> ## 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: Will we see a vote of no confidence tabled at East Suffolk Council this evening? - URL: https://www.ipswich.co.uk/live-will-we-see-a-vote-of-no-confidence-tabled-at-east-suffolk-council-this-evening/ - Published: 2026-09-23T17:30:41.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-23T20:42:32.000Z - Description: We're reporting live from Riverside in Lowestoft this evening, at what is expected to be a lively Full Council meeting at East Suffolk Council. - Author: Oliver Rouane-Williams - Tags: News, East Suffolk Council ## 21:20 **That's all from us tonight** That brings our live coverage of East Suffolk Council's Full Council meeting to a close. It was a busy evening. The main decisions were: - **Planning reforms:** Councillors approved the reforms, amended to create a single planning committee of 13 members, after the chair refused to accept Cllr Julia Ewart's amendment to defer the decision. - **Council tax rebate:** The motion for a council tax rebate over the Better Recycling rollout was defeated on the chair's casting vote, after a 24-24 tie. - **Water companies:** Cllr Ewart's motion calling for water companies to become statutory consultees on planning applications was withdrawn. - **No vote of no confidence:** Again. We will publish full articles tomorrow. Thank you for following along, and good night. ## 21:19 **Planning reforms approved with single 13-member committee** Councillors have voted to approve the planning reforms, as amended to create a single planning committee of 13 members rather than 11. The decision means East Suffolk's three planning committees will be abolished: Planning Committee North, Planning Committee South and the Strategic Planning Committee. They will be replaced by the single new committee, and the council's scheme of delegation will be rewritten. The changes take effect on 31 October, when the new government regulations come into force. It comes after the chair refused to accept Cllr Julia Ewart's amendment to defer the decision. Several councillors raised concerns during the debate about the time they had been given to understand the proposals. ## 21:09 **Amendment tabled to increase new planning committee to 13 members** Deputy leader Cllr Paul Ashton has moved an amendment to increase the size of the new planning committee from 11 members to 13\. The amendment has been seconded. It follows calls from Cllr Ashdown for a 13-member committee. Council leader Cllr Caroline Topping had also said she was "perfectly happy" to go back up to 13 if that was what members wanted. ## 21:08 **Deputy leader criticises government's direction on planning** Deputy leader Cllr Paul Ashton has said many councillors do not like the direction the government is going in on planning. He said he believes both the government's diagnosis of the problem and its fix are wrong. He also said the point on enforcement was crucial. Cllr Ashton said councils need the resources to build council houses, but local councils cannot find the money to do so. He also raised the challenges colleges face in hiring tutors. Responding to concerns about the timing of the papers, he said much the same information was made available in July. It was not word for word, he said, but most of the principles are the same. He said officers want to help councillors understand the changes, and encouraged councillors to contact cabinet members to arrange that. ## 21:05 **'Palpable feeling' of losing democratic grip, says cabinet member** Cllr Vince Langdon-Morris, cabinet member for resources and value for money, has said there is a "palpable feeling" that councillors are losing a democratic grip. He said he realises the changes are statutory. However, he said it was "extremely troubling" how easily private companies override decisions. ## 20:56 **Could East Suffolk keep two planning committees?** Cllr Peter Byatt has asked whether the council could have two planning committees of 13 members, rather than a single committee. The council's report states that abolishing all three existing committees is "necessary", because the Strategic Planning Committee has 19 members and so could not lawfully determine applications after 31 October. Ipswich.co.uk's understanding is that the new rules limit the number of members on each committee, not the number of committees. On that basis, two area committees of 13 would be lawful. This is a point that Cllr Topping has not addressed. ## 20:53 **Council leader 'perfectly happy' to increase planning committee to 13 members** Council leader Cllr Caroline Topping has said she is "perfectly happy" for the new planning committee to have 13 members rather than 11, if that is what councillors want. She said that when she first found out about the changes, she was told the committee would have 13 members, but asked whether that could be reduced to 11\. She felt 11 would be better so that the portfolio holder could take part in strategic planning. Cllr Topping said the reason for the change was that many meetings had been cancelled because there was not enough business. She said it would be better to have 11 "very passionate members" at every committee meeting, with others able to substitute in. She added that the referral panel would continue. She said this put East Suffolk Council ahead of