Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 20 July 2011 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr P W Moore
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Strategic Director - Information (for Item 25), the Strategic Director –
Community (for item 28), the Environmental Services Manager (for item
29) The Sustainability Coordinator (for item 30), the Health Improvement
Officer (for item 31) the Chief Executive (for Item 32) and the Democratic
Services Team Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs L Brettle, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr P High, Mr G Jones, Mrs A Moore, Mrs
B McGoun, Mr R Shepherd, Mr N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard and Mr D Young
18 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mr G Williams and Mr R
Wright.
19 SUBSTITUTES
Mrs B McGoun for Mrs A Green and Mr D Young for Mr G Williams
21 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Four Members of the public had questions relating to Item 28, Victory Housing
Disposal Strategy. These were taken at the start of the item.
22 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2011 were signed as a correct record.
23 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
20 July 2011
24 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mrs V
Uprichard
Minute No.
Item
Victory Housing Disposal
Strategy
Interest
Personal – is a tenant
of Victory Housing
25 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Strategic Director – Information informed the Committee that a petition entitled
‘Protect the Wensum Valley’ had been submitted by Mr S Bushby on behalf of the
Ryburgh Village Action Group. All petitions received were reviewed against the
Council’s Petitions Scheme. If a petition complied with the Scheme then it would usually
be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee unless it was of a significant
scale then it would be presented to Full Council. This petition was not eligible to be
considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as it related to a planning
application, which was excluded under the Scheme. As the planning application
concerned was due to be put back before the Development Committee, the petition and
its contents would be presented to Members at the relevant meeting.
A Member asked for further information regarding the current position of the planning
application concerned. The Strategic Director – Communities replied that it had been put
before the Development Committee on 20 January 2011 and had been approved
subject to conditions. Since then concerns had been raised regarding highway
conditions and there was a possibility that badgers crossed the site. In light of the new
concerns and representations, the decision had been taken to refer it back the
Development Committee.
26 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
27 THE FORWARD PLAN
A Member asked why the Corporate Plan was not listed on the Forward Plan and
whether it would come to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a future date. The
Democratic Services Team Leader said that she would look into why it was not listed on
the Forward Plan. In response to the second question, she replied that if it was a key
decision it would be presented to Cabinet first, then Overview and Scrutiny and finally
Full Council. It was suggested that once the timescale for the Corporate Plan was
known it should be added to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
28 VICTORY HOUSING DISPOSAL STRATEGY
Four Members of the public had questions relating to Victory Housing’s Disposal
Strategy:
1. Mrs G Lisher, a resident of Stibbard asked for assurances that any proceeds from
the sale of housing stock would be reinvested into building new properties. She
requested further information on the time taken to construct any new properties
funded by such sales and raised concerns regarding the redundancies within the
housing maintenance team.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
20 July 2011
2. Mr J Lisher, a resident of Stibbard was concerned that housing stock would be
further reduced in villages where it was already limited. He sought assurances that
Victory Housing would continue to build in these areas.
3. Mr B Keeling, an employee of Jeakins Weir, the company subcontracted by Victory
Housing to carry out most of its maintenance work, said he believed that Victory
Housing’s disposal strategy was directly responsible for the loss of 10 jobs at
Jeakins Weir. He asked Victory Housing to justify the decision to favour disposal
over upgrading properties.
4. Mr Lee of Bacton Parish Council raised concerns on the behalf of local residents
regarding maintenance of their properties. He said that Victory Housing was selling
three properties in Bacton and there was still a lengthy waiting list for maintenance –
particularly for damp problems.
It was agreed that the questions would be addressed during the presentation.
Before the presentation started, The Strategic Director – Community introduced the two
speakers, Mr J Archibald, Chief Executive of Victory Housing and the Deputy Chief
Executive, Mr D. Cox. He briefly outlined the background to the establishment of the
Victory Housing Trust in 2006, when the Council’s housing stock was transferred to the
Trust. Victory Housing Trust was currently the largest Housing Association in North
Norfolk, with 4854 dwellings – 80% of the total social housing stock in the District. He
reminded Members that a report on Affordable Housing would come to the Committee in
September 2011.
Mr Archibald began the presentation by outlining the achievements of the Trust to date.
