Please Contact: Mary Howard
Please email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516047
10 April 2012
A meeting of the North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 18 April 2012 at 6.00 p.m.
There will be an opportunity before the start of the meeting for Members to take part in
prayer led by Revd Canon Dr David Court, Vicar, Cromer Parish Church with St Martin’s.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: All Members of the Council
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 and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
To receive the Chairman’s communications, if any.
2.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is also
prejudicial. The declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the
interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest,
the member may speak and vote. If it is a prejudicial interest, the member should
withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is discussed.
3.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
4.
MINUTES
(attached – page 1)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 22 February 2012.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B (4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
6.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To consider any questions received from members of the public.
7.
APPOINTMENTS
a) TO APPOINT MR S WARD TO REPLACE MR J PUNCHARD ON THE AUDIT
COMMITTEE
b) TO APPOINT MISS B PALMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE REVENUES
AND BENEFITS PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
8.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 12 MARCH 2012
Agenda Note
The Recommendations at Item 9 were endorsed by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 28 March 2012.
MINUTE 104: INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE AND
‘DO I NEED PLANNING PERMISSION?’ ENQUIRIES
(See item 14, page 25)
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
the adoption of the proposals following consultation with local agents, the
development industry , the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the consideration
of the outcome thereof by the Corporate Director and Head of Planning and
Building Control in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, prior to implementation
with effect from 1 May 2012.
MINUTE 105: NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL TENANCY STRATEGY
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within
12 months of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011.
The Tenancy Strategy is presented for consideration and
adoption.
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within
12 months of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. The
Strategy encourages social landlords in North Norfolk
through the use of fixed term tenancies, Affordable Rent
and Transfers to:
•
To maintain stable and sustainable communities
especially in more rural parts of the district where local
community infrastructure such as schools and shops
are supported by balanced populations including newly
forming households and young families
•
To make better use of the existing social housing stock
through enabling a reduction in under occupation
•
To ensure that specialist accommodation can be made
available to households most in need.
To agree the North Norfolk District Council Tenancy
Strategy and recommend to Full Council for adoption.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Ward(s) affected:
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Karen Hill, Housing Services Manager, 01263
516183
Karen.hill@north-norfolk.gov.uk
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
To agree the North Norfolk Tenancy Strategy
9.
RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET 16 APRIL 2012
FIRST ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
(See item 13)
Recommendation to follow
10.
RECOMMENDATION FROM EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE OVERVIEW
AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 17 APRIL 2012
FIRST ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Recommendation to follow
(See item 13)
11.
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012-13
(Cabinet Agenda 16 April 2012 – p.15)
(Appendix A – electronic only) (Appendix B – Cabinet Agenda 16 April 2012 page17)
Summary:
This report presents the final Annual Action Plan 201213.
Conclusions:
The public consultation process engaging with town and
parish councils and other local organisations has proved
helpful in producing a robust Annual Action Plan 201213.
Recommendations:
I propose that you recommend that Full Council
adopt the Annual Action Plan 2012-13.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Helen Thomas, 01263 516214, Helen.Thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
12.
INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE AND “DO I NEED
PLANNING PERMISSION” ENQUIRIES
(attached – page 25)
(Appendix A – page 31)
(Appendix B – page 33)
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
This report seeks authority for the adoption of a schedule
of charges covering pre-application advice and “Do I need
planning permission?” enquiries
That the Council adopts these proposals with effect
from 1 May 2012, subject, in the case of major
applications, to half of the fees paid at pre-application
stage being used to offset the formal application fee.
Cabinet member(s):
Keith Johnson
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
13.
Ward(s) affected:
All
Steve Oxenham, 01263 516135
Steve.oxenham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
A POLICY POSITION ON SECTION 106 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
(attached – page 36)
Summary:
At the present time North Norfolk District Council does
not have an agreed policy position in respect of
negotiating Section 106 contributions from new retail
developments in the District. The Council is aware of a
number of proposals for new retail developments which
might be considered acceptable subject to assessing the
impact of the proposals and any mitigating measures on
established town centres in the district. The Council
therefore needs to agree an interim policy position in
respect of such proposals as a matter of some priority.
Conclusions:
In order to consider the impact of new retail proposals on
the vitality and viability of established town centres
across the District the Council should develop a clear
policy position with regard to such proposals as a matter
of priority.
Recommendations:
Full Council is recommended to:Ask the Cabinet to explore the policy options
available to the Council in seeking to secure Section
106 contributions from new retail proposals at its
meeting of 14th May 2012 meeting and draft an
interim policy for debate and endorsement by Full
Council at its meeting of 30th May 2012.
Cabinet member(s):
Cllr Keith Johnson
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
14.
Ward(s) affected:
Wards in North Norfolk’s eight principal
settlements
Steve Blatch, Corporate Director
Steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Tel:- 01263 516232
CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY ANNUAL REVIEW
(attached – page 39)
(appendix C – page 42, appendix D – page 45)
Summary:
The Constitution Working Party has identified a number
of sections within the Constitution document that
require amendments and updates, for which approval
is sought. In addition, Members of the Working Party
have identified a number of provisions that will need
amendment or updating that are contingent on the
outcomes of structural review, the publication of
regulations and guidance or technical review by other
committees or officers of the Council.
Conclusions:
The Constitution should be amended or updated in
accordance with the recommendations of the
Constitution Working Party, where those amendments
or updates are not contingent on other events or
information.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Members:
(i)
approve the Constitution amendments
and actions proposed in Appendix C;
(ii)
note the provisions within the
Constitution that will be reviewed after
the management restructure is
completed, to be reported to the Council
for approval at a later meeting (Appendix
D);
(iii)
note those provisions within the
Constitution where amendments or
updates stand deferred pending
publication of relevant regulations and
guidance (Appendix D);
(iv)
note those provisions within the
Constitution that are to be referred for
review by the relevant committees and/
or officers before amendments or
updates are considered by the
Constitution Working Party (Appendix D).
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number, Tony Ing, Strategic Director – Information
and e-mail:
01263 516080, tony.ing@northnorfolk.gov.uk
15.
SENIOR MANAGEMENT RESTRUCTURE
Report to follow.
16.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
(attached – page 46)
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
17.
Licensing and Appeals Committee – 14 November 2011
Audit Committee – 6 December 2011
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 25 January 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 31 January 2012
Cabinet – 6 February 2012
Development Committee – 9 February 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 15 February 2012
Development Committee – 8 March 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
To receive reports from the Cabinet or Members of the Cabinet.
18.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
To receive questions from Members.
19.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received
20.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received
21.
SEALED DOCUMENTS
Recommendation:
(attached – page 113)
That the list of sealed documents is received by Members.
Contact: Tony Ing 01263 516080
Email: tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
22.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution – if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public
be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
paragraph(s) _ of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
NOT FOR PUBLICATION – BY VIRTUE OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF PART 1 OF
SCHEDULE 12A (AS AMENDED) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
23.
PAY AND GRADING
(attached – page 114)
(Appendix E – page 121, appendix F – page 130, appendix G – page 131, appendix
H – page 132, appendix I – page 133, appendix J – page 135)
(Source: Julie Cooke, Organisational Development Manager, Ext.6040,
julie.cooke@north-norfolk.gov.uk)
Agenda Item
4
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 22 February 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mr M Baker
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B Hannah
Mr P W High
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
107.
Mr T Ivory
Mr K E Johnson
Mr G R Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B A McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Miss B Palmer
Mr S Partridge
Mr R Price
Mr R Reynolds
Mr J D Savory
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mr P Terrington
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr S Ward
Mr G Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Monitoring Officer, the
Organisational Development Manager, the Acting Financial Services
Manager, the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH) and the
Democratic Services Officer
The press and members of the public.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
Mr J Perry-Warnes was home from hospital and making a good recovery.
108.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr B J Hannah
115,
120(d)
Appointment of Members to the
Big Society Board
Personal and nonprejudicial –is a
Member of Norfolk
County Council and
on the Board of the
Upcher Partnership
Recommendations from Cabinet
6 February 2012, Item 11
Full Council
1
22 February 2012
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr G R Jones
115,
120(d)
Appointment of Members to the
Big Society Board
Personal and nonprejudicial –is a
Member of Norfolk
County Council and
on the Board of the
Griffon Partnership
Recommendations from Cabinet
6 February 2012, Item 11
109.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr B Jarvis, Mr R Oliver, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr
J Punchard, Mrs A C Sweeney and Mrs H Thompson.
