Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
2 May 2013
A meeting of the Cabinet of North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber at
the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Monday 13th May 2013 at 10.00 a.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: Mr B Cabbell-Manners, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr T Ivory, Mr J Lee, Mr W
Northam, Mr R Oliver, Mr R Wright
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.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 04
March 2013.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any.
4.
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.
5.
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.
6.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR RECONSIDERATION
To consider matters referred to the Cabinet (whether by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee or by the Council) for reconsideration by the Cabinet in accordance with the
provisions within the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules or the Budget and Policy
Framework Procedure Rules.
7.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
To consider any reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which may be
presented by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and determination of
any appropriate course of action on the issues so raised for report back to that committee.
8.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
(page 7)
(Report to JSCC – p.11)
To receive and consider the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative
Committee held on 25 March 2013.
The following recommendation was made to Cabinet:
RECOMMENDED TO CABINET
1. That the car allowance assessment form be reviewed.
2. That the impact on recruitment and retention of staff of the removal of the cash
equivalent/lease car allowances be reviewed and reported back to the Joint Staff
Consultative Committee at its meeting on 9 September 2013.
9.
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) WORKING PARTY
(page 14)
To receive and consider the minutes of the meeting of the CCTV Working Party held on 18
March 2013.
10.
11.
NEW HOMES BONUS
(page 16)
(Appendix A – p.22 ) (Appendix B – p.23 )
Summary:
This report presents for approval a policy on use of the new
homes bonus including both the unallocated balance and the inyear allocations from 2014/15 onwards.
Options considered:
The report discusses models that could be used to allocate/make
use of the New Homes Bonus.
Conclusions:
The New Homes Bonus (NHB) was introduced as part of the 2010
Comprehensive Spending Review. When the scheme was
introduced national funding nearly £1 billion was set aside before
funding would be “top-sliced” from the formula mechanism. The
Government recognise the bonus within their assessment of each
Local Authority’s revenue spending power. This report makes
recommendations for the use of the NHB moving forward.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet recommends to Council:
1)
The New Homes Bonus is allocated within the base
budget from 2014/15 onwards (as detailed at section 4 within
the report);
2)
Of the unallocated balance of New Homes Bonus
(£1,201,097) 50% is transferred to the general reserve and
50% remains earmarked within the New Homes Bonus
reserve for the delivery of the Council’s Corporate objectives
in respect of housing.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To support the Council’s financial planning process and support
future delivery of NNDC priority services.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone no:
Email:
Cllr W Northam
All
Karen Sly
01263 516243
Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A COST SHARING GROUP
(page 25)
Summary:
This report sets out a proposal to establish a cost sharing group
(CSG) with Great Yarmouth Borough Council which will provide
services, in particular legal services, to charities and not for profit
groups within the district at cost and exempt from VAT.
Options considered:
Establishing a cost sharing group without another authority. This
would be more expensive and less attractive to NFPs as there
would be less services available.
Conclusions:
The establishment of a CSG for the delivery of services,
particularly legal services would be an innovative and unique way
of delivering services.
A CSG has the potential to build on the client base and income
generated by eastlaw with no risk to the Council, thereby
delivering efficiencies to the Council.
A CSG will enable service to be delivered to charities and other
not for profit groups at a reduced cost and free from VAT ensuring
funds are diverted into frontline services.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet RESOLVE ;
1. To form a cost sharing group by establishing a
company limited by guarantee as set out in paragraph
5 of the report.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. To appoint a Member as the executive director to the
Board and the Head of Legal Services as the non
executive director to the Board of the company as the
Council’s representatives.
12.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Establishment of a Cost Sharing Group will enable the cost of
back office services to be reduced whilst maintaining service
levels. It will also provide charities and not for profit groups with
access to services to reduce the costs of their back office
services.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone no:
Email:
Trevor Ivory
All
Emma Duncan
01263 516045
Emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
Summary:
(page 32)
(Appendix C – p.38) (Appendix D – p.41)
This report provides an update to Cabinet Members on the
actions of the Enforcement Board since it was set up in
December 2012 to provide a cohesive enforcement approach
in respect of long term empty properties and other difficult
enforcement cases.
It is proposed that the Enforcement Board will report, as part of
the Annual Action Plan, updates on a quarterly basis to the
Performance and Risk Management Board and on a six
monthly basis to Cabinet.
In addition, issues of significance are discussed with relevant
Portfolio Members prior to action proceeding and issues of a
more local nature will be reported to local members as
appropriate to ensure that they are kept informed.
Conclusions:
The development of the Enforcement Board and its
subsequent methods of working across Council services have
quickly started to make in-roads to a number of long standing
and
difficult
issues
around
both
properties
and
individuals/companies.
Progress on the wider backlog of long term empty properties
has been initially slower than planned, but it is anticipated that
the use of a bulk mailing process in Revenues and Benefits will
enable us to catch up quickly.
Recommendations:
1. That Cabinet notes the progress made to date by
the Enforcement Board.
2. That future progress is reported to Cabinet on a six
monthly basis and Performance and Risk
Management Board on a quarterly basis.
3. That progress on enforcement issues affecting
specific wards is reported directly to Local
members.
13.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To fully inform members of progress on issues in their
Portfolios and wards.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone no:
Email:
Trevor Ivory
All
Nick Baker
01263 516221
Nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER ON LAND AT
EGMERE – REPORT ON RESPONSES RECEIVED DURING THE CONSULTATION
PROCESS AND PROPOSED FURTHER ACTION
(page 43 )
(Appendix F – p.57)
Summary:
This report:
provides a summary of the issues raised through the
public consultation exercise undertaken by the Council
in proposing to designate land at Egmere for future
development in support of offshore wind energy
developments off the North Norfolk coast through the
use of Local Development Order powers.

proposes that the Council commissions consultants to
undertake a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and
Habitat Survey in support of the Local Development
Order.

advises that the Council proceeds with seeking to
designate land at Egmere for future development
through the use of Local Development Order powers
through preparing all the necessary documents required
to support such an Order – ie a draft Order and Schedule
of Development, Access Strategy, Design Guide and
Landscape Plan.
Conclusions:
The report recommends that the Council should proceed
with its proposals to establish a Local Development Order
at Egmere to facilitate investment associated with offshore
wind energy developments through:
the commissioning of some technical survey work which
strengthens the evidence base in support of the proposed
Order,