He emphasised the importance of achieving their strategic objective – to provide homes
of a high standard and optimise the performance of their property assets. A recent
stock condition survey had provided increased information about their properties and
highlighted the poor condition of some homes. Despite this, stock disposal was kept to a
minimum – about 25 properties a year. He concluded by emphasising the impact of the
Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 on Housing Associations – including the need
for an asset management strategy to ensure the release of resources through
conversion of voids and sales. Mr Cox then continued the presentation, focussing
specifically on the Trust’s Asset Management Strategy. Over 50% of the Trust’s stock
was pre-1965, with 1% falling within the category of highly vulnerable as far as financial
viability was concerned. There was also a misalignment with housing need across the
District – with a predominance of family homes with high levels of under-occupancy. He
concluded the presentation by outlining Victory Housing Trust’s bid to the Homes and
Communities Agency (HCA) for 2011 – 2015. The bid was based upon the intention of
building 60 new homes a year with an average grant of £15,000 per property. The
intention to dispose of 25 units per year of poorly performing stock was included within
the bid but it clearly stated that any proceeds from the sales would fund new supply
within the District.
Members discussed the presentation:
a) A Member asked whether the Council received a share of the profits for any Victory
Housing Trust property sold on the open market. Mr Archibald responded that such
disposals fell outside of the Right to Buy arrangement where the profits were shared
with the Council. For open market sales, any proceeds would have to be 100%
reinvested in new build within the District.
b) Clarification was sought regarding vacant sheltered housing in North Walsham.
Some properties appeared to have been empty for some time. Mr Archibald said
that the provision of sheltered housing was currently under review. Grant funding
had been cut by 53% and this affected the Trust’s ability to provide a service.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
20 July 2011
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Therefore, bedsits that became void were being kept vacant as it was believed that
they were no longer suitable. He added that the issue of sheltered housing provision
was due to be discussed at the next meeting of the Trust’s Board of Directors.
A Member commented on what he perceived to be disparity within the figures during
the presentation. He also felt that a 2% increase in funding from the HCA was too
low. Mr Archibald agreed that the increase was low but added that Trust was putting
their own money into building new properties, whereas previously the Council had
also contributed. Council input was not included in the current bid.
The same Member then queried the length of time that some properties remained
vacant. He was aware of a property that had been vacant since January 2011. Mr
Archibald replied that the average re-let time for a void was 30 days.
The Chairman reminded Mr Archibald that a public question had been received
regarding redundancies within the maintenance team. Mr Archibald said that the
redundancies were not linked to the disposal strategy at all. Mr Cox added that the
Trust did not employ its own operatives. They had subcontracted out to Norse
initially and then to Jeakins Weir from 2010. As targets for repairs and maintenance
had been reached, demand for such work had dropped and less money was being
spent on maintenance now. As the development of new homes increased there
would be more opportunities for construction work.
A Member asked why the Trust could not reinvest in poor quality properties
themselves. This would ensure that social housing was retained in areas where it
was most needed. Another Member added that the option of demolishing such
properties and rebuilding should also be considered instead of selling. Mr Archibald
replied that they did demolish and rebuild on some sites. Only the least viable
properties were sold and they were always voids.
The Chairman asked how the Trust justified applications to build on Greenfield sites
when they were disposing of sites within towns and villages that were more suitable
for building homes on.
A Fakenham Member asked for figures for disposals, upgrades and new builds for
the town. Mr Archibald said that he did not have the figures to hand but would look
into it.
Following a further question from a member of the public relating to social housing in
Fakenham, the Chairman suggested that the Town Council should contact Victory
Housing direct and arrange for them to attend a Town Council meeting to address
concerns.
29 WASTE CONTRACT
The Environmental Services Manager provided an update on the new Waste and
Associated Services contract which commenced in early April 2011. Generally the
transfer of services to Kier Street Services Ltd had gone very well with only a few
isolated problems. These had been resolved quickly through close working between
council staff and Kier. There was potential for further disruption when the new round
structures were introduced in August 2011. Any existing problems with difficult access
areas were being factored into the new round structure to reduce further problems. The
transfer of customer services would go ahead on 1 August 2011. This meant that any
calls relating to Kier’s services would be directed to Kier for recording and resolution.
