would be acting right now." ## 15:41 **Councillor Cook says referendum could not be combined with May elections** Councillor Martin Cook, leader of the Labour Group at Suffolk County Council, has said he will vote against Motion 1, setting out what he described as practical and legal problems with a referendum. The Chairman said that, under the rule of 13 minutes per motion, there was time for only two more speakers, Councillor Cook and then Councillor Michael Hadwen. Councillor Inga Lockington had raised a hand, and the Chairman said he would ask about an extension beyond the 13 minutes. Councillor Cook said the motion was brief and asked the council only to explore a referendum on 6 May 2027\. He said it did not say what the question would be, who would vote, who would run it or what it would cost. He gave these objections: - **Powers:** He said section 116 of the Local Government Act 2003 allows a council to poll residents about its own services and spending. He said asylum accommodation is the Home Office's responsibility, so this could not be a section 116 poll. It would be an advisory exercise under general powers, with no legal standing - **Electoral register:** He said the full electoral register can only be used for elections and section 116 polls, so the poll would have to use the open register - **Who votes:** He said the council would have to decide who could vote and the motion did not say - **Cost:** He said the poll could not be combined with the May elections, because combination is for elections and statutory referendums only. He said it would be a separate county-wide poll paid for by the county, probably costing £1m to £2m Councillor Faircloth-Mutton said earlier that holding the referendum on the same day as next year's district and borough elections would minimise costs. Councillor Cook said Norfolk County Council was engaging on the issues and trying to work with the Home Office to find a way forward, and that Suffolk should do the same. He said Councillor Hadwen had told the May council meeting that political stunts would not be tolerated under his leadership. He said: "He appears to have appointed a portfolio holder for stunt coordination." He said: "We don't believe that it helps anybody." ## 15:36 **Councillor Aalders challenges Barnham councillor and urges vote for referendum** Councillor Simon Aalders has spoken in support of the motion and criticised Councillor Richardson's earlier speech. Councillor Aalders said he had been to several meetings in Barnham and had never seen Councillor Richardson there, apart from once. He said he would see him at the gate on Sunday and told him: "You're more than welcome. Stand on that platform and apologise for the millions of people that the Tories brought in." Councillor Aalders said people across the country were seeing "the natural culmination of multiculturalism". He said rural communities that had "fulfilled their part in the social contract" now found themselves ignored and marginalised. He said people were being put to the back of the queue for dentistry, mental health treatment, general healthcare and housing. He also said he believed the law was being manipulated to force through plans to house asylum seekers with little regard for the democratic process, and he criticised the justice system's treatment of people who defend themselves and their families. He said Suffolk had often found itself on the front line, and that "we will not waver, we will lead". He said the motion told the government "we will not be ignored". He urged all councillors to vote for the motion. ## 15:33 **Local councillor for Barnham says referendum is ‘kicking the can down the road’ and not what residents want** Councillor Harry Richardson, whose division includes Barnham village and the RAF Barnham site, has said a referendum is not what residents need. He said the government's announcement had caused "a great deal of distress and uncertainty" for local residents, and that he shared their frustration that the decision was made without prior warning or consultation. Councillor Richardson said Barnham Parish Council had worked closely with him, the district councillor and the police and crime commissioner to make clear its "strong, universal, and unequivocal opposition" to the site. He gave these reasons: - A lack of adequate facilities nearby - The loss of the base's existing use as a specialist training facility for Norfolk and Suffolk police, including as their primary site for public order and protest preparedness, which he said the two chief constables had told the Home Office would put their operational capabilities at critical risk He said the site was due to become operational this year. He said a referendum in seven months' time felt like "kicking the can down the road" when a response was needed now, and that stopping the camp becoming operational must be the priority. He said the parish council had been clear that its objections concerned "the place, not the people", and he could not see how the proposal would advance its cause. He said other proposals had already been put forward, including a parish poll, material planning considerations and a joint proposal from the chief constables to buy the site from the Ministry of Defence to secure its future use. Councillor Richardson said that since the motion was published he had not received "a single phone call, email, letter, or message" from