Please contact: Emma Denny
Please email: Emma.Denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please direct dial on: 01263 516010
01 September 2014
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 10th
September 2014 at 9.30am.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member
of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be
filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P
Moore, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr R Shepherd, Mr N Smith, and Mr P
Terrington.
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this
meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative
format or in a different language please contact us.
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
SUBSTITUTES
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any
4.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
(9.30-9.35)
To approve as correct records the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on the 16th July 2014 and the 22nd July 2014.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To consider any petitions received from members of the public.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A MEMBER
To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to
the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days‟ notice, to include an item on the
agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
OR RECOMMENDATIONS
To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee‟s reports or
recommendations.
10.
THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
(Page 15)
(9.35-9.40)
To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme
11.
NORTH WALSHAM AND DILHAM CANAL – PRESENTATION
(9.40- 10.15)
To receive a presentation from Mr Ivan Cane, Canal Trust Archivist, at North Walsham and
Dilham Canal.
12.
BUDGET MONITORING PERIOD 4
Portfolio Holder: Cllr W Northam
(Cabinet Agenda, 08 September 2014, page 9)
(Appendix A – Cabinet Agenda p. 20) (Appendix B – Cabinet Agenda p. 21)
(Appendix C - Cabinet Agenda p. 24) (Appendix D – Cabinet Agenda p. 30)
(10.15 – 10.35)
Summary:
This report summarises the budget monitoring position for the
revenue account and capital programme to the end of July
2014.
Options considered:
Not applicable
Conclusions:
The overall position at the end of July 2014 shows a forecast
under spend of £862,419 to date for the current financial year
on the revenue account, this is currently expected to deliver a
full year variance of £85,423.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet note the contents of the report and the
current budget monitoring position.
2) Cabinet agree the updates to the Capital
Programme.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To update Members on the current budget monitoring position
for the Council.
Decision:
For Overview and Scrutiny Committee to note the report
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
System budget monitoring reports
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
13.
Councillor W Northam
All
Malcolm Fry,
01263 516037
malcolm.fry@north-norfolk.gov.uk
FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2015/16 TO 2017/18
Portfolio Holder: Cllr W Northam
(Cabinet Agenda 08 September 2014, page 31)
(Strategy Document – Cabinet Agenda, p.33) (Appendix E – Cabinet Agenda, p. 60)
(10.35 – 11.05)
Summary
This report presents the current financial forecast for the period
2015/16 to 2017/18 and provides a summary of the key issues
facing the Council in relation to Local Government Finance.
The report provides the background and context within which
the financial strategy and outlines the strategy for the next two
to three years.
Options considered
None
Conclusions
The current financial forecast presents a funding gap for the
next three years of just over £1.2 million by 2017/18. Estimates
have been made on the level of future funding, although there
is still a great deal of uncertainty on the level of grant
reductions that Local Authorities will be facing.
Recommendations
It is recommended that:
1) Members consider and note:
a) The current financial forecast for the period 2015/16
to 2017/18;
b) The current capital funding forecasts;
2) Members consider and recommend to Full Council:
a) Continuation of the current Local Council Tax
Support Scheme for 2015/16;
b) That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme grant
for parishes be offered to those parish and town
councils that accepted the grant in 2014/15 and the
total amount available is reduced in line with the
Council’s relative funding reductions as outlined at
section 2.8.5;
c) The revised reserves statement as included at
Appendix E to the financial strategy;
Reasons for
Recommendations
To update members with the current financial position of the
authority and the current financial strategy for addressing the
funding shortfall and also to ensure timely decisions can be
made to inform the detailed work on the budget for 2015/16
which will be commencing in the coming months.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
Councillor W Northam
All
Karen Sly
01263 516243
karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Decision Required: For Overview & Scrutiny Committee to note Recommendation
1 above and to consider whether to support Recommendation
2 above
14.
MANAGING PERFORMANCE Q1 2014/15
Portfolio Holder: Cllr T FitzPatrick
(Cabinet Agenda 08 September 2014, page 63)
(Appendix F, Cabinet Agenda p. 66)
(11.15 – 11.30)
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to give a first quarter progress
report of the performance of the Council. More specifically it
reports delivery of the Annual Action Plan 2014/15 and
achieving targets. It gives an overview, identifies any issues
that may affect delivery of the plan, the action being taken to
address these issues and proposes any further action needed
that requires Cabinet approval.
Options considered:
Conclusions:
Options considering action regarding performance are
presented separately, issue by issue, to the appropriate
Council Committee.
1. The majority of the 56 activities in the Annual Action
Plan 2014/15 are on track or progressing to plan (46).
Performance is being closely monitored, particularly for
the small number of activities where issues or problems
have been identified (two). Some activities have already
been completed successfully (three).
2. Of the 15 performance indicators where a target has
been set eight are on or above target, one close to
target and six below target. Where assessment against
the same period last year is possible (17 indicators), 12
are improving, three are static and two are worsening.
3. The delivery of the Annual Action Plan is progressing
according to plan but there are a very few performance
issues in achieving targets. These are detailed in the
document „Managing Performance Quarter 1 2014/15‟
attached as Appendix F.
Recommendations: 1. That Cabinet notes this report, welcomes the progress
being made and endorses the actions laid out in
Appendix F being taken by management where there
are areas of concern.