preparation of a draft Order and Schedule of Development,
an Access Strategy, Design Guide and Landscape Plan;
prior to seeking endorsement of the Order from the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Recommendations
Cabinet is recommended to:1. Note the contents of the comments received on the
proposed Egmere Local Development Order through
the public consultation process and invite comment on
the representations received.
2. Make available a budget of up to £20,000 from the
General Reserve to commission a Landscape Visual
Impact Assessment and Stage 1 Habitat Survey so as
to strengthen the evidence base in support of the
proposed Order,
3. Agree proposed changes to the area covered by the
LDO designation as outlined at Section 8 of the report.
4. Provide delegated authority to the Corporate Director,
in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio holder for
Planning, to proceed with preparing final documents in
support of the Order before seeking approval of Full
Council for the Local Development Order to be sent to
the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government for endorsement.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone no:
Email:
14.
Tom FitzPatrick
Primarily Walsingham, with some impact on Priory ward
Steve Blatch
01263 516232
Steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
15.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 15 April 2013 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr J Lee
Mr T FitzPatrick (Chairman) Mr W Northam
Mr T Ivory
Mr R Oliver
Also attending:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell-Manners
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Officers in
Attendance:
130.
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr G Williams
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (NB), the Head of
Finance, the Revenues and Benefits Services Manager, the Coast
and Community Partnerships Manager and the Community projects
Manager
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr R Wright
131.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 04 March 2013 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
132.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
133.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
134.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
135.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
Cabinet
1
15 April 2013
1
The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 11
February 2013 be received.
136.
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the CCTV Working Party held on 12 February 2013 be
received.
137.
DISCRETIONARY HOUSING PAYMENTS POLICY
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the purpose of the report was
for members to review the Discretionary Housing Payments Policy in the context of
Government changes to benefits that reduced entitlement and therefore increased
demand for additional discretionary assistance. The Government had allocated
additional funding to the scheme in recognition of this.
Mr Northam informed members that the Government provided funding for the
scheme up to a certain limit but local authorities were able to spend more than this
from their own resources. The Council’s expenditure had never gone above the set
limit. He advised that the Council would not be able to use Discretionary Housing
Payments to help with council tax liabilities.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To approve the revised Discretionary Housing Payments Policy.
Reason for the Decision:
The Council needs to adopt a consistent approach to assessing and awarding
Discretionary Housing Payments and to ensure the effective use of limited resources.
138.
BIG SOCIETY FUND REVIEW AND PROPOSALS
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that the report provided an appraisal
and review of the Big Society Fund which had successfully operated for a year,
administered by Norfolk Community Foundation. A recent review of the Fund,
undertaken by a panel of Members, had concluded that the scheme had been
successful in facilitating the delivery of many beneficial projects but that the
outcomes of the funding scheme could be better achieved by changing the way the
fund was administered and by setting up a different process of support and funding
for larger or more complex projects.
The following key changes were proposed:
1. The ceiling for the small grant applications would be raised to £15,000. These
would be assessed by the Big Society Fund Grants Panel.
2. To bring the operation of the grant fund in-house
3. To change the way larger, possibly more complex projects were dealt with.
Support would be further improved by establishing a separate ‘enabling’ fund
which would mean that projects could benefit from bespoke advice and support in
the early stages of their development.
Cabinet
2
15 April 2013
2
4. To establish a Localism Board to provide a steer on development of projects to
be assisted by the enabling fund alongside the support given to communities in
the development of localism initiatives (see item 12 of the agenda)
Members were invited to ask questions:
a) Mr R Shepherd said the residents of Sheringham were very pleased with the
funding that they had received in the past year.
b) Mr R Reynolds asked about the social impact of the Fund and whether there had
been any feedback on whether the money was going to the desired places and
projects. Mr T Ivory said that it was still early days for feedback and that it was
just starting to come through. It was clear that projects were having a positive
impact but they should continue to be monitored and this would be done by the
Norfolk Community Foundation as part of the Service Level Agreement.
c) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that she was pleased to see a grant of £10,000
awarded to Fakenham Recreation Ground. She asked for further information on
the Garage Trust which had been awarded £5,000. Mr Ivory explained that the
Garage Trust was based in Norwich and affiliated with the Theatre Royal. It was
a youth organisation that worked with drama. The initial project would be targeted
at Fakenham and Stalham in order to reach more remote areas, from which the
Norwich base was less accessible.and would aim to provide opportunities for
young people to become involved with the performing arts. In response to a
further question as to whether it would be operated through schools, he replied
that schools may be involved but would not be a lead partner but that he would
provide details.
d) Mr P High said that he endorsed Mr Ivory’s comments. As a Member of the Big
Society Fund Board he was pleased to see that the involvement of local
members would increase.
e) Mrs P Grove-Jones said that she was very pleased to see a grant for the drop-in
centre in Stalham, another project aimed at young people. She asked whether
there was a cap on large grants that could be awarded and whether the formfilling process had been improved as it could be off-putting to smaller groups. Mr
T Ivory replied that no upper limit had been se for the enabling fund, although
there was a limit on the overall fund. In response to the second question he said
that the Review Panel had recognised the need for simplicity and that the forms
would be tailored to make the process as simple as possible. By bringing the
assessment process in-house, no project should be rejected due to
insufficiencies on the application form as assistance would be provided if needed.
f) Mr D Young commented that he was pleased to see additional support for
capacity building. He asked about additional resources that would be required to
bring this in-house and queried the additional £50,000 in the budget. Mr T Ivory
explained that Voluntary Norfolk had provided support to charities but had not
been required to provide capacity building. The situation regarding resources
would need to be assessed and he would discuss this further with the Coast and
Community Partnerships Manager. The Chief Executive explained that £50,000
had been allocated for capacity building and sufficient additional resources were
in the budget to support the process; the actual amount needed would not be
known until the level of demand for both Big Society Fund grants and prjects
supported from the enabling fund were apparent. This would be kept under
review as it was vital that sufficient resources were in place to maximise the
benefits of the funding schemes and it is likely that greater flexibility would be had
from providing this in-house rather than through a service level agreement.
g) Mr G Williams, a member of the Review Panel confirmed that the report reflected
their discussions and recommendations. Regarding the assessment of the impact
of the grants, he sought assurance that this would be looked at over the next 12
months. Mr T Ivory agreed that this was very hard to do but that it was one of the
Cabinet
3
15 April 2013
3
reasons for bringing the scheme in-house. It was vital that the long-term impact
was evaluated. Mr G Williams then asked about future funding and that as the
source was Norfolk County Council, it was vulnerable to policy change. He
wondered whether there was a buffer in place to help manage if the funding was
withdrawn. Mr Ivory replied that obviously future policy could not be anticipated
but that he would vehemently oppose any attempts to remove money that came
from North Norfolk originally. As far as a buffer was concerned, he said that to
ensure that the fund was managed effectively, not all the money was spent in any
one year and there was a reserve in place to ensure a smooth transition. In
response to a further question regarding the interaction between the Localism
Board, the enabling fund and the Big Society Fund Grants Panel, Mr Ivory
explained that the Localism Board would work closely with officers, cabinet
members and local members to bring expertise together and provide a unified
approach. There were lots of localism related projects running at any one time
and this would bring all of these together. Mr G Williams concluded by asking
how ward members could be encouraged to engage effectively with the Fund in
the future. Mr Ivory replied that ward members would continue to be notified
when an application was received and he would urge them to engage more with
the process.
h) Mrs S Arnold said that she had been with Parish Councils when they had been
notified that their application had been unsuccessful and she asked whether now
that the process was being brought in-house unsuccessful applicants could come
to the Council for feedback and assistance. Mr Ivory confirmed that there would
be much better engagement with all applicants in the future.
i) Mr B Smith thanked the Fund for the grants allocated to Mundesley. He said that
he had been involved with the skate park project and he would encourage other
members to get more involved with local projects.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council:
1. That the SLA with NCF be delivered for the remaining period (i.e. administration
of outstanding (conditional) grant awards, monitoring of projects awarded funded
in the first year and providing reports as appropriate).
2. To set up a Big Society Fund for 2013/14 of £225,000 for applications for grant
aid of not more than £15,000 per project, in accordance with the draft prospectus
included as Appendix A.
3. To set up an ‘Enabling Fund’ of £225,000 in order to support initiatives developed
in partnership with local communities (to help realise opportunities arising from
the provisions of the Localism Act and to respond to local needs) or for
community projects above £15,000 in value which otherwise meet the provisions
set out in the Big Society Fund Prospectus.
4. To establish a ‘Localism Board’ to provide a steer for officers on the development
of initiatives supported by the enabling fund noting that decisions on funding for
them would be brought back to Cabinet or Council for decision as appropriate
(with appropriate local member involvement).
5. That the Big Society Fund should be administered’ in-house’ by NNDC officers.
6. To approve the terms-of-reference for the ‘Big Society Fund Grants Panel’ set out
in Appendix B and delegate any subsequent minor amendments of those to that
Panel.
Cabinet
4
15 April 2013
4
7. To appoint five members (plus two substitutes), in accordance with the proposed
terms of reference, to the new Big Society Fund Grants Panel.
RESOLVED
To note that minutes of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel will be reported to Cabinet
and that an annual report will be produced summarising how resources have been
applied and the outcomes achieved.
Reason for the Decision:
To put in place an effective means of operating community grant funding for the
forthcoming financial year.
139.
THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO INITIATIVES ARISING FROM COMMUNITY
RIGHTS UNDER LOCALISM
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that that the report set out the Council’s
procedures for implementing actions in response to Community Right to Challenge
and Bid and what the provisions mean for communities and the Council. It explained
in detail the functions of the Localism Board and put in place a formal process for
dealing with requests from communities who wished to take over local assets. It was
hoped that the establishment of the Localism Board would mean that local groups
would approach the Council first rather than resorting to the statutory process and
that this would be an effective means of facilitating an appropriate way forward.
Members were invited to ask questions:
a) Ms V Gay sought clarification on whether the minutes for meetings of the
Localism Board would be made publicly available. The Chief Executive confirmed
that all the decisions would be reported to Cabinet or Council as appropriate.
b) Mr G Williams queried how the Board would manage if they were swamped with
speculative bids from communities. Mr T Ivory replied that experience suggested
that the Council was unlikely to be swamped with bids but acknowledged that it
could be challenging if private assets were involved. By setting up the Board, it
was hoped that all those involved could move forward in a consensual way.
c) Mr E Seward asked for further information on the right to bid. He said that he
understood that a group of 21 residents on the electoral roll could make a bid but
this was not referred to in the report. The Coast and Community Partnerships
Manager confirmed that 21 residents could constitute a community forum. It was
the local authority’s role to maintain the register of interested parties and they
would decide if such a group met the requirements. In response to a further
question regarding whether a property needed to be for sale before a bid could
be placed, he said that an interest could be registered at any time but that any
moratorium on the sale of a property would only become effective when the
property was put on the market. He acknowledged that buildings subject to a
request for a change of use did not appear to be covered. Mr Seward then raised
the issue of owners seeking compensation for any delays in the process. He felt
that this could be off-putting. The Coast and Community Partnerships Manager
replied that a central government fund would underwrite any compensation
claims. The Chief Executive responded to a further query regarding the source of
funding to enable communities to bid for property. She explained that when a