110.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 14 December 2011 and the extraordinary
meeting of the Council held on 11 January 2012 were approved as correct records, after the
following drafting amendment:
11 January 2012, Minute 105, Items of Urgent Business: The first item should read:
“Ms V R Gay to replace Mr P W High as a substitute on the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and Mr P W High to replace Ms V R Gay on the Planning Policy and Built
Heritage Working Party
This matter was urgent because if the changes weren't formalised until the next scheduled
meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2012 it would potentially prevent Ms Gay from
substituting at 3 meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (25 January, 31
January and 15 February 2012) and Mr High from being a Member of the Planning Policy
and Built Heritage Working Party on 20 February 2012.
RESOLVED
1. That Ms V R Gay replaces Mr P W High as a substitute on the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
2. That Mr P W High replaces Ms V R Gay on the Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party.”
111.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
112.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Questions had been received from Mrs G Lisher, Mr S Eastwood and Mr N Lee. The questions
concerned car park charges. Mr Lee also presented a petition with 1327 signatures on behalf
of North Walsham Chamber of Trade.
The Chairman advised that, although the questions would be taken, there would be no right of
reply as the subject was not on the agenda. However the views of the speakers would be
noted and taken into account.
Full Council
2
22 February 2012
113.
APPOINTMENTS
a) MRS V UPRICHARD TO REPLACE MR S PARTRIDGE ON THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
RESOLVED
To appoint Mrs V Uprichard to replace Mr S Partridge on the Development Committee.
b) APPOINTMENT OF MR N SMITH TO REPLACE MR R WRIGHT ON THE OVERVIEW
AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr N Smith to replace Mr R Wright on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
c) TO APPOINT MRS A CLAUSSEN-REYNOLDS TO REPLACE MR R OLIVER ON THE
AUDIT COMMITTEE
RESOLVED
To appoint Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds to replace Mr R Oliver on the Audit Committee.
d) TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF MRS H EALES TO THE SHADOW HEALTH
AND WELL BEING BOARD
RESOLVED
To approve the appointment of Mrs H Eales to the Shadow Health and Well Being Board.
e) APPOINTMENT OF MR K E JOHNSON TO THE PATROL ADJUDICATION AND BUS
LANE ADJUDICATION JOINT COMMITTEE
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr K E Johnson to the PATROL Adjudication and Bus Lane Adjudication
Committee.
f) TO APPOINT MR N SMITH TO A VACANCY ON THE BROADS INTERNAL DRAINAGE
BOARD
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr N Smith to a vacancy on the Broads Internal Drainage Board.
114.
PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE – REVENUES AND BENEFITS SHARED SERVICES –
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND APPROVAL OF TERMS OF REFERENCE
RESOLVED to
1. Appoint Mrs H Eales, Mr W J Northam, Mr E Seward and Mrs A Moore (substitute) to
the Partnership Committee – Revenues and Benefits Shared Services and to appoint a
Conservative Group substitute at the meeting of Full Council on 18 April 2012.
2. Approve the Terms of Reference.
Full Council
3
22 February 2012
115.
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BIG SOCIETY BOARD
RESOLVED
to appoint Mrs H Eales, Mr P W High, Mr T Ivory, Mr B Jarvis and Mr J A Wyatt to the Big
Society Board.
116.
COMMUNITY COVENANT
The Leader was due to sign the Norfolk Armed Forces Community Covenant at a ceremony at
County Hall on 7 March 2012. The Cabinet was looking at ways of taking forward some of the
areas identified in the Community Covenant action plan.
RESOLVED
to endorse the Leader’s signing of the Covenant on behalf of North Norfolk District Council.
117.
CONSTITUTION ANNUAL REVIEW
In accordance with paragraph 14.1 in chapter 1 of the Constitution, the Council needed to
undertake a review at least annually. The review was best undertaken by the Constitution
Working Party.
RESOLVED that
1. The Constitution Working Party should undertake the annual review of the content and
operation of the Constitution and that recommendations arising from the review are
scheduled to be reported to Full Council on 18 April 2012.
2. The following Members be appointed: Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, Ms V R Gay, Mr K E
Johnson, Mrs A Moore and Mrs H Thompson.
118.
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL
The Independent Member Remuneration Panel (IRP) was appointed for a 4 year term with
effect from 14 December 2011 and consisted of 3 members: Paddy Seligman, John
Wollocombe and Richard Draper. The Chair of the Panel was selected by its members at the
start of the meeting where it was agreed that John Wollocombe would be the Chairman.
The IRP met on 13 January 2012 to consider the available evidence before making the
recommendations being put to the Council and was assisted by the Chief Executive,
Corporate Director – Information, and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
The Council was required to observe as part of the legislation, the following; ‘before an
authority makes or amends a scheme, it shall have regard to the recommendations made in
relation to it by an independent remuneration panel’. The findings and recommendations of the
Panel were detailed in the report.
RESOLVED
1.
To adopt a scheme of allowances and amend the Constitution accordingly.
2.
That:
a) the Basic Allowance should remain at £4,054.88 pa;
b) the Scheme should remain index linked to officers’ pay awards;
c) the broadband allowance should remain at £180 pa subject to Members agreeing a
reduction to reflect the change in market prices since 2008;
Full Council
4
22 February 2012
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL
(Continued)
d) the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Leader of the Council should
remain calculated by way of a multiplier of x3 the basic allowance;
e) the SRA for Cabinet Members with Portfolio should remain calculated by way of a
multiplier of x2.33 the basic allowance;
f)
the SRA for Regulatory Committees of the Council should remain calculated by way of
a multiplier of x1.67 the basic allowance;
g) until the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011 come into force, the SRA in
respect of the Standards Committee be paid to the non-elected Chairman of that
committee less the basic allowance;
h) the SRA for the Chairman of the Council should remain calculated by way of a
multiplier of x1.33 the basic allowance;
i)
the SRA for the Leader of the main opposition group should remain calculated by way
of a multiplier of x1.33 the basic allowance;
j)
payment of £50 per session (0.5 of a day) should continue to be made to co-opted
members of the Standards Committee;
k) the carers’ allowance should be set at the national minimum wage for Child
Dependants and the national minimum wage plus £3 for Non-Child Dependants, with
discretion being delegated to the Chief Executive to increase this amount when
individual circumstances justified a higher payment;
l)
the payment of a carers’ allowance should be confirmed as being extended to
attendance at outside bodies and that this should be explicitly stated within the
Constitution;
m) the existing travelling and subsistence expenses scheme should be maintained, and it
should be subject to amendment in accordance with prevailing national agreements;
n) the changes proposed by the Panel are not backdated, but should take effect from the
beginning of the municipal year, in May 2012;
o) Members’ Allowances should remain ineligible for admission to the Norfolk Local
Government Scheme;
p) the existing arrangements for temporarily stopping the payment of allowances to a
Member while suspended from their role are maintained until the relevant provisions of
the Localism Act 2011 come into force removing the power to suspend a Member from
their role.
119.
BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX SETTING 2012/2013
The report was introduced by the Portfolio Holder, Mr W J Northam. His speech is attached at
Minutes Appendix A.
The Portfolio Holder added a recommendation, not contained in the report, to allow for a
£42,000 virement to be made from within the capital budget from the BPR EDM (Business
Process Re-engineering – Electronic Data Management) budget to the Sheringham East
promenade public conveniences budget to allow for this scheme to be completed.
The Leader seconded the recommendations. She told Council that the Cabinet had
established their priorities including regeneration plans for North Walsham, establishing a Big
Society Fund, investing in the Pier and tackling issues such as long-term empty properties.
Localism was at the heart of the Cabinet’s aims.
Full Council
5
22 February 2012
BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX SETTING 2012/2013
(Continued)
The Car Park Charges, which had been the subject of public questions at the beginning of the
meeting, had been to Cabinet on 28 November 2011, Overview and Scrutiny on 13 December
2011 and agreed by Full Council on 14 December 2011. A statutory parking order had been
published. Any objections would be considered by officers and Cabinet when the statutory
period had ended. Cabinet would also be holding further discussion regarding the free car
parks.