Barnham residents supporting it, but had received quite a few opposing it. He said it was therefore not clear to him that this was what people wanted. He said: "My residents are looking for leadership from those in power. And this isn't leadership. This is an act of abrogation of responsibility." He said the council did not need a referendum to act and could do so now. ## 15:29 **Councillor cites women's safety as she backs asylum seeker housing referendum** Councillor Vicky Armstrong has spoken in support of the motion, citing concerns about violence against women and girls. The Chairman invited her to speak after Councillor Patchett's comments on the cost of the referendum. Councillor Armstrong spoke about sexual violence and about the effects on survivors. She began: "When they tell you who they are, believe them." She said her own daughters could not answer the door if they were home alone and could not take the bus into Ipswich to shop with friends, as she had done at their age. She said her greatest fear was already being lived by other families, and she told the chamber about a woman who was killed. Councillor Armstrong made a series of claims about asylum seekers and sexual offences, about crime statistics, and about deportation of people who had committed offences. She said women and girls were "not protected by the law". She said: "Our voices are not heard. We must speak. We must have a referendum." ## 15:26 **Opposition councillor says referendum would be costly, badly timed and ‘political theatre’** Councillor James Patchett, speaking on behalf of the opposition, has criticised the proposed referendum on timing, cost and outcomes. He thanked the proposer for bringing the motion and said he felt strongly that residents' views "should be heard, acknowledged, and brought into debate in this chamber". Councillor Patchett said he had run training courses at RAF Barnham's training area during his time in the army and knew the area well. He said the site was on the edge of Suffolk, just over a mile from Thetford. He said: "It is important to remember that these are people that we are talking about." He said no one knew what they had been through to reach Britain, and that once housed in Suffolk they would become the county's residents. **Timing** He said sources stated the Home Office wanted to start housing people before Christmas, so a referendum in May could be too late. He said it would be difficult to organise and advertise a county-wide referendum in the weeks before Christmas, and that a pre-election period would restrict what could be promoted. **Cost** Councillor Patchett said, based on previous county-wide standalone votes such as police and crime commissioner elections: - Estimates for a standalone referendum ranged from £900,000 to potentially £2m - Holding it on the same day as another election would cost less, but still in the region of £250,000 to £500,000 Councillor Faircloth-Mutton said earlier that holding the vote on the same day as the district and borough elections would minimise costs. Councillor Patchett said the council was facing an estimated overspend of £7.8m, with reserves being used to cover it, which would put it below its recommended 5% minimum. He asked how the council planned to rebuild reserves if it spent half a million pounds or a million pounds on a referendum. He said he wanted to see the section 151 officer's adequacy report, and whether the cost would trigger the need for a section 114 notice. **Outcomes** He said the referendum could only ever be advisory and that it was even possible it could not be called a referendum. He said that even with 100% turnout the result would carry no legal weight and the government would be under no legal obligation to act on it. He said it would end up being "just another political stunt" if held in May. He said: "Our residents do want to be heard, but not gas-lit. They don't want political theatre." He said the motion's motives were "clear and transparent", adding: "And that's the problem. We can all see through them." ## 15:21 **Councillor Tristan Gale has seconded Motion 1, saying the referendum is "needed for the constituents of Suffolk"** He said RAF Barnham was next to the rural village of Barnham, which he said had a population of about 600 adults and children. He said the site was expected to hold about 1,250 people, mainly men. Councillor Gale made these points: - Recent timelines showed many newer asylum applications received a decision within six months, so he said more than 2,500 people could pass through the facility in a year - The people being housed had "no known history" and had not been vetted - He had been told that some residents of military quarters at Barnham did not feel safe and wanted to be rehoused - Residents who owned homes near the site could not easily move, and he asked who would buy a house with asylum seekers on the doorstep - On 23 September there were 781 arrivals, followed by 526 on 27 September, a total of 1,307 in two days, and he asked where people would go once a camp such as RAF Barnham was full He said he had served two operational tours in Iraq and four in Afghanistan and had lived in the countries many of the men came from. He said: "I can tell you firsthand that their culture does not assimilate with rural Suffolk folk in our towns." Councillor Gale said he had heard a referendum was a waste of money and that it