property on the register came up for sale, the project bid could, potentially, be
supported through the enabling fund, or other external grant sources. Properties
could also be removed from the list if they did not meet certain criteria.
Cabinet
5
15 April 2013
5
d) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett queried the amount of time being spent on answering
questions. The Chief Executive explained that the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee had been interested in considering this item and the review of the Big
Society Fund but as there was no scheduled committee meeting prior to Full
Council it was only natural that members may want to ask questions now.
e) Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that the right to challenge and bid also applied to
land and she believed that several communities would be interested in this as the
County Council were intending to sell off several parcels of land.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
1. That a ‘Localism Board’ (comprising relevant Cabinet members and officers) be
set up to provide a steer with respect to Localism initiatives and community
projects (particularly in relation to expressions of interest for local public services
(under the Community Right to Challenge) and nominations for assets of
Community Value (under the Community Right to Bid)). Noting that decisions
resulting from the Board’s recommendations (with appropriate local member
involvement) would be reported to Cabinet/ Council as appropriate.
2. That the process identified in Appendix F of the report be adopted in respect of
expressions of interest for local public services (under the Community Right to
Challenge)
3. That the process identified in Appendix G of the report be adopted for the
consideration of nominations for assets of Community Value (under the
Community Right to Bid).
Reasons for the decision:
To provide a means by which the Council can support the Localism Agenda in the
wider community in North Norfolk and to ensure that sufficient information is made
available and that due processes are established and followed within the regulations
that have been approved.
The Meeting closed at 10.46 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
6
15 April 2013
6
Agenda Item 8
Agenda Item 3
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held in the Committee
Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on 25 March 2013 at 2.30pm
Members Present:
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr P W High
Mrs B McGoun
Mr N Smith
Staff Side Present:
Mr S Case
Mr A Mitchell
Officers in Attendance:
Ms J Cooke, Head of Organisational Development
Miss K Sly, Head of Finance
Mr I Vargeson, Democratic Services
Mr P Godwin (Chair)
20 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
RESOLVED
That Mr T Fitzpatrick be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee.
21 SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
It was pointed out that the details of substitutes shown on the agenda were incorrect
and that the reference to Mr G Jones should be replaced by “Mrs P Grove-Jones”.
22 APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Cllr Mrs S Arnold and Ms C Lowin-Green.
23 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 11
February 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
24
JSCC UPDATE
a) Staff Morale
Arising from Minute 13 (b) of the last meeting, Mrs B McGoun made a general
enquiry as to staff morale. Although no hard evidence was available, Mr A
Mitchell said that the overall impression was mixed; staff remained concerned for
a variety of reasons, including the uncertainty brought about by change within the
authority, as well as the general economic background. He mentioned in
particular the changes to Revenues and Benefits and the recent Planning Peer
Review.
In reply to a question from Mr P High regarding the effects of the Revenues and
Benefits data transfer, he believed that at this stage it remained to be seen
whether a direct improvement in staff morale would result. Mr T FitzPatrick
1
7
Agenda Item 8
informed the Joint Committee that the process was being reviewed with King‟s
Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council.
The Head of Finance pointed out that it was a busy time of the year, which added
to the demands on staff. Mr N Smith, whilst agreeing that staff morale was a
concern, reiterated that his information indicated that the situation in North
Norfolk was relatively good.
b) Living Wage
Mr S Case asked whether there had been any further developments on this
subject as a result of discussions referred to in Minute 17 of the last meeting. Mr
A Mitchell felt that the adoption of the Living Wage policy would be a very good
way of the Council sending a positive message to staff and to other organisations
at very little cost, bearing in mind that, in practice, it would have implications for
one or two employees only. The Head of Organisational Development wondered
whether this might best be addressed by the National Joint Council adopting the
Living Wage as the bottom point of its salary spinal column.
Mr FitzPatrick agreed to discuss the matter with the Chief Executive.
25 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
26 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr S Case, Mr P Godwin, Mr A Mitchell, Ms J Cooke and Miss K Sly each declared
an interest in Agenda Item 7 (see Minute 27 below) as persons who would be
affected by proposals contained in the report regarding cash equivalent car
allowances.
27 SALARY REVIEW: IMPACT OF REMOVAL OF CAR ALLOWANCE LUMP SUM
PAYMENTS UNDER THE TRAVEL POLICY
The Head of Organisational Development tabled a revised version of the report. She
reminded the Joint Committee that a revised travel policy had been adopted by the
Council in October 2010. This followed a recommendation from Cabinet based upon
a review of the car allowance scheme for employees by a Member/Officer working
party, which had undertaken extensive consultation with staff and UNISON. This
report was a direct consequence of one of the recommendations agreed by the
Council, ie that pay bands in 2012 be reviewed to ensure salaries remained
comparative before changes to lump sum allowances took effect in 2013.
The market review had been undertaken independently by Inbucon. As part of the
process, comparative data had been provided on different permutations of base
salary, salary and cash equivalent/lease car and salary plus lump sum (where
eligible). The Joint Committee noted the effects in comparative market terms on the
31 job roles from which the cash equivalent/lease car allowance would be removed
from 1 April 2013.
Discussion ensued on the implications for staff recruitment and retention of paying at
the lower end of the market rate and what might be done to address this. The Head
of Organisational Development commented that, when the travel policy had been
agreed, it had not been known that local authorities would be facing year on year
2
8
Agenda Item 8
salary/travel allowances freezes. Clearly the package would be less attractive after 1
April, as far as these roles were concerned. The consequences had been understood
for some time, but the post holders affected would still consider this a blow. The Staff
Side felt that the outcome indicated that the situation was now the same as when the
lease car/payment had been introduced some years ago in response to recruitment
and retention difficulties.
There was general agreement that a report on the recruitment and retention issues
should be brought back once the ramifications of the changes could clearly be seen.
It was acknowledged that it would be necessary to talk to staff rather than accepting
the numbers of staff leaving as the only measure of dissatisfaction (in the current
climate, highly committed people who saw this as a further diminution of service
conditions and would otherwise look elsewhere might still decide to stay)
The Staff Side pointed out that a number of staff had already suffered as a result of
the pay and grading review and that they were being asked consistently to do „more
for less‟, whilst at the same time being required to undertake and manage some
radical changes in service delivery. The Staff Side maintained that morale was low
and that this was a very serious issue for the Council.
The Head of Organisational Development pointed out the risk of any action to
moderate the effects of this policy at this stage on those concerned being seen as
selective by staff generally, with consequences for morale.
Mr Case enquired as to the report on the wider issue of car allowances, which had
been awaited since 2011. Allowances had been outpaced by several fuel price
increases in the meantime and this was another factor which contributed to the
unease of staff.
The Head of Organisational Development undertook to collate information on this as
soon as possible and to consult and talk to UNISON with the aim of reporting by
September 2013.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
RECOMMEND TO CABINET
1. That the car allowance assessment form be reviewed.
2. That the impact on recruitment and retention of staff of the removal of the cash
equivalent/lease car allowances be reviewed and reported back to the Joint Staff
Consultative Committee at its meeting on 9 September 2013.
28 COUNCILS AND TRADE UNION DUTIES
The Head of Organisational Development tabled a guidance note from the
Department for Communities and Local Government and accompanying
press release relating to facilitating trade union activities. This had been discussed at
the recent meeting between the Chief Executive and UNISON, when it had been
agreed to circulate details to the Joint Committee for information. The contents were
duly noted.
The meeting concluded at 4.05 pm.
3
9
Agenda Item 8
_______________
Chairman
4
10
Agenda Item 8
Joint Staff Consultative Committee
MARKET REVIEW LOOKING AT THE SALARY IMPACT OF THE
REMOVAL OF THE CAR ALLOWANCE LUMP SUM PAYMENTS UNDER
THE TRAVEL POLICY
Summary:
Recommendations:
This report provides information on the salary impact of the
removal of the cash equivalent/lease car allowance lump
sum payments effective from 1 April 2013 on those affected
job roles.
1) That the Committee note the content of this report
2) That the Committee recommend that the car
allowance assessment form is reviewed
Cabinet member(s):
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected:
All
Julie Cooke, Tel: 01263 516040
Email: Julie.cooke@north-norfolk.gov.uk
This report is to advise the Committee of the outcome of a market salary review
carried out by Inbucon in March 2013 looking at total remuneration (base salary plus
car allowances) prior to and after 1 April 2013 for those posts that have previously
been allocated car allowances of cash equivalent/lease car.
Background
Cabinet agreed on 2 February 2009 to set up a Member/Officer Working Party whose
remit was to review the car allowance scheme for employees. As a result of the work
of that Working Party and after extensive consultation with all staff and UNISON, a
report went to Cabinet on 4 October 20101 recommending changes and a revised
travel policy was adopted by the Council.
The report contained a number of recommendations around the adoption of the new
policy, in particular, Recommendation C was to:Agree to review pay bands in 2012 to ensure that salaries in the Council remain
comparative before changes to lump sum allowances2 are effective in 2013.
Council agreed to the above recommendation (3 November 2010) and this report is
the result of that recommendation and the review carried out.
Results of the market review
The market review (total remuneration) was carried out independently by Inbucon.
Inbucon provide the job evaluation scheme for the Council and also provided the
market salary data for the pay and grading review.
1
See
http://intranet.northnorfolk.org/minutes/Cabinet/04%20Oct%202010/Member%20Officer%20Working%2
0Party%20Car%20Allowances%20Scheme.pdf
2
Under the section 9 of the report (second bullet point), Members were asked to give a commitment to
re-evaluate all posts affected by the removal of the cash equivalent to ensure that the salary package
remains comparative in the local government market place)
11
Agenda Item 8
Joint Staff Consultative Committee
As part of the review Inbucon provided comparative data of base salary alone and
base salary and car allowances on current salary (and car allowances) information
and proposed salary (and Car allowances) effective from 1 April 2013. This was split
into lower quartile, median and upper quartile salary data. Inbucon looked individually
at the 31 job roles from which the cash equivalent/lease car allowance would be
removed from 1 April 2013.
Based on the total remuneration package from 1 April 2013 compared to the market3
21 job roles would be ‘below’ the lower quartile, of which two are deemed to be
significant, i.e. 10% or over. Inbucon have advised that they consider 10% below the
lower quartile as significant.
If all of the 31 job roles attract the essential car user allowance (a lump sum payment
of £963), 20 job roles would be ‘below’ the lower quartile, of which one is significant.
These figures are summarised below.
Job Roles
Lower Quartile
Current (Salary and
Cash
Equivalent/Lease Car)
7 (of which 4 fall below the
April Salary only
fixed quartile point)
below the fixed
quartile point)
25 (of which 20 fall
below the fixed quartile
point)
11
13
31
4
0
31
5
1
31
Median
Upper Quartile
Total
27 (of which 21 fall
April Salary plus
Lump sum4
Risk
Once the cash equivalent/lease car allowances are removed, the Council will have
the majority of its senior management posts paid below the lower quartile within their
current salary grade. This may have an impact on the Council’s ability to attract good
candidates in any future recruitment activity and lead to staff retention issues within
the Council in the future.
Links to other policy changes
The review of the car allowances was carried out independently from the pay and
grading salary review and as a result of that review, a new pay model was adopted
by Full Council on 18 April 2012. Whilst the reviews which took place on the pay
model and the car allowances were completed and implemented independently a
number of staff have been negatively impacted by both reviews.
Essential car user allowance
Any post which currently receives the cash equivalent/lease car payment will be
assessed against the criteria laid out in the policy to determine whether or not
essential car user allowance is appropriate for each role. The assessment does allow
an allowance to be allocated in exceptional circumstances to posts which although
3
Total remuneration package as at 1 April 2013 for NNDC is salary only, for the market it is salary plus
car allowance.
4
Should those posts be eligible for the essential user lump sum payment then the comparison to the
market would be as follows
12
Agenda Item 8
Joint Staff Consultative Committee
they do not meet the points criteria, have a requirement for the postholder to have a
vehicle available for work.
13
Agenda Item 9
CCTV WORKING PARTY
18 MARCH 2013
COMMITTEE ROOM
Present:
Cllr Peter Moore (PM)
Cllr Annie Claussen-Reynolds (ACR)
Cllr Rhodri Oliver (Observer) (RO)
Cllr Lindsay Brettle (LB)
Steve Hems (SH)
Cllr Richard Shepherd (RS)
Nick Baker (NB)
Duncan Ellis (DE)
Maxine Collis (MC)
Jeanette Wilson(Minutes)(JW)
Actions
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