He concluded by saying that Members should be aware that the contract had not yet
been signed by Kier. Concerns had been raised by Kier regarding their ability to source
a suitable pensions bond that satisfied the council’s requirements. These concerns had
been addressed and it was expected that the contract would be signed by Kier shortly.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
20 July 2011
Members discussed the update:
a) The Chairman asked that Members should be notified as soon as possible of the
changes to the waste collection routes so they could address any concerns their
constituents may have.
b) The issue of noisy bottle banks was raised. Previously some bottle banks had been
lined with carpet to reduce noise levels. As yet the new bottle banks were unlined
and a Member wanted to know whether there were plans to address this. The
Environmental Services Manager replied that they intended to line the bottle banks
as soon as possible, where there were complaints.
c) A Member asked why a constituent of her ward, complaining to the Council about
their bin collection, had been sent a detailed questionnaire which included questions
regarding their sexual orientation. The Environmental Services Manager said that
the questionnaire had not been sent out by his team. It must have been a standard
document sent out by Customer Services to anyone making a complaint.
d) The lack of bottle banks for brown glass was raised. The Environmental Services
Manager said that Kier was looking to expand the number of bottle banks across the
board, including some new sites. In some cases it was possible that they should be
emptied more frequently. He added that Kier were now using the processing facility
at their Aylsham depot which should improve the service considerably. He advised
Members that in the meantime, brown glass could be deposited in the green glass
banks. A note would be put in the Members Bulletin confirming this.
e) A Member asked why the putting greens at Sheringham and Cromer had initially
been excluded from the contract and whether anything else had been missed. The
Environmental Services Manager said that traditionally the putting greens had been
dealt with outside the remit of the waste contract. It had been decided that it would
add value to include it within the new contract. He reassured Members that nothing
else had been excluded.
f) A concern was raised about disruption to the waste collection service over the
August bank holiday. The Environmental Services Manager reassured the
committee that notice of any changes in collection would be given in advance as
usual. He added that Kier had been made aware that the summer holiday season
was a very busy time in the District and that the amount of waste was likely to
increase significantly.
g) A Member was concerned about whether Kier’s failure to find a suitable pension
bond would impact on the Council in any way. The Environmental Services Manager
said that a clause in the contract required Kier to have a bond in place to protect the
Council. However, the bond market was very depressed in recent years and they
had struggled to find a bond that met all the requirements. A Parent Company
Guarantee was in place now and both parties were keen to proceed and sign the
contract.
h) Some parishes had concerns about the new bottle banks having wheels. There was
also an issue with broken glass around the banks. The Environmental Services
Manager said that the wheels could be locked but Kier had also chained some bottle
banks to prevent them being moved. As far as broken glass was concerned, Kier
was responsible for clearing it up. He asked Members to let him know if they had
specific concerns.
AGREED
To receive a monitoring report on the Waste and Associated Services contract
every 3 months.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
20 July 2011
30 UPDATE ON PROGRESS UNDER THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY THEME
The report updated Members on the completed and proposed future work under the
environmental sustainability theme. Good progress had been made on all activities to
date. The Sustainability Coordinator highlighted the main achievements:
1. Voltage optimisation equipment had been installed at three NNDC leisure centres.
Initial results showed immediate savings in electricity costs. The ICT server
virtualisation project was continuing. To date, there had been a 37% reduction in
electricity usage.
2. Councils were now required to measure and report on their carbon emissions using
a new method. The format meant a slight change in the amount of emissions but it
was likely that the benefits would show next year.
3. The Council’s Green Travel Plan continued to be successful. 10% fewer staff
travelled to work by car regularly than in 2009 and there had been a 6% increase in
those who cycled to work.
4. Following the success of the business environment project with Global Action Plan
(GAP) in Fakenham, the sustainability team was considering a project to offer
environmental business advice to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the
District working with partners such as the North Norfolk Business Forum (NNBF).
The government’s new Green Deal would also be available to businesses from
autumn 2012.
5. The sustainability team was working in partnership with the County Council and
National Express East Anglia to produce a travel plan for North Walsham station.