would not be legally binding. He said it would be "a voice for the people" to decide whether they wanted Suffolk to be a "victim by default" during what he called "the invasion of our country". He said that if the motion was a political stunt, "I call it standing up for the Electorate". He said housing thousands of undocumented people in Suffolk for up to 10 years would be "catastrophic to local communities". He said Reform UK was "the only party" that would go to the length of fighting to defend constituents and stand up for the whole county. He said he was proud to second the motion and "give Suffolk a voice at the ballot box". ## 15:17 **Councillor says referendum on housing asylum seekers is needed because government has ‘no mandate’** Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton has told councillors that a referendum on housing asylum seekers in Suffolk is "absolutely necessary". He said communities had been clear to him that the housing of asylum seekers was an important issue, and that the council should listen. He said he believed in democracy and wanted to increase trust in government. Councillor Faircloth-Mutton said a government that enacted controversial policies with long-term impacts should seek a mandate to do so. He said housing asylum seekers in unused military bases such as RAF Barnham was not mentioned in the Labour manifesto in 2024. He said the government had "no mandate in Suffolk". He made these points about the proposal: - It has caused deep and widespread concern in Barnham, surrounding communities and the rest of Suffolk - West Suffolk Council voted unanimously that the site was not suitable - The facility would have capacity for 1,250 people, the majority single young men, who would be allowed to leave whenever they wished - It would be used for a minimum of 10 years and is near a village of less than half that size - Barnham residents had held weeks of protests over the impact on wellbeing, community cohesion, public services and safety He said he and fellow councillors had met Barnham residents, and he criticised those in Westminster and Whitehall for not meeting the people most affected. He said he had been asked why the council should spend money on a referendum when there was already a deficit in the budget. He said: "The question that should be asked is whether democracy is worth the cost. And I believe it is." He said holding the referendum on the same day as the district and borough council elections next year would minimise costs, adding only one ballot paper. He said that, according to the OECD, only 40% of people in the UK were satisfied with opportunities to voice opinions on local matters, compared with 65% in Switzerland. He said only 33% in the UK trusted national government, compared with 62% in Switzerland. Councillor Faircloth-Mutton said the decision to call a referendum did not require a vote of full council, but that, given it was unprecedented and consequential, he believed a mandate from the council was "morally right" and "politically necessary". He said the vote would be advisory and the county council does not decide on housing asylum seekers. He said it was "the best opportunity to put on record the true feelings of Suffolk residents". He said the Conservatives had not protected communities and Labour continued to ignore people, and that Reform had promised to be different. He said Reform had protected Suffolk from being split in three by local government reorganisation. He closed with: "Long live democracy." ## 15:11 **Council to debate exploring a referendum on housing asylum seekers in Suffolk** Councillors are now debating Motion 1, which asks the council to explore holding a referendum on Thursday 6 May 2027 on the issue of housing asylum seekers in Suffolk. Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton moved the motion, and Councillor Tristan Gale seconded it. It resolves that the council will: - Explore the holding of a referendum on Thursday 6 May 2027 on the issue of housing asylum seekers in the county of Suffolk The notice of motion says the referendum would be advisory. It says this would let residents consider whether local authorities and communities in Suffolk should have a greater role in decisions on accommodation for asylum seekers, where those decisions affect local wellbeing, public housing and community cohesion. The notice of motion also states the following: - The Home Office has plans to convert RAF Barnham into a site to accommodate people seeking asylum, which according to a Home Office fact sheet would be used for a minimum of 10 years. - It has been widely reported that a maximum of 1,250 people would be housed there at any one time. - In July, West Suffolk Council unanimously agreed that the site was not suitable. - At a meeting with Norfolk County Council leadership on 5 August 2026, Home Office officials said the people accommodated would be exclusively men, the majority of them single young men, and that there was no maximum cap on numbers. - The plans present a long-term impact on the social wellbeing of Barnham residents and the rest of Suffolk. At the council meeting on 16 July 2026, Councillor Michael Hadwen was asked for an update on RAF Barnham. According to the minutes, he said the council was made aware of the proposal "five minutes before the press release, which was unacceptable in my opinion". The minutes record him saying