2. That Cabinet approves the target for performance
indicator C 007 Target response time to fly tipping and
all other pollution complaints (within 2 working days)
be set at 80%.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To ensure the objectives of the Council are achieved.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
Councillor T FitzPatrick
All
Helen Thomas
01263 516214
helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Decision Required: For Overview & Scrutiny Committee to note the above
recommendations
15.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Page 18) (Appendix A – p.19)
(11.30 – 11.40)
To receive the Overview and Scrutiny Update from the Democratic Services Team Leader
16.
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
17.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 16 July 2014 in
the Council Chamber, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr P W Moore (Chairman)
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr D Young (sub)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Officers in
Attendance:
The Corporate Director (SB), The Corporate Director (NB), the Head of
Business Transformation and IT, the Head of Economic and Community
Development, the Head of Planning, the Community Projects Manager, the
Environmental Services Officer The Democratic Services Team Leader,
The Democratic Services Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mr P Williams, Mr B Cabbell Manners, Mrs L Brettle and
Mrs H Eales
Democratic Services Officer (TGS)
1.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mrs B McGoun and Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
2.
SUBSTITUTES
Mr D Young for Mrs B McGoun
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
One question was received from Mrs J Warner, clerk at Aylmerton Parish Council. She
referred to item 11 on the agenda, Better Broadband for Norfolk and explained that this
was a big issue in her parish. She commented that businesses were struggling due to a
lack of viable broadband coverage. She asked Mrs K O’Kane- who was present to
discuss the Broadband item- and the committee, what the priority system was for
deciding where and how to implement better broadband in the district.
The Committee agreed that it would be easier for Mrs K O’Kane to cover the answer to
this question in her presentation.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
1
16 July 2014
4.
MINUTES
Mr R Reynolds requested that the previous minutes be amended at item 187, points d
and e, to show that he asked questions regarding the implementation of training
regarding domestic violence in GPs surgeries as it was a very important issue. The
Democratic Services Officer agreed to amend this.
The minutes were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
10.
THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee noted the work programme and its content.
11.
BETTER BROADBAND FOR NORFOLK – PRESENTATION
Ms K O’Kane, Programme Director for Better Broadband for Norfolk at Norfolk County
Council, gave a presentation regarding broadband coverage in the county. She
explained that whilst government funding which had been match funded by the county
council would be able to provide on average 83% of homes in the county with superfast
broadband, district councils had been asked to provide top up funding in order to
support the areas in their districts which were most technologically isolated. She also
outlined methodology for the inputting of fibre optics to support this infrastructure, costs
of the overall project, and the timescale.
Following this, the Corporate Director (SB) outlined the July Cabinet report, which had
been approved at Cabinet, which would allow the district to support this implementation
and provide extra funding in principle. He further explained that survey work would be
undertaken to ensure the extra funding would be worthwhile.
The Chairman queried if all the money that had been allocated by the district would be
spent in north Norfolk. Mrs K O’Kane replied that it would be ring fenced. The Chairman
then invited members to ask questions.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
2
16 July 2014
1. Mr R Reynolds queried what the implementation time would be for a town such as
Fakenham, where the town was relatively large but the broadband infrastructure was
not good. Mrs K O’Kane replied that as Fakenham was a ‘head end’ exchange it
would be a 2015 roll out, however as Fakenham was lacking significant
infrastructure at the moment there would be a lot of work to do.
2. Mrs H Eales raised an article she had read in the telegraph, wherein a village in
Lancashire had paid for and provided its own broadband. She commented that
companies such as BT where behind and should have been providing this
infrastructure 10 years ago. She commented that structure to north Norfolk needed
to be provided soon otherwise local communities may end up having to provide their
own support. Mrs K O’Kane commented that there were a small number of local
schemes, however they relied on large local businesses to provide the service, and
should these businesses become unviable the service would disappear.
3. Mr P Williams commented on his own local area, commenting that around him there
seemed to be mostly aluminium cable, and queried if this would have to be re-laid.
Mrs K O’Kane replied that cables in his area may need rearrangement which would
be expensive; meaning that it was less likely that his area was covered by the initial
tranche of funding which would give 83% in Norfolk better broadband. She
commented she would investigate his area further.
4. Ms V Gay commented that in north Norfolk, rural deprivation was a significant issue,
and that members of the public were in effect subsidising areas with better service
coverage. She commented that there was a significant economic disparity prevalent
in rural area which needed to be overcome, and for not just future economic
success, but also for future health and wellbeing, rural areas needed to be provided
with better service and facilities. Mrs K O’Kane commented that she couldn’t affect
pricing levels of broadband, as much of this was regulated by OFCOM and then set
by companies themselves. She commented the best way to approach getting a good
price was via comparison sites which would show the best deals.
5. Mr D Young asked Mrs K O’Kane to explain why extra funding was needed to
provide 91% of the district with better broadband and queried why the initial funding
only covered 83% of the district. She explained that with another £5 million from the
LEP and £1 million from the county council, which would be match-funded by the
government, they could produce 91% of better coverage for the area. The extra £1
million of funding that was being proposed by the Cabinet, which would again be
match funded, would bring coverage in the district up to 95% of better broadband.
She explained that the extra funding was required because at this point the areas
needing upgrading needed significant improvements to provide sufficient
infrastructure. With regards to the last 5% she explained that most of these were
houses outside of villages and instead isolated, individual properties, which made
implementing better technology very expensive. She explained that for these
properties, broadband may never improve due to the cost implications of
improvements. However, she again reiterated that to provide 95% of properties in
the district with better broadband the £1 million that the authority had proposed
should be sufficient, however that surveys and analysis would be carried out before
this amount was committed.