3.
Cllr Mike Baker, Cllr Brian Hannah and Cllr Robert Stevens
None received
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
o No declarations of interest
4.
PRESENTATION FROM NORFOLK POLICE


5.
Superintendent Carl Edwards attended the meeting to clarify
the Police position regarding CCTV. He acknowledged the
Police were regular users of the system, especially since the
introduction of remote networking and would be happy to offer
statistics to support the review. Generally the Police felt that
CCTV had an important role to play in community safety and
was a useful resource in police enquiries but understood that
Councils were facing budget restrictions and had to review
service provision.
During discussion, Supt Edwards confirmed that the Police
policy position was that they did not pay for such use of
equipment where it was provided.
MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING


JW was asked to amend the minutes to reflect that Peter
Battrick was present at the meeting
The minutes were agreed as a true copy, proposed by Cllr
Peter Moore and seconded by Cllr Richard Shepherd
CCTV Working Party
18 March 2013
Final Version
14
Agenda Item 9
MATTERS ARISING


6.
NB/MC
TOWN COUNCIL DISCUSSION




7.
As requested at the previous meeting, DE went through a
breakdown of the contributions received towards the initial
capital costs of the CCTV equipment and also the income
contributions received for the 2012/13 financial year
Shared Service options –
o NB stated that he recently met with Chris Bamfield,
Executive Director from Kings Lynn and West Norfolk
BC. KLWN had submitted a shared working proposal
last autumn and this proposal was discussed and
additional options suggested. Before he went back to
KLWN, members’ support for this option to be explored
was requested
o MC stated that Great Yarmouth BC has also expressed
an interest in offering a similar service
o It was agreed: that officers would work with GYBC and
KLWN and bring proposals across a range of options to
the working party at the earliest opportunity for
discussion
NB requested that members form an agreement in principle on
the Key Stakeholder evening which is due to take place on 17
April to include Town Council and Chamber of Trade members.
The evening will ask the attendees to:
o consider the issues they are facing in their towns,
o understand the issues NNDC faces regarding the CCTV
service currently provided, including an explanation of
the cost implications service; and
o discuss options for future management and resourcing
It was agreed: that officers, taking all members comments into
consideration, to finalise the proposal and email to members of
the Working Party for final agreement
MC confirmed that the review did not look at camera positioning
(so should not form part of the workshop) as moving them was
not a consideration at this time. DE mentioned that to move
cameras significant cost is incurred. However, the potential
reduction in camera numbers was accepted as having some
merit for discussion.
It was mentioned that Wells has no Chamber of Trade and MC
agreed to invite the Business Forum and the Federation for
Small Businesses to the workshop
DATE OF NEXT MEETING


23 April 2013 at 2.00pm in the Committee Room
The meeting closed at 15:35pm
CCTV Working Party
18 March 2013
Final Version
15
NB/MC
MC
Agenda Item No____10________
NEW HOMES BONUS (NHB)
Summary:
This report presents for approval a policy on use of the
new homes bonus including both the unallocated
balance and the in-year allocations from 2014/15
onwards.
Options considered:
The report discusses models that could be used to
allocate/make use of the New Homes Bonus.
Conclusions:
The New Homes Bonus (NHB) was introduced as part
of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. When
the scheme was introduced national funding nearly £1
billion was set aside before funding would be “topsliced” from the formula mechanism. The Government
recognise the bonus within their assessment of each
Local Authority‟s revenue spending power. This report
makes recommendations for the use of the NHB moving
forward.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet recommends to Council:
1)
The New Homes Bonus is allocated within
the base budget from 2014/15 onwards (as detailed
at section 4 within the report);
2)
Of the unallocated balance of New Homes
Bonus (£1,201,097) 50% is transferred to the general
reserve and 50% remains earmarked within the New
Homes Bonus reserve for the delivery of the
Council’s Corporate objectives in respect of
housing.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To support the Council‟s financial planning process and
support future delivery of NNDC priority services.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
New Homes Bonus allocations and Finance Settlement 2013/14
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Wyndham Northam
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Karen Sly, Head of Finance, 01263 516243, Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction and background
1.1. The New Homes Bonus (NHB) was introduced in 2011/12 as part of the 2010
Comprehensive Spending Review. It is based on the council tax generated
16
from additional homes and those brought back into use with a premium for
affordable housing and paid for the following six years.
1.2. The main elements of the scheme are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
The grant is payable for six years as an un-ring fenced grant (paid under
section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003).
For each (net) additional home a grant is received based on the national
average council tax1.
An additional supplement of £350 per affordable dwelling is also paid as
part of the allocation.
The payment of NHB is split between local authority tiers; 80% to the
lower tier and 20% to the upper tier.
Allocations are based on the Council Tax Base returns which are
submitted annually to the Government (covering twelve month period
October to September), i.e. once a new home is recorded on the Council
Tax Base return form it becomes eligible for NHB. The calculation of the
bonus does not take into account planning permissions or any other
elements of the planning processes.
Statistics on the gross affordable housing supply are used to calculate
the affordable homes enhancement.
Allocations take into account the net growth (i.e. taking account of any
demolitions and movement in empty properties) for the period October to
September, for example 2013/14‟s allocation is based on the Council
Tax Base data return as at September 2012.
1.3. Allocations of the forthcoming year‟s NHB are made as part of the financial
settlement announcements and are included by the Government in their
assessment of the local authority‟s “revenue spending power” as follows:
Table 1 - 2013/14 Revenue Spending Power Element
Revenue Spending Power Element
Value
£’000
Revenue Support Grant
3,571
Business Rates Baseline
2,376
5,947
Council tax freeze grant 2011/12
143
6,090
Homelessness (Grant rolled in)
120
Council tax support
842
7,052
Council tax – district
5,744
Community rights (to challenge and bid)
17
Council tax freeze grant 2013/14
58
New Homes Bonus
706
Revenue Spending Power
13,577
1.4. The table below outlines the allocations to date for NNDC along with where the
bonus has been used or committed.
1
Amount for 2013/14 is £1,444
17
Table 2 - New Homes Bonus – Allocations to date
Allocation 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
£
£
£
£
2011/12
349,762 349,762
349,762 349,762
2012/13
261,916
261,916 261,916
2013/14
117,7392
93,857
Total
349,762 611,678
729,417 705,535
Used/
Allocated
(349,762)
0 (100,921) (39,077)
Balance
0 611,678
628,496 666,458
2015/16
£
349,762
261,916
93,857
705,535
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
£
£
£
349,762
261,916 261,916
93,857
93,857
93,857
705,535 355,773
93,857
0
0
0
0
705,535 705,535 705,535 705,535
1.5. Appendix A provides further detail of the allocations to date along with the
future forecast of allocations from 2014/15 onwards. It also provides a
summary of the amounts received in respect of affordable homes.
1.6. The forecast for potential future years NHB from 2014/15 onwards has been
informed by a number of factors. The Statement of Five Year Land Supply
produced by the Planning Department estimates future dwelling completion
rates based on planning permissions granted, building commencements,
historical rates of completion and the stated intentions of developers. This
estimates that there will be 469 new dwellings in 2014/15, 667 in 15/16 and
637 in 16/17 but this is dependent upon some of the larger allocated
development sites being developed. For the purposes of calculating NHB
payments, account also needs to be taken of properties moving out of Council
Tax, for example to Business Rates (changes of use and holiday homes), and
any net changes in the number of empty homes. Given the inherent difficulties
of forecasting future dwelling completions a cautious (low) estimate has been
used.
1.7. To date, the use of the NHB has been earmarked to deliver projects to support
the Council‟s growth agenda for example £40,000 for developing a Community
Infrastructure Levy programme (Cabinet November 2012) and £100,000 to
support the delivery of new housing and other economic measures (Cabinet
February 2013).
1.8. Given that the Council has received a two year finance settlement and whilst
there are still some uncertainties around the future funding due to the business
rates retention funding regime, the Council is now in a position to recommend
the use of the New Homes Bonus moving forward.
2.
The National Funding Position
2.1. When the NHB was introduced, the government set aside nearly £1 billion over
the Comprehensive Spending Review period (2011/12 to 2014/15) for the
scheme, including nearly £200 million in 2011/12 (year 1) and £250 million for
each of the following three years. Funding above this level comes from “topslicing” the Formula Grant before distribution.
2.2. The final allocation for 2012/13 totalled £431 million and is £668 million for
2013/14, the following table summarises the national allocations made to date
compared to the set-aside funding.
2
Allocation in 2013/14 includes the one-off additional amount to be received in £23,882.
18
Table 3 – New Homes Bones – National Allocations
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
£million
£million
£million
2011/12 Actual
199.3
199.3
199.3
2012/13 Actual
n/a
232.6
232.6
2013/14 Actual
n/a
n/a
236.4
Total to date
199.3
431.9
668.3
Cumulative Total
199.3
631.2
1,299.5
Funding Set-aside
200
250
250
Funding Set-aside
200
450
700
Cumulative
Year 4
2014/15
£million
199.3
232.6
236.4
668.3
1,968.8
250
950
2.3. The table above illustrates that the „set aside‟ amount of £950 million for the
spending review period (2011/12 to 2014/15) has already been exceeded by
2013/14 (total allocation for years one to three of £1.3 billion) and therefore
future funding for the NHB is not a bonus but re-cycled formula grant and as
outlined in 1.3 (above) forms part of the „revenue spending power‟.
3.
Developing a model for allocation
3.1. There are varying approaches across the country as to how the NHB is being
utilised. Some authorities have built the total NHB allocation into their base
budget, others have established a community grant fund similar to that of the
Council‟s Big Society Fund supporting community projects.
3.2. In developing a model/policy for allocating the NHB locally, a number of issues
need to be addressed including the following:
a) The loss of core funding i.e. through the „top-slicing‟ mechanism to fund
the new homes bonus as outlined in section 2 and the consequent
impact on the future delivery of council services;
b) The Council‟s forecast funding gap for the next three financial years
(after 2013/14) is £917k (2014/15), £1.552m (in 2015/16) and £2.272m
(in 2016/17);
c) Aligning the use of the NHB with corporate objectives;
d) The principles used to support the Council‟s growth strategy to improve
economic development and housing strategy;
e) Rewarding and encouraging local growth by unlocking barriers in
delivering future growth;
f)
Transparent and straightforward administration;
g) Avoid duplication from existing grant/funding streams e.g. the Big
Society Fund.
3.3. In summary the overriding principles of allocating the NHB funding need to
balance the loss of core funding, continuing to support the delivery of council
services, promoting and encourage growth through rewards or targeted
funding.
4.
Policy for Use
4.1. This section of the report establishes a framework within which the NHB should
be established within the forward financial strategy and budget setting process.
19
4.2. In deciding upon the recommended framework, consideration has been given
to a number of options whereby the Council could use a formulaic approach to
distribute funds at a Parish/Community level as a reward for growth. The
advantages and disadvantages of such approaches are outlined in more detail
at appendix B.
4.3. However, in researching this approach the following needs to be considered
when setting the framework. The model for distribution needs to consider
administration of the scheme and also how it can be used to deliver the
corporate objectives. It is also important to note the rising costs of the initiative
relative to the overall settlement figures for local government. As can be seen
from the table at paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3, the cost of the scheme is making
significant inroads into the overall formula grant distribution year on year and
whilst it is termed a New Homes „Bonus‟, new funding is not being allocated to
fund the scheme nationally and does form part of the spending power for Local
Authorities. Formulaic allocations would be both complex in terms of the
administration and also potentially duplicate the Big Society Fund grant
process.
4.4. The overriding principals of allocating the NHB funding need to balance the
loss of core funding, continuing to support the delivery of council services,
promoting and encourage growth through rewards or targeted funding.
4.5. Allocating the funds within the base budget, i.e. as part of the Council‟s overall
funding, addresses the issues set out at 3.2 and also considers the principles
discussed above, although it could increase the risks of funding shortfall should
there be any changes to how the NHB is allocated in future years. In order to
mitigate this risk, the level of the Council‟s general reserve would need to be
updated to reflect this and reallocation of the current uncommitted balance
within the New Homes Bonus reserve could be reallocated accordingly.
4.6. The implications of this proposal on the current forward projections for the
period 2014/15 to 2016/17 are summarised in table 5:
Table 5 – Impact on Funding Forecast
2014/15
£000
3
Current Funding Gap
917
Use of NHB
(821)
Revised Funding Gap
96
2015/16
£000
1,552
(936)
616
2016/17
£000
2,272
(1,051)
1,221
4.7. After allowing for the above there still remains an unallocated balance of the
previous year‟s NHB of £1,201,097. As mentioned above, including all of the
bonus within the base budget from 2014/15 onwards does increase the funding
risk should the method of NHB allocation be changed in future years. In order to
mitigate this risk this report is recommending that an element (50%) of the
current unallocated balance in the NHB earmarked reserve be transferred to the
general reserve. This would leave a balance of £600,549 within the earmarked
reserve that could be earmarked for delivery of the Council‟s corporate
objectives in respect of housing.
3
As reported in the 2013/14 Budget Report
20
5.
Financial implications and risks
5.1. The financial implications on the current forecast funding gap are detailed
within section 4 of the report. The following identifies other risks pertaining to
the proposals and issues outlined within the report
5.2. If there are changes to the NHB allocation method or changes to the funding
within the national grant funding mechanism there is a risk that the Council‟s
base budget would not be supported. This would need to be taken into account
as part of the annual financial planning process and savings targets and
delivery plans updated accordingly.
5.3. Actual amounts of New Homes Bonus grant payments year on year are subject
to a number of factors for example increases in the number of empty
properties, properties coming into Council tax banding, new builds etc and
therefore projections must take account of sensitivities.
5.4. As mentioned in the report the forecast for future years NHB has been
informed by and is influenced by a number of factors including future dwelling
completion rates based on planning permissions granted, building
commencements, historical rates of completion and the stated intentions of
developers. There are also other factors that need to be taken into account for
example properties moving out of Council Tax, for example to Business Rates
(changes of use and holiday homes), and any net changes in the number of
empty homes. There is a risk that the financial projections are either not met or
are under estimated. Therefore monitoring of the actuals in the year and also
as part of the financial planning process is essentially to ensure forecasts can
be revised and action taken as appropriate.
5.5. Factoring all of the NHB in future years as part of the financial planning process
increases the funding risk facing the Council in terms of any changes to the
NHB allocation method in future years. This has been factored into the report in
that the report recommends that the general reserve is increased to mitigate
some of this risk. The level of the general reserve will continue to be reviewed
as part of the overall financial planning process.
5.6. The risk of not utilising the NHB funding should equally be considered.
Maintaining unallocated earmarked reserves above the recommended balance
could be seen as excessive prudence and therefore this report recommends an
approach for utilising the balance within the NHB reserve and also the future
grants and that can support the on-going budget process for 2014/15 onwards.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
None as a direct consequence from this report.
7.
Equality and diversity
7.1. None as a direct impact from the report.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1. None as a direct impact from the report.
21
Appendix A
New Homes Bonus Allocations
2011/12
£
2011/12 Actual
349,762
2012/13 Actual
2013/14 Actual
2014/15 Projection*
2015/16 Projection*
2016/17 Projection*
2017/18 Projection*
2018/19 Projection*
Total
349,762
Used/allocated
(349,762)
NNDC Balance
0
(Reserve unallocated)
Unallocated cumulative
2012/13
£
349,762
261,916
2013/14
£
349,762
261,916
117,739
2014/15
£
349,762
261,916
93,857
115,000
2015/16
£
349,762
261,916
93,857
115,000
115,000
2016/17
£
349,762
261,916
93,857
115,000
115,000
115,000
611,678
0
729,417
(100,921)
820,535
(39,077)
935,535
0
1,050,535
0
815,773
0
93,857
115,000
115,000
115,000
115,000
115,000
668,857
0
611,678
628,496
781,458
935,535
1,050,535
815,773
668,857
611,678
1,240,174
2,021,632
2,957,167
4,007,702
4,823,475
5,492,332
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
* Projection assumes net addition of 100 properties and 35 affordable
Affordable Housing Premium (included in amounts above)
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2011/12 Actual
0
0
0
0
2012/13 Actual
29,960
29,960
29,960
2013/14 Actual
9,520
9,520
2014/15 Projection
9,800
2015/16 Projection
2016/17 Projection
2017/18 Projection
2018/19 Projection
Total
0
29,960
39,480
49,280
29,960
69,440
118,720
Unallocated cumulative
22
0
29,960
9,520
9,800
9,800
0
29,960
9,520
9,800
9,800
9,800
59,080
177,800
68,880
246,680
2017/18
£
261,916
93,857
115,000
115,000
115,000
115,000
29,960
9,520
9,800
9,800
9,800
9,800
78,680
325,360
2018/19
£
9,520
9,800
9,800
9,800
9,800
9,800
58,520
383,880
Total
£
2,098,572
1,571,496
587,024
575,000
460,000
345,000
230,000
115,000
5,982,092
Total
0
179,760
57,120
49,000
39,200
29,400
19,600
9,800
383,880
Appendix B – Advantages and Disadvantage of Models
Advantages
Disadvantages
Of Formulaic Allocation Method
Parish based distribution as a reward for ‘growth’ via new homes
 Reflects actual completions of properties
 Parish/town areas may be too small to have
a significant impact on their spending
 Fixes the amount available for distribution
each year of the total amount of NHB
 May not bring forward value for money
received in the year
schemes

