Please contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk Please direct dial on: 01263 516010
02 September 2013
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 11th
September 2013 at 9.30a.m.
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. Coffee will be available in the staff restaurant at 9.30 a.m.
and at the break.
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
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 17 July 2013.
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 10)
(9.35 – 9.40)
To discuss the Cabinet Work Programme and to consider the programme of business for
Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny, and Full Council.
11.
PRESENTATION BY THE NORTH NORFOLK CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP
(9.40 – 10.15)
Helen Stratton, NNCCG Chief Financial Officer will be giving a presentation reviewing the
work of the Clinical Commissioning Group one year on.
12.
(page 14)
(10.15-10.25)
HEALTH UPDATE
This report provides an update on some of the strategic and multi-agency work as well as
direct services that the Council provides which impact on health and well-being.
(Source: Sonia Shuter, Health Improvement Officer, sonia.shuter@north-norfolk.gov.uk,
tel: 01263 516173 and Karl Read, Sports and Leisure Services Manager, karl.read@northnorfolk.gov.uk, 01263 516002)
13.
REVIEW OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SERVICE 2013
(page 17)
(Appendix A – electronic only)
(10.25 – 11.10)
As part of the review process, the Cabinet report, and the results of the review
undertaken by the Working Party are being placed before the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee for Pre Scrutiny. Members of the Committee are therefore invited to consider
the Reports and Recommendations and provide comments to Cabinet as they see fit.
Summary:
As part of the Council‟s budget savings exercise a review
of the current CCTV operation was requested by Cabinet
as part of the overall review of services. A paper was
presented to Cabinet in January 2013 to establish a
politically balanced Working Party to oversee the review
and make recommendations to Cabinet. The Terms of
Reference for the group included the requirement to
consider options for the future provision of the service, to
identify savings and to steer the review process, including
stakeholder consultation. The Working Party has now
concluded the review process and the report and findings
are contained within Appendix A which should be read
alongside this paper.
Options considered:
The Working Party has considered a number of options.
These included investigation of a number of external
management options, including the potential for working
with third party service providers and other Council‟s.
Internal options have also been considered and cover
potential capital investment for the introduction of a
wireless CCTV system on an „invest to save‟ basis. The
discontinuation of the service has also been considered as
a potential option. These options are considered in detail
within Appendix A and the options which the Working
Party consider viable are summarised within the report
below.
Conclusions:
A number of alternative options and potential working
arrangements have been considered as part of the review
process and these are given above. The review has
identified three potential options as discussed above
including shared working, internal investment (wireless
option) and decommissioning, all of which achieve
efficiency savings for the Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet;
1. Note the content of the Review of the Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 report
2. Select which option it wishes to implement
3. Grant Delegated Authority to officers to move
forward with the preferred option in
consultation with the Portfolio holder for
Assets and the Corporate Director.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The Working Party has considered a number of options as
part of this review process. Upon further investigation,
some of these options have not proved viable and have
therefore
not
been
recommended
for
further
considerations. The full options appraisal can be found
within the CCTV review document contained within
Appendix A and a summary of the viable options is
contained within this paper.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone no:
Cllr R Oliver
Cromer Town, Lancaster (North/South), North Walsham
(East/North/West), Sheringham (North/South), Priory
Duncan Ellis
01263 516330
duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Email:
14.
LOCAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY – PROVISION OF LOANS TO REGISTERED
PROVIDERS
(Cabinet Agenda 09 September 2013, p. 71)
(Appendix G, Cabinet Agenda – p. 82)
(11.25 – 11.55)
Summary:
This report seeks approval to issue loans to Registered
Providers to support the delivery of new housing across the
district as part of a Local Investment Strategy. Such loans
will be on a commercial basis generating a rate of return
which would be greater than the return currently being
achieved on the Council‟s short term treasury investments.
Options considered:
The Housing and Planning Policy Board considered four
options for inclusion in the Local Investment Strategy. Option
1 – disposal of land will continue using existing powers for
disposal. Option 2 – provision of commercial loans to
Registered Providers was considered to provide the best
outcomes to the Council and was recommended to Cabinet
for adoption. Option 3 – Provision of land and loan to a
Registered Provider was supported but was not as
straightforward to deliver as Option 2. Option 4 – formulation
of a Joint Venture was considered to be too slow and
complex to meet the Council‟s needs at this time.
Conclusions:
The economic climate has meant that Registered Providers
have had to identify new sources of long term finance and as
a result there is a need for medium term loans which will
allow Registered Providers to access long term finance by
developing a portfolio of properties of the required size. The
Council has seen the return it achieves on its short term
treasury investments significantly reduce over the last 5
financial years. The Council has therefore looked to develop
a Local Investment Strategy which will allow it to invest in a
sustainable way in supporting housing delivery. Providing
loans to Registered Providers on a commercial basis meets
this requirement whilst also generating additional interest
income and providing wider economic benefits to reflect the
increase in the number of dwellings provided in the District.
The Council can provide loans on the equivalent of
commercial terms under existing powers and such loans
would be compatible with EU procurement and State Aid
rules. Initially up to £3.5million will need to be allocated for
the provision of such loans.
As the Registered Providers will be providing both affordable
housing and market housing the Council may need to provide
some or all of the loan finance to the Registered Providers‟
wholly owned subsidiary as the subsidiary will deliver the
required market housing.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone number
Email:
15.
Cllr T Ivory, Cllr W Northam
All
Nicola Turner
01263 516222
Nicola.turner@north-norfolk.gov.uk
MANAGING PERFORMANCE – QUARTER 1 2013/14
(Cabinet Agenda 09 September 2013, p. 88)
(Appendix H –p.94) (Appendix I – p. 106) (Appendix J1 – p.113)
(Appendix J2 – p. 115) (Appendix K – p.118)
(11.55 – 12.10)
Summary:
Conclusions:
CABINET
DECISION
The purpose of this report is to give a first quarter progress
report in delivering the Annual Action Plan 2013 - 14. 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.
The majority of activities outlined in this report are on track
with performance being closely monitored. Briefing notes
have been provided in respect of Planning and Revenues and
Benefits and these are shown at Appendix J and K.
Of the 14 performance indicators where a target has been set
or assessment against the previous year‟s performance is
taking place, six are on or above target, six below target, one
improving and one worse compared to last year.
All identified issues that have arisen are being addressed by
managers and the Performance and Risk Management Board
16.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet note this report.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
All performance issues identified in this report are
being addressed by the appropriate level of
management and do not require any additional action
to be authorised by Cabinet.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone no:
Email:
Cllr T FitzPatrick
All
Helen Thomas
01263 516214
helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2013/14 – PERIOD 4
(Cabinet Agenda 09 September 2013, p. 21)
(Appendix A – p.28) (Appendix B – p.29) (Appendix C – p.32) (Appendix D – p.34)
(12.10 – 12.25)
Summary:
This report summarises the budget monitoring position for
the revenue account to the end of July 2013.
Conclusions:
The overall position at the end of period 4 shows a forecast
under spend of £14,000 for the current financial year on the
revenue account.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet note the contents of the report and the
current budget monitoring position.
2) Cabinet agree and recommend to Full Council
the updated budget as set out in section 5.1,
Table 3.
3) Cabinet agree and recommend to Council a
budget of £65,000 for PC and Laptop
replacement as outlined in paragraph 6.4
Recommendation
To COUNCIL
17.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To update Members on the current budget monitoring
position for the Council.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone number
Email:
Cllr W Northam
All
Malcolm Fry
01263 516037
Malcolm.fry@north-norfolk.gov.uk
FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2014/15 to 2016/17
(Cabinet Agenda 09 September 2013, P.39)
(Strategy Document – p.42) (Appendix E – p.67)(Appendix F – p.68)
(12.25 – 12.45)
Summary
This report presents the current financial forecast for the period
2014/15 to 2016/17 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.