The Leader at this point asked to give an introduction from the Cabinet point of view. He
explained that the report had passed through Cabinet and would be going to Full
Council to approve the budgetary implications regarding the ear marking of £1 million.
He again explained that there was no commitment to spend until sufficient analysis and
surveys of the work required had been carried out. He explained the recommendations
were presented to the Overview and Scrutiny committee to consider.
The committee unanimously
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
3
16 July 2014
AGREED
To recommend the following to Full Council:
1. That £1million is earmarked (in a reserve) from the current year balance and future year
allocations return of the second homes council tax funding and unallocated New Homes
Bonus.
2. That no commitment to spend this earmarked fund is made until the BBfN Programme
has let the next call-off contract and this has been analysed by the District Council, the
detail shared with Members and a recommendation made to Council.
They further requested that members of the committee be kept up to date with progress
on the project.
12.
WASTE UPDATE
The portfolio holder, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, had provided her apologies for her nonattendance. The Environmental Services Officer introduced the item, saying he covered
the day to day management of the waste contract and would be happy to answer
member questions.
1. The Chairman queried a site in North Walsham and its status as a waste transfer
site, saying he was not made aware of the change. The Environmental Services
Officer explained that waste disposal was a county council function, and this was
ultimately their decision. He further explained however that following reports of such,
the large vehicles were not supposed to go through the town centre and he and his
team would look into this.
2. Mr P Terrington discussed issues in Wells, particularly regarding large waste build
up. The Environmental Services Officer replied that they were engaging with local
business and had put arrangements in place they felt were working, but that these
would be monitored.
3. Mr R Reynolds referred to page 15 of the report at appendix A, and queried where
there were missed collections, if these were the same people each time. He also
asked if it was an issue that the previous Waste and Recycling Manager was no
longer working at NNDC. The Environmental Services Officer replied that the trend
of missed collections was improving but that they didn’t monitor the figures of where
there were repeat misses. He explained that where there were individuals who had
suffered on multiple occasions, a rectification notice would be issued. With regards
to the Waste and Recycling Manager’s leaving, the Environmental Services Officer
replied that he was covering the post at an operational level in the interim, whilst the
Head of Service considered a number of options. He explained that members would
be kept up to date with this.
4. Mr P Williams raised the issue of waste along the Broads following changes to the
waste management in that area. The Environmental Services Officer replied that
there was an upcoming meeting to discuss options but the current plan to withdraw
coverage remained.
5. Mr D Young raised the issue of fly tipping that may become apparent following
changes to the recycling centre charges and access. The Environmental Services
Officer replied that the change had not yet taken place, but they would monitor
levels of fly tipping following the change.
6. Ms V Gay wished to record her thanks to those who worked in waste management
and the waste operatives who worked in the district. She commented that she was
very grateful for their hard work, particularly at going the extra mile when necessary.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
4
16 July 2014
The Corporate Director (NB) then gave a brief update on the dry recyclables contract.
He explained that they were still on target to roll out in October as part of the joint
venture in the Norfolk Waste Partnership. The expansion at the Costessey facility had
been completed and would go into commission in September. He also explained they
were currently sourcing markets for the output materials but that they should be along
the same lines of the original tender. With regards to communicating the change to the
public that all recyclables could be put in one bin, he explained that it was key for there
to be a county-wide initiative, but also that the process did not start too early so that the
public were not confused. Their own launch would be taking place at the Greenbuild
event in September.
1. Mr P Terrington queried how to reduce instances of bins falling over containing glass
waste, which could be dangerous for individuals. He also queried what the status
was of community bottle banks. The Corporate Director replied that, as all glass
waste could be put in one bin, it should be heavy enough to keep the bin upright.
Alternatively, it could be placed in a clear sack or box alongside the usual bin. With
regards to community bottle banks, he commented that they were in discussions
with a number of communities for them to take control of local facilities, and that
members would be kept aware of options.
2. Mr E Seward commented on the importance of a good advertising and
communications strategy, which he hoped would be run effectively. He also queried
what would be happening with food waste. The Corporate Director replied that as a
joint venture, he hoped the communications and advertising strategy would take a
joined up approach and be effective across the county. With regards to food waste,
he explained there were upcoming meetings to discuss the remaining waste streams
which had yet to be considered in a joint venture.
The Chairman thanked officers for their work and members for their comments and the
committee
NOTED
The update
13.
PLANNING SERVICE – OVERVIEW AND FUTURE
The portfolio holder for planning, Mr B Cabbell Manners, introduced this item. He
explained that the planning department had seen significant improvements on
performance and further improvements would be about providing change and flexibility
to the team, particularly with regards to IT systems. He explained that the team would
be going through further changes in the coming months and that members would be
kept aware of these.
1. Mr N Smith referred to page 17 of the report, at table 2.4 and queried what the
acronyms listed were. The Head of Planning replied that they were all types of
formal notices that had been issued, and that PCN stood for Planning Contravention
Notice, that RQFI stood for Requisition for Information, EFN stood for Enforcement
Notice, BCN stood for Breach of Condition Notice, and that TSN stood for
Temporary Stop Notice.