The Leader of the Opposition, Ms V R Gay, said that her Group did not support the proposed
budget and would be voting against it, considering the increase in car parking charges to be
unnecessary and potentially detrimental to business and tourism. There was no provision in
the budget for pay increases for staff, for youth projects or for green business. Mr R Smith also
expressed concern that the budget didn’t include any help for young people, especially since
Norfolk County Council had severely cut their provision for youth.
Mr P W Moore supported Ms Gay. He said that he was pleased that Cabinet would be having
further discussion regarding the free car parks and expressed concern that their abolition
would mean that workers would use prime town centre car parks and that there would be
nowhere for shoppers to park. Mr G R Jones also expressed concern about the impact
increased charges could have on residents.
Mr M J M Baker said that he was happy that there was no increase in the Council Tax but
expressed concern about the effects on business and tourism. Responding to a question from
Mr Baker the Leader undertook to ascertain the current amount of Council Tax arrears and the
plans for recovery and to report back to him.
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, Mr E Seward, told the meeting that not all the
recommendations before them had been fully supported by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee. The investment in North Walsham was welcomed but the petition presented by
the Chamber of Trade at the beginning of the meeting asking for reconsideration of the car
park charges should be taken into account. He welcomed the news that the matter of the free
car parks was to be re-discussed. As a local Member, Mr Seward had received representation
from the Principal of Paston College who, together with some of the students, would welcome
the opportunity to engage with the Council.
In response to a question from Mr G R Jones the Acting Financial Services Manager
explained that there had been no increase in income from the district element of the Collection
Fund assumed for the next 3 years as a result of any increases in the level of new homes.
This was however a prudent approach as an increase in new homes would not necessarily
result in increased income from the Collection Fund due to various issues such as the transfer
of properties from council tax to business rates and the various discount schemes.
RESOLVED
That having considered the Chief Financial Officer’s report on the robustness of the estimates
and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves, the following be approved:
a) The General Fund Revenue Budget for 2012/13;
b) to allow for a £42,000 virement to be made from within the capital budget from the BPR
EDM (Business Process Re-engineering – Electronic Data Management) budget to the
Sheringham East promenade public conveniences budget to allow for this scheme to
be completed.
c) The Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves and the Optimum Level of the
General Reserve 2012/13 to 2015/16 (Appendix D);
Full Council
6
22 February 2012
BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX SETTING 2012/2013
(Continued)
d) The level of the General Reserve maintained at a minimum of £950,000;
e) The General and Earmarked Reserves are employed as shown in the Reserves
Statement (Appendix C);
f)
It was NOTED;
that at its meeting on 14 December 2011, Full Council calculated the following Council Tax
bases for the year 2012/13 in accordance with regulations made under Section 33(5) of
the Local Government Finance Act 1992: a) 41,366 being calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local
Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as its Council Tax
base for the year;
It was further RESOLVED;
That members undertake the council tax and statutory calculations set out at section 4,
and set the Council Tax for 2012/13: b)
PART OF THE
COUNCIL PART OF THE
COUNCIL
COUNCIL'S AREA
TAX BASE COUNCIL’S AREA
TAX BASE
Alby with Thwaite
101.59 Little Barningham
41.70
Aldborough
239.73 Little Snoring
229.47
Antingham
129.06 Ludham
530.95
Ashmanhaugh
70.55 Matlaske
64.05
Aylmerton
197.53 Melton Constable
199.08
Baconsthorpe
90.67 Morston
58.30
Bacton
516.06 Mundesley
1198.52
Barsham
105.49 Neatishead
244.88
Barton Turf
241.32 North Walsham
4270.63
Beckham East/West
122.08 Northrepps
333.34
Beeston Regis
416.00 Overstrand
459.84
Binham
180.36 Paston
88.85
Blakeney
540.22 Plumstead
53.21
Bodham
176.83 Potter Heigham
435.03
Briningham
65.81 Pudding Norton
83.31
Brinton
122.56 Raynham
134.66
Briston
889.03 Roughton
352.39
Brumstead
26.10 Runton
760.81
Catfield
354.27 Ryburgh
243.12
Cley
319.93 Salthouse
123.39
Colby
195.18 Scottow
303.76
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
277.85 Sculthorpe
293.21
Cromer
3127.55 Sea Palling
224.92
Dilham
143.47 Sheringham
3252.42
Dunton
51.95 Sidestrand
49.36
East Ruston
189.82 Skeyton
88.55
Edgefield
185.87 Sloley
91.96
Erpingham
250.61 Smallburgh
193.75
Fakenham
2674.71 Southrepps
324.74
Felbrigg
79.03 Stalham
1142.23
Full Council
7
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodestone
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Glandford
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
196.07 Stibbard
136.83 Stiffkey
180.52 Stody
163.84 Suffield
84.11 Sustead
171.85 Sutton
139.40 Swafield
97.67 Swanton Abbott
314.97 Swanton Novers
135.17 Tattersett
78.41 Thornage
192.34 Thorpe Market
425.79 Thurning
287.57 Thursford
207.97 Trimingham
236.45 Trunch
94.49 Tunstead
1697.13 Upper Sheringham
126.48 Walcott
618.98 Walsingham
39.15 Warham
808.98 Wells-next-the-Sea
151.75 Westwick
44.83 Weybourne
62.93 Wickmere
91.26 Wighton
93.58 Witton
156.49 Wiveton
196.76 Wood Norton
246.91 Worstead
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
138.94
128.17
94.47
58.20
91.93
413.02
116.89
151.76
87.74
287.66
96.37
113.42
30.21
108.66
151.60
371.43
274.09
95.81
243.46
379.52
82.46
1107.11
31.81
332.96
61.56
111.39
132.23
88.59
101.01
329.24
123.95
being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the Local
Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as the amounts of its Council
Tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which special items may relate
(parish precepts).
4.6
That the following amounts be now CALCULATED by the Council for the year 2012/13 in
accordance with Sections 31A to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the
relevant regulations and directions as follows:a)
b)
Full Council
£63,840,201 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the expenditure items set out in Section
31A(2) (a) to (f) of the Act.
£56,556,771 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the income items set out in Section 31A(3) (a)
to (d) of the Act. This includes the amount the Council
estimates will be transferred in the year from its collection
fund to its general fund in accordance with Section 97 (3) of
the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (council tax
surplus of £44,675).
8
22 February 2012
c)
d)
e)
f)
£7,283,430 being the amount by which the aggregate at (a) above
exceeds the aggregate at (b) above, calculated by the
Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, to be
its council tax requirement for the year.
£176.0729 being the amount at (c) above divided by the amount at
4.5(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with
Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its
Council Tax for the year.
£1,538,934 being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to
in Section 34(1) of the Act.
£138.8700 being the amount at (d) above less the result given by
dividing the amount at (e) above by the amount at 4.5 (a)
above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with
Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council
Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to
which no special item relates.
g)
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham East/West
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodestone
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Full Council
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AREA
162.4943
159.7267
156.3037
179.9755
171.6498
155.4135
167.9363
156.8811
157.5174
158.5292
170.1200
163.8200
181.4452
174.2146
157.2283
170.6180
165.6857
160.7497
215.7221
172.5572
198.2995
168.7299
154.6744
168.4605
164.8067
191.3654
164.1768
146.5203
160.7950
161.0282
167.8616
180.4821
165.0556
9
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
Matlaske
Melton Constable
Morston
Mundesley
Neatishead
North Walsham
Northrepps
Overstrand
Paston
Plumstead
Potter Heigham
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Roughton
Runton
Ryburgh
Salthouse
Scottow
Sculthorpe
Sea Palling
Sheringham
Sidestrand
Skeyton
Sloley
Smallburgh
Southrepps
Stalham
Stibbard
Stiffkey
Stody
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
148.4623
167.1961
155.4534
143.5538
189.1010
156.0226
180.6323
162.6244
174.5204
182.2311
171.8597
188.3916
169.8792
166.2244
160.4760
180.4562
167.2476
149.3851
171.7755
165.2092
161.9145
155.9226
185.1620
187.7161
163.1811
151.2923
166.8713
170.8700
174.1289
182.6440
176.2962
177.8806
164.2748
22 February 2012
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with Glandford
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AREA
151.7824
159.3471
161.6499
168.4623
159.9132
171.1045
158.5416
168.4280
167.2394
162.1307
165.3278
184.9525
154.6827
162.2956
158.0270
191.4003
147.4367
187.7212
168.2677
171.7431
174.1339
166.0282
169.9738
153.0452
155.0055
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
Suffield
Sustead
Sutton
Swafield
Swanton Abbott
Swanton Novers
Tattersett
Thornage
Thorpe Market
Thursford
Trimingham
Trunch
Tunstead
Upper Sheringham
Walcott
Walsingham
Warham
Wells-next-the-Sea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
164.6431
155.1867
155.4309
167.9571
169.1810
170.2126
149.2989
154.4350
174.1371
166.4790
180.6905
182.6198
162.9496
191.0983
171.7296
181.0285
199.5054
200.2911
186.9238
195.7251
170.2911
146.4325
189.1014
160.2342
166.2056
being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4.6(f) above to the amounts of the special
item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned above
divided in each case by the amount at 4.5(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance
with Section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings
in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.