Rewards made available at a Parish level

Rewards for parishes that might have
opposed or objected to growth

Some Parishes will never have the
opportunity to access „rewards‟ due to
location and inability to benefit from growth

Administratively intensive per parish bearing
in mind number of parishes

Commits future council funding ahead of
actually receiving the grant
Little consistency between years, i.e. the
value of the grant varies each year


Timing of including a „new home/conversion‟
in the base data used for allocating could
have a significant impact on the actual
amount paid to the parish
Community based distribution, similar to above but defined community areas across the
district
 Larger geographical units
 Links to the communities need to be
developed
 Larger schemes can be developed
 Community projects may not accomplish
Corporate plan ambitions
 Flexibility in use and timing of funding

Monitoring of individual scheme progress

Small and large scale schemes need to be
recognised

Application for funding encourages
consultation at a local level

Duplication of Big Society Fund grant
scheme

Supporting/administering the boards and
scheme would require additional resource

Could lead to disproportionate allocations in
based on capacity to apply/bid for funds
23
24
Agenda Item No_____11_______
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A COST SHARING GROUP
Summary:
This report sets out a proposal to establish a cost
sharing group (CSG) with Great Yarmouth Borough
Council which will provide services, in particular legal
services, to charities and not for profit groups within the
district at cost and exempt from VAT.
Options considered:
Establishing a cost sharing group without another
authority. This would be more expensive and less
attractive to NFPs as there would be less services
available.
Conclusions:
The establishment of a CSG for the delivery of services,
particularly legal services would be an innovative and
unique way of delivering services.
A CSG has the potential to build on the client base and
income generated by eastlaw with no risk to the Council,
thereby delivering efficiencies to the Council.
A CSG will enable service to be delivered to charities
and other not for profit groups at a reduced cost and
free from VAT ensuring funds are diverted into frontline
services.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet RESOLVE ;
1. To form a cost sharing group by establishing
a company limited by guarantee as set out in
paragraph 5 of the report.
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
2. To appoint a Member as the executive
director to the Board and the Head of Legal
Services as the non executive director to the
Board of the company as the Council’s
representatives.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Establishment of a Cost Sharing Group will enable the
cost of back office services to be reduced whilst
maintaining service levels. It will also provide charities
and not for profit groups with access to services to
reduce the costs of their back office services.
25
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)
Draft Memorandum and Articles of Association
Solicitors Practice Framework Rules
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Ivory
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Emma Duncan Head of Legal ext 6045
emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
Members will be aware of the drive by central government to generate
efficiencies in local authorities from the provision of back office services such
as finance, legal, ICT, property and HR.
1.2
Some local authorities are looking to reduce costs by providing services to
external bodies through a charging arrangement which returns income to the
Council and therefore reduces the cost of the service to the Council.
1.3
NNDC currently does this with its own legal services which provides external
clients (other district councils, housing associations and charities) with legal
advice and assistance through its trading brand “eastlaw”. For the financial
year 2012/13 eastlaw returned £86,000 of income to the Council and there is
an increasing demand for services.
1.4
The imperative to reduce costs is coupled with the government’s “Big Society”
agenda which encourages more delivery of services by the not for profit
(“NFP”) sector.
1.5
As funding streams become more limited, NFP organisations ability to deliver
is being hindered by their inability to have access to the necessary
operational capacity and infrastructure to deliver services and initiatives at a
reasonable cost. This is particularly true in relation to small charities and NFP
organisations and their “back office” functions such as finance, IT, HR and
legal which are in many cases, prohibitively expensive for NFP organisations
to access and results in valuable (and diminishing) charitable income being
diverted away from the delivery of frontline objectives.
1.6
In addition to this many NFP organisations pay VAT (20%) on the services
they buy which cannot be reclaimed and adds to the already prohibitive cost.
1.7
In February 2013 the law surrounding the provision of services by and to NFP
and public sector organisations changed when the government legislated in
the Finance Act 2012 to make the supply of services between not for profit
bodies exempt from VAT, where those services are being supplied at cost
through a Cost Sharing Group (CSG).
26
2.0
What is a Cost Sharing Group?
2.1
A CSG is a separate legal entity (usually a Company Limited by Guarantee)
consisting of members who undertake exempt and/or non business activities
(i.e local authorities, parish councils, charities, Registered Social Landlords,
academies, unincorporated associations).
2.2
The members supply “directly necessary” services to and between the
members at cost and these services are free of VAT.
2.3
At “cost” includes the full amount of any additional costs incurred in the
provision of the service (i.e central charges – buildings, telephony, IT, HR
finance, corporate management etc) which currently forms significant part of
the Council’s costs.
2.4
A CSG could ultimately provide a full range of services to the NFP sector
including (but not limited to) legal, accountancy, property (management,
surveying and valuation, conservation and design), payroll, HR,
communications, reprographics and ICT. It could be a “one stop shop” for
NFPs.
2.5
It could also play a key role in delivering income back to “provider” authorities
to reduce the cost of back office services to the Council and would be an
attractive provider of services to NFP organisations by selling services at cost
and with no VAT. This would enable NFP organisations to reduce their
expenditure.
2.6
It would also enable the Council to “shrink” the back office function, without
any degradation of service levels. It would also obviate any need for
redundancies and whilst retaining resilience and flexibility in the service, and
without losing jobs locally.
2.7
Importantly the establishment of a CSG could be a key driver in realising the
ambitions of the Council’s localism agenda by building capability in not for
profit and charitable organisations.
2.8
Dependant on how successful the CSG was, it could ultimately provide high
quality employment in North Norfolk through expansion.
2.9
Having taken advice from the Council’s VAT advisors and specialist Counsel,
it is clear that a separate legal entity could be established as a CSG by the
Council to provide back office functions to NFP organisations.
2.10
As the legislation is still new, a CSG has not been established by any other
local authority and would be an opportunity for the Council to deliver services
in an innovative way.
27
3
Delivery of Legal Services through a CSG
3.1 Legal Services, through eastlaw, currently deliver legal advice and assistance to
a number of external partners and will contribute £86k of income in 2012/13
exceeding the targets set in the business plan by 44%. eastlaw’s focus is on
delivering affordable high quality and specialist legal services within the public
sector and over the past two years of operation there has been a growing
demand for those services.
3.2A substantial part of this income comes from organisations such as housing
associations and charities who are not able to recover the VAT on legal services
and who would therefore benefit from a reduced total cost if the service was
delivered through a CSG.
3.3Additionally, there has been a recent change to the Solicitors Practice Framework
Rules to allow local authorities to deliver legal services to charities at a cost
without a waiver from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This change is intended
to support local authorities in seeking to access new forms of income through the
provision of legal services.
3.4 Providing legal services through the medium of a CSG would be a logical
progression for eastlaw and its current clients and enable eastlaw to access new
client markets.
3.5 The CSG would provide eastlaw with a unique selling point and also provide a
tool to market its services to other NFPs who would initially come to the CSG for
the provision of a different service (eg. Property, etc)
3.6 Furthermore, other small charities that eastlaw act for currently have responded
extremely positively to the concept of a CSG and the potential savings, not just in
terms of legal work but in terms of services which could be provided.
4
Potential Partners in a CSG
4.1 In order to make the CSG as effective as possible, as many services as possible
need to be provided through it. This will enable the CSG to offer a “one stop
shop” for NFP and will also enable services to work together to deliver a holistic
solution for their clients.
4.2 There are a number of NFP organisations that would be willing to engage with
the Council but as purchasers of services, not providers.
4.3 Great Yarmouth Borough Council has also taken advice on the establishment of
a CSG in relation to a number of services and have indicated their willingness to
work with NNDC in terms of setting up the formal structure of the CSG. There is
no intention to deliver services to each other but simply to allow both
organisations (together with others) to use the same framework for the delivery of
services.
28
4.4 There seems to be little incentive to incur two sets of costs in setting up and
administering the CSG for exactly the same purpose when one “umbrella”
organisation would be more sustainable.
4.4 A combined CSG would be a significant resource for NFP organisations locally
enabling a comprehensive service to be provided, utilising the skills and
experience of local government across a wide range of functions which are
expensive for NFP bodies to access. It would also be a model of innovation and
excellence.
4.5 Furthermore a CSG operating with two local government areas would give
eastlaw access to markets outside of North Norfolk.
5. Potential Structures
5.1 A CSG is required to be a separate legal entity from the individual partners.
5.2 The concept of a CSG lends itself to a number of different legal structures but
having taken advice from leading Counsel, the preferred delivery model is a
company limited by guarantee (CLG) as it retains flexibility and control.
5.3 It is suggested that a combined CSG with GYBC should consist of initially 5
Directors (2 exec and 3 non exec) 2 from each authority (a Member and an
Officer), together with an independent non exec board member with expertise in
the NFP sector. The Board would have control over the strategic and structural
decisions relating to the CLG. As the provider authorities they would retain
control.
5.4 It is recommended that a Member be appointed to the Board on behalf of the
Council and that the Head of Legal having developed the concept of the CSG
and who will perform the role as Company Secretary to the CSG also be
appointed to the board as the officer representative.
5.5 Below that would sit an operating committee consisting of representatives of key
clients or client groups and service providers dealing with any operations issues
(SLAs etc).
5.6 To become a recipient member of the company in order to benefit from the VAT
exemption there would be a simple administrative process and no initial charge
for as it is considered that this would act as a barrier to NFPs joining the
company.
5.7 The company structure allows the structure and Board to change as the CSG
evolves.
5.8 There would no additional liabilities arising from this company as it would simply
offer an environment within which the CSG could operate rather than owning
assets and incurring liabilities.
5.9 Service providers would simply bill those members buying services through their
own internal processes and not charge VAT.
29
5.10 A Member’s Agreement would cover these arrangements and make provision
for the remainder of the operating arrangements between the parties.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The proposal to establish and develop a CSG by taking advantage of the
changes in the Finance Act 2012 is an innovative and new service delivery
method which has the potential to deliver savings to the Council and at the same
time support the delivery of services within the NFP sector. It has the potential to
significantly change the way in which the public and NFP sector work together
6.2 It supports NFP groups by giving them access to services at a reduced cost at a
time when their own funding is being squeezed. By giving smaller organisations
access to a raft of specialist advice and assistance at cost it will enable them to
be fit for purpose in the delivery of their own services to the public. NFP
organisations would be able to direct more funding into the delivery of frontline
services rather than having to pay for expensive infrastructure support, meaning
that more charitable/ public income can be applied where it is most needed.
6.3 As identified above a CSG could reduce the costs of provision of services to the
Council by charging other bodies to use them at cost. It enables the Council to
retain control over costs incurred through retaining control over the service.
6.4 There is the potential to grow services within a CSG, supported by external
funding streams to increase resilience which will benefit provider members. This
would retain high quality employment in the local area rather than the jobs being
provided elsewhere.
6.5 The Council is identified as a provider of services to NFP organisations but also
could, if needed purchase services at cost from another partner (at cost)
potentially delivering savings for the Council.
6.6 Establishing a CSG would meet a number of the Council’s key objectives,
particularly reducing the costs of internal services and using that released
capacity to support the ambitions and capability of other organisations.
4.
Implications and Risks
Benefit
Risks
Provides minimum cost services to a
range of not for profit partners enabling
more money to be delivered into front
facing services.
This is a new piece of legislation and
consequently the establishment and
operation of such a CSG will be “cutting
edge”.
This will involve using an exemption to
the VAT rules but specialist advice has
been sought to protect the Council’s
position.
30
Reduces costs of provision of services to
“host” organisation and enables host
organisation to retain control over costs
incurred.
Risk that the savings will not be able to
be realised or will be delivered more
slowly because of a lack of purchasers
for the services.
Retains flexibility and resilience.
Retains a “tailored” service at the
Council delivered through SLAs.
Supports delivery of “Big Society”
through building capacity at NFP
organisations
Retains high quality employment in the
local area rather than incurring the costs
of redundancy and the loss of
experienced staff.
The providing authority can still provide a
"profit" based service to clients outside
the CSG thereby supporting income
levels from those streams.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
Any costs associated with the establishment of the CSG will be met by
existing budgets although these are expected to be minimal. Extensive legal
advice has been taken in order to protect the Council’s VAT position and
there is not expected to be any impact.
31
Agenda Item No_____12_______
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
Summary:
This report provides an update to Cabinet Members on
the actions of the Enforcement Board since it was set
up in December 2012 to provide a cohesive
enforcement approach in respect of long term empty
properties and other difficult enforcement cases.
It is proposed that the Enforcement Board will report, as
part of the Annual Action Plan, updates on a quarterly
basis to the Performance and Risk Management Board
and on a six monthly basis to Cabinet.
In addition, issues of significance are discussed with
relevant Portfolio Members prior to action proceeding
and issues of a more local nature will be reported to
local members as appropriate to ensure that they are
kept informed.
Conclusions:
The development of the Enforcement Board and its
subsequent methods of working across Council services
have quickly started to make in-roads to a number of
long standing and difficult issues around both properties
and individuals/companies.
Progress on the wider backlog of long term empty
properties has been initially slower than planned, but it
is anticipated that the use of a bulk mailing process in
Revenues and Benefits will enable us to catch up
quickly.
Recommendations:
1. That Cabinet notes the progress made to
date by the Enforcement Board.
2. That future progress is reported to Cabinet
on a six monthly basis and Performance and
Risk Management Board on a quarterly basis.
3. That progress on enforcement issues
affecting specific wards is reported directly
to Local members.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To fully inform members of progress on issues in their
Portfolios and wards.
Cabinet Member: Trevor Ivory
Wards affected: All
Nick Baker, Corporate Director
01263 516221, nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
32
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Members will recall that the Enforcement Board was set up to deal with long
term empty properties and to use all of the powers available to the Council,
across its services, to bring them back into use. Such action brings benefits
in a number of important areas. Firstly, the social benefit of ensuring the use
of housing stock is maximised. Secondly, the financial benefit, through the
New Homes Bonus, of bringing long term empty properties back into use. And
thirdly, the reduction in blight that long term empty properties bring to local
communities.
In addition, the Board is dealing with a number of individuals or companies
who are causing problems which require cross service action to provide a
long term solution. Whilst some of these relate to empty properties, others are
being targeted as a result of long term Council Tax and Business Rates
avoidance, wider planning and or commercial activities that give rise to
significant concern, again, across a number of Council service areas.
Whilst Members do not routinely sit at meetings of the Enforcement Board
because of legal sensitivities around enforcement decisions, where decisions
have a wider implication and/or risk, relevant members are involved in the
decision making process. Other decisions are taken under officer delegated
powers.
Clearly, however, where decisions have a wider corporate risk, then
CLT/Cabinet members are involved.
2.
Progress update
2.1.
Since its inception in December 2012 the Board has been meeting fortnightly
and good progress has been made across the full range of cases under
consideration.
2.2.
Long Term Empty Properties
As at October 2012, the Council had 887 long term empty properties, defined
as those which had been unoccupied for longer than six months, and which
appeared on our Council Tax Return. Clearly, these numbers constantly
change, as properties come back into use or reach the six month point.
The Council’s Housing Strategy, approved in November 2012 outlines a “3
letter” approach to owners of local term empty properties, to encourage them
to deal with the property, after which the Enforcement Board will take the case
on for action.
Because of the numbers of properties involved, it was envisaged that this
strategy would be delivered by the Council’s Housing team on an ongoing
basis but the difficulties in data sharing across services have meant that this
work was postponed. The Revenues and Benefits Team has now taken on
the bulk mailing of all owners of these properties. This is being piloted during
April/May 2013 with a view to getting all letters out as soon as possible
thereafter.
It is clear from the initial contacts we have had with property owners, that
there is a significant of under reporting of changes of ownership and or use of
some homes previously thought to be empty. Only by a concerted approach
to going through each record, will this position be resolved.
33
A number of empty properties were already known to the Council and owners
of these had generally been contacted by one or more Council service, so
were essentially ready for enforcement action.
Such action falls into a range of service areas’ responsibilities across the
Council and the action considered depends on the many reasons for
properties being empty in the first instance, some of which may require a very
sensitive approach. Such action however may include any of the following:

Recovery action for unpaid Council Tax

Housing Improvement Notices

Dangerous Structure Notices

Planning Enforcement

Works in default for non-compliance

Charging Orders

Enforced Sale

Compulsory Purchase
It should be noted that compulsory purchase is a last resort option and one
only favoured where there is a clear strategy for future use and where there
are not liabilities associated with the property which cannot be overcome.
As at 23 April, the Board has considered 47 long term empty properties. We
have taken positive action and/or investigation on 100% of them, with already
5 being sold/brought back into use and a further 42 still under action.
Table of Action - Please see Appendix C attached.
3.
Difficult Enforcement Cases
3.1.
As mentioned above, as well as the empty homes issues, these cases are
more complex in nature and range from properties causing long term or
significant blight, as opposed to merely being empty, through to people with
large and potentially deliberate debts to the Council. Often, a cross-service
approach is the only way forward and it is already being found that many of
these cases require very high levels of formal intervention, sometimes with
outside agencies.
3.2.
Case examples - Please see Appendix D attached.
4.
Future Working
4.1
Even at this early stage, it is clear that working across services to resolve
multi-disciplinary problems is having a very positive effect and officers are
seeking to build on this to provide a more efficient approach to such cases.
In addition, the work of the Board is starting to change the approach in some
service areas of the Council where regulation and enforcement; sometimes
due to other pressures, has not been seen as a high priority.
4.2
The cross service working enabled by the Board’s approach, allows the most
effective solution to be found to often complex individual cases. It also
encourages the most effective use of Council powers, under legal advice, to
34
provide a positive outcome, and challenges issues around officer delegation
and data protection.
4.3
A high proportion of the enforcement work has been focussed around the
private sector housing legislation, significantly increasing the workload in that
small team.
Following discussion with those in the team it had been agreed, due to the
similarities and overlap in work and In order to provide additional resilience,
that the two posts dealing with private sector housing enforcement will
transfer into Environmental Health.
4.4
Some officer delegation to undertake specific tasks is unnecessarily onerous
in some areas and the Board has already moved to provide wider delegation
for officers to act in areas outside their traditional roles and boundaries.
4.5
Data sharing across our different information systems is being identified as
both a problem, but also an opportunity and officers are working to put in
place processes that allow information to be better shared between services.
4.6
Outside agencies are also becoming involved in a number of cases and
again, a shared approach with them is proving invaluable. The use of external
local companies to provide expertise around structural surveys is already
allowing action to be taken more quickly and it is hoped to engage such work
on a retained contractual basis.
Officers have also been working closely with the Valuation Office, where
there have been historic problems with properties being taken out of Council
Tax banding with no reference to the Council; sometimes it would appear,
with the intention of owners avoiding payment of Council Tax or Business
Rates.
5.
Performance Management
5.1
With the required outcomes of the Enforcement Board being so closely linked
to the Corporate Plan, in terms of housing and financial issues, it is important
that we report on and manage the performance of the Board and its work.
It is therefore proposed that we will report, as part of the Annual Action Plan,
updates on an ongoing basis. In addition, it is suggested that Cabinet
reviews the work of the group at 6 monthly intervals with a further review by
Performance and Risk Management Board on a quarterly basis.
5.2
In addition, as many of the issues under consideration relate to matters of
concern to and complaints from local communities, Local Members are being
kept fully informed regarding progress on issues in their wards, except where
there are overriding legal or other reasons why not. This has been well
received so far by those Local Members affected.
6.
Conclusions
6.1
The development of the Enforcement Board and its subsequent methods of
working across Council services have quickly started to make in-roads to a
35
number of long standing and difficult issues around both properties and
individuals.
6.2
Progress on the backlog of long term empty properties in Housing has been
initially slower than planned, but it is anticipated that the use of a bulk mailing
process in Revenues and Benefits will enable us to catch up quickly.
7.
Implications and Risks
7.1
The use of the Council’s powers in different ways will almost certainly cause
some complaint from those who have not previously seen direct action from
the Council in respect of property issues.
It is therefore essential that we ensure both the technical and legal processes
used are sound and that, in terms of our reputation, our rationale for action is
clearly understood.
7.2
As has been stated above, a number of these properties give rise to local
blight and therefore expectation on the Council to resolve the issues. It is
important that we are seen to act in such cases, in order to resolve matters of
concern for local communities.
7.3
It is however, also important that we act sensitively in some cases (as has
been done), and that we adhere to our own Enforcement Policies in terms of
proportionality.
8.
Financial Implications and Risks
8.1
It is essential that the Council collects all that is due to it and addresses the
unfair situation of some individuals evading payment. The recent increase in
Council Tax to 150% on properties empty for over two years will provide an
incentive for owners to bring those properties back into use, but may also
provide an incentive for them to evade payment.
8.2
There is also a significant opportunity with long term empty properties, as
each one brought back into use attracts New Homes Bonus payments.
9.
Sustainability
There only sustainability implications directly resulting from the
recommendations considered in this report are around better use of existing
housing stock.
10.
Equality and Diversity
There are no sustainability implications directly resulting from the
recommendations or options considered in this report.
36
11.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
Some of the work being undertaken by the Board has a direct link to criminal
activity, and some empty properties have been associated with anti-social
behaviour, which of course will be removed when properties are brought back
into use.
37
Appendix C
Property
Issues
Action
56 Beeston Common,
Sheringham
Dilapidated, overgrown
garden
Empty for over 10 years
Enforcement action
threatened led to property
being cleared
Schedule of works agreed
with landowner.
Planning application for
future development of site
expected imminently.
55 Beeston Common,
Sheringham
Dilapidated, overgrown
garden
As above.
35-36 Beeston Common,
Sheringham
Extremely dilapidated
Empty for over 10 years
Surveyor instructed and
Schedule of works being
drafted.
Owner has agreed to
complete works.
1 and 2 Church Cottages,
West Runton
Dilapidated and in poor
repair
Housing Act Improvement
Notices served.
2-3 The Hill, Trunch
Dilapidated property
Housing Improvement Notice
drafted, currently suspended
due to Armed Forces
Community Covenant.
121 Mundesley Road, North
Walsham
Empty since 2007
Dilapidated, overgrown
garden
Squatters and anti-social
behaviour
Housing Prohibition Order
served and legal pressure
applied to owners leading to
sale.
New owner has commenced
works for private residence.
16 Peacock Lane, Holt
Overgrown garden
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Empty since January 2010
Housing Condition survey
planned to allow
Improvement Notice as
appropriate.
13 Britons Lane, Beeston
Regis
Empty since 2003
Unkempt garden detracting
from neighbourhood
amenity
Unpaid Council Tax
Final Council Tax Charging
Order obtained
Application made for
enforced sale.
19 Nelson Road, Sheringham
Unkempt garden detracting
Sold
38
from neighbourhood
amenity
Empty since approximately
2009
Council Tax arrears
Owners using as second
home and paying 100%
charge.
2 River Court, Hempton
Overgrown garden
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Empty since 2001
Housing Improvement Notice
served
Empty Dwelling Management
Order to be considered.
15 Calthorpe Close, Stalham
Overgrown garden
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Unoccupied for minimum of
6 year
Request for property to be
tidied complied with.
No further action due to
Armed Forces Community
Covenant.
Clarence House, The
Buttlands,
Wells next the Sea
Listed building in prime site,
in poor condition detracting
from neighbourhood
amenity
On Properties At Risk
Register
Housing Improvement
Notices being served in April.
36 Beck Close, Weybourne
Empty since October 2010
Housing defects
Untidy and overgrown
garden detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Housing Improvement Notice
served, owner appealing and
Tribunal dated scheduled for
19 June.
22 All Saints Close,
Weybourne
Empty since approximately
2001
Untidy forecourt and garden
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Housing defects
Housing Improvement Notice
to be served imminently
Council Tax now at 150%.
2 Seastone Cottages,
Weybourne
Empty for 16 years
Dilapidated property with
significant defects
Housing Improvement Notice
served, owner appealing and
Tribunal dated scheduled for
19 June.
18 Wyndham Park, East
Runton
Empty since October 2011
Sold and now occupied.
9 Laxfield Road, Sutton
Empty since August 2011
Sold and now occupied.
43B Seaview Road,
Mundesley
Empty since September 2008
Interim Council Tax Charging
Order obtained for arrears,
hearing taking place in May.
39
3 Gorse Close, Mundesley
Empty since June 2011
Legal applying for Council Tax
Charging Order for arrears.
1 Angel Court, Cromer Road,
North Walsham
Empty since 2009
Property for sale.
33 Oak Street, Fakenham
Empty since approximately
April 2008
Property dilapidated
externally
Legal Team currently
establishing ownership and
intentions for property.
Former Shannocks Hotel,
High Street, Sheringham
Flats 1 and 2
Externally dilapidated
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Flat 1 – empty March 2011
Flat 2 – June 2010
Planning Enforcement Notice
served
Housing condition
inspections planned
imminently.
11 St Austin’s Grove,
Sheringham
Extremely dilapidated
internally and externally
Structurally dangerous
Property sold, renovation
currently underway
Occupation of property
expected November 2013.
Broadland Cottage, Station
Road, Hoveton (linked to
Broads Hotel)
Externally dilapidated
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Housing conditions
inspection planned.
Bottledene, Loop Road,
Trimingham
Dilapidated property and
unsafe housing conditions
Housing Prohibition Order
served.
37 St Giles Road, Swanton
Novers
Empty since 2001
Dilapidated and in poor
condition detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Legal Team liaising with
owners in relation to
commencement of works to
bring property back into use.
Orchid Lee, Sandy Lane,
West Runton
Empty for approximately 15
years due to probate issues
Dilapidated condition
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Legal Team confirming
Probate and ownership.
40
Appendix D
Property
Issue
Action
Star Yard, Fakenham
Dilapidated garage in
dangerous condition
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Schedule of Works from
appointed surveyor now
received.
Building Act notices to be
served by end of May
2013.
57 Oak Street, Fakenham
Dilapidated commercial
property detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
As above.
Leighton House, 11-13 St
Mary’s Road, Cromer
Significant property in
extremely
dilapidated/dangerous
condition detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Unfit for habitation
Previous pest infestations
Emergency Housing
Prohibition Order in place
to prevent occupation.
Surveyor and Structural
Engineer appointed and
Schedule of Works
received.
Building Act notices to be
served by end of May
2013 to secure
improvement.
Surf Shack, Sea Palling
Shack not suitable for
habitation but family living
on site
Planning and Housing are
working together to
resolve, initially informally.
Broads Hotel, Station
Road, Hoveton
Empty since approximately
2007
Derelict and dilapidated
with significant impact on
local amenity
Ongoing discussions with
owner to re-develop the
site.
Trafalgar Court,
Mundesley
Prominent ex hotel
converted into flats
A number of flats
unoccupied since 2010
Eyesore property in prime
location
Ongoing liaison between
Housing Enforcement and
Management Company
appointed by the land
tribunal.
Work progressing to
remedy Housing and Fire
Safety defects currently
subject of Prohibition
Notice.
Fletcher Hospital,
Roughton Road, Cromer
Empty ex hospital building
Current investigation
centres on potentially
dangerous property in
terms of unauthorised
access.
41
48-50 Bacton Road, North
Walsham
Derelict building plot
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Currently under
investigation to ascertain
whether Planning or
Building Act notices most
appropriate.
Former Fishmongers
Shop, Market Place,
North Walsham
Empty commercial property
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity and
causing pest control
problems
Work progressing to bring
back into use.
42
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
Agenda Item No___13__________
Proposed designation of Local Development Order on land at Egmere – Report on
responses received during the consultation process and proposed further action
Summary:
Conclusions:
This report:
provides a summary of the issues raised through the public
consultation exercise undertaken by the Council in proposing to
designate land at Egmere for future development in support of
offshore wind energy developments off the North Norfolk coast
through the use of Local Development Order powers.

proposes that the Council commissions consultants to
undertake a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and Habitat
Survey in support of the Local Development Order.

advises that the Council proceeds with seeking to designate
land at Egmere for future development through the use of Local
Development Order powers through preparing all the necessary
documents required to support such an Order – ie a draft Order
and Schedule of Development, Access Strategy, Design Guide
and Landscape Plan.
The report recommends that the Council should proceed with its
proposals to establish a Local Development Order at Egmere to
facilitate investment associated with offshore wind energy
developments through:
the commissioning of some technical survey work which
strengthens the evidence base in support of the proposed
Order,

preparation of a draft Order and Schedule of Development, an
Access Strategy, Design Guide and Landscape Plan;
prior to seeking endorsement of the Order from the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government.
Recommendations:
Cabinet is recommended to:1. Note the contents of the comments received on the proposed
Egmere Local Development Order through the public consultation
process and invite comment on the representations received.
2. Make available a budget of up to £20,000 from the General
43
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
Reserve to commission a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment
and Stage 1 Habitat Survey so as to strengthen the evidence base
in support of the proposed Order,
3. Agree proposed changes to the area covered by the LDO
designation as outlined at Section 8 of the report.
4. Provides delegated authority to the Corporate Director, in
consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio holder for Planning, to
proceed with preparing final documents in support of the Order
before seeking approval of Full Council for the Local Development
Order to be sent to the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government for endorsement.
Cabinet member(s):
Cllr Tom FitzPatrick
Ward(s) affected: Primarily Walsingham, with some impact
on the Priory ward
Cllr R Oliver
Contact Officer, telephone
number, and e-mail:
Steve Blatch, Corporate Director
Steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Tel:- 01263 516232
44
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
1.0
Introduction
1.1
At the meeting of Cabinet held on 13th December 2012, Cabinet received and endorsed
a report proposing the designation of land at Egmere for future development in support
of offshore wind energy developments off the North Norfolk coast through the use of
Local Development Order powers, and authorised officers to undertake public
consultation on such a proposal during the early part of this year.
1.2
This report seeks to provide Cabinet with details of the consultation exercise undertaken
and the responses received, and recommends future actions by the Council in seeking
to establish a Local Development Order at Egmere.
2.0
The Proposal
2.1
To designate approximately 28 hectares of land at Egmere (in the Walsingham and
Wighton parishes) on the B1105 to the south of Wells-next-the-Sea under Local
Development Order powers for future development by offshore wind operators and their
suppliers / contractors. The area proposed for such designation comprised the following
land uses:


approximately 12.7 hectares of previously developed land (part of which was in
commercial uses, with other parts vacant and accommodating empty commercial
(office and warehouse) premises),
approximately 1 hectare was under development by SCIRA, operators of the
Sheringham Shoal development, to provide offices and warehouse
accommodation for the company‘s Operations and Maintenance facilities
approximately 14.8 hectares of greenfield land, currently in agricultural use.
The proposal envisaged that in addition to clearly specifying the types of development
which would be permitted under the Local Development Order, any Order would also be
supported by an Access Strategy, detailed Design Guide and Landscaping Plan.
3.0
The Consultation Process
3.1
The public consultation exercise was conducted over period 21st January – 15th March
2013, supported by the following actions:
preparation of a consultation leaflet (attached at Appendix X);

the staging of two public exhibitions and attendance by the Leader of the Council
and Corporate Director at meetings of Wells Town Council and Walsingham
Parish Council;

details of the proposal and consultation process on the North Norfolk District
Council website;

sending personal letters to the owners / occupiers of residential properties in the
vicinity of the proposed LDO advising them of and inviting them to submit
comments on the proposal;
45
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC

sending letters to town and parish councils in the B1105 corridor – ie Wells-nextthe-Sea and Fakenham Town Councils and Barsham, Holkham, Sculthorpe,
Walsingham and Wighton parish councils advising them of and inviting them to
submit comments on the proposed LDO.

erecting posters promoting the public consultation process displayed in the
vicinity of the proposed LDO and on parish notice boards in the above-mentioned
parishes.