2. Mr P Terrington referred to section 2.8 of the report, querying if the number of
dwellings listed on the site allocations development plan were sufficient and asked if
this amount had increased. He also referred to points 3.1 to 3.3, suggesting that
working with parish councils would be a positive step.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
5
16 July 2014
3. Mr E Seward referred to figures regarding enforcement targets, noting that he was
pleased to see positive progress. He asked for the team to ensure they had
sufficient capacity to support on-going work. The Head of Planning replied that
resource level was an important issue, and that they would be considering this in the
future in order to maintain high performance. She also discussed process, and
suggested that looking at how the system worked would be as effective as ensuring
viable resourcing.
The Chairman thanked the portfolio holder and officers for their information and invited
the Head of Planning to return to the committee in six months to present on further
changes.
14.
UPDATE ON THE BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION PROJECT
The Leader, as portfolio holder, introduced this item. He explained that the Business
Transformation project was primarily about making effective use of technology and
ensuring that the authority was working in the 21st century. Members were then invited
to ask questions.
1. Mr P Terrington commented that the report was very informative, and asked what
the life span of the new information systems would be. The Head of Business
Transformation replied that as there was no single system being input via the
Business Transformation programme, the timescales were variable. He suggested
that new telephone equipment lifespan would generally be round 7 years and
computers around 3. He explained that the key idea was to create as efficient
systems as possible whilst dealing with on-going change and development. Mr P
Terrington asked if all budgetary elements of this were included within the
programme. The Head of Business Transformation replied that the budget had
previously been approved under the original Cabinet report, and where there were
additional costs, providing extra funding would be explicitly requested.
2. Mr E Seward queried whether or not any joint partnerships were currently being
considered. The Leader replied that none were apart from the Revenues and
Benefits joint partnership with Kings Lynn.
3. Mr P Williams requested there be a basic change to the web contact form to allow
the person contacting the council to receive an automated response which included
the content of their request. The Head of Business Transformation commented that
this was a symptom of an individual system being used where there should be a
joined up approach; the principles of which were a fundamental part of the
introduction of new technology.
4. Mr R Reynolds commented that it was interesting to see systems grow up and
develop, and queried if video conferencing would be available externally as well as
internally. The Head of Business Transformation commented that it was still subject
to the outcome of the procurement process, but ideally it would be available both
internally and externally.
5. Mrs A Green queried whether or not member iPads would allow for the filling in of
forms. The Head of Business Transformation commented that the process of
procuring iPads for members had so far been a piecemeal process which made it
difficult to provide individuals with training to bring all members up to a similar
standard. He explained that this should be overcome in the next couple of months,
and the hope was that once members were at a similar place, it would be possible to
develop functionality of the iPads. Mr E Seward commented on this, suggesting that
there were both pros and cons of tablet usage, and the most important element was
consulting members on what they needed them for. The Head of Business
Transformation agreed and commented that once in place there would be a pilot
programme and phased implementation, as well as ensuring flexibility for members,
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
6
16 July 2014
as technology was not always the answer or solution to all issues. He concluded that
the primary goal was increased simplification, efficiency and flexibility for members.
The Chairman thanked members and officers for their comments and the committee
NOTED
The report
15.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RIGHTS – A GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
The Community Projects Manager introduced this item. He explained that the report
included all the details and he was happy to answer any questions. He updated
members that under the Right to Bid, 13 applications out of 29 had been listed so far;
under the Right to Challenge they had had one successful application via the Wells
Maltings Trust, and with regards to the Right to Build and the Right to Reclaim Land the
authority had yet to receive any applications.
The Chairman queried the non-attendance of the portfolio holder and requested that all
portfolio holders attend in the future. The Corporate director (SB) replied that some of
these issues could be overcome via a different agenda presentation which he would
look into with the Democratic Services Team Leader.
The Chairman then invited members to ask questions on the report.
1. Mr P Terrington queried why there had not been a significant number of applications
and asked if this could be attributed to a lack of public knowledge and understanding
on community engagement rights and also due to a degree of cynicism. He also
queried if certain authority-owned land, such as toilets, were exempt from these
community rights. The Community Project Manager replied that to nominate toilets
as a community asset would be difficult as they were open to general use and in the
main mostly used by visitors to North Norfolk. He explained the Council’s
Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process when considering Council assets
was the best way to offer opportunities for the community to take forward any
interest in the transfer of assets held specifically in NNDC ownership.
2. Mr R Reynolds asked for more information on the Community Right to Reclaim
Land. The Community Projects Manager explained that it was about bringing a
community building or land back into effective use. The Corporate Director gave an
example of a site that would potentially fit these criteria, and explained that by his
understanding, it was about bringing about a sale on a site that had particular
community prominence or concern in order to bring it back to effective community
use.
3. Mr D Young queried why there was such a high rejection rate under the Right to Bid.
He also enquired as to the level of publicity provided to Community Engagement
Rights. The Community Projects Manager replied that the government had provided
organisations such as Community Matters with funding to go out to regions to
disseminate information and provide independent and objective advice on
Community Rights measures. The Community Projects Manager also commented
that local authorities had to be careful with the extent that they promoted these
initiatives as it could leave them open to potential disputes for bias, rather local
authorities were responsible for ensuring there was a suitable infrastructure in place
to allow communities to take part in bids. The Community Project Manager also
suggested that there were a number of useful guides available, as well as
summaries on the authority’s own website available to help organisations. With
regards to the high rejection rate of right to bid, the Community Project Manager
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
7
16 July 2014
commented that often it was difficult to provide proof of a building’s use or ability for
use as a community asset, which made it unlikely to become listed as an Asset of
Community Value as part of the process. The Head of Economic and Community
Development further commented that communities could utilise these rights for
numerous different reasons and that at the moment communities seemed to be
‘testing the water’ of the powers available to them. He suggested that they were
useful for producing meaningful discussion between local authorities and
communities, particularly if the Community Rights process was not appropriate; it
allowed officers to be proactive and identify community issues and work with
individuals to a mutually satisfactory goal.