the plan was for the Ministry of Defence to hand the base to the Home Office, to house 1,250 people, bused in at 60 a week from the start of the new year, on an open site. He said the council would beat the plan with "a calm evidence-based approach". The claims in the notice of motion are those of the proposer and have not been independently checked. ## 15:10 **Councillor asks how residents will be heard on major planning applications** Councillor Andrew Stringer has asked what consultation will be built in to make sure residents are heard on major planning applications under the changes. He said he had sat on several planning committees in Suffolk for 23 years. He said the county council's committee was "quite unique", because it often dealt with the council's own applications, which tended to be large, such as new schools. He said there used to be a "hair trigger" on those applications, so that a single objection would send one to committee. He said that if the changes were approved, this would no longer happen. He asked what other consultation the council was building in to make sure "the people's voices are actually heard" on major planning applications. No other speakers, onto the motions. ## 15:08 **Opposition backs constitution changes and urges councillors to take planning training** Councillor James Patchett, speaking on behalf of the opposition, has said he supports the recommendations on the constitution. On planning, he said the changes were "being forced upon us by government" and that the council had no options. He said he did not think any council "in the land" agreed with the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). He said the changes did not affect the county council as much as other councils, but urged councillors who had not already done so to take NPPF training. He said town and parish councils would ask county councillors for advice on planning applications, so it was important everyone understood the whole framework. On the pension fund, he said it seemed sensible to be in a pool. He said there was the benefit of a spread of experience, and any costs of independent financial advice could be shared among the pool. On the motions discussion paper, he said no constitutional changes had been brought forward yet. He said many options had been debated at the working party and that "everyone's views were listened to". He said he hoped the trial of the administrative changes went well and looked forward to discussing the "proper changes" at the next meeting. ## 15:07 **Council leader says constitution changes are needed to keep planning decisions lawful** Councillor Michael Hadwen, leader of the council, has introduced the proposed changes to the constitution. He said that with the debate over local government reorganisation behind the council, it was important to move towards constitutional arrangements that were "fit for purpose" and helped improve services for residents. **Planning** Councillor Hadwen said the council was the minerals, waste and county planning authority. He said it determined applications for quarries, concrete batching plants, asphalt plants, landfills and recycling centres, as well as applications from the council itself, such as waste sites, new schools and school extensions, fire stations, road schemes, children's homes and libraries. He said that from 31 October 2026 a national scheme of planning delegation would apply, and all councils must update their constitutions to make sure their planning decisions were lawful. He said the types of application that fall under each schedule are set by legislation and the council cannot choose them. He said training on the changes would be available to all members, and asked anyone who wanted to attend to contact democratic services. **Pension fund** Councillor Hadwen said the council, as administering authority for the Suffolk Pension Fund, needed to update its constitution to reflect new pension regulations. He said: - The council is now a shareholder in the LGPS Central pool, and the ACCESS pool is being closed - The new pool is responsible for implementing strategic investment decisions made by the Pension Fund Committee - Statutory responsibility for delivering pension functions would move from the chief financial officer to the head of pensions - The chief financial officer would continue to provide independent financial oversight and ensure financial risks are managed - A new governance strategy would replace the governance policy statement **Motions** He said the working party had agreed to trial minor administrative changes to how motions are managed, with further discussion planned. He said he had summarised "a very detailed paper" and commended the recommendations in paragraph five of the report to the chamber. ## 15:02 **Council approves Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027** Councillors have agreed the recommendation to approve the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027. The report said confirmation of full council approval would be sent to the Youth Justice Board. The plan was submitted to the board on 30 June 2026, and submission is a condition of the Youth Justice Grant for 2026-2027. ## 15:00 **Councillor says children cannot be judged by their school years** Councillor Luke O'Brien, himself disabled, has told councillors that children cannot be judged by how they are at school, drawing on his