h)
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham East/West
Beeston Regis
Full Council
108.32
106.48
104.20
119.98
114.43
103.60
111.95
104.58
105.01
105.68
113.41
B
£
126.38
124.23
121.56
139.98
133.50
120.87
130.61
122.01
122.51
123.30
132.31
C
£
D
£
144.43
141.97
138.93
159.97
152.57
138.14
149.27
139.44
140.01
140.91
151.21
10
162.49
159.72
156.30
179.97
171.64
155.41
167.93
156.88
157.51
158.52
170.12
E
£
198.60
195.22
191.03
219.97
209.79
189.94
205.25
191.74
192.52
193.75
207.92
F
£
234.71
230.71
225.77
259.96
247.93
224.48
242.57
226.60
227.52
228.98
245.72
G
£
270.82
266.21
260.50
299.95
286.08
259.02
279.89
261.46
262.52
264.21
283.53
H
£
324.98
319.45
312.60
359.95
343.29
310.82
335.87
313.76
315.03
317.05
340.24
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodestone
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Full Council
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
109.21
120.96
116.14
104.81
113.74
110.45
107.16
143.81
127.41
141.12
135.50
122.28
132.70
128.86
125.02
167.78
145.61
161.28
154.85
139.75
151.66
147.27
142.88
191.75
163.82
181.44
174.21
157.22
170.61
165.68
160.74
215.72
200.22
221.76
212.92
192.16
208.53
202.50
196.47
263.66
236.62
262.08
251.64
227.10
246.44
239.32
232.19
311.59
273.03
302.40
290.35
262.04
284.36
276.14
267.91
359.53
327.64
362.89
348.42
314.45
341.23
331.37
321.49
431.44
115.03
132.19
112.48
103.11
112.30
109.87
127.57
109.45
97.68
107.19
107.35
111.90
120.32
110.03
101.18
106.23
107.76
112.30
106.60
114.06
105.69
112.28
111.49
108.08
110.21
123.30
103.12
108.19
105.35
127.60
98.29
125.14
112.17
114.49
116.08
110.68
113.31
102.03
103.33
134.21
154.23
131.23
120.30
131.02
128.18
148.83
127.69
113.96
125.06
125.24
130.55
140.37
128.37
118.05
123.93
125.72
131.02
124.37
133.08
123.31
130.99
130.07
126.10
128.58
143.85
120.30
126.22
122.90
148.86
114.67
146.00
130.87
133.57
135.43
129.13
132.20
119.03
120.55
153.38
176.26
149.98
137.48
149.74
146.49
170.10
145.93
130.24
142.92
143.13
149.21
160.42
146.71
134.91
141.64
143.68
149.74
142.14
152.09
140.92
149.71
148.65
144.11
146.95
164.40
137.49
144.26
140.46
170.13
131.05
166.86
149.57
152.66
154.78
147.58
151.08
136.04
137.78
172.55
198.29
168.72
154.67
168.46
164.80
191.36
164.17
146.52
160.79
161.02
167.86
180.48
165.05
151.78
159.34
161.64
168.46
159.91
171.10
158.54
168.42
167.23
162.13
165.32
184.95
154.68
162.29
158.02
191.40
147.43
187.72
168.26
171.74
174.13
166.02
169.97
153.04
155.00
210.90
242.36
206.22
189.04
205.89
201.43
233.89
200.66
179.08
196.52
196.81
205.16
220.58
201.73
185.51
194.75
197.57
205.89
195.44
209.12
193.77
205.85
204.40
198.15
202.06
226.05
189.05
198.36
193.14
233.93
180.20
229.43
205.66
209.90
212.83
202.92
207.74
187.05
189.45
249.24
286.43
243.72
223.41
243.33
238.05
276.41
237.14
211.64
232.25
232.59
242.46
260.69
238.41
219.24
230.16
233.49
243.33
230.98
247.15
229.00
243.28
241.56
234.18
238.80
267.15
223.43
234.42
228.26
276.46
212.96
271.15
243.05
248.07
251.52
239.81
245.51
221.06
223.89
287.59
330.49
281.21
257.79
280.76
274.67
318.94
273.62
244.20
267.99
268.38
279.76
300.80
275.09
252.97
265.57
269.41
280.77
266.52
285.17
264.23
280.71
278.73
270.21
275.54
308.25
257.80
270.49
263.37
319.00
245.72
312.86
280.44
286.23
290.22
276.71
283.28
255.07
258.34
345.11
396.59
337.45
309.34
336.92
329.61
382.73
328.35
293.04
321.59
322.05
335.72
360.96
330.11
303.56
318.69
323.29
336.92
319.82
342.20
317.08
336.85
334.47
324.26
330.65
369.90
309.36
324.59
316.05
382.80
294.87
375.44
336.53
343.48
348.26
332.05
339.94
306.09
310.01
11
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Glandford
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
Matlaske
Melton Constable
Morston
Mundesley
Neatishead
North Walsham
Northrepps
Overstrand
Paston
Plumstead
Potter Heigham
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Roughton
Runton
Ryburgh
Salthouse
Scottow
Sculthorpe
Sea Palling
Sheringham
Sidestrand
Skeyton
Sloley
Smallburgh
Southrepps
Stalham
Stibbard
Stiffkey
Stody
Suffield
Sustead
Sutton
Swafield
Swanton Abbott
Swanton Novers
Tattersett
Thornage
Thorpe Market
Thursford
Trimingham
Trunch
Tunstead
Upper Sheringham
Full Council
98.97
111.46
103.63
95.70
126.06
104.01
120.42
108.41
116.34
121.48
114.57
125.59
113.25
110.81
106.98
120.30
111.49
99.59
114.51
110.13
107.94
103.94
123.44
125.14
108.78
100.86
111.24
113.91
116.08
121.76
117.53
118.58
109.51
109.76
103.45
103.62
111.97
112.78
113.47
99.53
102.95
116.09
110.98
120.46
121.74
108.63
127.39
B
£
115.47
130.04
120.90
111.65
147.07
121.35
140.49
126.48
135.73
141.73
133.66
146.52
132.12
129.28
124.81
140.35
130.08
116.18
133.60
128.49
125.93
121.27
144.01
146.00
126.91
117.67
129.78
132.89
135.43
142.05
137.11
138.35
127.76
128.05
120.70
120.89
130.63
131.58
132.38
116.12
120.11
135.43
129.48
140.53
142.03
126.73
148.63
C
£
D
£
131.96
148.61
138.18
127.60
168.08
138.68
160.56
144.55
155.12
161.98
152.76
167.45
151.00
147.75
142.64
160.40
148.66
132.78
152.68
146.85
143.92
138.59
164.58
166.85
145.04
134.48
148.33
151.88
154.78
162.35
156.70
158.11
146.02
146.34
137.94
138.16
149.29
150.38
151.30
132.71
137.27
154.78
147.98
160.61
162.32
144.84
169.86
12
148.46
167.19
155.45
143.55
189.10
156.02
180.63
162.62
174.52
182.23
171.85
188.39
169.87
166.22
160.47
180.45
167.24
149.38
171.77
165.20
161.91
155.92
185.16
187.71
163.18
151.29
166.87
170.87
174.12
182.64
176.29
177.88
164.27
164.64
155.18
155.43
167.95
169.18
170.21
149.29
154.43
174.13
166.47
180.69
182.61
162.94
191.09
E
£
181.45
204.35
189.99
175.45
231.12
190.69
220.77
198.76
213.30
222.72
210.05
230.25
207.63
203.16
196.13
220.55
204.41
182.58
209.94
201.92
197.89
190.57
226.30
229.43
199.44
184.91
203.95
208.84
212.82
223.23
215.47
217.40
200.78
201.23
189.67
189.97
205.28
206.77
208.03
182.47
188.75
212.83
203.47
220.84
223.20
199.16
233.56
F
£
214.44
241.50
224.54
207.35
273.14
225.36
260.91
234.90
252.08
263.22
248.24
272.12
245.38
240.10
231.79
260.65
241.57
215.77
248.12
238.63
233.87
225.22
267.45
271.14
235.70
218.53
241.03
246.81
251.51
263.81
254.65
256.93
237.28
237.81
224.15
224.51
242.60
244.37
245.86
215.65
223.07
251.53
240.46
260.99
263.78
235.37
276.03
G
£
247.43
278.66
259.08
239.25
315.16
260.03
301.05
271.04
290.86
303.71
286.43
313.98
283.13
277.04
267.46
300.76
278.74