Conclusions
The current financial forecast presents a funding gap for the next
three years of just over £1 million by 2016/17. 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 2014/15
to 2016/17;
b) The current capital funding forecasts;
2) Members consider and recommend to Council:
a) Continuation of the current Local Council Tax
Support Scheme for 2014/15;
b) That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme grant for
parishes be offered to those parishes that accepted
the grant in 2013/14 and the total amount available is
reduced in line with the Council’s relative funding
reductions as outlined at section 2.9.15;
c) The reallocation of £400,000 from the general reserve
to the Restructuring/Invest to Save Reserve;
d) The updated minimum level of General Fund balance
to be £1.75 million for the reasons outlined in the
report at section 5;
e) Delegated authority is given to the Chief Executive to
release funds from the restructuring/invest to save
reserve up to £100,000, as outlined within section 5
of the financial strategy;
f) The revised reserves statement as included at
Appendix F to the financial strategy (with the
revisions of recommendations 2 c) above;
g) Pending further review of the financial limits within
the constitution, an amendment to the virement
limits for Heads of Service and Corporate Leadership
team as outlined at reference 5.16.
COUNCIL
DECISION
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone number
Email:
18.
Cllr W Northam
All
Malcolm Fry
01263 516243
Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(page 26)
(Appendix B – p.28) (Appendix C – p.31) (Appendix D – p.32)
(12.45 – 12.50)
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with topics in its
agreed work programme (attached at Appendix B) and invites
Members to identify any arising items for future meetings. The
Scrutiny Committee‟s working style and role is attached at
Appendix C
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others need to be
monitored and opportunities for scrutiny should be discussed.
19.
Recommendations:
That Members should consider any follow-up actions
required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s):
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer
telephone number
and email:
Mr R Oliver
All
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
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.”
20.
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 17 July 2013 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs B McGoun
Mr P W Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (NB), the Head of Economic
and Community Development, the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager, the Housing Team Leader - Strategy Nicola Turner,
the Waste and Recycling Manager and the Democratic Services Team
Leader.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs L Brettle, Mr P W High, Mr T Ivory, Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam,
Miss B Palmer, Mrs A Sweeney, Mrs V Uprichard and Mr D Young
Democratic Services Team Leader (ED)
31. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
32. SUBSTITUTES
None
33. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
34. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 June 2013 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
35. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
17 July 2013
36. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member
Minute No & Heading
Nature of Interest
Mr E Seward
Material Recycling Facility
and Waste Update
Non pecuniary interest –
Member of North Walsham
Town Council
37. PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
38. CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
39. RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
40. THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
41. PRESENTATION ON MUNHAVEN, MUNDESLEY
Karen Knight, Managing Director of NorseCare Ltd gave a presentation on the work of
NorseCare, with specific focus on residential and dementia homes for older people.
The Chairman invited Members to ask questions:
1. Mrs B McGoun commented on the fact that 1 in 4 residential care homes were not of
an acceptable standard and she wondered whether NorseCare could help them
improve. Mrs Knight replied that it was a possibility as Norse Care operated a training
programme for their own staff. However, if the care homes in question were private
businesses it could be difficult as NorseCare would be viewed as a competitor. She
added that they were always willing to help if needed.
2. Mr R Reynolds raised the issue of domiciliary care and queried whether it was
generally operated by private companies. Mrs Knight confirmed that NorseCare were
looking into using their bases for providing outreach services for home-based care. In
response to a further question from Mr Reynolds as to whether the Cromer base was
a dementia unit, Mrs Knight said that they shared the building and provided short stay
rehabilitation.
3. Mr J Perry-Warnes asked about the location of the replacement building for Anglia
House. Mrs Knight confirmed that it would be on the St Michaels’ hospital site – one
mile away.
4. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds sought more information on NorseCare’s training
programme for their staff. Mrs Knight confirmed that they used County Council
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
17 July 2013
trainers for specialist areas. It was a long established programme and they were now
seeking to move towards more e-learning. In response to a further question regarding
the age and disabilities of the young adults living in residential care homes, Mrs
Knight said that they ranged from 18 to 65 years old. Disabilities covered the full
spectrum from cerebral palsy to strokes.
5. Mr P W Moore asked whether NorseCare were seeking to replace any of their care
homes in the North Walsham and Stalham areas. Mrs Knight replied that they were
not at the present time as there were no alternative sites available. Instead, they
were focussing on refurbishing the existing homes.
6. Mr W Northam said that it was good to hear that a local care home, Munhaven at
Mundesley, had received an award. He congratulated Mrs Knight and her staff for all
their hard work. He added that Members were able to visit Munhaven at any time.
7. Mr P Terrington said that he was concerned by the figures regarding care for the
elderly and he wondered whether there was funding available to provide more places
in the future to accommodate demand or whether home-based care could be
expanded. Mrs Knight replied that NorseCare currently provided 10% of residential
dementia care and that it would be difficult to accommodate growing demand in the
future. She said that NorseCare had limited resources as a capital company but they
were willing to consider partnerships as they moved forward.
The Chairman thanked Mrs Knight for her informative presentation.
42. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager introduced this item. He outlined
to the Committee how the Community Infrastructure Levy would work and in particular
the need to assess how any Levy might impact on the viability of development in the
District. He summarised the evidence of the Council’s external consultant who had
concluded that in some parts of the District there was a risk that a CIL tariff would make
most development unviable. He then went on to explain how CIL differed from the
current process of legal agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, stressing the flexibility of the current system and the potential risks of
introducing CIL. He said that it was proposed to suspend the introduction of the levy on a
temporary basis pending further signs of economic recovery. He concluded by saying
that the Council would continue to use s106 agreements in the meantime to fund
infrastructure projects.
The Chairman invited Members to ask questions:
1. Mr R Reynolds said that he supported the proposals and that s106 agreements
provided more flexibility for the time being.
2. Mr P Terrington said that s106 agreements were more flexible but there should be
more involvement with local community to ensure their needs were being met. He
wondered whether CIL could be applied to commercial developments. The Planning
Policy and Property Information Manager confirmed that it could. Mr T Ivory added
that it was important that the Council engaged with local communities and they were
working towards a policy statement on s106 agreements. The Planning Policy and
Property Information Manager sounded a note of caution about engagement with
local communities as s106 agreements must be related to the development.
The Chief Executive said that it was very important that the Council adopted best
practice regarding s106 agreements and it was essential that a firm policy was put in
place. Mr Ivory added that CIL could be captured via supermarket developments but the
same tariff would apply across the board, so small shops could be hit hard. He also
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
17 July 2013
reminded members that CIL only applied to buildings that were regularly used by the
public so it would not apply to energy projects.
It was proposed by Mr P W Moore, seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED
To support the Cabinet decision to recommend to Council:
That consideration of the potential introduction of CIL is suspended.
43. HOUSING INCENTIVES
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager introduced this item. He said
that given the economic downturn and the Council’s poor performance regarding
housing delivery, it was proposed that a package of temporary measures should be put
in place to incentivise developers to deliver houses quickly. The incentive scheme would
allow developers to access a number of policy concessions and in return they would
need to commit to starting and delivering development promptly. The scheme would run
for one year from 1 September 2013.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mr P High, local Member for Holt, said that he had concerns regarding the proposed
differing zones in the town. One site fell within the 20% affordable housing whilst two
other sites were within the 45% zone. He said that one of the developers with a site
in the 45% zone did not want to provide any affordable housing and he believed that
they would challenge the higher level when they saw that only 20% was required on
the other side of the town. He concluded by saying that he believed 20% was too low
a target and 25-30% would be preferable. The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr T
Ivory, said that the boundary between the two zones cut through Holt and there
would be an issue wherever it fell. The decision to put the boundary there had been
guided by the viability study and it was generally acknowledged that there was a
difference in property values between the two zones. In response to the 20% target
being too low, he said that this was at the lower end of viability as the Council wanted
to encourage developers to come forward and they needed a real incentive to
encourage them to move quickly. The Planning Policy and Property Information
Manager added that the zonal approach did not require clear demarcation. It was to
avoid multiple zones which would be very complicated to manage. The alternative
would be to use parish boundaries.
