Suffolk County Council responds to Bury Town Trust complaint

The trust wrote a letter of complaint to Suffolk County Council's monitoring officer in February, outlining concerns over the plan to close the Raingate Street archive, which appeared in the now-approved 2024/25 budget proposal.

In the letter to the council, dated February 10, Bury St Edmunds Town Trust raised serious concerns over 'the lack of a report which examines all relevant aspects of this matter and justifies this proposed closure' as well as 'the failure to consult' and the fact that the proposal was 'buried' in the 2024/25 budget.

Protest held over the controversial closure of the town's record office (Image: Bury St Edmunds Society CIO)

On March 11, a letter of reply from the council, seen by the East Anglian Daily Times, stated that the decision-making surrounding the budget had been considered and was deemed to be 'good administration'.

John Popham, trustee of Bury St Edmunds Town Trust, said of the letter: "Having read the county council decision we note that that they have only addressed the question on whether or not the budget meeting was properly conducted. 

"They have failed to reply to the many concerns raised about the need for a public consultation on what should happen, bearing in mind the national importance of Bury St Edmunds, and the need to provide not only the documents but a location in which they can be accessed in the town." 

John Popham (Image: John Popham)

The council response letter reads: "Having regard to the council’s decision making, the proposed budget 2024-25 and capital programme 2024-29 papers were presented at every key stage of the council’s budget decision-making process; accordingly, the budget papers were considered by the council's scrutiny committee, cabinet and at a meeting of the county council.

"In my opinion this demonstrates good administration by the council."

In the complaint, the had trust raised concerns that the council did not examine other alternatives and engage with West Suffolk Council on the plans. 

In reply, the monitoring officer wrote: "Whilst I appreciate your position, I see no obligation on the council’s part for it to have examined any other alternatives and/or to have engaged, as you suggest, with West Suffolk Council."

It was concluded that the monitoring officer would not issue a report on the matter.

Mr Popham said the trust is considering the next steps for the future. 

Cllr Philip Faircloth-Mutton, cabinet member for equality and communities, said: “Following the full council decision on February 15, we have confirmed that we will be inviting community representatives from both Lowestoft and Bury St Edmund's to form two new working parties to consider local access to historical material.

“We have made clear we are committed to working with local stakeholders and depositors to develop options, which could allow relevant collections to remain in the local area.”