Reform lodges complaint over amended council motion to 'appreciate' county leader

Why it matters: The row centres on whether the council followed its own constitution during Wednesday's Full Council meeting, 23 September 2026 – a question that now rests with the Monitoring Officer, whose office says it confirmed the amendment was in order both before and during the meeting.

The details: The original motion, moved by Reform UK deputy leader Cllr Tim Buttle under Agenda Item 9, asked the council to "place on record the Council's appreciation" of Cllr Hadwen's role in representing the interests of Ipswich residents during the government's local government reorganisation (LGR) process.

It proved too big an ask for the Labour majority council, with the Labour group tabling a written amendment, circulated to other councillors before the meeting began. It kept much of the original motion's wording, including its opening paragraphs on democratic scrutiny and civic engagement, but replaced the final resolution. Instead of thanking Cllr Hadwen, the amended motion places on record the council's appreciation of Cllrs Neil MacDonald, Ian Fisher and Oliver Holmes for representing the interests of Ipswich residents during the LGR process.

The amendment also added a new section making a series of claims about Cllr Hadwen's conduct as Suffolk County Council leader, including that he had been found guilty of breaching regulations when launching a judicial review of LGR, and had spent £18,500 of council tax-payer money refurbishing his office.

Is Suffolk County Council stalling its own watchdog to save its court fight over local government reorganisation?

A Section 5A report is one of the most serious sanctions available in English local government – and one is heading Suffolk County Council’s way. Rather than being issued at pace, as convention demands, it appears set to wait until the council’s October cabinet meeting. We ask why.

Ipswich.co.ukOliver Rouane-Williams

Following debate, the amendment passed "by a significant margin" and became the substantive motion.

Conservative group leader Cllr Ian Fisher raised a Point of Order during the debate, objecting to the amendment on the grounds that it negated the original motion. The Mayor did not uphold the objection, allowing debate to proceed on the amended text.

What they're saying: Cllr Buttle said the amendment amounted to a "shameful, undemocratic stitch-up," adding: "In local government, you don't get to completely delete an opposition motion, type in your own self-praise, and call it an amendment."

Reform UK's formal complaint asks the Monitoring Officer to review the decision under Council Procedure Rule 13.2(b), which Cllr Buttle says prohibits amendments that act as a "direct negative" of the original motion.

The other side: Cllr MacDonald disputed that characterisation, saying the amendment was sent to the Monitoring Officer in advance and confirmed as being in order, a decision he said was reaffirmed at the meeting itself.

He said: "Reform's motion praised 'democratic scrutiny and respectful challenge' but it appears they don't like either. At the merest hint of scrutiny and challenge they cry foul.

"Our amendment was put forward in full compliance with the Council's standing orders. It was debated fully and, following that debate, put to a vote where it was agreed by a large majority. That is the very essence of democracy.

"Reform had the opportunity to put their case to the council and failed to persuade any other councillors of its merits. That is also democracy. It's not 'anti-democratic' just because you don't get your own way."

A council spokesperson said: "A point of order was raised during the meeting and, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, was considered and dealt with by the Mayor at the time. A complaint has been received and will be dealt with in accordance with the Council's processes."

For context: The motion followed the Minister for Local Government, Devolution and Regional Growth's announcement on 7 September 2026 that the decision to proceed with LGR in Suffolk had been withdrawn – or scrapped, or paused, depending on who you speak to. Ipswich Borough Council had previously resolved to support and prepare for the implementation of three unitary councils in Suffolk, a position referenced elsewhere in Wednesday's meeting.

What's next: The Monitoring Officer has confirmed a complaint has been received and will be considered through the council's normal processes. No timescale has been given for a decision.

The bottom line: Reform UK say the amendment breached the council's constitution; Labour and the council say it followed the correct process and was properly put to a vote. The matter is now with the Monitoring Officer to determine.

Don't forget: If you enjoy our content, please add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google so you can easily find more of the content you value.

This article cost us ~£34 to produce

It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.