2. Mr P W Moore said that he agreed it was important that houses were built. He was
not supportive of having a ‘dividing line’ between areas and he said that a developer
had recently informed him that a 20% target for affordable homes was too low and
that it was not advisable to go below 25%. He said that there was a need to get
things moving and the scheme should be supported, however he wondered how the
Council would adapt existing policies to include all the changes and whether they
would be covered under ‘other material considerations’.
3. Mr R Reynolds commented that he did not agree that a target of 20% for affordable
homes was too low and he supported the proposal to relax sustainability
requirements.
4. Mr P Terrington raised concerns that evidence suggested that developers were
paying more for land and it was likely that they would try to negotiate the affordable
housing targets down further.
5. Ms V Gay did not support the proposal to relax the sustainability requirements. She
did not believe that it would benefit residents and the lower standard would not allow
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
17 July 2013
social landlords to rent out such properties. She went on to say that the average
household bill for electricity was £1400 last year and this combined with lower
incomes in North Norfolk meant that fuel poverty would be built into new homes. Ms
Gay concluded by saying that the Level 3 Sustainable Homes construction standard
was not an onerous requirement and she proposed that it was withdrawn from the
recommendations.
6. Mrs B McGoun seconded Ms Gay’s proposal. She said that developers would try to
take advantage of any scheme and would always negotiate downwards. She asked
whether the Council had the option to take a payment from developers for affordable
homes and then build them elsewhere. The Planning Policy and Property Information
Manager replied that the Council would be very reluctant to do this. It was better to
build affordable homes as part of a development than take a payment as it would
mean that the Council would have to take on the role of recycling monies received
into other housing projects, thus delaying affordable housing provision. Mrs McGoun
replied that one option would be to drop the percentage requirement further and take
some money too. Mr T Ivory responded that developers would always prefer to make
a payment as it would be lower in value than actually building houses. If they chose
this option, the Council would not have enough money to build and they would also
need to purchase land.
7. Mr D Young was concerned that if developers were able to build homes to a different
standard and if they had only completed part of the development when the scheme
ended, they would try to build the rest of the development at the same standard. The
Planning Policy and Property Information Manager responded by giving an example
of a site with 100 houses. He said that if the developer did not deliver the first 20 on
time then they would need to build the remaining 80 in full accordance with the policy
requirements. There was therefore an incentive for them to complete the scheme
quickly.
8. Mrs V Uprichard said that she believed the 20% affordable homes target was too low.
Developers would view it as a starting point and would always try to negotiate it down
further. She said that 30% would be preferable.
9. Mr N Smith said that it was important that developers actually started to build homes.
At the moment no homes were being built.
10. Mrs A Green said that she would like to see more houses built to the Passivhaus
standard. She did not want to see sustainability requirements reduced for new
homes. Mr T Ivory replied that things had moved on considerably since Code Level 3
had been introduced and there was no longer a significant difference between that
and the Building Regulations. The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
added that Building Regulations covered the structural elements of building whereas
the Code added on additional requirements relating to insulation and the reduction of
C02 emissions. North Norfolk District Council was currently the only district council in
Norfolk requiring compliance with the Code.
It was proposed by Ms V Gay and seconded by Mrs B McGoun that the Cabinet
recommendation ‘that the incentive scheme set out in part 4 is approved’ should be
amended to remove Measure 3 ‘relaxation of Level 3 Sustainable homes construction
standards if specified quantities of development are delivered quickly’. When put to the
vote, 5 Members voted in favour of the amendment and 5 Members voted against it.
The Chairman used is casting vote in support of the amendment and it was carried.
RESOLVED
To support the Cabinet recommendations subject to the above amendment:
44. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
17 July 2013
The Team Leader - Housing Strategy introduced this item. She explained that the report
provided information on expected affordable housing delivery for 2013/14 and 2014/15.
To date 205 affordable dwellings had been agreed for provision on 5 market sites
across the district. She concluded by outlining the Government’s Help to Buy scheme
which was aimed at assisting buyers to purchase a newly built home with a minimum
5% deposit.
The Chairman asked if there had been any further progress on the Upper Sheringham
site. The Team Leader – Housing Strategy said that £528,000 had been committed but
that it was a very complex scheme and progress had been slow. It was anticipated that
it would be completed in 2014.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
45. MATERIAL RECYCLING FACILITY
The Corporate Director (NB) briefly outlined the report. He said that the proposed
contractual arrangements would deliver reduced costs to the Council through better
service and ease of use to residents, along with the environmental benefits from
increased recycling.
The Chairman said that before he invited members to ask questions, he had three
points that he wished to raise:
a) It would be helpful to have an overview of the current bottle bank system for
collecting glass
b) Would there still be bottle banks provided in the tourist areas to collect glass from
visitors to the district
c) Could communities keep their own banks if they wished?
The Corporate Director responded to each query in turn. He said that there were
currently around 200 community green banks across the district and Local community
groups, either as owners of the site on which the banks are locates, or as nominated
recipients from the site owners, received payment based on the tonnage that was
collected. Collection banks sited in tourist areas would be dealt with on a case by case
basis. It was unlikely that they would be withdrawn as they could be collected within the
current service. As far as car parks were concerned, it was probable that some glass
banks would be kept in certain tourist areas to maximise collection rates. Regarding the
final query, the Corporate Director said that communities could keep their collection
banks but it was unlikely that these would be collected by Kier but by a private
contractor. He added that when other councils had switched to household collection for
glass, the community banks became redundant, so the changes were almost inevitable
if the contract was approved.
The Chairman invited members to ask questions:
1. Mrs A Moore said that two points within the section outlining the successful bid were
mutually exclusive. The Corporate Director agreed and said that it was either/or and
the councils involved in the Joint Venture Company (JVC) had a choice. All had now
agreed that assets would not be transferred to the JVC. Mrs Moore then said that the
reputational risk to the Council once the community banks were withdrawn should
also be mentioned within the report. It was not sufficient to say that the Big Society
Fund would provide additional funding to support communities as the Fund did not
cover things that recurred on a regular basis, such as charities. The Chief Executive
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
17 July 2013
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
replied that the Council did not generally provide grants and it was important that it
provided value for money. It would be very difficult to justify the continuation of
payments to local communities if the banks were not used. She added that the
scheme was being rolled out across the County.
Mr P Terrington said that the loss of income from the community collection banks
would impact quite heavily on some organisations. The Corporate Director said that
he understood this and that was why 15 months notice had been given. He added
that the payments had always been a bonus and should not be considered as a
definite source of income. The Chief Executive reminded members that the Council
needed to save £1.2m over the next 3 years and was limited in terms of what it could
raise. There was a possibility that loans could be provided to the parishes but they
had the option of raising additional funds via their precept.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds queried why the Queen’s Road car park in Fakenham was
not included on the list of beneficiaries from bring banks that had been circulated to
members. The Corporate Director said that this was because the Council owned it,
so kept the credits already.
Mrs B McGoun commented on the high amount raised by the community bottle bank
at Horning and said that presumably the majority of this came from tourists. The
Corporate Director replied that the site owner could continue to receive credits if the
bank was retained as being beneficial for the tourism in the area.. He added that for
those banks sited on NNDC land, it was likely that some would be retained and work
was ongoing regarding how to deal with tourist waste in high use areas..
Mr P W Moore said that he felt it was better for residents to put glass directly into
their recycling bins but he did have concerns about the impact on community
schemes. He added that he did not feel it was realistic to say that parishes could
continue with their banks. It would be better if the transition could be phased in slowly
to allow them time to adjust.