own experience. He said he felt it was important to speak out as a disabled person who was born with a disability. He said he was "written off as a no-hoper" at school, and that even his parents worried he would spend the rest of his life in social accommodation. He said: "I am testament that you cannot judge a child by their school years." Councillor O'Brien referred to Shakespeare's idea of the future as the "undiscovered country". He said: "We must have hope and believe in our children." ## 14:58 **Councillor Inga Lockington has said support to keep children out of the youth justice system must start in early childhood** She said some of the children who appear in front of the youth justice team are looked-after children. She said: "We are responsible for these children." Councillor Lockington said the council, together with their own families, needed to be sure it looked after them and did all it could to support them. She also said that adults in the prison population included more people who had brain injuries and difficulties. She said the council needed to make sure children born with a disability did not suffer in the community, and that a system was in place from early childhood to support them and their families so that they did not end up in the prison system or in front of the youth justice team. She said: "Let's start in the early years, and let's get that right, so we really give children the very best start in life." She thanked officers and everyone involved in the report. ## 14:57 **Councillor welcomes work to stop children in care being unnecessarily criminalised** Councillor Bobby Bennett has welcomed the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027, saying he was "really proud" to have been part of the board that brought it forward. She said that in his previous role he had learned in detail about the work of the youth justice service and its partners across the police and health. She said an "enormous amount of work" went into supporting children and young people known to the service, and the victims of their crimes. Councillor Bennett said the report highlighted what was going well and where more work was needed. She said corporate parenting was a particular focus for him. She welcomed the continued work to make sure children in care were not unnecessarily criminalised. She said significant work had been done over the past few years and had been reported to the youth justice board and the corporate parenting board. She said he was glad to see the commitment to children in care. ## 14:55 **Opposition spokesperson welcomes youth justice plan but raises concern over victim consent** Councillor Ash Lever, speaking for the opposition, has welcomed the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027 but raised concern about a fall in the number of victims consenting to contact. He said it was good to see the voices of young people, gathered through the youth social action work, being reflected in the plan, and he hoped this would continue. He also welcomed the restorative justice work and the aim of keeping young people out of the justice system wherever possible. Councillor Lever, a member of the education scrutiny committee, said the committee would look at risk outside the home, including exploitation, next year. **Concern over victim consent** He pointed to key performance indicator 10, which measures the percentage of victims who consent to contact. He said there had been "quite a drop" in the last two quarters. The figures in the plan show victim consent fell from 90% in the second quarter of 2025-2026 to 65% in the third quarter and 55% in the fourth. Councillor Lever said he knew not all victims would want to take part. He said that to continue the upward trend in restorative justice he wanted to be sure the council was doing all it could to bring victims in where necessary. He also said he welcomed the plan's work with disadvantaged groups, including global majority children and girls in certain age groups, and wanted the chance to look into it further in future. He thanked officers for bringing the report to council. ## 14:53 **Councillor Mark Barber has seconded the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027** He said he had worked in the youth justice system for many years and had seen how early intervention, restorative practices, education and multi-agency approaches help prevent reoffending and keep communities safe. He thanked the partners who worked on the plan, including council officers, Suffolk Constabulary, Suffolk Probation Service, the integrated care board and voluntary organisations. Councillor Barber said the plan was grounded in a child-first philosophy and built on strategies already in use. He said these had led to fewer children entering the youth justice system, minimal custody rates and an expansion in restorative justice schemes, which help offenders understand the impact on victims. He said five strategic pillars supported the plan: - Tackling disproportionality across the youth justice system - Education and training opportunities for everyone, including children with special educational needs and disabilities - A data-led approach to monitor decisions and outcomes - Putting victims first by extending restorative justice - Access to specialist health services, including mental health and substance misuse support He asked councillors to support the plan and