The plan would be launched during the late summer of 2011.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member asked whether there were incentives to encourage Members to car
share. The Democratic Services Team Leader replied that those members carrying
passengers could now claim an additional payment for those journeys. A Member
added that agendas for site visits included a reminder to consider car sharing.
b) It was pointed out that the Bittern Line was very full at certain times of the day and
that consideration should be given to reducing the congestion before promoting
increased use of the line. The Sustainability Coordinator replied that a new franchise
would be awarded in March 2012 and there would be a consultation period prior to
this where concerns could be raised.
c) A Member said that the proposals to increase parking at North Walsham station
were in conflict with the overall aim of reducing car journeys. The Sustainability
Coordinator replied that the travel survey had shown that there were not enough
parking spaces. The initial aim was to increase use of the line and then they would
focus on reducing car journeys.
d) Clarification was sought on the increased electricity costs at the Fakenham CCTV
unit. The Sustainability Coordinator replied that the location of the meter was
unknown for several years and the Council had been receiving estimated bills. The
meter had now been located and there was a significant increase in payments to
cover the actual usage which was much higher than the estimated bills. She added
that new, more efficient CCTV monitors had been installed which should reduce
costs in the long term.
e) It was noted that a 3% reduction in carbon emissions would fall short of the overall
target of 33% over 5 years. The Sustainability Coordinator agreed but said she was
confident that projects undertaken over the last year would deliver big savings in the
next 12 months.
f) A Member commented that it might be helpful if payback figures were included in
future reports.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
20 July 2011
RESOLVED
1. to approve the development of the Business Resource Efficiency Advice Project
2. to approve a review of the Environmental Sustainability Strategy by March 2012,
with a draft being brought to the Scrutiny meeting in January 2012
3. to approve the continuation of the Environmental Sustainability Board with two
elected members, the portfolio holder one to be selected and Councillor Simon
Partridge the other.
31 HEALTH STRATEGY UPDATE
The Health Improvement Officer updated the Committee on the Council’s Health
Strategy. The Strategy had been written in 2010 and outlined the Council’s legislative
responsibilities in relation to health and wellbeing.
Current projects included:
1. The establishment of a new North Norfolk Health Improvement Forum in May 2011
to enable organisations to work together on local health priorities
2. MEND – the childhood obesity project was being run via the Councils’ leisure
facilities. This would generate additional income and encourage ongoing use of the
facilities by participants.
3. A new activity referral service from GPs and other health professionals which would
direct patients to council services that promote health and wellbeing
4. A Council event aimed at new councillors and town and parish councils to raise
awareness of the Council’s Health Strategy and how NNDC could support ideas for
improving health and wellbeing at community level.
5. Hindolveston now had a community gym. They had successfully bid for funding from
Awards for All.
6. Shared services – NHS Norfolk’s new Health Trainer service was due to be located
at the Council offices from September. There were also ongoing discussions
regarding shared services and office space with the North Norfolk Clinical
Commissioning Group.
7. The Ageing Well programme – a scheme aimed at supporting local authorities to
prepare for an ageing society. North Norfolk District Council was the only District
Council in the eastern region to have their application approved.
8. Mental Well-being Impact Assessments (MWIA). The programme aimed to support
local authorities to enhance the impact of wellbeing on a specific service. The Arts
Officer had applied for an MWIA for arts and cultural services at the Council. If
successful, the application would focus initially on this area but could be used for
any service in the future.
Members discussed the report:
a) The Chairman said that it would be useful to have a written report on the Health
Strategy in future.
b) A Member asked whether the mobile gym was well used. The Health Improvement
Officer said that it was very well used and the Council had supported some villages
in their application for funding to set up community gyms.
c) Keeping elderly people fit and active was a particular concern. A Member asked
whether the Council had a policy relating to the health of elderly people specifically.
The Health Improvement Officer said that the North Norfolk Health Improvement
Forum recognised the problem of keeping care-home residents active. It was hoped
that the activity referral scheme would provide funding to train staff to work with
residents to improve their fitness and possibly train those working in care homes so
the service could continue.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
20 July 2011
32 ACTIVE COMMUNITIES RESTRUCTURE
The Chairman reminded Members that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was also
responsible for scrutinising crime and disorder matters across the District. The
committee’s role and remit in this area would be assessed at the training day in
September. The Chief Executive added that now there was a county-wide strategic
partnership in place for community safety, the reporting responsibilities were unclear.
The Chief Executive provided an update on organisational restructuring within the
Communities, Coastal and Property teams. He explained that the decision to bring the
three teams together into one single integrated service unit was influenced by the
localism agenda and the need to make savings. The restructuring had resulted in 5
unavoidable redundancies and the creation of a new post to co-ordinate activities
combating anti-social behaviour (ASB). This new post would be jointly funded with
Victory Housing Trust.