Mr R Shepherd commented that there was a lot of broken glass around the bottle
banks and the proposals would stop this and that should be welcomed. He added
that the Council had inherited a deficit that needed to be addressed. At Mr P W
Moore’s request the Chief Executive confirmed that there had never been a deficit
but that there were future financial challenges, mainly as a result of changes in
government funding.
The Corporate Director said that officers would take members’ comments on board and
would look into ways of minimising the effect on parish and town councils and other
community groups. He said that it was important to recognise that the contract was
staying in Norfolk, thus securing jobs and investment if the proposals were implemented
and residents would find it much easier to recycle glass via their own bins and at lower
cost to the Council.
The Chairman requested that future updates on the materials recycling facility should be
provided via the regular waste contract updates made to the Committee.
It was proposed by Mr N Smith, seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED
To support the Cabinet decision.
Ms V Gay and Mr P W Moore abstained.
46. WASTE UPDATE
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
17 July 2013
The Corporate Director (NB) informed the Committee that overall, the waste contract
was working well. There were some operational issues but the Council was taking a
proactive approach to these and was working to drive through future savings with the
contractor, Kier. He added that any significant cost savings would have some impact on
service provision.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. The Chairman asked why there appeared to be a higher standard of street cleansing
in Holt. The Waste and Recycling Manager replied that it was due to the quality of the
operative and the supervisors. He added that the standard of cleansing was
improving due to Kier strengthening their supervisory team.
2. Mr R Reynolds, Local Member for Lancaster North asked about grass-cutting and
litter picking around Fakenham. The Waste and Recycling Manager said that the
Council had made the decision not to continue cutting the grass cut by the County
Council. Historically the grass was cut 12 times year and only paid for 5 times a year.
He acknowledged that there were concerns in Fakenham regarding litter along the
bypass and he said that he was chasing this up.
3. Mr R Shepherd commented on the high standard of cleansing in Sheringham, except
for the promenade where the bins were often very full. The Waste and Recycling
Manager acknowledged that cleansing in Sheringham had fallen below expected
standards recently. Operatives worked until 9pm during the summer months in
coastal areas to keep on top of the litter and there were proposals to improve the
litter bins in these areas. One possibility was ‘recycling on the go’ bins.
4. Mr P Terrington said that there were no complaints regarding cleansing in Wells,
however, there was a lot of litter from the local chip shops and he wondered whether
this was a problem in other seaside towns. The Waste and Recycling Manager
replied that Kier was considering using vehicles based in Kings Lynn to collect waste
in Wells. This would enable them to collect from larger bins. He said that in
Hunstanton where there was also a lot of chip shops, 1000 litres of litter was
collected every day but he acknowledged that there was more space for bins there.
5. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked about the closure of the Edgefield landfill site. The
Waste and Recycling Manager replied that it would close later in the year and the
County Council was undertaking a procurement exercise to ascertain the best
replacement site. He added that the Council was working hard to ensure the best
outcome.
The Chairman requested that the Committee should receive future updates on the new
landfill site and the rescheduling of routes.
47. CIVIL CONTINGENCIES UPDATE
The Corporate Director (NB) explained that the Council had a statutory responsibility to
carry out duties relating to emergency planning, business continuity and civil protection
matters. A regular report on civil contingencies was made to the Audit Committee.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mrs B McGoun asked who ran the rest centre. The Corporate Director replied that
there was a dormant contract in place with the Red Cross.
2. Mr R Reynolds commented on the number of abbreviations used throughout the
report and said that they made it difficult to understand. He referred specifically to the
terms DR and WAR in the context of the Fakenham Connect office. The Corporate
Director replied that they referred to disaster recovery and work action recovery
respectively. He said that it was intended that the Fakenham office could be used to
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
17 July 2013
for meetings and as a workspace in the event of a disaster affecting the Cromer
office.
RESOLVED
To note the contents of the report.
48. CUSTOMER COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLAINTS MONITORING REPORT
The Chairman explained that the new Head of Customer Services had not been able to
attend the meeting to present the report. He suggested that she was invited to attend
the October meeting instead.
The Corporate Director (NB) informed the committee that they had been fortunate to
make an appointment so quickly. He said that the standard of the report that had been
circulated to members indicated the amount of work that needed to be done and this
would be addressed by the new Head of Service in her first report to the Committee.
The Chairman requested that information on complaints regarding the leisure centres
and waste collection should be included in the next report.
49. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader introduced this item. She informed the
Committee that due to the refurbishment of the reception area, committee meetings
during September and October would need to be held at external venues. Following a
brief discussion, it was agreed that it would be best to hold these meetings close to the
Cromer office to enable all Members to get there relatively easily.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds offered to circulate a brief report to the Committee on a
recent visit by members of the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to the
Louise Hamilton Centre.
The Democratic Services Team Leader advised members that the Draft Overview and
Scrutiny Annual Review 2012-2013 was included within the agenda for their comments
and input.
RESOLVED to adopt the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Review 2012 –
2013 and forward it to Council.
The meeting concluded at 12.1 0 pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
17 July 2013
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2013 to 31 December 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
September 2013
Cabinet
9 Sept 2013
Budget Monitoring
Period 4
Wyndham
Northam
Overview & Scrutiny
11 Sept 2013
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
9 Sept 2013
Local Investment
Strategy
Overview & Scrutiny
11 Sept 2013
Wyndham
Northam &
Trevor Ivory
Council
18 Sept 2013
Jill Fisher
Head of Economic &
Community
Development
01263 516080
Cabinet
9 Sept 2013
Performance
Management Q1
Tom FitzPatrick
Scrutiny
11 Sep 2013
Julie Cook
Head of
Organisational
Development
01263 518040
Cabinet
9 Sept 2013
Financial Strategy
Wyndham
Northam
Overview & Scrutiny
11 Sep 2013
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Council
18 Sep 2013
Status
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
10
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2013 to 31 December 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
October 2013
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
Rhodri Oliver
Scrutiny
Council
11 Sep 2013
23 Oct 2013
CCTV Working
Party –
final report &
recommendations
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
Fraud Policy update
Wyndham
Northam
Louise Wolsey
Overview & Scrutiny
16 Oct 2013
Full Council
23 Oct 2013
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
Business
Transformation – IT
Strategy and
Customer Services
Strategy
Tom FitzPatrick
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
North Norfolk
Coastal Change
Pathfinder:
replacement
housing
development
Angie Fitch
Tillett
Rob Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Status
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
11
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2013 to 31 December 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Cabbell Park
Tom FitzPatrick
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Budget Monitoring
Period 6
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
13 Nov 2103
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Treasury
Management half
yearly report
Wyndham
Northam
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
13 Nov 2013
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
Status
Duncan Ellis
Head of Assets &
Leisure
01263 516330
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Revenues &
Benefits shared
services
Wyndham
Northam
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
North Norfolk
Business Loan and
Grant Scheme
Russell Wright
Jill Fisher
Head of Economic and
Community
Development
01265 516080
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
12
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 September 2013 to 31 December 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
North Lodge Park
Rhodri Oliver &
Trevor Ivory
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
Status
Duncan Ellis
Head of Assets &
Leisure
01263 516330
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
13
Agenda Item 12
North Norfolk District Council – Health and Wellbeing Report
This report provides an update on some of the key strategic and multiagency health and
wellbeing related work as well as direct services that the Council provides which impact on
health and well - being.
Norfolk Health and Wellbeing Board – Cllr. Fitch- Tillett
Cllr Fitch-Tillet represents NNDC on the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Board are
responsible for the production of Norfolk’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) 2014 2017.The JSNA document will identify the future health, social care and wellbeing needs of
the population of Norfolk and the strategic direction of service delivery to meet those needs.
The JSNA will focus on the overarching goals of prevention, reducing inequalities and driving
integration. The Board have agreed three priority areas; early years, obesity and dementia.