the game, as many councils do not have one. ## 20:49 **Planning plan goes 'far beyond what was absolutely necessary', says councillor** Cllr Gee has said she cannot support the planning reforms. She said there had not been time to digest the proposals, but accepted that the council had to keep to timeframes set by the government. However, she said "the plan went far beyond what was absolutely necessary". She said councillors had to do all they could to preserve the area and protect the environment. She added that she felt some independence would be lost, and so she could not support the proposals. ## 20:47 **Councillor calls for more support for parish councils under planning changes** Cllr Nimny has said he finds the planning reforms "very concerning". He said he represents small villages, and that their definition of "small" would be very different to the definition in the new guidance. He asked for more support for parish councils. ## 20:45 **Cllr Folley to abstain over 'late' and jargon-filled planning papers** Cllr Amanda Folley has said she will abstain on the planning reforms. She said she agreed with Cllr Julia Ewart, and that the papers were full of acronyms and legal jargon. Cllr Folley told the meeting that she has ADHD, and that it was "absolutely awful" to receive the papers this late. She said she would have to abstain because she does not sit on a planning committee and does not understand the proposals. ## 20:44 **Cllr Ashdown backs single planning committee but wants 13 members** Cllr Ashdown has said he supports the planning reforms, but would rather the new committee had 13 members instead of 11. He said the information had been brought to him some time ago. He added that when East Suffolk Council was first introduced, the aim had always been to move to a single planning committee. He said he would prefer 13 members so that the public sees a "wider choice". ## 20:41 **Cllr Ewart urges councillors to defer planning reforms despite ruling** Cllr Julia Ewart has spoken on the planning reforms despite the chair refusing to accept her amendment. She called on councillors to defer the item regardless. ## 20:37 **Chair rejects Cllr Ewart's amendment to defer planning reform agenda item** The chair has refused to accept Cllr Julia Ewart's amendment to defer the planning reforms. The chair said it was not a valid motion, because there is no Full Council meeting in October. The November meeting, the chair said, would be after the new law comes into force on 31 October, so the amendment could not be accepted. It asked for the item to be deferred and referred back to officers, returning to Full Council in October. It also asked for a "clear Plain English explanatory paper" to be circulated to all councillors beforehand, distinguishing between: - "what the Government regulations require" - "what East Suffolk Council is choosing to do" - "the practical constitutional effect of the proposed changes" The amendment said the main papers were not available until about 4pm on Friday 18 September, "leaving three clear working days before this meeting". It described the proposals as "a substantial constitutional change, presented through highly technical material running to more than 8,000 words". It added: "Members should have a proper opportunity to understand the proposal before being asked to amend the Constitution." The amendment stated that it "does not seek to determine the substantive planning issues". She is to speak anyway. ## 20:35 **Planning committee reforms: debate begins** Councillors have now reached the item many have been waiting for: report ES/2927 on planning decision-making, brought by Cllr Mark Packard, cabinet member for planning and coastal management. The report asks Full Council to abolish all three of East Suffolk's planning committees, which are Planning Committee North, Planning Committee South and the Strategic Planning Committee. They would be replaced with a single committee of 11 members. It would also rewrite the council's scheme of delegation, the rulebook that decides which applications reach a committee at all. The changes implement new government regulations, which come into force on 31 October and which every planning authority in England must comply with. What has been disputed is how much of the proposed change is required by law, and whether councillors have had enough time and information to make an informed decision. Under the proposals: - More decisions would be delegated to officers, with no public meeting, speaking rights or councillor vote. - The referral panel would stay, but as "an advisory forum", with the final decision on whether an application goes to committee made by the "Nominated Officer". - Decisions on whether a development needs an Environmental Impact Assessment would be made by the case officer. The council's own figures put the refusal rate at 14.08% for committee decisions, against 7.61% for delegated ones. Cllr Julia Ewart has said she intends to move an amendment deferring the decision to October. ## 20:34 **Council tax rebate motion falls on chair's casting vote** A motion asking Cabinet to consider a council tax rebate for residents over the Better Recycling rollout has been defeated on the chair's casting vote. The vote was tied, with 24 councillors for, 24 against and one abstention. The chair