248.97
286.29
275.34
269.85
259.87
308.60
312.86
271.96
252.15
278.11
284.78
290.21
304.40
293.82
296.46
273.79
274.40
258.64
259.05
279.92
281.96
283.68
248.83
257.39
290.22
277.46
301.15
304.36
271.58
318.49
H
£
296.92
334.39
310.90
287.10
378.20
312.04
361.26
325.24
349.04
364.46
343.71
376.78
339.75
332.44
320.95
360.91
334.49
298.77
343.55
330.41
323.82
311.84
370.32
375.43
326.36
302.58
333.74
341.74
348.25
365.28
352.59
355.76
328.54
329.28
310.37
310.86
335.91
338.36
340.42
298.59
308.87
348.27
332.95
361.38
365.23
325.89
382.19
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Walcott
Walsingham
Warham
Wells-next-the-Sea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
B
£
114.48
120.68
133.00
133.52
124.61
130.48
113.52
97.62
126.06
106.82
110.80
All Other Parts of the
Council’s Area
C
£
133.56
140.79
155.17
155.78
145.38
152.23
132.44
113.89
147.07
124.62
129.27
D
£
152.64
160.91
177.33
178.03
166.15
173.97
151.36
130.16
168.09
142.43
147.73
171.72
181.02
199.50
200.29
186.92
195.72
170.29
146.43
189.10
160.23
166.20
E
£
209.89
221.25
243.83
244.80
228.46
239.21
208.13
178.97
231.12
195.84
203.14
F
£
G
£
248.05
261.48
288.17
289.30
270.00
282.71
245.97
211.51
273.14
231.44
240.07
H
£
286.21
301.71
332.50
333.81
311.53
326.20
283.81
244.05
315.16
267.05
277.00
343.45
362.05
399.01
400.58
373.84
391.45
340.58
292.86
378.20
320.46
332.41
92.58 108.01 123.44 138.87 169.73 200.59 231.45 277.74
being the amounts given by multiplying (as appropriate) the amounts at 4.6(f) or 4.6(g) above
by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to
dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is
applicable to dwellings listed in valuation Band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance
with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect
of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.
4.7
That it be NOTED that for the year 2012/13 the Norfolk County Council and Norfolk Police
Authority have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance
with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of
dwellings shown below:-
VALUATION BANDS
Norfolk County Council
Norfolk Police Authority
4.8
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
763.38
131.28
890.61
153.16
1,017.84
175.04
1,145.07
196.92
1,399.53
240.68
1,653.99
284.44
1,908.45
328.20
2,290.14
393.84
That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 4.6(h) and 4.7 above,
the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992,
HEREBY SETS the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2012/13 for
each of the categories of dwellings shown below:-
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough
Antingham
Full Council
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,002.98 1,170.15 1,337.31 1,504.48 1,838.81 2,173.14 2,507.47 3,008.96
1,001.14 1,168.00 1,334.85 1,501.71 1,835.43 2,169.14 2,502.86 3,003.43
998.86 1,165.33 1,331.81 1,498.29 1,831.24 2,164.20 2,497.15 2,996.58
13
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham
East/West
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodestone
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Full Council
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
1,014.64
1,009.09
998.26
1,006.61
999.24
999.67
1,183.75
1,177.27
1,164.64
1,174.38
1,165.78
1,166.28
1,352.85
1,345.45
1,331.02
1,342.15
1,332.32
1,332.89
1,000.34
1,008.07
1,003.87
1,015.62
1,010.80
999.47
1,008.40
1,005.11
1,001.82
1,038.47
1,167.07
1,176.08
1,171.18
1,184.89
1,179.27
1,166.05
1,176.47
1,172.63
1,168.79
1,211.55
1,009.69
1,026.85
1,007.14
997.77
1,006.96
1,004.53
1,022.23
1,004.11
992.34
1,001.85
1,002.01
1,006.56
1,014.98
1,004.69
995.84
1,000.89
1,002.42
1,006.96
1,001.26
1,008.72
1,000.35
1,006.94
1,006.15
1,002.74
1,004.87
1,017.96
997.78
1,002.85
1,000.01
1,022.26
992.95
1,177.98
1,198.00
1,175.00
1,164.07
1,174.79
1,171.95
1,192.60
1,171.46
1,157.73
1,168.83
1,169.01
1,174.32
1,184.14
1,172.14
1,161.82
1,167.70
1,169.49
1,174.79
1,168.14
1,176.85
1,167.08
1,174.76
1,173.84
1,169.87
1,172.35
1,187.62
1,164.07
1,169.99
1,166.67
1,192.63
1,158.44
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,521.96
1,513.63
1,497.40
1,509.92
1,498.87
1,499.50
1,860.18
1,850.00
1,830.15
1,845.46
1,831.95
1,832.73
2,198.39
2,186.36
2,162.91
2,181.00
2,165.03
2,165.95
2,536.60
2,522.73
2,495.67
2,516.54
2,498.11
2,499.17
3,043.93
3,027.27
2,994.80
3,019.85
2,997.74
2,999.01
1,333.79
1,344.09
1,338.49
1,354.16
1,347.73
1,332.63
1,344.54
1,340.15
1,335.76
1,384.63
1,500.51
1,512.11
1,505.81
1,523.43
1,516.20
1,499.21
1,512.60
1,507.67
1,502.73
1,557.71
1,833.96
1,848.13
1,840.43
1,861.97
1,853.13
1,832.37
1,848.74
1,842.71
1,836.68
1,903.87
2,167.41
2,184.15
2,175.05
2,200.51
2,190.07
2,165.53
2,184.87
2,177.75
2,170.62
2,250.02
2,500.86
2,520.18
2,509.68
2,539.05
2,527.00
2,498.69
2,521.01
2,512.79
2,504.56
2,596.18
3,001.03
3,024.22
3,011.62
3,046.87
3,032.40
2,998.43
3,025.21
3,015.35
3,005.47
3,115.42
1,346.26
1,369.14
1,342.86
1,330.36
1,342.62
1,339.37
1,362.98
1,338.81
1,323.12
1,335.80
1,336.01
1,342.09
1,353.30
1,339.59
1,327.79
1,334.52
1,336.56
1,342.62
1,335.02
1,344.97
1,333.80
1,342.59
1,341.53
1,336.99
1,339.83
1,357.28
1,330.37
1,337.14
1,333.34
1,363.01
1,323.93
1,514.54
1,540.28
1,510.71
1,496.66
1,510.45
1,506.79
1,533.35
1,506.16
1,488.51
1,502.78
1,503.01
1,509.85
1,522.47
1,507.04
1,493.77
1,501.33
1,503.63
1,510.45
1,501.90
1,513.09
1,500.53
1,510.41
1,509.22
1,504.12
1,507.31
1,526.94
1,496.67
1,504.28
1,500.01
1,533.39
1,489.42
1,851.11
1,882.57
1,846.43
1,829.25
1,846.10
1,841.64
1,874.10
1,840.87
1,819.29
1,836.73
1,837.02
1,845.37
1,860.79
1,841.94
1,825.72
1,834.96
1,837.78
1,846.10
1,835.65
1,849.33
1,833.98
1,846.06
1,844.61
1,838.36
1,842.27
1,866.26
1,829.26
1,838.57
1,833.35
1,874.14
1,820.41
2,187.67
2,224.86
2,182.15
2,161.84
2,181.76
2,176.48
2,214.84
2,175.57
2,150.07
2,170.68
2,171.02
2,180.89
2,199.12
2,176.84
2,157.67
2,168.59
2,171.92
2,181.76
2,169.41
2,185.58
2,167.43
2,181.71
2,179.99
2,172.61
2,177.23
2,205.58
2,161.86
2,172.85
2,166.69
2,214.89
2,151.39
2,524.24
2,567.14
2,517.86
2,494.44
2,517.41
2,511.32
2,555.59
2,510.27
2,480.85
2,504.64
2,505.03
2,516.41
2,537.45
2,511.74
2,489.62
2,502.22
2,506.06
2,517.42
2,503.17
2,521.82
2,500.88