4. Mr E Seward commented that he had found the report informative and encouraged
the empowering of communities. He commented that he believed the work the Wells
Maltings Trust had done had been a particularly successful and good example of
community rights in the district. With regards to the Right to Bid, he queried whether
or not the thirteen community assets which had been listed would be able to raise
sufficient funds in the allocated 6 month time period. He also commented that many
communities perceived parts of these rights, such as neighbourhood plans, to be a
waste of time and that they wouldn’t be engaged with effectively. He concluded that
the rights seemed to be modest in power for communities, and that since their
instigation they had not had much of an impact of community engagement and
powers. The Head of Economic and Community Development agreed at the
suggestion that there had been modest uptake of the powers; . He explained that he
believed at NNDC they had a good relationship with local communities which
reduced the need for confrontational approaches to change, and was instead
facilitatory and proactive in nature.
The Chairman thanked members and officers for their comments, and the committee
AGREED
To provide the report and minutes of the meeting to the relevant government
consultation on Community Engagement Rights
16.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader introduced this item. She explained to members
that the following week’s housing scrutiny meeting was still due to go ahead, however
Victory Housing association were now not able to attend. Members could still provide
questions and they would be passed on to officers at the housing association for
answering. The Chairman registered his disappointment with Victory for their decision to
pull out of the event. The Corporate Director reminded members that Broadland and
Flagship housing would still be in attendance.
Mr P Terrington queried if the Energy Strategy which would be on the committee
schedule in September would cover fracking. The Corporate Director replied that yes it
would.
The meeting concluded at 12.40 pm
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
8
16 July 2014
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 22 July 2014 in
the Council Chamber, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr P W Moore (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Miss B Palmer (sub)
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs B McGoun
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mrs V Uprichard (sub)
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (SB), the Housing Team
Leader – Strategy, the Head of Economic and Community Development,
the Housing Team Leader – Customer Services, The Democratic Services
Team Leader, The Democratic Services Officer.
Mrs A Moore, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mrs L Brettle, Mr B Smith
Democratic Services Officer (TGS)
17. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr E Seward, Mr R Shepherd, Mr N Smith and Mr P
Terrington
18. SUBSTITUTES
Mrs V Uprichard for Mr E Seward and Miss B Palmer for Mr P Terrington
19.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
20.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
21.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
22.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
9
22 July 2014
23.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
24.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
25.
HOUSING ASSOCIATION QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION
Before introducing this item, the Chairman explained that Flagship Housing Association
were now also not in attendance at the event, after pulling out late the previous evening.
He also reminded the committee that Victory had pulled out in the previous week, which
meant that Broadland Housing were now the only housing association in attendance.
He wished to formally note his disappointment in both Victory and Flagship for their lack
of attendance, and hoped they would be available to attend committee in the near
future. He also explained that all questions received would be forwarded on to the
absent housing associations and they would be asked to provide answers.
The Chairman introduced Mr A Savage from Broadland Housing Association and Mr R
Gawthorpe from NPS group. The Chairman commented he was interested in finding
more out about ‘Passiv’ housing throughout the session.
Mr A Savage commented that this was an interesting point, as the approach to housing
was developing and changing, and gave the example that housing associations now
produce housing all the way through, from the initial stages to the final development, as
well as producing a broad spectrum of housing. He explained that housing associations
were now also having to consider market needs as well as local needs, and this was
having an impact on housing associations’ approach. He also discussed land allocation
which, whilst could be used to produce market housing, could not be used for affordable
housing which instead had to rely on section 106 agreements. This meant that when
considering sites for development, housing associations had to ensure it was
deliverable, that there was viable infrastructure either already in place or able to be
produced, as well as taking into account the views and viability from the point of view of
local authorities and utility companies, and other relevant bodies.
In reference to an issue in Fakenham, Mr A Savage explained that whilst housing
associations would love to build in the area, there was a large site allocation in the way
of this. He explained that much of the land was owned by one land-owner, which
created issues; if the land owner did not want development, then it would not go ahead.
With reference to the car park on Highfield road, he explained that a site such as that
was complicated due to rights of way and public toilet facilities, and could be
controversial with local members, which is why in the end Broadland chose not to
develop. He further explained that exception sites, such as in Fulmodeston were well
received, and were some of the first sites to utilise passiv housing. He went on to
discuss issues with local authorities and highways authorities, who created their own
sets of obstacles. He explained that there needed to be a more ‘joined-up’ approach
with regards to housing provision, and speculated that some groups may not be
supportive of housing in small towns and villages, as it would be easier for this area to
‘die’.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
10
22 July 2014
With regards to affordable housing, housing associations now had to mitigate further
with regards to picking up extra costs. He explained that there were a number of ways to
raise this extra revenue, and gave the example of Victory housing who had raised rents
on existing properties in order to invest in further affordable housing provision. He spoke
that from Broadland housings’ point of view it was more beneficial to produce market
housing via a subsidiary to then ‘plug the gap’ in the funding gap for affordable housing.
He explained that in terms of percentages, housing associations had gone from being
60% funded by government and 40% funding from themselves and local authorities, to
10% government funding and 90% funding from themselves. He concluded that this
issue of funding was the fundamental issue, and would continue to dominate
discussions around housing provision into the future.