then voted against. The motion was proposed by Cllr Mark Jepson and seconded by Cllr Peter Byatt. It asked Cabinet to consider a 0.2% rebate of East Suffolk Council's share of council tax for all taxpayers when setting the 2027-28 budget, "in view of the disruption and frustration caused by the Better Recycling roll-out". It said the rollout had been "plagued with operational and performance issues" that had "eroded our resident's trust in the council and its administration". It also said the food caddy introduction had "experienced the highest level of failure". **For the motion** Opening the debate, Cllr Jepson said it was a motion that should not be needed. He said the role of the opposition was to challenge, and that was what the Labour group was doing. He said there had been serious questions over the leadership. The motion was not about the rebate, he said, but about asking the leadership to acknowledge they had let residents down. Cllr Lynch said he was in full support of the motion. Cllr James Mallinder described the rollout as a "masterclass in operational failure". He said what troubled him most was the Cabinet's response rather than the operational failures, and that it had "severely damaged public trust". He said trust had to be rebuilt and words were not enough. He called on the administration to consider the rebate to show residents the council values their council tax, and said it needed to send a clear message that it hears and respects residents and takes responsibility. He called for a recorded vote. Cllr Gooch said she was not sure about the wording of the motion, or whether it was what residents wanted. She supported it, however, because it was simply asking for the rebate to be considered. **Against the motion** Cllr Amanda Folley said the rebate would be a very small amount and more of an insult to some residents. She did not support the motion. Cllr Daily said it works out at about 36p per person, and agreed that those worst affected would see it as an insult. Cllr Daily did not support it either. Cllr Thompson said the rebate would just be a cut to council tax that the council would not get back. Cllr David Beavan said the administration had this coming and would take responsibility. He said they were sorry, but they could not put the milk back in the bottle. He then produced a puppet as a "consultant". He was reminded that props are not allowed at Full Council, and laughter broke out in the room. He did not support the motion. Deputy leader Cllr Paul Ashton said everyone had apologised repeatedly, and that it was simply untrue to say otherwise. In his opinion, what people wanted to see was not a few pence. He said they wanted an understanding of what went wrong, and to know the council had learnt its lesson and would not make the same mistakes again. Responding to earlier remarks, Cllr Crawley of Rushmere St Andrew ward said the milk was still on the floor, and it had gone sour. Council leader Cllr Caroline Topping said the administration took the motion seriously and was considering it properly. She asked whether residents who had already experienced four months of problems with bin collections were asking the council to cut services to save 39p on their council tax, or simply to get it right. She said that was the conversation the administration was prepared to have. **Summing up** Summing up, Cllr Jepson said he was disappointed by the tone of some of the responses. He acknowledged the rebate was only 39p and not a lot of money, but said it was wrong to ridicule it. He singled out the puppet, saying it made a mockery of a serious issue, and called it "quite poor". He said councillors were missing the point. The motion was about recognising the residents who had been affected and accepting that what happened was not OK, even if it has now been sorted. He compared the rebate to having a little money taken off the bill for a bad meal to acknowledge that something had gone wrong. He said Better Recycling should have been the Greens' flagship project, but it went wrong from day one. He accused the administration of a lack of vision and a lack of leadership. He said Cllr Sally Noble is the cabinet member responsible, but Cllr Ashton had taken all the responsibility. ## 19:48 **Motion to make water companies statutory consultees withdrawn** A motion calling for Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water to become statutory consultees on planning applications has been withdrawn. Councillors had lined up to say they would not support it. The motion was proposed by Cllr Julia Ewart and seconded by Cllr Amanda Folley. It was deferred from the previous Full Council meeting. It said major energy projects, including Sizewell C, along with strategic housing allocations and "significant speculative development", are placing increasing pressure on water resources and wastewater infrastructure. It said this was happening in a district "already recognised as being under serious water stress". It described the fact that neither water company is a statutory consultee as "a significant gap in the planning process". The motion asked the council to: - Have the leader write to the housing secretary seeking a change in the law to make both water companies statutory consultees. - Write to the Local Government Association, the District