A workshop was held recently to discuss what needs to happen within each of the priority
areas to help achieve the overarching goals. Possible tasks and actions were identified
which will be considered by the Board and if agreed will inform the JSNA.
North Norfolk and rural Broadland Strategic Partnership Group – Nick Baker
This group consists of representatives from North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group
(NNCCG), Norfolk County Council and North Norfolk and Broadland District Councils. It aims
to identify partnership opportunities and provide local strategic direction, priorities for action
and current activities within the following key areas:
1. Physical activity, Healthy Eating and Weight Management
2. Supporting independence at home, better support for people with long term
conditions and addressing the needs of adult and young carers
3. Creation of good developmental and learning outcomes for children and young
people
North Norfolk Health Improvement Forum – Nick Baker and Sonia Shuter
This multiagency Forum covers the NNCCG area it meets to share information and identify,
support and progress projects and initiatives within the three key areas identified by the
above partnership group.
Forum members were involved in the initial consultation events for the Health Communities
and Ageing Well projects in Cromer and Fakenham. Feedback from these events is being
collated and actions identified.
The focus of the next Forum meeting will be obesity.
Mytime Active - North Norfolk Health Trainer Service
This service based at NNDC covers the NNCCG area. Health trainers provides confidential
support and guidance to support people who want to improve their health and wellbeing,
they focus mainly on:
 Healthy eating / weight management
 Smoking Cessation
 Sexual Health Advice
 Mental Wellbeing
Since April 2012 the service has received over 600 referrals, the majority being self-referrals
from people over aged 50 predominantly for healthy eating /weight management support.
1
14
Agenda Item 12
Coastal Communities Fund – Sonia Shuter
With a disproportionate and increasing elderly population many of whom have complex
needs there is a need to increase the work force in respect of trained carers and provide
support to nursing, residential and domiciliary care providers. NNDC worked with Norfolk
and Suffolk Care Support to submit for funding for a project to help address this issue which
unfortunately was unsuccessful. Alternative ways to progress this work are being
considered.
Living Well with Dementia - Sonia Shuter
NNDC is participating in a multi-agency project led by NNCCG which aims to increase the
rate of diagnosis of dementia and improve the support available to people with dementia,
providing an earlier diagnosis can lead to the following benefits:






A better quality of life for both the person with dementia and carer
The right support for carers and families, delivered at the right time
A reduction in the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate management
Delaying the move to a care home and enabling people to remain in their own home
for longer
Ensuring people have access to services and medication to enable them to live well
for longer
Planning for future care and support needs including end of life care
Norfolk County Council successfully bid for £750,000 of funding from the Department of
Health to improve the care environment for people with dementia. Wells Community Hospital
will receive £119,000 of this funding predominantly to develop a dementia friendly garden,
training facility, assistive technology suite and carer support.
North Norfolk Activity Referral Scheme - Sonia Shuter
The scheme continues to be popular. People using the scheme mainly go attend one of
NNDC’s leisure facilities; Victory in North Walsham continues to receive most referrals.
Community gyms with appropriately qualified staff can also participate in the scheme.
Recently physiotherapists based in community hospitals have started referring eligible their
patients to the scheme.
Warm and Well in Norfolk – Karen Hill
Norfolk received £283, 570 in for the winter of 2012 / 2013 to implement a range of county
wide actions to reduce the incidence in vulnerable people of preventable illness and death in
which cold housing was a contributing factor. In North Norfolk the grant has enabled:
 The distribution of 300 warm packs.
 Free low level insulation via Age UK North Norfolk
 Establishment via Parish Councils and voluntary organisations of a portable heater
loan scheme.
 Grants towards boiler / heating repairs
The winter warmth packs which were distributed by voluntary and community groups as well
GP surgeries were again very well received. NNDC housing officers also offered them to
people they visited.
2
15
Agenda Item 12
Big Switch and Save - Karen Hill
A successful bid to the Department for Energy and Climate Change secured £18,500 to
establish a switch and save scheme to help North Norfolk residents save money on their
energy bills. The first scheme opened on 1 March and closed on 8 April. Work is progressing
to gather information on the number of people in North Norfolk who signed up for the
scheme and who subsequently switched and saved. It is understood the scheme will be
open again this year.
Energy Boxes - Karen Hill
The funding has also enabled Energy Boxes to be purchased which contain a
comprehensive folder of thematic information and advice sheets on issues such as heating,
insulating and keeping warm in your home, meters, bills and tariffs, Green Deal and
renewable energy. The Energy Box also contains an OWL energy monitor and home
thermometer. Town and Parish Councils were given a box for use within their communities.
Parish Clerks were recently contacted for feedback on the energy boxes and their use. Thirty
three clerks responded although some of them represented more than one Parish Council.
Four Parish Clerks said the energy box had been used by local residents but they were
unable to say how many residents had used it. A key issue raised by several Parish Clerks
was where to locate the boxes as many Parishes had no communal room. Feedback from
other Parishes is expected and once this has been received and evaluated the possible
relocation of unused boxes to community groups such as Age UK will be discussed.
3
16
Agenda Item No___13_________
Members will be aware that Cabinet appointed a Working Party to review the
Council’s CCTV Service, with a view to finding savings and considering alternative
options for the future provision of the service. This review is now complete and its
recommendations are due to be considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 7 October
2013.
As part of the review process, the Cabinet report, appended to which is the final
report of the Working Party; which is being placed before the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee for pre-scrutiny. Members of the Committee are therefore invited
to consider the Reports and Recommendations and provide comments to Cabinet as
they see fit.
The Chairman of the Working Party, Cllr Annie Claussen-Reynolds, the Portfolio
Holder, Cllr Rhodri Oliver and relevant officers, will be in attendance at the
Committee to take members’ questions. If there are any specific issues of clarification
or questions in advance of the meeting, members are invited to contact Emma Denny
who will ensure that the relevant information is provided.
REVIEW OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) SERVICE 2013
Summary:
As part of the Council’s budget savings exercise a
review of the current CCTV operation was requested by
Cabinet as part of the overall review of services. A
paper was presented to Cabinet in January 2013 to
establish a politically balanced Working Party to oversee
the review and make recommendations to Cabinet. The
Terms of Reference for the group included the
requirement to consider options for the future provision
of the service, to identify savings and to steer the review
process, including stakeholder consultation. The
Working Party has now concluded the review process
and the report and findings are contained within
Appendix A which should be read alongside this paper.
Options considered:
The Working Party has considered a number of options.
These included investigation of a number of external
management options, including the potential for working
with third party service providers and other Council’s.
Internal options have also been considered and cover
potential capital investment for the introduction of a
wireless CCTV system on an ‘invest to save’ basis. The
discontinuation of the service has also been considered
as a potential option. These options are considered in
detail within Appendix A and the options which the
Working Party consider viable are summarised within
the report below.
Conclusions:
A number of alternative options and potential working
17
arrangements have been considered as part of the
review process and these are given above. The review
has identified three potential options as discussed
above including shared working, internal investment
(wireless option) and decommissioning, all of which
achieve efficiency savings for the Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet;
1. Note the content of the Review of the Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 report
2. Select which option it wishes to implement
3. Grant Delegated Authority to officers to move
forward with the preferred option in
consultation with the Portfolio holder for
Assets and the Corporate Director.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The Working Party has considered a number of options
as part of this review process. Upon further
investigation, some of these options have not proved
viable and have therefore not been recommended for
further considerations. The full options appraisal can be
found within the CCTV review document contained
within Appendix A and a summary of the viable options
is contained within this paper.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not
published elsewhere)
Review of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 – Working Party
Report
CCTV Working Party minutes
Cabinet paper – Review of CCTV service, January 2013
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Rhodri Oliver
Ward(s) affected;
Cromer Town, Lancaster (North/South), North Walsham
(East/North/West),Sheringham (North/South), Priory
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Duncan Ellis (Head of Assets and Leisure), 01263 516330, duncan.ellis@northnorfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
As part of the ongoing budget savings exercise Cabinet requested that a
review of the current CCTV service be undertaken to investigate the potential
options for the future of the service.