2,517.36
2,515.38
2,506.86
2,512.19
2,544.90
2,494.45
2,507.14
2,500.02
2,555.65
2,482.37
3,029.09
3,080.57
3,021.43
2,993.32
3,020.90
3,013.59
3,066.71
3,012.33
2,977.02
3,005.57
3,006.03
3,019.70
3,044.94
3,014.09
2,987.54
3,002.67
3,007.27
3,020.90
3,003.80
3,026.18
3,001.06
3,020.83
3,018.45
3,008.24
3,014.63
3,053.88
2,993.34
3,008.57
3,000.03
3,066.78
2,978.85
14
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Glandford
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
Matlaske
Melton Constable
Morston
Mundesley
Neatishead
North Walsham
Northrepps
Overstrand
Paston
Plumstead
Potter Heigham
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Roughton
Runton
Ryburgh
Salthouse
Scottow
Sculthorpe
Sea Palling
Sheringham
Sidestrand
Skeyton
Sloley
Smallburgh
Southrepps
Stalham
Stibbard
Stiffkey
Stody
Suffield
Sustead
Sutton
Swafield
Swanton Abbott
Swanton Novers
Tattersett
Full Council
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,019.80
1,006.83
1,009.15
1,010.74
1,005.34
1,007.97
996.69
1,189.77
1,174.64
1,177.34
1,179.20
1,172.90
1,175.97
1,162.80
1,359.74
1,342.45
1,345.54
1,347.66
1,340.46
1,343.96
1,328.92
1,529.71
1,510.25
1,513.73
1,516.12
1,508.01
1,511.96
1,495.03
1,869.64
1,845.87
1,850.11
1,853.04
1,843.13
1,847.95
1,827.26
2,209.58
2,181.48
2,186.50
2,189.95
2,178.24
2,183.94
2,159.49
2,549.51
2,517.09
2,522.88
2,526.87
2,513.36
2,519.93
2,491.72
3,059.42
3,020.51
3,027.46
3,032.24
3,016.03
3,023.92
2,990.07
997.99
993.63
1,006.12
998.29
990.36
1,020.72
998.67
1,015.08
1,003.07
1,011.00
1,016.14
1,009.23
1,020.25
1,007.91
1,005.47
1,001.64
1,014.96
1,006.15
994.25
1,009.17
1,004.79
1,002.60
998.60
1,018.10
1,019.80
1,003.44
995.52
1,005.90
1,008.57
1,010.74
1,016.42
1,012.19
1,013.24
1,004.17
1,004.42
998.11
998.28
1,006.63
1,007.44
1,008.13
994.19
1,164.32
1,159.24
1,173.81
1,164.67
1,155.42
1,190.84
1,165.12
1,184.26
1,170.25
1,179.50
1,185.50
1,177.43
1,190.29
1,175.89
1,173.05
1,168.58
1,184.12
1,173.85
1,159.95
1,177.37
1,172.26
1,169.70
1,165.04
1,187.78
1,189.77
1,170.68
1,161.44
1,173.55
1,176.66
1,179.20
1,185.82
1,180.88
1,182.12
1,171.53
1,171.82
1,164.47
1,164.66
1,174.40
1,175.35
1,176.15
1,159.89
1,330.66
1,324.84
1,341.49
1,331.06
1,320.48
1,360.96
1,331.56
1,353.44
1,337.43
1,348.00
1,354.86
1,345.64
1,360.33
1,343.88
1,340.63
1,335.52
1,353.28
1,341.54
1,325.66
1,345.56
1,339.73
1,336.80
1,331.47
1,357.46
1,359.73
1,337.92
1,327.36
1,341.21
1,344.76
1,347.66
1,355.23
1,349.58
1,350.99
1,338.90
1,339.22
1,330.82
1,331.04
1,342.17
1,343.26
1,344.18
1,325.59
1,496.99
1,490.45
1,509.18
1,497.44
1,485.54
1,531.09
1,498.01
1,522.62
1,504.61
1,516.51
1,524.22
1,513.84
1,530.38
1,511.86
1,508.21
1,502.46
1,522.44
1,509.23
1,491.37
1,513.76
1,507.19
1,503.90
1,497.91
1,527.15
1,529.70
1,505.17
1,493.28
1,508.86
1,512.86
1,516.11
1,524.63
1,518.28
1,519.87
1,506.26
1,506.63
1,497.17
1,497.42
1,509.94
1,511.17
1,512.20
1,491.28
1,829.66
1,821.66
1,844.56
1,830.20
1,815.66
1,871.33
1,830.90
1,860.98
1,838.97
1,853.51
1,862.93
1,850.26
1,870.46
1,847.84
1,843.37
1,836.34
1,860.76
1,844.62
1,822.79
1,850.15
1,842.13
1,838.10
1,830.78
1,866.51
1,869.64
1,839.65
1,825.12
1,844.16
1,849.05
1,853.03
1,863.44
1,855.68
1,857.61
1,840.99
1,841.44
1,829.88
1,830.18
1,845.49
1,846.98
1,848.24
1,822.68
2,162.32
2,152.87
2,179.93
2,162.97
2,145.78
2,211.57
2,163.79
2,199.34
2,173.33
2,190.51
2,201.65
2,186.67
2,210.55
2,183.81
2,178.53
2,170.22
2,199.08
2,180.00
2,154.20
2,186.55
2,177.06
2,172.30
2,163.65
2,205.88
2,209.57
2,174.13
2,156.96
2,179.46
2,185.24
2,189.94
2,202.24
2,193.08
2,195.36
2,175.71
2,176.24
2,162.58
2,162.94
2,181.03
2,182.80
2,184.29
2,154.08
2,494.99
2,484.08
2,515.31
2,495.73
2,475.90
2,551.81
2,496.68
2,537.70
2,507.69
2,527.51
2,540.36
2,523.08
2,550.63
2,519.78
2,513.69
2,504.11
2,537.41
2,515.39
2,485.62
2,522.94
2,511.99
2,506.50
2,496.52
2,545.25
2,549.51
2,508.61
2,488.80
2,514.76
2,521.43
2,526.86
2,541.05
2,530.47
2,533.11
2,510.44
2,511.05
2,495.29
2,495.70
2,516.57
2,518.61
2,520.33
2,485.48
2,993.99
2,980.90
3,018.37
2,994.88
2,971.08
3,062.18
2,996.02
3,045.24
3,009.22
3,033.02
3,048.44
3,027.69
3,060.76
3,023.73
3,016.42
3,004.93
3,044.89
3,018.47
2,982.75
3,027.53
3,014.39
3,007.80
2,995.82
3,054.30
3,059.41
3,010.34
2,986.56
3,017.72
3,025.72
3,032.23
3,049.26
3,036.57
3,039.74
3,012.52
3,013.26
2,994.35
2,994.84
3,019.89
3,022.34
3,024.40
2,982.57
15
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
Thornage
Thorpe Market
Thursford
Trimingham
Trunch
Tunstead
Upper Sheringham
Walcott
Walsingham
Warham
Wells-next-the-Sea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
All Other Parts of
the Council’s Area
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
997.61
1,010.75
1,005.64
1,015.12
1,016.40
1,003.29
1,022.05
1,009.14
1,015.34
1,027.66
1,028.18
1,019.27
1,025.14
1,008.18
992.28
1,020.72
1,001.48
1,005.46
1,163.88
1,179.20
1,173.25
1,184.30
1,185.80
1,170.50
1,192.40
1,177.33
1,184.56
1,198.94
1,199.55
1,189.15
1,196.00
1,176.21
1,157.66
1,190.84
1,168.39
1,173.04
1,330.15
1,347.66
1,340.86
1,353.49
1,355.20
1,337.72
1,362.74
1,345.52
1,353.79
1,370.21
1,370.91
1,359.03
1,366.85
1,344.24
1,323.04
1,360.97
1,335.31
1,340.61
D
£
1,496.42
1,516.12
1,508.46
1,522.68
1,524.60
1,504.93
1,533.08
1,513.71
1,523.01
1,541.49
1,542.28
1,528.91
1,537.71
1,512.28
1,488.42
1,531.09
1,502.22
1,508.19
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,828.96
1,853.04
1,843.68
1,861.05
1,863.41
1,839.37
1,873.77
1,850.10
1,861.46
1,884.04
1,885.01
1,868.67
1,879.42
1,848.34
1,819.18
1,871.33
1,836.05
1,843.35
2,161.50
2,189.96
2,178.89
2,199.42
2,202.21
2,173.80
2,214.46
2,186.48
2,199.91
2,226.60
2,227.73
2,208.43
2,221.14
2,184.40
2,149.94
2,211.57
2,169.87
2,178.50
2,494.04
2,526.87
2,514.11
2,537.80
2,541.01
2,508.23
2,555.14
2,522.86
2,538.36
2,569.15
2,570.46
2,548.18
2,562.85
2,520.46
2,480.70
2,551.81
2,503.70
2,513.65
2,992.85
3,032.25
3,016.93
3,045.36
3,049.21
3,009.87
3,066.17
3,027.43
3,046.03
3,082.99
3,084.56
3,057.82
3,075.43
3,024.56
2,976.84
3,062.18
3,004.44
3,016.39
987.24 1,151.78 1,316.32 1,480.86 1,809.94 2,139.02 2,468.10 2,961.72
g) The final demand on the Collection Fund will be;
(i)
£5,789,171 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,538,934 for Parish/Town precepts.