Councils' Network and Suffolk's MPs seeking their support. - Ask Cabinet for an immediate review, so that both companies are routinely consulted on all major and strategic planning applications while any change to national law is pending. - Ask Cabinet to report back to Full Council within six months. Responding, Cllr Mark Packard said the government had again confirmed that water companies will not be statutory consultees, so there was no point in the first two requests. He said the companies are already routinely consulted on projects. He said the issue was being reviewed as part of the new local plan, and that a water cycle study was being commissioned. He added that Anglian Water plans to provide water from two reservoirs and Essex and Suffolk Water is investing in schemes. For those reasons, he would not support the motion. Another councillor said the issues were better addressed before applications arrived, and that existing guidance already set a high and trustworthy standard. He said residents want infrastructure, including water, delivered before development rather than after. He rejected the motion. A further councillor also rejected it, saying sewage treatment was a greater need than water supply. Cllr Ashdown said he and his group would not support the motion. Cllr Gooch said that, because of a decision already made by the government and the wording of the motion, it would yield no positive results at all. She said she sympathised with its sentiment, and that she and her group would vote against it only because of decisions made by central government. Summing up, Cllr Ewart asked for diligence, and withdrew the motion. ## 19:21 **Empty homes team to be expanded, says housing cabinet member** Cllr Tess Gandy has asked Cllr David Beavan, cabinet member for housing, whether the council will review the funding of its empty homes team, with a view to recruiting more staff. Cllr Gandy said the team was making "excellent progress" in tackling the issue of almost 700 long-term empty private homes in the district, adding that by turning these back into homes, the team "is making a positive contribution to our housing crisis". The councillor asked whether the council could review the team's funding "to enable us to get even more privately owned empty properties back into use". Cllr Beavan said some of the issues were due to maternity leave, and that the team will be expanded. ## 19:11 **Council asked whether it will ease side waste rules over Christmas** Cllr James Mallinder has asked Cllr Sally Noble, cabinet member for the environment, about waste collections over Christmas. In his question, he said households across the district "naturally experience a significant increase in seasonal waste and recycling". He said this "often leads to overflowing bins and presentation issues on our streets". He asked what "specific plans, additional collection dates, or community waste drop-off initiatives" are being put in place this year to manage the extra festive waste. He also asked how these service changes will be "communicated early to our residents". Cllr Noble said she was "rather baffled" by the question. She said he must be aware that there were fewer collections over Christmas in previous years. She added that there will be lots of publicity and campaigns over the period. In a follow-up question, Cllr Mallinder said overflowing bins are inevitable. He asked whether the council would ease its restrictions on side waste. Cllr Noble said that, to her knowledge, this had not been done before. She said the council would hope the extra capacity for recycling paper would be enough, and that recycling facilities were available if needed. She said she would ask and come back to him. ## 19:04 **Cabinet member questioned over her leadership during Better Recycling rollout** Cllr Mark Jepson has asked Cllr Sally Noble, cabinet member for the environment, to explain how she provided "adequate leadership and strategic guidance" as the Better Recycling scheme started to encounter problems. He said her "role and leadership were key to the successful delivery of the scheme". He said her email responses to councillors "during the height of the complaints" often used passive phrases such as "hope to" and "should have". He added that an improvement plan was not introduced until the first week of July. He said this "suggests you had failed to understand the impact" the rollout was having on residents. In response, Cllr Noble said: - The decision was made to change routes and collection days, which added complexity. - It was clear early on that some routes were struggling to be completed. - The data was reviewed, and the situation was looked at in weekly meetings. - The recruitment of a new adviser was approved. She said that her actions had resulted in an improvement. She repeated that collection rates have not fallen below 94% in the last couple of weeks. She said she has "done her best" and that she was "one small cog in a big wheel". Cllr Jepson called it a "generic response" and asked if she still had the support of residents and if she should resign – a question which Noble strongly pushed back on. She accepted the issues but reiterated she was one person, and said that she would not be resigning. ## 19:00 **Cabinet member apologises to older residents left with overflowing bins** Cllr