1.2
The objective of the review was to identify savings and to provide a
comprehensive report regarding the future provision of the service, shared
18
working options and possible options for attracting additional income into the
existing service.
1.3
To facilitate the review process a politically balanced Working Party was
established by Cabinet in January 2013, the membership of which is provided
within the review document contained in Appendix A (Review of the Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013). This review document should be
read in conjunction with this Cabinet paper as it contains the detailed findings
of the Working Party along with the Terms of Reference for the group.
2.
Background
2.1
CCTV is a discretionary service and at present the full system consists of 46
cameras covering parts of Fakenham, Sheringham, Cromer, North Walsham
and Wells-next-the-Sea. Further details regarding the camera locations can
be found on page 32 of the review document contained within Appendix A.
2.2
The current system has been in existence since 2000 and is operated from a
Control Room in Fakenham. The service is operated by 4 members of staff, 2
of which are full time with 2 providing part-time cover of 21 hours each.
During 2009 the service was reduced from 24 hour cover to 16 hour daily
cover as part of a budget savings exercise.
2.3
There are a number of service users, which include a number of emergency
services, along with internal users and other partners as follows;







Police (main users)
Norfolk Fire and Rescue
RNLI/Marine Coastguard Agency
Inrix (formerly Traffic Link, covers the broadcasting of traffic and travel
bulletins on local/national radio
Crime Reduction Partnership
Environment Agency
NNDC internal departments (Environmental Health, Property Services,
Insurance)
2.4
The net cost of the service as per the 2013/14 Base Budget is approximately
£237,000, with the actual cost for 2012/13 being £225,000. Direct costs for
the service (excluding management unit charges and capital charges) are
around £199,000.
3.
The Review Process
3.1
As mentioned above a paper was presented to Cabinet on 7 January 2013 to
establish a politically balanced Working Party The Working Party has held a
number of meetings since its inception and this has included a meeting with
the police (Carl Edwards – Superintendent for North Norfolk and Broadland
Policing Commands) and the hosting of a stakeholder workshop event.
3.2
As part of the review process the Working Party have been provided with
information and statistics relating to the number and type of incidents that
have been recorded since 2006 and this detail can be found within the review
document at Appendix A. These incidents were grouped as follows
19



Incidents directly relating to people
Incidents related to property and public space
Incidents related to vehicles and traffic
3.3
The results of the review process are covered in detail within Appendix A.
4.
Consultation
4.1
As discussed above consultation has been undertaken with the local police as
part of this process. As well as the face to face meeting a letter was also
received from Superintendent Carl Edwards (a copy of which is contained
within the main review document included at Appendix A, stating that the
police felt that the presence of CCTV in the majority of market towns in North
Norfolk had a positive contribution towards reducing crime and disorder.
Superintendent Edwards did however also highlight the difficulties of
providing first hand evidence to support this.
4.2
The Working Party discussed the costs of the service with Superintendent
Edwards and outlined the Terms of Reference and the objective of achieving
cost savings. While Superintendent Edwards could appreciate the financial
constraints that the Council was under he did confirm that the Police would
not be in a position to make any financial contribution to the cost of the
service despite being the main users of the service.
4.3
A stakeholder workshop was held on 17 April and involved the local Town
Councils and Chambers of Trade. The evening provided a lot of useful debate
but the main conclusions were that, while the group acknowledged the funding
situation they generally supported the continuation of the CCTV service in
some form.
4.4
The Working Party also requested that officers write to the businesses on
Fakenham Industrial estate to gauge their views on the service and to see if
they would be willing to contribute financially, as the area is covered by 8
cameras. Out of the 75 business contacted only thee responded to say that
they were happy to make a financial contribution towards maintaining the
service in that area, although they did not quantify the level of that support. A
further two responded to say that they would not or could not contribute
financially.
4.5
As part of the wider consultation process those businesses that made a
financial contribution to the service were contacted along with the Safer
Neighbourhood Advice Panels (SNAPs) requesting their thoughts on the
provision of CCTV in the area, although no response was received.
5.
Options Appraisal
5.1
As part of the review process the Working Party has considered a number of
options as follows and more detail regarding each option is contained within
Appendix A;


Private management of the service
Shared working opportunities with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk
Borough Council
20


Keeping the service in house and reducing operational costs through a
combination of capital investment in new technology and reduction in
operating times
Decommissioning of cameras and equipment and closure of the
service
5.2
Upon more detailed investigation some of these options were not viable to
pursue further. This was the case with the private management of the service
and also the option of transferring the current service (reflecting current or
slightly reduced operating hours and proactive monitoring). Both of these
options had Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE) implications which made the
costs of the transfer prohibitive.
5.3
Once the options appraisal had been completed this left the following options
for consideration by the Working Party;



Shared working with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (reactive service
only), which would require some capital investment.
Maintaining the proactive ‘in house’ service but with control room
coverage reduced by 20 hours per week and investment in new
technology (wireless) to achieve revenue savings. This option on an
‘invest to save’ basis.
Discontinuation of the service.
5.4
The advantages and disadvantages of the 3 options detailed above are
covered in detail within Appendix A. A summary of the capital and one-off
costs along with the projected revenue savings for each option can be found
below within the section on Financial Implications and Risks.
6.
Conclusion
6.1
A number of alternative options and potential working arrangements have
been considered as part of the review process and these are given above.
The review has identified three potential options as discussed above including
shared working, internal investment (wireless option) and decommissioning,
all of which achieve efficiency savings for the Council. The financial costs and
saving projections are contained below within section 8 of the report (financial
implications and risks).
6.2
The shared working option would enable a 24 hour reactive service,
maintain a local authority ethos, have dedicated direct management and have
potential economies of scale for the future (in relation to things such as
maintenance contracts). The option would however require the current staff to
be made redundant and there are some associated one off costs along with a
capital investment. The server room would still be situated at Fakenham but
the control room would be based at Kings Lynn. There would also be a
significant change to the current service, with the switch from proactive to
reactive monitoring.
6.3
The in-house option would retain the management of the active service and
minimise redundancies although there would still be a loss of one part time
post. It would take advantage of wireless technology and increase the future
flexibility of the service while also being popular with stakeholders. This
proposal does however involve a slight reduction on the hours covered, and
21
require a significant capital investment. It would involve the introduction of a
wireless system in a rural area, although the feasibility study does indicate
that the system would work in the area, subject to negotiation in relation to
aerial sites. A visit was undertaken by Cllr Claussen-Reynolds to Great
Yarmouth Borough Council’s CCTV control room which recently moved from
optic fibres to a wireless system. The visit allowed an opportunity to assess
the success of this venture and confirm that there was no loss in quality of
picture or service. It should be noted that other Norfolk CCTV systems are
also considering wireless options.
6.4
As can be seen from the summary table above the discontinuation option
results in the highest saving. It would allow for the space currently occupied
by CCTV to be let out (although this has proven difficult in the past at
Fakenham) and would mean that the £50,000 for camera upgrades would not
be required. This option does however come with a significant reputational
risk for the Council and involves making all of the staff redundant. It is likely to
be unpopular with stakeholders and once decommissioned it unlikely to ever
be resurrected.
7.
Implications and Risks
7.1
The implications and risks for each of the options are covered in detail within
Appendix A. The review document considers the advantages, disadvantages
and risks of each of the options. This area is also covered in more detail
below within the section covering financial implications and risks.
8.
Financial Implications and Risks
8.1
The financial implications and risks for each of the options discussed are
covered in detail within Appendix A and are summarised below.