The Chairman then invited members to ask questions.
1. Mr R Reynolds referred back to Mr A Savage’s point regarding the Highfield road
site in Fakenham, explaining that he was among the members who had raised
objection. He suggested that Mr A Savage have a conversation with NNDC’s
Planning Policy and Property Information Manager, as Fakenham was an integral
site for housing, yet no single developer would consider taking on such a large site.
The Chief Executive commented that Fakenham was being looked at and there was
currently a partial application for part of the site.
2. Mrs A Green referred to a brownfield site in the Fakenham area which would be
suitable for development yet had received an application from a supermarket. She
noted her concern on this matter.
3. Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to Mr A Savage’s point regarding the issues with
Highways with regard to providing affordable housing in rural areas, and agreed that
money was a large factor in this. Mr A Savage agreed and commented that in towns
where there was just one road in and out, it was not feasible for them to extend to
such an extent to offset the rural deterioration, even if funding was more viable. With
regards to exception sites he commented that they had always been let to local
people and anecdotal evidence seemed to suggest they produced lower rent arrears
and fitted in well with the local community.
4. Mr A Savage referred to a submitted question regarding service charges, and
agreed that they seemed to be an issue. He explained that when Broadland was
considering housing production they considered the whole cost of a property and
were focussed on reducing the whole overall cost as well as maintaining
transparency. He explained design had a large impact on this, and with higher initial
costs, they could reduce on-going property costs. He concluded that the common
sense approach, which considered the big picture, was the most effective. He
explained that as affordable housing rent went up- it could now be charged at up to
80% of market rates- it was important that service charges went down and were
taken out of the rental amount, in order to increase rental flow. In passiv housing
schemes, he explained that rent arrears were very low as there was such a
reduction in utility bills, leaving money left over for rent. The more energy efficient a
property was, the less likely there was to be a mortgage default.
5. Mrs B McGoun queried how it was decided what proportion of affordable housing
rent could be charged in proportion to private rental values and queried if high
private rents in Norfolk put pressure on these figures. Mr A Savage commented that
in Norwich in particular private renting figures were high which did generally
increase affordable housing figures. In Nnorth Norfolk however he commented that it
was hard to provide comparable evidence but every rental went out to valuation to
provide a valid figure. Mr A Savage further explained that if they lifted rents on
existing stock, this increased risk so banking rates went up, which made the system
somewhat cyclical.
The Chairman thanked Mr A Savage for his presentation.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
11
22 July 2014
26. PASSIV AND SUSTAINABLE HOUSING
The Chairman invited Mr R Gawthorpe, Director from NPS group to give a presentation
on passiv housing. Mr R Gawthorpe thanked the committee and the Chairman and gave
his presentation. He discussed the origins of passiv housing as well as evidence that
suggested this housing type reduced rental arrears. He explained that passiv was a
‘system’ which encouraged energy efficiency, addressing mechanical ventilation, high
insulation, levels of glazing and air tightness of a property. In terms of energy, passiv
housing could be up to 300% more efficient which maintaining affordability.
In terms of private developers, Mr R Gawthorpe explained that as they were primarily
concerned with profit margins there was an assumption that passiv was unaffordable for
the majority of developers. However Mr R Gawthorpe explained that passiv could be the
same price as code 3 traditional housing. He also went on to introduce Naturally
Passive, which blended passiv housing systems with natural living and traditional values
in contemporary design. He also discussed passiv care facilities for the elderly and
provision of affordable housing under passiv schemes, concluding that approximately
90% of their work came from the public sector.
The Chairman then invited members to ask questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ms V Gay discussed issues within the planning system, explaining that there had
been a failure to adequately explain the need for more sustainability within housing
schemes in the district. She also queried if it would be possible to visit Passiv
housing schemes in Fulmodeston. Mr R Gawthorpe discussed the issue and
explained that members could be pressured by developers who had certain biases.
He explained that via passiv housing schemes, code 4 sustainability was easily
deliverable. Mr A Savage added to this, suggesting it was about achieving a
balance between sustainability codes and effective passiv housing. He explained
that alteration of policy may be a useful way to achieve further sustainability, and
suggested that a code which required either a sustainability code or passiv housing
may be effective. He also explained the differences between ‘zero carbon’ policies
and passiv directives, explaining that zero carbon was a by-product of passiv
building but was not the aim; instead, energy efficiency was the end goal. Both
concluded that it would depend on how far members at NNDC wished to go.
Mrs B McGoun commented that the lack of air circulation in passiv property seemed
counter-intuitive to health concerns. Mr R Gawthorpe explained that mechanical
ventilation increased air flow and windows that you were unable to open were a
common fallacy. He explained passiv housing was adaptable depending upon
individual needs.
Mrs P Grove-Jones queried why it was only now that passiv housing was becoming
more prevalent. Mr R Gawthorpe commented that it was impossible for the
government to dictate a certain type of housing for developers to build, but now as
conventional builds were not keeping up to sustainable standards and building
materials were cheaper, passiv building was become a more realistic possibility.
Mr R Reynolds commented that the concept seemed very interesting, and
concluded that there seemed to be a need to balance on-going costs with initial
build costs. He agreed with comments regarding sustainability and queried what
code the Development committee were currently working to. He also queried what
the overall costs were for a traditional build versus a passiv build. Mr A Savage
commented that £1500/m2 all in could be achieved, however this was dependent
on process. He concluded that passiv building could be around 3%- 10% more than
traditional builds depending upon these factors.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
12
22 July 2014
5.