Sally Noble, cabinet member for the environment, has apologised to older residents who use disposable medical supplies and were left with overflowing bins because of missed collections. Asking the question, Cllr Hedgley said many of those residents were left "distraught" when their bins were not collected. He said they were "embarrassed and upset", and that one of them had described the Better Recycling rollout as "incompetent". "Will you apologise now to these vulnerable and innocent people?" he asked. Cllr Noble acknowledged the issue and apologised. She said she was confident the service is now performing, and that residents are receiving a more reliable service. She reminded residents that they can request additional bins for issues like this. ## 18:58 **Sizewell caravan owners facing 'pressure to leave', councillor says** Independent councillor Julia Ewart has raised concerns about caravan sites around Sizewell, where she says accommodation is increasingly being used for temporary Sizewell workers. In a question to Cllr Whitelock, cabinet member for communities, culture, leisure and tourism, she said long-standing owners are "reporting pressure to leave", with "some seeing the value of their homes and investments substantially reduced". She asked: - What "specific action" the cabinet member will take to protect these residents. - What the council is doing to ensure that "the conversion of holiday accommodation to worker accommodation does not progressively reduce the supply of affordable holidays on the Suffolk coast". Cllr Whitelock responded by saying that presently a small number of sites have static caravans occupied by workers. She said, "where this happened it has been raised with the planning team as a complaint". She said it remains too early to take any further action, but that she was "all over it". Cllr Ewart followed by asking for a guarantee that any holiday accommodation that is converted reverts back after an agreed expir. Cllr Whitelock couldn't offer a guarantee but said her focus was on ensuring that the tourism sector remains sustainable. ## 18:43 **Better Recycling service has 'stabilised', says deputy leader** Deputy leader Cllr Paul Ashton has given councillors an update on the Better Recycling rollout. He said that when he stood for election, he did not quite know what he was letting himself in for. His update was much shorter than the 20-minute apology he gave Full Council in July. He told the meeting the service has "stabilised", and that the "Bin Hub has worked effectively" in reducing missed collections. "I'm not here to promise every issue resolved – it is dramatically better than it was," he said. Cllr Ashton said: - The number of contacts with customer services is dramatically lower and will return to normal levels within a matter of days. - When rounds are not completed, they have been caught up within a week. - The council is still looking to re-route some rounds, which will mean some collection day changes. It wants these to go live as quickly as possible, and is aiming for 5 October. - More drivers have been recruited, but they came with unused holiday. That, along with sick leave, has created some issues. ## 18:30 **East Suffolk Full Council meeting under way** East Suffolk Council's Full Council meeting has started in the Conference Room at Riverside, Lowestoft. It is also being broadcast live on the council's YouTube channel. It is a packed agenda, with the Better Recycling rollout and planning reforms expected to dominate. We'll stay focused on the topics that impact residents in our patch – Martlesham, Rushmere, etc. The items we are following include: - **Questions on Better Recycling:** A question from a member of the public and four questions from councillors to Cllr Sally Noble, cabinet member for the environment, on the topic that just won't go away. - **A 0.2% council tax rebate motion:** Proposed by Cllr Mark Jepson and seconded by Cllr Peter Byatt, the rebate is worth about £382,000 at current levels. Cllr Julia Ewart is expected to table an amendment that would scrap the rebate. It would require a full breakdown of the rollout's additional costs and a "Resident Service-Recovery Scheme" instead. - **Water companies as statutory consultees:** A motion from Cllr Ewart, seconded by Cllr Amanda Folley, calls for Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water to be statutory consultees on planning applications. - **Planning committee reforms:** Report ES/2927 would abolish all three of the council's planning committees and replace them with a single 11-member committee. It would also rewrite the scheme of delegation. Cllr Ewart intends to move an amendment deferring the decision to October. - **A vote of no confidence?** There has been talk of a vote of no confidence in the council's leadership being tabled. Cllr Ewart has again called for council leader Cllr Caroline Topping to stand down, saying: "It is time for Cllr Topping to stand aside. This administration is not fit to govern East Suffolk." In August, Cllr Topping said she was "getting no indications from other political groups that they have any wish for me to stand down as Leader". If a vote is tabled, it will be for the chief executive to decide what happens next. Will we see it tonight? Stay with us for live updates throughout the evening.