8.2
The implications and risks for each of the options are covered in detail within
Appendix A. The table below however shows the high level capital/one off
costs requirements for each option along with the forecast revenue savings.
Annual
Revenue
savings £
One
off/Capital
requirements
£
Proposal
Service
Provision
1. Shared working with
KL&WN
24hr reactive
only
(£69,034)
£139,500
2. Management changes +
move to wireless
Ave 13hr
proactive service
(£61,866)
£260,000
3. Closure
Nil
(£189,000)
£148,000
8.3.1 The shared working option (option 1) with Kings Lynn is feasible as it reflects
a fundamental change in the provision of the service, going from pro-active
review to a reactive only service, which can be undertaken by Kings Lynn’s
current CCTV operators. There are no TUPE implications with this option as it
represents a fundamentally different service provision. This option would
22
result in the requirement to make the current staff redundant and these costs
are accounted for within the projections above.
8.3.2 This option would provide a 24 hour service but the operatives would only
view the NNDC monitors when they were alerted to a potential incident
/emergency ie by the police. There is however provision for 200 hours a year
of dedicated viewing for pre-arranged events, such as carnivals etc.
Additional hours would be available if required but there would be an
additional cost for this.
8.3.3 There would be a requirement to invest around £86,500 of capital to take
forward this option, with one-off costs of £53,000 and it would result in an
estimated revenue saving of around £69,000 per annum.
8.4.1 Option 2 focuses on continuing to operate the service in-house but reducing
the overall service provision by 20 hours a week and investing in new
wireless technology to reduce the annual running costs. As part of the review
a company called Freeclix have been commissioned to undertake a survey to
ascertain the viability of the wireless option. The results of the survey have
confirmed that this solution should be achievable and their report is contained
within Appendix A.
8.4.2 There is a more significant capital requirement for this option (estimated at
just over £250,000) and it would also mean the redundancy of one member of
staff. However as part of the consultation process that has been undertaken
with the staff an individual from the team has expressed an interest in
redundancy.
8.4.3 The estimated annual saving is just under £62,000, this option has a number
of benefits, such as continuation of the active service (albeit at slightly
reduced levels), being popular with stakeholders and ‘future proofing’ of the
equipment to some extent. There are also some risks in relation to the
technology (although the report commissioned does indicate that it should be
feasible) and around the negotiation required to get the required masts in
place. There is also a significant capital requirement.
8.5.1 Option 3 covers the decommissioning of the service, which is likely to prove
an unpopular option with stakeholders and users and carries a reputational
risk for the Council. If the system were to be decommissioned it is unlikely
that it would ever be reinstated, crime levels may increase as a result of the
removal of the service and the Council would need to be mindful of its
obligations under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. As with Option 1
it would also require the current staff to be made redundant.
8.5.2 It would however result in anticipated annual revenue savings of around
£189,000 and has associated one off costs of £148,000 which cover
redundancy and decommissioning of equipment. This option would also free
up space within the Fakenham office which could potentially be re-let,
although this income has not been factored in to the estimated savings figure
above.
8.6
Options for further income generation have been explored as part of the
review process but these opportunities appear to be limited at the present
time. However if either option 1 or 2 were to be preferred then additional
23
opportunities for income generation will be further explored to try and
minimise the costs of the service.
9.
Sustainability
9.1
There are no direct impacts on sustainability as a result of this report.
10.
Equality and Diversity
10.1
The Equality Act 2010, consolidates protection against discrimination on the
grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity,
race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It also put in place a new
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which gives public authorities a legal
responsibility to provide this protection and make decisions which are fair and
transparent, including the allocation of public money.
10.2
The Equality and Human Rights Commission published new guidance in
January 2013 covering the PSED under the Equality Act, which will help
public authorities encourage good relations, promote equality and eliminate
discrimination in the workplace and in delivering public services.
10.3
As part of the review process Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA’s) forms
have been completed for each of the 3 options being considered and these
are available on the Council’s website.
10.4
The form requests details of the proposed options and requires that an impact
assessment is undertaken to assess the potential impact of each option on
the protected groups identified. Where any negative impacts are expected the
Council is required to detail what action will be undertaken to either remove or
minimise this.
10.5
Options 1 and 2 cover a continuation of the service and while option 3 does
consider decommissioning following completion of the EQIA’s it is not felt that
there will be any difference in impact between those in protected groups and
those who are not in protected groups.
11.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
11.1
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act requires local authorities to consider
crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities.
Clearly, CCTV is closely linked to this issue. However, the Act does not
require Councils to either provide or not provide CCTV in their areas. In
practice this means that:


11.2
Each local authority must take account of the need to reduce crime
and disorder in the exercise of all its work. The duty is to consider the
impact of a decision rather than not make that decision. Where
practical, Councils should seek to reduce any negative impact; in
effect leading to better decision making.
All decisions must be taken in light of their likely impact on (local)
levels of crime and disorder.
Within the CCTV review, Options 1 and 2 (as detailed above) would see a
continuation of the CCTV service, albeit at a reduced level, but Option 3
would result in the cessation of the service. In all of these options, members
24
need to consider what effect CCTV has on crime and disorder in the District
and whether any negative effect can be reduced.
11.3
As has been discussed, in this regard, CCTV is linked to two areas. Firstly, its
very presence potentially having an effect on reducing crime and disorder in
certain areas. An absolute link is not proven but it is generally accepted that it
may have a positive effect. Secondly, the use of CCTV by the Police in
investigating criminal activity. In North Norfolk, this amounts to around 150
criminal cases a year where the Police gain some benefit from the use of
CCTV. Both of these should then be balanced against the current overall cost
of CCTV provision and the proposed costs and savings of the three Options
under consideration.
11.4
In addition, the Act provides the expectation that Councils will work in
partnership with other public bodies such as the Police to reduce crime and
disorder in their areas. Whilst the Police are given access to the Council’s
CCTV footage for investigative purposes, this is not the only partnership
activity the Council undertakes and these other activities will continue for as
long as both parties feel they are of benefit.
25
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
11 September 2013
Agenda Item 18
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix B) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix C.
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others
need to be monitored and opportunities for scrutiny
should be discussed.
Recommendations:
That Members should consider any follow-up
actions required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s):
Ward(s) affected
Mr R Oliver
All
Contact Officer:
Telephone number:
Email:
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
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
Housing and Migrants
At the May Committee meeting, the Chairman asked the Community Liaison
Officer to provide some figures relating to ethnic groups on the housing
register. She has now provided the following response:
Some key facts about housing applicants and re-housed applicants in 201213:
4804 people were on the housing register. This figures includes 132
applicants who preferred not to state their ethnic background.
Of the people that declared their ethnicity, 187 (3.8%) people on the housing
register were BAME.
450 housing applicants were re-housed. Of the people who were rehoused,
99 people did not state their ethnicity.
Of the people who did state their ethnicity, 11 (2.4%) people rehoused for this
period were BAME.
26
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
11 September 2013
The figure for English/ Welsh/Scottish/ Northern Irish / British in the 2011
census was 96.6%.
2.2
Your Voice
A brief presentation of the Your Voice scheme will now take place at the
October committee meeting
Items of interest to the Committee:
3.
External meetings
The reception area project is now due to commence in mid-October.
Following the Committee’s input at the last meeting, the Council Chamber at
North Lodge Park, Cromer has been booked for the October and November
meetings.
4.
Local Government Ombudsman – Annual Review Letter
A summary of the statistics on the complaints made to the LGO about NNDC
for the year ended March 2013 is attached at Appendix D.. Any questions
relating to these figures can be picked up when the Customer Services report
comes to the Committee in October.
5.
Changes to the Work Programme and Future Topics
The updated work programme is attached at Appendix B. A presentation on
home-based care provision and support will come to the November meeting
of the Committee. Any issues that are not covered by the presentation will be
picked up and dealt with at the December meeting.