6.
Mrs A Moore queried what kind of noise the mechanical fans produced and whether
condensation was an issue. Mr R Gawthorpe replied that it depended on the
product quality but generally they were quite quiet, and were adjustable to needs.
He also explained that as the air was constantly moving and wood was pre-dried on
the timber frame, condensation was not an issue.
The Head of Economic and Community Development commented that incentivising
a better standard of housing in the district seemed to be key. Mr R Gawthorpe
agreed and commented that a joint venture initiative with Broadland District Council
was currently underway to increase development output via a mixture of market and
affordable housing which may be something NNDC would be interested in
considering. Mr R Gawthorpe suggested there needed to be a change in the
industry and in thinking in order to encourage higher quality builds.
Mr R Reynolds and the Chief Executive clarified regarding the code 3 standard for
sustainability; the Chief Executive explained that as part of the incentivisation scheme
the code had been relaxed but that the code had not been dropped from policy.
27. UPDATE ON THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY AND H OMELESSNESS IN THE
DISTRICT
The Housing Team Leader – Customer Services introduced the briefing paper. She
explained that the key elements were that homelessness applications were relatively
low at 90 for 2013/14. She also explained that there had been a higher volume of footfall
into the office, and officers were being proactive in preventing homelessness. The main
reason for homelessness in the district had been for private rent eviction and the 25-44
age range was the demographic affected the most. In the 65+ bracket homelessness
was very low, which was consistent with north Norfolk’s housing stock profile.
She then went on to outline a number of successes and key aims for the future. The
Chairman then invited members to ask questions.
1. Mrs V Uprichard discussed studio apartments which had previously been owned by
Victory Housing Association and commented that these would be ideal for temporary
housing for the homeless. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services
commented that she was not aware if Victory still owned these properties but she
would look into this and come back to the committee.
2. Mrs P Grove-Jones queried if there were many issues with contrived homelessness
in the district. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services replied that if there
were, it was difficult to prove and that officers had to take every case on its merit. If
there were intentional elements within the claim, officers would be unable to take
this on.
3. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds commended the team for their excellent work. She
queried if there was a large percentage of individuals moving newly into the district
who officers had to deal with. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services
replied that this was a very low percentage, and on the rare occasions it happened it
was often where it was unsafe to return home.
4. Mr B Smith enquired about an area in his district and the Housing Team Leader Customer Services replied that she would look into this.
5. Ms V Gay commented that the saddest cases of homelessness were incidences of
young single individuals. She asked if this was still difficult to deal with. The Housing
Team Leader - Customer Services agreed that this was particularly difficult, but
explained that they had hostels for the under 25s and could assist financially with
those who were sleeping rough. She explained that the aim was to empower these
individuals. Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that many individuals may have mental
health issues. The Housing Team Leader - Customer Services agreed and
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
13
22 July 2014
explained that in order to achieve the gold standard in her team they needed to
progress on their ‘no second night out’ policy which was somewhat difficult to
achieve.
6. Mr J Perry-Warnes thanked the Housing Team Leader - Customer Services and her
team for their hard work and her understanding of the complex issues around
homelessness.
The Chairman thanked members and officers for their comments.
28. HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SCHEME – UDPATE
The Housing Team Leader - Strategy introduced this item. She explained that once the
scheme had been implemented, it had been agreed to review after a year in place. She
explained that they were seven months into the current policy that had been adopted in
October 2013, with analysis covering October 2013- May 2014. She explained that the
scheme had a two stage process of allocation, in that at stage one, general properties
were prioritised for applicants on the Housing Register, and the second stage prioritised
through the local allocations agreement households with local connections. In the time
of analysis, there had been 248 properties let, of which 48% had been let to those with a
local connection. She explained this could be higher, but the statistics did not quantify
those from neighbouring parishes when that parish is a town. She also explained that
many of the properties fell under stage one, general need, as opposed to under the
second stage. She explained that 13 lettings fell under stage two: the local allocations.
This excluded properties let using the local allocations agreement on Exception Housing
Schemes which are only let using stage two. She concluded that the scheme was
starting to deliver in terms of aims and was beneficial in maximising allocations to those
with local connections.
1. Mrs B McGoun queried what the turnover was like with these properties. The
Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that under the exception scheme,
turnover was much lower as residents were now living where they wished to be,
making them less likely to move. With regards to the general housing scheme, of
around 6000 affordable dwellings there were around 450 lets per annum. s.
2. Mrs P Grove-Jones queried who owned the properties that were let under the
scheme. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that they were owned and
let by local housing associations. Mrs P Grove-Jones also queried the level of rents
charged. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that whilst it was affordable
housing, meaning rent was charged at a maximum of 80% of market rates, this was a
slight misnomer as there were always those who needed assistance with payment.
She explained that even those in social housing, of which rent could be 55%-60% the
value of market housing, often faced issues in terms of meeting rent payments. She
referred back to earlier discussions around passiv housing, explaining that it was
important to take into account ‘whole life costs’ including energy and utility bills.