120.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 6 FEBRUARY 2012
a) ITEM 8: TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY 2012/13 TO 2014/15
The preparation of the Strategy Statement was necessary to comply with the Chartered
Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice for Treasury Management
in Public Services. The Code had been revised in November 2011 and this Strategy
Statement incorporated the changes which had been made. The prime objective of the
Treasury Management Strategy was to ensure the security of the Council’s investments.
RESOLVED
(a) The Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy and
Prudential Indicators, for 2012/13 to 2014/15, are approved.
(b) The revised Treasury Management Policy Statement is approved.
b) ITEM 9: 2012/13 BASE BUDGET AND PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
RESOLVED
a) The 2012/13 revenue account budget as outlined at Appendix F and that the surplus of
£87,975 be allocated to the Restructuring Proposals reserve;
Full Council
16
22 February 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 6 FEBRUARY 2012
(Continued)
b) The demand on the Collection Find will be subject to any amendments as a result of
final precepts;
(i) £5,789,172 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,561,174 (subject to confirmation of one final precept) for Parish/Town precepts;
c) The movement on the reserves as detailed at Appendix I;
d) The updated Capital Programme and it’s financing for 2011/12 to 2014/15 as detailed at
Appendix J and as contained within the report along with the authority to negotiate for the
purchase of a new waste vehicle;
e) The new capital bids as detailed at Appendix K;
f) That Members note the current projections for 2013/14 to 2015/16.
c) ITEM 10: CORPORATE PLAN: ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13 DRAFT FOR
CONSULTATION
This item had been withdrawn.
d) ITEM 11: NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND – PROPOSED OPERATIONAL
FRAMEWORK
The group had met and made good progress. A bi-annual, rather than an annual, report
would be produced. This had been suggested by Ms V R Gay at the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee on 31 January 2012. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee
welcomed the opportunity of being involved in agreeing the criteria for applications to the
Fund. It was important that there should be a system in place to support community groups
so that they had the confidence to source funding for themselves.
RESOLVED
1. That Council formally establishes the Fund to be launched on 2 April 2012 and
appoints Members to sit on a politically balanced Big Society Board to act as the grant
giving panel.
2. That Mrs H Eales, Mr P W High, Mr T Ivory, Mr B Jarvis and Mr J A Wyatt be appointed
to the Big Society Board.
3. To require that the annual report will be produced bi-annually summarising how
resources have been applied through the Fund and the outcomes achieved.
4. To agree a three month extension to Voluntary Norfolk’s existing contract.
121.
PAY POLICY STATEMENT
The Pay Policy Statement was required to enable the Council to satisfy the requirements of
section 38 of the Localism Act 2011 which required that authorities must prepare a statement
for the financial year 2012/13 and for each subsequent financial year.
The statement set out current remuneration arrangements and was not a change to existing
policies or practices.
RESOLVED
to approve the pay policy statement for 2012/13 as required by section 38 of the Localism Act
2011.
Full Council
17
22 February 2012
122.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
123.
Audit Committee – 13 September 2011
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 16 November 2011
Cabinet – 28 November 2011
Development Committee – 8 December 2011
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 13 December 2011
Cabinet – 9 January 2012
Development Committee – 12 January 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
None.
124.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
None received.
125.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
126.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received.
127.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
128.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, APPLICATION PF/09/1270
The report related to an appeal against refusal of application for planning permission for an
underground cable route from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh, to link the proposed Dudgeon
Offshore Windfarm to the national transmission network.
The permission was one of a number of consents or agreements required for the project. The
windfarm was a nationally significant infrastructure project and would be located about 30
kilometres off the North Norfolk coast. The windfarm (turbines) and cable offshore required
consents from Government (Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)).
To connect to the national transmission network the developers had made 3 applications for
planning permission:
•
Full Council
An application to North Norfolk District Council (Reference PF/09/1270) for an
underground cable from the landfall to the boundary with Breckland district. That
application is the subject of this appeal;
18
22 February 2012
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, APPLICATION PF/09/1270
•
•
(Continued)
An application to Breckland Council (Reference 3PL/2009/1189/F) for an underground
cable from the boundary with North Norfolk district to a substation site. Planning
permission was granted by a notice of decision dated 11 October 2010;
An application to Breckland Council (Reference 3PL/2009/1188/O) for a substation.
That application was refused and rejected on appeal. It is currently the subject of an
application to the High Court.
This legal challenge would be heard on 23 March. If the developer won, the appeal would be
remitted to the Secretaries of State for redetermination. The application to NNDC has been
considered by the Development Committee several times from July 2010 to January of this
year. The application had been consistently recommended for approval by Officers.
On 12 January Development Committee considered the application. A proposal to approve
was put to the vote and lost by 3 votes to 9. It was then proposed and resolved by 7 votes to
5 that the application be refused. The grounds were:
• detrimental impact on the landscape
• detrimental impact on the local agricultural economy.
A refusal notice was issued and the applicant company had appealed. The Applicant had
asked for a public inquiry (quasi-judicial tribunal where evidence is given in written proofs of
evidence and subject to cross-examination). The Applicant’s solicitors hoped to have the
inquiry commenced in week beginning 1 May 2012. Their estimate was 6 days for the inquiry.
Normally in these circumstances, the Council would consider appointing external professional
witnesses to support the reasons for refusal. The Planning Officers were unable to do this,
having consistently recommended approval of the application. Based on the cost of other
appeals it was estimated that this might cost up to £100,000. Counsel had endorsed this as a
reasonable estimate. The decision to refuse the application made by the Development
Committee was taken after virtually all work on the Budget for 2012/13 had been done so there
was no budgetary provision for the appeal.
The Development Committee had no budget to defend appeals. The Planning division had a
relatively small Budget to pay for external advice (usually legal advice, and retail assessments
when there were applications for supermarkets). This was currently overspent.
The Council’s own costs might not be the only financial implication. It was open to the
appellants to seek an award of costs against the Council on the grounds of unreasonable
behaviour if the Council was unable to substantiate its reasons for refusal. This was a potential
financial risk, so provision had to be made for a contingent liability. The appellants would
instruct a Q.C. for the inquiry and their potential costs were estimated to be not less than the
£100,000.
Members were reminded that they were making a decision about the financial implications and
not discussing the application itself.