27
Appendix B
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2013/2014
Period September 2013 – March 2014
Date of
Meeting
Sept 11
2013
Topic
Officer/ Responsible Portfolio Links with
Holder
Corporate Plan
Delivering the Vision E
Karen Sly
Wyndham Northam
Notes
Health Update
Sonia Shuter
Angie Fitch-Tillett
cyclical
Presentation by the NNCCG
Sonia Shuter
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Performance management update Q1
Julie Cooke
Tom FitzPatrick
Local Investment Strategy
Jill Fisher
Trevor Ivory/
Wyndham Northam
Nick Baker
Rhodri Oliver
Budget Monitoring Period 4 (April – July)
CCTV Working Party- Final Report and
Recommendations
Oct 2013
Cyclical
cyclical
Key Decision
Tourism
To include a summary of the season, stats
on visitors. Amount spent on car parking
and whether increases have had an impact.
Robin Smith
Russell Wright
Requested by the
committee
Your Voice presentation
Kate Sullivan
Requested by the
Committee
Planning Peer Review & Overview of
Planning Service
Customer Services Update
Steve Blatch
Benjie Cabbell Manners
Jan Hodgett
28
Delivering the vision B
Date of
Meeting
Nov 2013
Topic
Officer/ Responsible Portfolio Links with
Holder
Corporate Plan
Notes
Leisure – an overview of the service
provision across the District and usage
levels.
Karl Read
Duncan Ellis
Deferred from
September
Review of Car Park charges
Duncan Ellis
Rhodri Oliver
Requested by the
committee
Police Commissioner – presentation
Requested by
Committee (date to be
confirmed)
cyclical
Performance management update Q2
Julie Cooke
Tom FitzPatrick
Enforcement Board update
Nick Baker / Trevor Ivory
Requested by members
Presentation on home-based carers
Sonia Shuter
Requested by members
Dec 2013
Big Society Fund Grants Panel – update on
how new body is working. Projects being
funded and whether they added value.
Rob Young
Trevor Ivory
Jan 2014
Update Housing Allocations Scheme (tbc)
Trevor Ivory / Nicola Turner
Update on Empty Homes Policy, to include
an overview on how the Council is
progressing with reducing empty homes.
Trevor Ivory/ Nicola Turner
Waste contract update
Nick Baker
John Lee
Wyndham Northam
Louise Wolsey
cyclical
John Lee
Peter Lumb
Annual
Shared services update
Feb 2014
Environmental Sustainability Update
29
cyclical
Date of
Meeting
March
2014
Topic
Officer/ Responsible Portfolio Links with
Holder
Corporate Plan
Notes
Equalities Data Annual report
Kate Sullivan
Tom FitzPatrick
Annual
Performance management update Q3
Julie Cooke
Tom FitzPatrick
cyclical
Health Update
cyclical
Annual Action Plan 2014/15
Annual
TBA
Customer Access Strategy
Estelle Packham
Russell Wright
TBC
Housing Renewal Policy
Karen Hill
Trevor Ivory
Item on
All
Scrutiny
agendas
Scrutiny
Committee Work
Programme
Rhodri Oliver/
Scrutiny Officer
30
Delivering the Vision B
All
At Committee
Appendix C
Working Style of the Scrutiny Committee
Independence
Members of the Scrutiny Committee will not be subject to whipping arrangements by party groups.
Member leadership
Members of the Committee will take the lead in selecting topics for scrutiny and in questioning
witnesses. The Committee will expect members of Cabinet, rather than officers, to take the main
responsibility for answering the Committee’s questions about topics, which relate mainly to the
Council’s activities.
A constructive atmosphere
Meetings of the Committee will be constructive, and not judgmental, accepting that effective
scrutiny is best achieved through challenging and constructive enquiry. People giving evidence at
the Committee should not feel under attack.
Respect and trust
Meetings will be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and trust.
Openness and transparency
The Committee’s business will be open and transparent, except where there are sound reasons
for protecting confidentiality. In particular, the minutes of the Committee’s meetings will explain
the discussion and debate in a balanced style, so that they could be understood by those who
were not present.
Consensus
Members of the Committee will work together and, while recognizing political allegiances, will
attempt to achieve consensus and agreed recommendations.
Impartial and independent officer advice
Officers who advise and support the Committee will give impartial and independent advice,
recognizing the importance of the Scrutiny Committee in the Council’s arrangements for
governance, as set out in its Constitution.
Regular review
There will be regular reviews of how the scrutiny process is working, and a willingness to change
if it is not working well.
Programming and planning
The Committee will agree the topics to be included in its published work programme and the
extent of the investigation to be undertaken in relation to resources, and the witnesses to be
invited to give evidence.
Managing time
The Committee will attempt to conclude the business of each meeting in reasonable time. The
order of business will be arranged as far as possible to minimize the demands on the time of
witnesses.
26
31
Appendix D
16 July 2013
By email
Ms Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
North Norfolk District Council
Dear Ms Oxtoby
Annual Review Letter
I am writing with our annual summary of statistics on the complaints made to the Local
Government Ombudsman (LGO) about your authority for the year ended 31 March 2013.
This year we have only presented the total number of complaints received and will not be
providing the more detailed information that we have offered in previous years.
The reason for this is that we changed our business processes during the course of 2012/13
and therefore would not be able to provide you with a consistent set of data for the entire
year.
In 2012/13 we received 12 complaints about your local authority. This compares to the
following average number (recognising considerable population variations between
authorities of a similar type):
District/Borough CouncilsUnitary AuthoritiesMetropolitan CouncilsCounty CouncilsLondon Boroughs-
10 complaints
36 complaints
49 complaints
54 complaints
79 complaints
Future development of annual review letters
We remain committed to sharing information about your council’s performance and will be
providing more detailed information in next year’s letters. We want to ensure that the data
we provide is relevant and helps local authorities to continuously improve the way they
handle complaints from the public and have today launched a consultation on the future
format of our annual letters.
I encourage you to respond and highlight how you think our data can best support local
accountability and service improvements. The consultation can be found by going to
www.surveymonkey.com/s/annualletters
LGO governance arrangements
As part of the work to prepare LGO for the challenges of the future we have refreshed our
governance arrangements and have a new executive team structure made up of Heather
Lees, the Commission Operating Officer, and our two Executive Directors Nigel Ellis and
Michael King. The Executive team are responsible for the day to day management of LGO.
32
Appendix D
Since November 2012 Anne Seex, my fellow Local Government Ombudsman, has been on
sick leave. We have quickly adapted to working with a single Ombudsman and we have
formally taken the view that this is the appropriate structure with which to operate in the
future. Our sponsor department is conducting a review to enable us to develop our future
governance arrangements. Our delegations have been amended so that investigators are
able to make decisions on my behalf on all local authority and adult social care complaints in
England.
Publishing decisions
Last year we wrote to explain that we would be publishing the final decision on all complaints
on our website. We consider this to be an important step in increasing our transparency and
accountability and we are the first public sector ombudsman to do this. Publication will apply
to all complaints received after the 1 April 2013 with the first decisions appearing on our
website over the coming weeks. I hope that your authority will also find this development to
be useful and use the decisions on complaints about all local authorities as a tool to identify
potential improvement to your own service.
Assessment Code
Earlier in the year we introduced an assessment code that helps us to determine the
circumstances where we will investigate a complaint. We apply this code during our initial
assessment of all new complaints. Details of the code can be found at:
www.lgo.org.uk/making-a-complaint/how-we-will-deal-with-your-complaint/assessment-code
Annual Report and Accounts
Today we have also published Raising the Standards, our Annual Report and Accounts for
2012/13. It details what we have done over the last 12 months to improve our own
performance, to drive up standards in the complaints system and to improve the
performance of public services. The report can be found on our website at www.lgo.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Dr Jane Martin
Local Government Ombudsman
Chair, Commission for Local Administration in England
33