promotion of the consultation and the proposal through media releases issued by
the District Council.
3.2
Quite late in the consultation period, following a representation from a resident of
Burnham Thorpe in the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council area, consultation
on the proposed Local Development Order was also undertaken with the Borough
Council and the parish councils of North and South Creake and Burnham Market, Overy
and Thorpe; as well as the two local borough councillors, a local county councillor and
Henry Bellingham MP.
3.3
At 10th April 2013, 43 consultation responses had been received including:13 in support of the proposal, 2 with conditions
14 comments
16 objecting
3.4
The key issues raised through the consultation process are outlined at Section 4 below.
A full schedule detailing all of the comments received and the response of the Council
can be viewed at on the Council‘s on-line planning portal.
4.0
Objections / Issues raised through the consultation process
4.1
16 representations were received during the consultation process from people /
organisations objecting to the proposed Local Development Order; with 14
representations making comments. The principal grounds for people objecting to or
commenting on the proposal include the following issues:-
4.2
Whether the use of Local Development Order powers is an appropriate tool for
enabling development in a predominantly rural setting.
4.2.1 A number of respondents to the consultation process raised this issue, suggesting that
LDOs are more appropriate in bringing forward long-term vacant sites in ―economically
deprived‖ parts of the country, often in support of Government designated Enterprise
Zones.
4.2.2 Whilst the Coalition Government has promoted the use of LDO powers in seeking to
encourage and facilitate new job-creating investment within Enterprise Zones as part of
its wider agenda of wanting to support the economic growth; legislation granting powers
to local planning authorities to establish Local Development Orders dates from the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. They are a therefore a tool by which
local authorities can seek to promote and facilitate investment and development through
agreeing a simplified planning regime for certain locations / types of development.
North Norfolk District Council believes that for defined business uses, associated with
support for offshore wind energy developments, an LDO is an appropriate mechanism
46
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
by which new investment can be accommodated in the district in an expanding sector of
the national and regional economy. The Council has therefore developed and consulted
upon the Egmere LDO proposal in this context.
4.3
Principle of development in open countryside, conflict with Core Strategy policies
as they relate to development in the Countryside and Landscape Character
Assessment.
4.3.1 The reasons for the Council proposing the establishment of an LDO at Egmere are
clearly outlined in the consultation literature – ie the proposed site is outside of Wells /
the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), on the principal access
road to the town; and set against a backdrop of similar development.
4.3.2 The Council therefore believes it has demonstrated why the Egmere location has been
proposed for this development, outside of established Core Strategy policies. Further,
the LDO proposal includes significant areas of structural planting to minimise the impact
of development in the wider landscape.
4.4
Relationship of site to the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
protected natural environment sites.
4.4.1 These issues have been considered in proposing the LDO, but based on the
consultation comments received it is suggested that the Council should commission a
Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and a Phase 1 Habitat Survey in order to
demonstrate that the impact of development proposed through the LDO would not have
a significant impact on landscape or habitat grounds. Such issues have recently been
considered in respect of development proposals made on nearby sites (solar pv farm
and anaerobic digestion facilities) which did not identify any significant impacts which
could not be addressed through appropriate mitigation measures.
4.5
Highways issues and traffic speeds along the B1105 road.
4.5.1 In proposing the LDO the District Council undertook prior consultation with the County
Council in its capacity as Highway Authority. These conversations established that the
B1105 road has the capacity to serve the proposed LDO development, subject to
preparation of a detailed Access Strategy. As part of such a Strategy, the County
Council would seek the stopping up of a number of existing site accesses onto the
B1105 road through Egmere / Bunkers Hill.
4.5.2 Discussions have been held with landowners about whether these requests can be
accommodated and a response submitted to the County Council. A response has been
received from the Highway Authority which indicates their agreement in principle to
many of the proposals made to either exclude some sites from the area covered by the
proposed LDO or stopping up a number of existing site accesses, so as to reduce the
incidences of slowing / turning traffic on the B1105 through Egmere or concentrate such
movements to a reduced number of access points. Local partners are considering the
further response from County Highways, particularly regarding the proposed access
arrangements to serve sites at the northern end of the proposed LDO and will seek to
address continued concerns through the Access Strategy.
4.5.3 Further, in proposing the LDO, the District Council suggested that a 40 mph speed limit
be put in place along the length of the B1105 road through Egmere / Bunkers Hill as a
road safety measure. County Highways expressed a view that it would be difficult to
enforce a speed limit at this location, a position which the District Council has
47
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
questioned given the introduction of speed limits on similar, and indeed better, roads
elsewhere in the District. The District Council‘s suggestion that a speed limit be
introduced along the B1105 road through Egmere as part of any Local Development
Order received support from a number of respondents to the consultation process and it
is recommended, if the Council wishes to proceed with wanting to establish an LDO,
that the authority continues to lobby the County Council to support the introduction of a
speed limit at this location.
4.6
Design of buildings.
4.6.1 Concern was expressed by a number of respondents that development taken forward as
part of any LDO would be unco-ordinated and essentially be a ―free-for-all‖.
4.6.2 Any development taken forward under LDO powers will be controlled through
preparation of a detailed Design Guide, taking reference from the high quality operations
and maintenance facilities recently established at Egmere by the SCIRA company,
operators of the Sheringham Shoal offshore wind development.
4.7
Concern about impact of lighting on dark skies.
4.7.1 This issue was raised by a number of people commenting as part of the consultation
process.
4.7.2 This issue could be considered as part of any Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and
controlled through the Design Guide and it is suggested that further consideration be
given to types of lighting etc as part of finalising the Guide.
4.8
Relationship of site to historic / heritage assets.
4.8.1 This issue has been raised by a number of people / organisations commenting as part of
the consultation process – particularly the impact of any development on the setting of
the Grade 1 Listed Holkham Hall and Parkland. Particular concerns were expressed
over the possible height of buildings and telecommunications masts and aerials which
might be permitted through the LDO.
4.8.2 These concerns are acknowledged, and will be considered further as part of the
Landscape Visual Impact Assessment.
Heights of buildings suggested in the
consultation material took reference from existing development at Bunkers Hill and
assessment of long-distance views of the site from the east and some amendment to
building heights is already proposed.
4.9
Concern about designation of LDO creating pressure for further development in
Wells Harbour.
4.9.1 This concern was raised by a number of people objecting to the proposal to establish an
LDO at Egmere.
4.9.2 However, the Wells Harbour Commissioners have publicly stated that they do not
propose any further expansion of the Outer Harbour and, as development within Wells
Harbour is subject to separate control and licensing arrangements, this is not
considered to be a directly relevant consideration in respect of establishing an LDO at
Egmere.
5.0
Issues raised in support of the proposed Local Development Order through the
consultation process
48
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
5.1
13 representations were received during the consultation process from people /
organisations supporting the proposed Local Development Order, 2 with conditions.
5.2
Support for the proposed Local Development Order was received from Fakenham and
Wells-next the-Sea Town Councils, Holkham Parish Council and Walsingham Parish
Council (with conditions); as well as the Holkham and Walsingham Estates, Wells
Harbour Commissioners, the Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (with
conditions), and local businesses operating in the wind energy sector.
5.3
People / organisations supporting the proposed LDO commented positively on the
Council‘s wish to create a simplified planning regime where development associated with
the offshore wind energy developments could be directed supporting a diversification
and strengthening of the local economy and attracting / creating new jobs in the area. A
number of the businesses providing comments suggested that they might be interested
in taking space within any development at Egmere if the Local Development Order was
to be approved.
6.0
Comments received from statutory consultees
6.1
The following comments were received from statutory consultees. Their comments are
included within the numbers of ―comments‖ received during the consultation process, but
due to their formal status in the consideration of planning applications, their position is
outlined below, so that the Council has a full understanding of the comments they have
made.
6.2
English Heritage
6.2.1 English Heritage advised that it did not object to the overarching principle of designating
areas of land for specific development under a LDO, but wished to raise a number of
concerns in relation to development at Egmere.
6.2.2 English Heritage commented that it was important to recognise that there are important
historic environment assets in the vicinity of the LDO including:
the Scheduled Monument of Egmere village, a deserted medieval village which
includes the ruined Grade II* listed church and

the Grade I registered Park and Garden at Holkham Hall estate which is an
important landscape, with specific designed views, avenues and vistas. The park
also includes a number of highly valued listed assets within it, including amongst
others, the Grade I listed Triumphal Arch.
English Heritage stated that it is important to recognise that part of the significance of
these assets is derived from their setting, and in particular from the landscape in which
they are seen and experienced. Any development which impacts upon the setting of the
assets would therefore bring a degree of harm to those assets.
6.2.3 The comments made by English Heritage drew attention to policies in the NPPF which
relate to the historic environment and suggested that any policies developed for the LDO
would need to take into account these policies - in particular the presumption in favour of
sustainable development (paragraph 14) and the core planning principle, which states
the importance of seeking to ‗ conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their
significance, so that that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of
this and future generations‘. Attention was also drawn to NPPF paragraph 132, where
‗great weight‘ is given to the conservation of assets.
49
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
6.2.4 In relation to the proposed LDO at Egmere, English Heritage commented that it was not
in a position at this stage to accept or object to the principle of this proposal, as they
believed there was insufficient information provided in relation to the ―kinds of
development that were being proposed and their likely impacts‖. Concerns were
expressed however that the proposal could have a negative impact upon designated
heritage assets particularly about impacts through height, e.g. masts, chimneys,
turbines, fencing or tall buildings; or from large or massed development that might be
visible from the heritage assets or within direct lines of sight as such development and
any ancillary associated structures such as fencing or masts could cause further harm to
the setting of the assets.
6.2.5 The English Heritage comment therefore suggested that the organisation would
welcome the opportunity to work with the LPA to better understand the nature of the
proposed development and to develop an approach which will ensure there is no harm to
the setting of heritage assets. However, comment was made that the LDO should not be
granted unless a full impact assessment is undertaken. This will be needed to
demonstrate that any proposed development within the area designated under the LDO
will not have a harmful impact upon the setting of heritage assets. Elements of the
proposals for associated infrastructure may also need to be restricted in order to ensure
harm is reduced. The Council will also need to take full account of the principles and
tests established for the historic environment within the NPPF and ensure this is
implemented in the policies for this LDO.
6.2.6 Comment was made that English Heritage would also like to bring to the attention of the
Council the importance of the historic landscape in this part of Norfolk and noted that
there are also a number of important Grade II listed buildings within the vicinity of the
proposal that will need to be considered as well as consideration being given to
undesignated archaeological assets and that the local authority‘s archaeological
advisors are consulted to ensure an appropriate mitigation strategy is developed.
6.2.7 Proposed response to English Heritage comments:- The District Council suggests that
consideration was given to the relationship of any development at Egmere with the
heritage assets of the Egmere ―lost village‖ and the historic Holkham Estate. The ―lost
village‖ is approximately 1,000 metres to the south-west of the proposed LDO, separated
by existing built development and the recently approved proposals for an anaerobic
digestion facility and solar pv farm. It is therefore considered that the impact of any
development permitted under the LDO would have negligible impact upon the ―lost
village‖ of Egmere. Similar assessment was made of the impact of any development
taken forward under any LDO on the Holkham Hall Estate. The registered Park and
Garden are situated some 1800 metres from the northern boundary of the proposed
LDO and any development taken forward under the LDO is considered to have limited
impact upon the heritage asset, particularly when considered against the existing
development of grain storage buildings and feed mill at the Bunkers Hill, Egmere site
and the recently approved anaerobic digestion facility and solar pv farm developments,
the former of which includes a 10 metre high vent stack. However the impact of any
development taken forward under LDO on heritage assets could be considered further
as part of the proposed Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, whereupon consideration
could be given to possible mitigation measures such as location and extent of any
structural planting, amending the boundaries of the LDO etc or indeed the authority
deciding not to pursue the LDO.
6.3
Environment Agency
6.3.1 The Environment Agency commented that in considering the consultation material
prepared for the Local Development Order and the nature of the site at Egmere they
50
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
―currently have no reason to suggest that we would object in principle to development of
the type proposed at this location‖.
6.3.2 However, the Agency commented that they would wish for a number of conditions to be
included within any Order relating to Flood risk and surface water drainage;
Groundwater and land contamination; Land Contamination; Surface water
Infiltration Systems; and Pollution prevention and have very helpfully proposed draft
conditions for inclusion within any Order. It is suggested that these draft conditions be
used as the basis of any conditions relating to these matters within any LDO made by
the Council.
6.4
Natural England
6.4.1 Natural England commented that the Egmere location is located approximately 5km from
the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is part of the
North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (SPA). Further comment is made that
European sites (including SPAs) fall within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats
and Species Regulations 2010 and under Regulation 61 of the Regulations an
Appropriate Assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which
is:
(a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination
with other plans or projects); and
(b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site
Where a Likely Significant Effect on a European / Internationally designated site is
identified or uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority)
may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts
through the EIA process.
The Natural England comment states that Reg 78 of The Habitats & Species
Regulations 2010 refers to Local Development Orders:
78. A local development order may not grant planning permission for development
which—
(a)is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine
site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects); and
(b)is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site.
6.4.2 Therefore any LDO which will result in a likely significant effect will not be compliant with
the Habitat Regulations. This requirement is also outlined in Circular 1/06 (Guidance on
changes to the Development Control System):
―LDOs are restricted from permitting development that is likely to have a significant effect
on a European site. This restriction of the power to make an LDO covers potential
development not only on such a European site, but also development in the vicinity that
might affect the site.‖ (Para 18, Circular 1/06).
6.4.3 Natural England therefore states that it is vital to understand how the LDO may affect
European sites before it is progressed further in order to ensure that the LDO only
contains development that is appropriate in the context of the relevant legislation as
development listed in Schedule 1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
2011 is not permitted through an LDO and Schedule 2 development can only be
permitted subject to compliance with the EIA regulations.
6.4.4 Natural England advises that the Council should ensure any proposal is compliant with
the requirements of the Habitats Directive and Regulations before adopting an LDO and
would expect that a screening process is carried out if a Local Authority intends to
submit an LDO, in order to accord with the EIA regulations and Habitats Regulations.
51
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
Some LPAs have carried out an ―Integrated Impact Assessment‖ to accompany a draft
LDO using existing evidence covering not only our requirements but those from other
statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage.
6.4.5 Comment is made based on the consultation material prepared that Natural England
believes it unlikely that the development proposed will have an adverse effect on the
special interest features of the North Norfolk Coast SPA, however it is difficult to know
this for certain given the limited information currently available. Natural England has
therefore requested that the council provides sufficient information to demonstrate that
the proposals will not have a significant effect on the European site.
6.4.6 Natural England also makes comments in respect of the local landscape stating that the
proposed LDO is within 300m of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB) and that it believes development at this location is likely to affect landscape
character. Natural England therefore advise that a landscape and visual impact
assessment should be undertaken; which should be based on good practice guidelines
such as those produced jointly by the Landscape Institute/Institute of Environmental
Assessment 2002 (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and
Assessment (2002, 2nd edition): Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment- Guidance for England and Scotland).
6.4.7 Comment is also made by Natural England about Soil and Agricultural Land Quality in
that soil is a finite resource that fulfils many important functions and services (ecosystem
services) for society. It is therefore important that the soil resources are protected and
used sustainably.
Natural England therefore suggests that any environmental
assessment should consider the degree to which soils are going to be disturbed/harmed
as part of this development and whether high grade agricultural land is involved,
possibly involving an assessment of agricultural land classification and a soil survey of
the land. Any assessment should provide details of how any adverse impacts on soils
can be minimised. Further guidance is contained in the Defra Construction Code of
Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soil on Development Sites.
6.4.8
Natural England also advise that the proposed LDO should also consider possible
impacts on Protected Species through having regard to the requirements of the Habitats
Directive (Regulation 9(5) of the Habitats Regulations). In order to comply with this duty
the LPA can only grant planning permission for development that would affect a
European Protected Species on the basis that:

The proposed development is in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Habitats
Directive, which relates to the protection of species.

The proposal would be likely to receive a Protected Species license from
Natural England, if required.
If the site of the proposed LDO contains habitats that suggests protected species may
be present or there is existing information that suggests particular protected species may
be present on site; then Natural England recommends that further survey work should
be undertaken, before formal adoption of the LDO, with respect to the protected species
identified. This would ensure that appropriate mitigation can be incorporated into the
LDO and where necessary conditions can be applied to ensure no detrimental harm to
protected species.
6.4.9
Natural England have also stated that the proposed LDO might provide opportunities to
incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the
incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes,
having regard to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act
(2006) which states that 'Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have
52
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose
of conserving biodiversity'. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that 'conserving
biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or
enhancing a population or habitat'.
6.4.10 The District Council understands the comments and issues raised by Natural England
and comments that it has given initial consideration to the impact of any development
under the LDO on wildlife and biodiversity issues through reference to statements
contained in the adopted Landscape Character Assessment which states that ―the
ecological value of the area is fairly low but has the capacity to be greatly enhanced by
improvements which would have a connective effect with neighbouring areas of higher
ecological value (through new planting)‖. Reference was also made to the contents of
the supporting information provided in support of the recently approved anaerobic
digestion and solar pv farm facilities on nearby sites. However, in light of Natural
England‘s comments and other comments received through the consultation process it is
proposed that the Council should commission at Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Landscape
Visual Impact Assessment in the further consideration of the landscape and wildlife
impact of the proposed LDO.
6.5
Norfolk Coast Project
6.5.1 The Norfolk Coast Partnership Project Manager has questioned whether the principle of
an LDO is appropriate in a rural location and suggests that the consultation material has
not adequately explained why the Egmere location was chosen. The District Council
believes that the reasons for identifying Egmere for the proposed LDO was outlined in
the consultation leaflet and public exhibition material and has sought to strike an
appropriate balance between seeking to meet the needs of offshore wind energy
companies seeking access to their developments off the North Norfolk coast through the
facilities at the Port of Wells and the sensitive environment of the Norfolk Coast AONB.
6.5.2 However, notwithstanding the reservations of further accommodating employment
related development at Egmere, 350 metres south of the nearest point from the AONB
boundary; the Norfolk Coast Partnership Project Manager has commented that ―having
visited the surrounding area for the purpose of assessing potential visual impacts from
the Norfolk Coast AONB, I do not consider that these impacts would necessarily be
significant.‖ The AONB Project Manager goes on to state that ―There might be some
visibility of new buildings from the B1105 and the minor road running east off this (via
Crabb Castle Farm) which demarks the AONB boundary and from the track E of Gallow
Hill to the north, at least initially, but I consider that this would be of minor significance
and mitigated further in time by the proposed planting, and which would also help to
screen the tall existing buildings to the west of the B1105. Visibility from public highways
and paths further to the north east appears to be limited and distant.‖ He then goes on
to state that conditions could be applied to any LDO which ―would help to mitigate the
visual impact of the proposed development through including a suitable mix of locally
appropriate species for planting schemes, to maximise its screening ability at all
seasons, limiting the number and aggregation of taller structures such as masts, and
strict conditions on lighting to avoid light spillage and use for longer than necessary.
6.5.3 The comments of the Norfolk Coast Partnership Project Manager are appreciated and
the District Council believes that the LDO could be delivered largely as proposed,
supported with structural planting and appropriate conditions etc without having
significant impact on the AONB.
6.6
Norfolk Historic Environment Team
53
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
6.6.1 Comments received from the Norfolk Historic Environment Team relate to the previous
use of large areas of the proposed LDO as the technical area of the Second World War
RAF North Creake airfield.
6.6.2
Comment is therefore made that any new buildings developed in the areas of
―brownfield‖ land should respect the former airfield layout and existing airfield buildings.
A request is also made that the site should be recorded in its current state as a baseline,
with existing military buildings be retained where possible, and recorded prior their
demolition, if retention is not possible. The recording of the site in its current state should
be carried out by an individual or organisation with specialist expertise in the recording
and interpretation of military aviation heritage.
6.6.3
The District Council has considered the comments of the Norfolk Historic Environment
Team and has proposed a number of amendments to the LDO boundaries which will
seek to afford some protection to remaining airfield buildings. The Council would also
propose either discussing the requirement for a photographic record to be made of the
site with the existing landowners and/or attaching conditions for such a record to be
made in respect of specific sites / buildings before any new development takes place.
6.7
Norfolk County Council (Highways)
6.7.1 The comments of the Highway Authority and a proposed response from the District
Council are detailed at section 4.5 above; with the issues raised to be formally
addressed through the preparation of an Access Strategy in support of the LDO.
7.0
Human Rights Implications
7.1
It is considered that the proposed designation of a Local Development Order at Egmere
might raise issues relevant to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – The Right to respect
for private and family life and Article 1 of the First Protocol – the Right to peaceful
enjoyment of possessions.
7.2
Having considered the likely impact on an individual‘s human Rights, and the wider
interests of the general public, it is not believed that agreement to designate a Local
Development Order at Egmere for the purposes proposed would be without justification,
disproportionate or in contravention of planning laws. Where concerns have been raised
by local residents and residential property owners, particularly the occupants of
residential properties at Bunkers Hill, attempts have been made to amend the LDO
proposals, as outlined below, so as to minimise the impact upon residential amenity.
8.0
Proposed changes to the LDO following the consultation process:-
8.1
On the basis of the consultation comments received to date, it is proposed that a number
of changes are made to the draft Local Development Order, as follows and shown on the
attached plan:
Omit the North Creake Business Park site to the south of the Bunkers Hill
residential properties from the area covered by any LDO – concerns were
expressed by the Highway Authority about access into this site were it to be
included within the LDO, in that the current access is sub-standard and therefore
the Highway Authority would wish to retain the ability to comment on any proposals
for the re-use / redevelopment of this site. Taken together with the concerns of the
owners / occupiers of the Bunkers Hill residential properties that they would wish to
retain the opportunity to comment formally on any proposals developed on this
site, it is suggested that this land be excluded from the LDO and the boundary of
the LDO at this location be re-drawn to the north of the residential area.
54
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC

Immediately to the east of the B1105, opposite the Bunkers Hill residential
properties, there is a former wooded ―sandhole‖ or pit which has limited
development potential and is quite well wooded. Propose including this area within
the LDO area but change the status of this area to strategic planting in support of
the LDO – ie dark green as per other areas of structural planting.

Extend the area of woodland planting to the east of the B1105 to the south of the
existing LDO boundary so as to join up two small areas of woodland. This would
involve the Walsingham Estate planting an area of currently fallow land given the
restricted area for agricultural machinery. This has been proposed in lieu of the
proposed planting of a triangular area of planting further east.

Propose retaining the former airfield buildings (largely nissen huts) owned by the
Walsingham Estate to the south of the Edgar Road junction within the LDO area,
with suggestion that comment is made that these will be retained / improved for
business use rather than being the subject of demolition. This will address the
concerns of some local residents and the County Historic Buildings Team that
elements of airfield heritage associated with parts of the site might be lost as a
result of the LDO proposals.

Undertake a review of the proposed building heights within the LDO as outlined in
the consultation leaflet so as to reduce the visual impact of the development from
long-distance views.

Draw the boundary of the LDO to the south of the SCIRA building inwards in
response to the request from the Walsingham Estate that a triangle of new
woodland be created to the south-east of the LDO which was felt to add little in
terms of screening being in a dip in the land, but would have seen more land taken
out of agricultural use.

Narrow the area of structural planting along the eastern edge of the Walsingham
Estate land north of Edgar Road but create woodland belt along the whole of the
boundary rather than leaving a gap as proposed within the consultation leaflet.
8.2
In order to address some concerns expressed during the consultation process regarding
the extent to which any development taken forward under the LDO would have a
landscape impact, an impact on heritage assets and wildlife / habitats, it is
recommended that the Council should commission a Stage 1 Habitat report and
Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, so as to strengthen the evidence base in support
of the proposed LDO. Such studies are estimated to cost up to £20,000 and it is
recommended that budgetary provision is made to commission such studies from the
General Reserve. Cabinet authority is therefore sought for this budget allocation to be
made, so that these technical reports can be commissioned.
9.0
Financial Implications and Risks
9.1
Some of the responses received from the public consultation process have raised issues
regarding the proposed designation of an LDO at Egmere. It is believed that the majority
of the issues raised have been previously considered by the Council in proposing the
Egmere location for the LDO – ie the location of the proposed LDO, its relationship with
the Norfolk Coast AONB, highway access issues, design issues etc and that the position
of the Council with respect to these matters is reasonable and measured. However,
some concerns have been raised in respect of the impact of development upon the
landscape, heritage assets and wildlife / habitats and it is proposed that studies are
55
Cabinet
13th May 2013
Full Council
TBC
commissioned by the Council in respect of these matters in order that the Council is able
to demonstrate that the proposed LDO does not cause significant harm in respect of
these matters as required by legislation particularly in respect of Appropriate
Assessment / Environmental Impact Assessment. The costs of these reports is detailed
at paragraph 8.2 above.
9.2
The growth and development of the renewable energy sector and the potential
opportunities this offers to the district‘s economy in terms of new investment, skilled
employment opportunities at rates of pay above those currently on offer locally, and
contract / supply chain opportunities for existing businesses, are considered to be
significant. The expanding wind energy developments off the North Norfolk coast are
being developed in response to national policy and the District Council wishes to ensure
that local residents and businesses are able to derive benefit from this emerging sector
of the national economy. The actions proposed in this report therefore seek to position
the Council positively in terms of the district being able to realise the benefits of this
emerging economic sector for many years to come. In this respect it is considered that
there are few if any risks, but many potential benefits, from the actions proposed in this
report in terms of bringing quality jobs and investment to North Norfolk.
9.3
If a decision is taken to take forward the LDO proposal, some infrastructure works might
be required to open up individual sites eg – highway access, utility provision etc. Such
costs should generally be met by the landowners / investors, but it might be that the
Council wishes to consider whether any investment required to bring the land forward for
development under an LDO could be met by the Council either through seeking to
secure sources of grant funding or taking some form of equity stake in any development
through contributing towards any site servicing costs. Any such model can be explored
if Cabinet so wishes.
10.0
Sustainability
10.1
At a strategic level the growth of renewable energy technologies is seen as a
fundamental component of the UK energy supply mix moving forward. In this respect
the actions proposed in this report seek to place the North Norfolk District in a strong
position to benefit from the growth of this sector both within and off the coast of North
Norfolk into the future.
11.0
Equality and Diversity
11.1
This report does not raise any equality and diversity issues, but does seek to secure new
business and employment opportunities for local people in a sector where skilled
positions will offer rates of pay above the district average.
12.0
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
12.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Crime and Disorder.
56
Appendix F
Key
LDO Boundary
10m max. Building Height
12m max. Building Height
18m max. Building Height
SCIRA HQ Facilities
Proposed Structure Planting
Existing Residential Area
Historic Buildings to be retained/improved
Scale = 1:6000
Proposed Egmere Local Development Order
Plan A - Building Heights and Zones
North Norfolk District Council
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 9EN
Tel: 01263 513811 Fax: 01263 515042
57
RJD
2nd Rev 25 Mar 2013
© Crown Copyright
and database right
2013
Ordnance Survey
100018623
Aerial Photos
©Getmapping plc