help create "a safer Suffolk for all". ## 14:50 **Cabinet says youth justice plan aims to treat children as children while keeping consequences for offenders** Councillor Simon Aalders, cabinet member for children and young people, has asked councillors to endorse the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027. He described it as "an important plan, and it is also a practical one". He said it covered preventing children entering the criminal justice system, reducing offending and supporting victims, families and communities, "combined with demonstrable consequences to the offender". He said: "Consequences are important as a deterrent. But we also know that unnecessarily bringing a young person fully into the criminal justice system can have lifelong negative effects." Councillor Aalders said the plan reflected a "child first" approach. He said this meant treating children as children for as long as possible, working with families and intervening early. He made these points: - The council is consulting on Best Start Family Hubs, which he said would mean more joined-up working between services and earlier identification of children more likely to offend - The council is aware of current risks around gangs and organised crime in the county - A bystander programme is being rolled out and, with reparation work, helps reduce reoffending and helps victims feel involved in the process - Where necessary, punishment comes through the court system - The plan brings together the council, police, health, education, probation and the voluntary sector He said indicative figures showed serious youth violence had fallen into single figures this year, from more than 35 the previous year. Councillor Aalders said the plan had been informed by consultation with victims, children, parents, staff, volunteers and partners. He said: "We need to recognise the voice of the children themselves." He said the priorities were improving support around substance misuse and education, working with families, tackling serious violence and exploitation, and ensuring victims receive timely support. He said every pound of taxpayers' money needed to be put to good use, and that preventing a child entering the criminal justice system also made communities safer. He said the youth justice service had just started an inspection process. He thanked staff and said: "We are confident of a good result." He asked councillors to endorse the plan and "make Suffolk a safer place for everyone". ## 14:47 **Councillors asked to approve Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027** Councillor Simon Aalders, cabinet member for children and young people, is speaking on the Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027. Councillors are being asked to approve the plan. The report says full council must approve youth justice plans under national regulations. The report sets out the following: - Councils have a statutory duty to submit an annual Youth Justice Plan to the national Youth Justice Board - The plan was submitted on 30 June 2026, with confirmation of full council approval to follow - Submission is a condition of the Youth Justice Grant for 2026-2027 - Priorities for 2026-2027 include improving identification of and support for substance misuse, closer working with the Virtual School and educational psychologists on education, and developing health and hygiene support for children and victims - The plan follows a "Child First" approach, which means treating children as children and avoiding unnecessary criminalisation - The report says there are no other practical options, because the approach is required by legislation and grant conditions **What the plan says about 2025-2026** - The number of children who became first-time entrants to the youth justice system fell by 27% to 84 - Three children were sentenced to custody - The plan says Suffolk's first-time entrant rate is lower than the England and "YJS family" averages, and slightly higher than the Eastern region - Engagement in restorative justice opportunities rose from 11% to 36% over the year **Areas of concern in the plan** - Reoffending has fluctuated more than regional and national rates, which the plan says have stayed "relatively stable in the low 30s". The latest Suffolk rate in the plan is 30.6% - A higher proportion of first-time entrants received a court outcome, 61% compared with 58% the year before - The plan says the data "highlights inequity, particularly for Black and mixed ethnicity children" - The share of victims consenting to contact fell from 90% to 55% over the year Stay with us for Councillor Aalders's comments and the debate. ## 14:42 **Council rejects claim that SEND complaints are being ignored** Councillor Tony Gould has rejected claims that complaints from parents and carers of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are not being registered or answered. The question came from Emma Everly, who was not at the meeting. The Chairman read it on her behalf. It said parents and carers were "currently being ignored by both statutory SEND services, and the complaints team". It made these claims: - Emails to statutory SEND services go unanswered for weeks - Telephone numbers have been removed from online services, so nobody can ring - Escalating to managers and making complaints to get a reply has proved fruitless - Complaints are being recorded as comments rather than