The meeting concluded at 12.05 pm
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
14
22 July 2014
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2014 to 31 December 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Cabinet
08 Sep 2014
Budget Monitoring –
period 4
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
10 Sep 2014
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
01 Sep 2014
Performance
Management Q1
Tom
FitzPatrick
Scrutiny
10 Sep 2014
Julie Cooke
Head of
Organisational
Development
01263 516040
Cabinet
08 Sep 2014
Financial Strategy
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
10 Sep 2014
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
08 Sep 2014
Appointment to
Plumstead Parish
Council
Tom
FitzPatrick
Emma Denny
Democratic Services
Team Leader
01263 516010
Status / additional
comments
September 2014
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
15
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2014 to 31 December 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Cabinet
06 Oct 2014
Growth Strategy
Russell Wright
Scrutiny
15 Oct 2014
Council
22 Oct 2014
Jill Fisher
Head of Economic &
Community
Development
01263 516080
Cabinet
06 Oct 2014
Energy Strategy
Russell Wright
Scrutiny
15 Oct 2014
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Cabinet
06 Oct 2014
Business Rates
Pooling Review
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
15 Oct 2014
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
06 Oct 2014
Sheringham TIC
Glyn Williams
Rhodri Oliver
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
06 Oct 2014
Internal Audit
Contract
Wyndham
Northam
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516
Status / additional
comments
October 2014
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
16
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2014 to 31 December 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Status / additional
comments
Cabinet
3 Nov 2014
Property Investment
Strategy
Wyndham
Northam
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
01263 516000
To Council first for input
Cabinet
3 Nov 2014
Budget Monitoring
Period 6
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
12 Nov 2014
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
3 Nov 2014
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
12 Nov 2014
Treasury
Management Half
Yearly report
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Housing Incentives
Scheme – update &
review
Rhodri Oliver
Mark Ashwell
Planning Policy &
Property Info Manager
01263 516325
November 2014
December 2014
Cabinet
01 Dec 2014
Scrutiny
10 Dec 2014
Council
17 Dec 2014
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
17
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10 September 2014
Agenda Item. 16
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Work Programme at Appendix A
1.
Introduction
The Scrutiny Update report is a standing item on all Overview and Scrutiny
Committee agendas. The report updates Members on progress made with
topics on its agreed work programme and provides additional information
which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.
2.
Progress on topics since the last meeting
2.1
Empty Properties update
At the Housing Scrutiny Committee meeting on 22 July, Members asked
Victory Housing Trust to provide an update on some empty properties within
their stock. Lisa Grice, Team Leader, Customer Services, has received the
following response:
‘There have been two recent vacancies at Vicarage Street, North Walsham.
One has been re-let and the other is being signed up to shortly.
4 Munhaven Close, Mundesley is currently void and has been refused 10
times’
Christine Candish, Head of Housing, VHT
3.
The Work Programme and Future Topics
3.1
Maureen Orr, Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee, will be
attending on 15 October to provide members with an update on mental health
issues across the County.
3.2
Community Remedy – a press release seeking public views on how the
police deal with anti-social behavior was circulated via the Members’ Bulletin.
Due to the summer recess, the Committee was not able to respond formally
to the proposals. Perhaps this is a topic that you would like to consider as
part of the work programme – possibly as a specific item to discuss with the
Police and Crime Commissioner, Stephen Bett.
18
Appendix A
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2014/2015
Period September 2014 – December 2014
September
Presentation on North Walsham
and the Dilham Canal
Budget Monitoring Period 4
Russell Wright
Ivan Cane, Canal Trust Archivist
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Managing Performance Q1
Tom FitzPatrick
Helen Thomas
Cyclical
Financial Strategy
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Cyclical
Energy Strategy
Tom FitzPatrick
Steve Blatch
Russell Wright
Rob Young
Russell Wright
Lucy Downing (North Norfolk Brand Manager,
Visit North Norfolk)
Bruce Hanson (Broads Authority)
John Lee
Sonia Shuter
John Lee
Maureen Orr (Norfolk County Council HOSC
Administrator)
Angie-Fitch Tillett
Nick Baker
Council Decision
October
Growth Strategy
Tourism- wider district agenda
and information from the Broads
Authority
Health Update
Mental Health Update
Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act- Policy
19
Cyclical
Council Decision
Requested by the committee
Cyclical
Requested by the committee
Annual
Moved to allow time for
inspection and collating the
report
Overview and Scrutiny – Annual
Report
Benjie Cabbell Manners
Emma Denny
Annual
Budget Monitoring Period 6
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Wyndham Northam
Tony Brown
Glyn Williams
Karl Read
Cyclical
Benjie Cabbell Manners
Emma Denny
Rhodri Oliver
Nicola Turner
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Steve Hems
James Wilson
Requested by committee and
senior officers
Annual report requested by the
committee
Requested by the committee
Tom FitzPatrick
Helen Thomas
Quarterly Cyclical
Citizens Advice Bureau
TBC
Requested by the committee
Enforcement Board Update
Rhodri Oliver
Nick Baker
6 monthly cyclical
Customer Service Update
Glyn Williams
November
Treasury Management Half Yearly
Report
Leisure Services – an overview of
the leisure services across the
District – to include costings, input
by stakeholders, profit etc.
Also figures on running of Pier
Theatre and Openwide contract
Profile of those using leisure
centres
Outside Bodies Report
Housing Allocations SchemeMonitoring Report
Environmental Health- update
following restructure including
provision of service, impact of
inspections on voluntary groups,
and the role of environmental
health in the tourist industry.
Managing Performance Q2
December
TBC
20
Cyclical
Requested by the committee
Nick Baker
Customer Access Strategy
Glyn Williams
Nick Baker
Annual
Planning Restructure Update
Benjie Cabbell Manners
Nicola Baker
Requested by the committee for
update 6 months following July
report
21