1. As far as partnership working was concerned, following the winding up of the Local
Area Agreements and the repeal of the legislative basis for community strategies, a
review on the Council’s partnerships was now underway. As the review was ongoing
it was too early to bring a full report on partnership working to the Committee. At the
Chairman’s request, the Chief Executive agreed to provide a brief oral update on the
process and timescale of the review:
2. The North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP) had gone through a number of
changes. It was now more strategic and had downsized considerably. It was likely
that it would cease altogether as a formal partnership. The final decision would take
place in September 2011 with the most likely outcome being a proposal to move
forward to a standing conference, meeting at least once a year.
3. There were 7 Local Area Partnerships (LAPs) in North Norfolk. They had been set
up under the auspices of the North Norfolk Community Partnership (NNCP). Each
was an independent entity and their relationship with the NNCP was a funding
arrangement. Each LAP had their own coordinator, premises and facilities. Their role
had recently been reviewed by an external consultant and it had been agreed that a
period of time should elapse to allow consideration of their future funding. They
would be funded until the end of the financial year. The NNCP could not wind up the
LAPs but it could make a decision on whether to continue funding them. This
decision was likely to be taken at the September meeting of the NNCP.
4. Funding for the Strategic Partnership came from the County Council. The source
was windfall income from second homes council tax. About 50% of this income went
to the LAPs for projects to support local communities – in North Norfolk this was
about £700,000 worth of funding and there would need to be a discussion about
where this money would go if the Strategic Partnership was wound up.
5. Members would be kept informed of any progress regarding the partnerships via the
Chief Executive and Leader of the Council who both sat on the Board of the
Strategic Partnership.
6. Any decisions taken at the strategic level would need to be tied in with the Council’s
review on community engagement. It was acknowledged that the LAPs were well
placed to respond to community issues but some had not performed as well as
others.
Members discussed the briefing:
a) A Member said that he was surprised to hear that the Committee had responsibility
for scrutinising crime and disorder. At a recent Development Committee meeting
concerns about crime raised by an LAP in response to a planning application had
been thrown out. He wondered whether the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
20 July 2011
should become more involved in scrutinising such issues. The Chairman replied that
the Committee could not comment on individual planning applications. The only
option would be to scrutinise the planning process and whether crime and disorder
issues were considered sufficiently.
b) Concerns were raised regarding the localism agenda. There was not generally a
culture of volunteering and this could cause problems at parish level. The Chairman
suggested that it might be useful for all Members to have a briefing session on the
Localism Bill once it had been passed, so they could consider the impact on local
communities.
c) A Member asked about the restructuring of the Active Communities team and
whether there were arrangements in place during the transition period to ensure the
Council was fulfilling its role regarding crime issues. The Chief Executive said that
the low crime rate in the District justified a reduction in investment. The Community
Safety Manager would stay in post until the new ASB position was filled.
d) There was a concern that the review of the partnerships had not involved Members.
Reports and minutes from the Local Strategic Partnership had not been circulated to
Members previously and reassurances were sought that Members would definitely
be kept informed in the future. It was also felt that the Council did not appear to
support the LAPs and the work they did. The Chief Executive replied that the Leader
sat on the LSP Board and was happy to report back to Members. Minutes were
available via the NNDC website. As far as the supporting the LAPs was concerned,
their future needed to be decided by the Board. The main concern of the Council
was to ensure that communities were supported at local level.
AGREED
To consider how the Committee would deal with partnership issues at the Training
day in September
33 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme and summarised issues for future discussion:
1. The action list from the last meeting of the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny
Committee (NHOSC) was available and would be circulated to all committee
Members.
2. The Democratic Services Team Leader would check with the Chief Executive
whether the Corporate Plan should be included on the Forward Plan
3. A hard copy of the Victory Housing Trust presentation would be distributed to
committee members.
4. The Environmental Services Manager would put an article in the Members’ Bulletin
on placing brown bottles in the green bank in the short term
5. The Committee would receive a three-monthly report on the new Waste and
Associated Services contract
6. In future the committee would receive a written report on the Health Strategy. The
notes from this meeting would be reproduced in the Members’ Bulletin
7. The Committee’s role regarding crime and disorder issues would be discussed at
the training session in September
8. The consideration of crime and disorder issues as part of the planning process
would be considered as a future topic for the work programme
9. The Chief Executive would give a briefing session on the Localism Bill once the
legislation had been passed
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
20 July 2011
The meeting concluded at 1.15pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10
20 July 2011