complaints, or are not registered or answered in line with policy The question asked: "What will the council be doing to address these severe failings in service?" Councillor Gould said he recognised that delays in communication could add to "an already very challenging situation" for families. He said: "I do not accept the suggestion that concerns raised through the council's complaints process are being ignored, or that complaints are not being registered." He said: - Publicly available data shows the number of complaints registered by Suffolk County Council increased last year and has continued to increase this year - The council has a formal complaints process with published policies and timescales - Complaint handling is subject to external scrutiny by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman - The latest annual report on compliments, comments and complaints was considered by the audit committee He added that some families continued to have difficulties contacting services or getting timely responses. He said the council was working to improve communication with families as part of its wider improvement programme. He said anyone who believed their complaint had not been handled correctly should keep using the complaints process so it could be reviewed and, where necessary, escalated. There was no supplementary question. That concluded public questions. ## 14:35 **Council aims to have bus lane camera enforcement operational by March 2027** Residents who have waited four years for automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) enforcement at a bus lane on Old Norwich Road in Ipswich have been told it should be operational by the end of March 2027. Stephen Bates asked Councillor Christopher Hudson, cabinet member for highways, to explain the "continued non-delivery" of the project and when residents could expect "a clear and credible timetable". Mr Bates said council officers, including a deputy chief executive, had repeatedly told residents the project was a priority. He said residents were told in October 2024 that the powers would be in place by December, and in July 2025 that the chief executive had confirmed it was a priority. He said Councillor Asa Downing had reported last month that the enforcement project had been moved to another team, that the Ipswich scheme had slipped to 2027 and that nothing was currently scheduled for Old Norwich Road. Councillor Hudson said he understood the frustration and gave this timeline: - The council applied for the necessary powers in 2023 - The powers arrived in December 2024 - Old Norwich Road remains one of four priority areas - A supplier has been appointed, and mobilisation is under way He said: "We have the powers, we even have the supplier now. Let's get on with the job." He added that he wanted enforcement operational by the end of March 2027\. He said: "I know that seems a long way away, and you've already waited a long time." Councillor Hudson also said the Reform position was "less bureaucracy, fewer excuses, and faster delivery of service". He said the party was not in charge in 2023. Mr Bates asked for confirmation that March 2027 was a commitment. He said there had been about 17,000 recorded breaches over the four years. Councillor Hudson said he could not give a guarantee, met with laughter. He said: "I will do my best, and you will hold me, and everyone here, to account if I don't." Mr Bates thanked him and replied: "We'll hold you to it." ## 14:00 **Welcome to our live coverage of Suffolk County Council’s full council meeting** Suffolk County Council’s full council meeting is due to begin at 14:00 in the King Edmund Chamber at Endeavour House, Russell Road, Ipswich. The meeting will be webcast live and recorded. Councillors are due to consider: - A presentation from James Whatling, vice-chairman of trustees at Suffolk Accident Rescue Service (SARS), as part of the Suffolk in Focus item - Public questions, which are limited to 20 minutes - The Suffolk Youth Justice Plan 2026-2027 - Amendments to the council’s constitution, including changes linked to new planning regulations that come into force on 31 October 2026 and updated governance arrangements for the Suffolk Pension Fund - Four motions: - **Motion 1:** Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton, seconded by Councillor Tristan Gale, proposes that the council explores holding a referendum on Thursday 6 May 2027 on the issue of housing asylum seekers in Suffolk - **Motion 2:** Councillor Ash Lever, seconded by Councillor Dylan Roques, proposes a motion of support for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), including writing to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Suffolk and the acting chief constable of Suffolk Constabulary - **Motion 3:** Councillor Richard Rout, seconded by Councillor Joe Mason, proposes recognition of the contribution made by Suffolk’s town and parish councils and parish meetings - **Motion 4:** Councillor Martin Cook, seconded by Councillor Colin Kreidewolf, asks the cabinet to bring forward, by spring 2027, a costed and timetabled package of tactical resilience measures for Ipswich and the A14 - Cabinet member reports and questions, including up to 30 minutes of questions with notice and up to 30 minutes without notice The next scheduled meeting is on Thursday, 3 December 2026 at 14:00. Stay with us for updates throughout the afternoon.