The Leader said that although the independence of the Development Committee must be
respected, Members must also consider the impact on the Council Tax. She proposed that
funds should not be made available for the appeal. This was seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick
who reserved the right to speak before the end of the debate. Mr E Seward supported the
proposal, believing that release of the funds could not be justified as the prospect of success
for the Council was unlikely. Mr R Wright said that any decision to go against officer
Full Council
19
22 February 2012
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, APPLICATION PF/09/1270
(Continued)
recommendations needed to be carefully thought out. Mr T Ivory considered that the appeal
would cost more than the officer’s estimate.
Mr M J M Baker expressed concern that democracy might be compromised for financial
reasons and Mr G R Jones warned of the danger of setting precedents. Mr P Terrington
supported the latter speakers and urged that money should be ring-fenced for the appeal. In
reply to a question from Mr Baker the Chief Executive said that although money could be taken
out of reserves it would have to be replaced at some point in the future.
RESOLVED
that funds should not be made available for the appeal.
Mrs A M Moore and Mr P W Moore abstained from voting.
The meeting concluded at 7.50 pm.
____
Chairman
Full Council
20
22 February 2012
Minutes Appendix A
2012/13 Base Budget and Projections for 2013/14 to 2015/16
Cabinet 6 February 2011
This is the first budget to be presented for approval by the first Conservative
Administration. I cannot say how delighted I am the proposals are in compliance with our
Manifesto promise to limit Council Tax increases for our recommendations are for a zero
Council Tax increase.
I should emphasise we had decided on a zero Council Tax increase before the
Government announced their incentive of a grant, equal to a 2.5% increase in council
tax, to Councils who froze their council tax at 2011/12 levels.
Introduction
This report recommends for approval the base budgets for both revenue and capital for
the 2012/13 financial year and also provides indicative budgets for the following 3
financial years and reflects the result of many months of detailed work by both officers
and Members.
Settlement
The Council had already forecast significant reductions in terms of central grant funding
following the 2 year provisional settlement which was announced in December 2010.
Confirmation of the Councils final allocation for 2012/13 was issued on 2 December
2011 and represents a 10% reduction compared to 2011/12 which in cash terms
equates to £688,835 less that is available to be spent on services. This reduction is not
as much as originally anticipated and has been helped by a further council tax freeze
grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in early October that a further grant would
be offered to those Authorities which freeze the Council Tax for 2012/13 at 2011/12
levels, but this grant was to be a ‘one-off grant’.
This means that, for the second year running the Council is able to recommend a NIL
increase in the council tax for the District element, with the average Band D council tax
remaining at £138.87. The budget presented however assumes no further increases in
council tax for the period up to and including 2014/15.
New Homes Bonus
2012/13 will see the second year of the operation of the New Homes Bonus, for which
the Council’s provisional allocation is £611,678 and this money, along with allocations in
future years, is to be placed into the New Homes bonus reserve to be used to support
communities with growth and development. The last administration used the New
Homes Bonus to present a balanced budget.
21
Minutes Appendix A
Local Government finance Bill
The Local Government Finance Bill was published in December 2011. It contains
provisions which will implement from 2013/14 proposals for business rates retention,
localisation of council tax support and technical reforms to council tax which are key
elements of the Government’s localism agenda.
These represent significant changes to be addressed during the next financial year.
The Localism Act
The Localism Act received Royal Assent on 15th November 2011 and its wide ranging
provisions will be implemented over the next few years.
Revenue Account
Taking account of all of the known changes affecting 2012/13 relating to further grant
reductions, increasing pressure on investment income and service impacts, a surplus of
£87,975 is forecast.
In relation to the Council’s investments, while it might be tempting to try and search out
the highest rates of return when facing such drastic budget reductions, the primary
objective of the Council’s treasury activity remains the security of the sum invested.
Forecasts predict that interest rates are set to remain low, and it is anticipated that
official bank rate, will remain at 0.5% throughout the budget year, and possibly stay at
this level until 2015. Investment income of just under £270,000 is anticipated for the
2012/13 financial year which compares with receipts of £1.3m for the 2008/09 financial
year, which has added to the financial pressures faced by the Council. However on a
more positive note the Council’s investments are still producing a return and if this
income were not to be received council tax would need to be increased by over 6%.
Savings
Following the budget savings exercise a report recommending the inclusion of these
bids within the 2012/13 budget was presented to Cabinet on 28 November and
subsequently approved by Full Council on 13 December 2011 and additional detail
regarding the bids can be found within the previous report. May I remind Members there
was no opposition to these proposals at either meeting.
These total £897,000 for 2012/13 and just over £920,000 for the following years.
In addition to these reductions a further £150,000 of savings have been built into the
budget in relation to the review of management structures. The first part of this involved
the rationalisation of the Corporate Management Team, and the new structure for this
was approved by Full Council at the special meeting of 11 January 2012.
Reserves
The savings report mentioned previously recommended the establishment of a New
Homes Bonus reserve to be used to support communities with future growth and
development. A further report on the same agenda covering the Council’s approach to
22
Minutes Appendix A
localism recommended that a Big Society reserve also be established and these have
now both been reflected within this budget report.
Capital
The report also recommends the capital programme for the next three years and
includes an appendix containing new capital bids totalling £374,000.
Although not contained within the report, I would like a recommendation added to allow
for a £42,000 virement to be made from within the capital budget from the BPR EDM
(Business Process Re-engineering – Electronic Data Management) budget to the
Sheringham East promenade public conveniences budget to allow for this scheme to be
completed.
Future years
The report also includes projections for the following three financial years. The
projections have been prepared on the provisional funding announcement for 2013/14
and 2014/15 and further grant reductions of 7% have been assumed for both of these
years.
Taking all of these factors into account there is still a forecast gap of £275,343 for which
further savings will need to be identified in 2013/14, increasing by a further £805,924 in
the following year.
Summary
Taking all of the known changes into account for the 2012/13 financial year a surplus of
£87,975 is forecast and so a balanced budget has been achieved. The position will be
monitored throughout 2012/13 by both officers and members to ensure that this position
remains achievable, and work will commence early in the next financial year too address
the current deficit anticipated for 2013/14 onwards.
Conclusions
We understand how difficult it is for so many people right now, not just across the District
of North Norfolk but across the country as a whole. We feel that the council tax freeze
will help with the many burdens faced by residents in these trying times.
To address the budget deficit we have had to make difficult decisions and further difficult
decisions will need to be made to address future years deficits to achieve a balanced,
sustainable budget.
The budget is based on sound financial decisions, with new reserves introduced to help
support local communities, this administration has a plan and we are sticking to it.
This was always going to be a challenging budget as the country tries to recover from
the worst recession in decades, with the funding reductions being enforced by Central
Government and the declining returns from investments following the largest banking
crisis in our entire history.
23
Minutes Appendix A
In the face of all of this it gives me great pleasure to recommend a balanced budget
which has been achieved in a time of severe grant cuts, facing a deficit of just under
£1m, whilst still managing to freeze council tax and make provision for communities with
the New Homes Bonus Reserve and the Big Society Fund.
Finally Mr Chairman, before I move the recommendations may I express my thanks and
those of my Cabinet colleagues to our excellent Accountancy team for their expert
advice and guidance in the production of this budget. This includes Sheila Oxtoby, now
our Chief Executive, Karen Sly in the early stages and latterly Duncan Ellis. We, The
Cabinet, listened intently to their advices and expressed our opinions. The Budget being
proposed today we feel is in the best interests of this Council and, most importantly, the
best interests of all the people of North Norfolk District.
I would especially like to thank Karen and Duncan for their forbearance and patience in
putting up with my continual questions and my Cabinet colleagues for their unwavering
support and valuable contributions.
We shall not be judged by the criticisms of our opponents but by the consequences of
our acts, therefore Mr Chairman, I have no hesitation in moving the recommendations.
24
Full Council
18 April 2012
Agenda Item No_______12_____
Introduction of Fees for Pre-application Advice and “Do I need Planning Permission?”
Enquiries
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
This report seeks authority for the adoption of a schedule of charges
covering pre-application advice and “Do I need planning permission?”
enquiries
That the Council adopts these proposals with effect from 1 May
2012, subject, in the case of major applications, to half of the fees
paid at pre-application stage being used to offset the formal
application fee.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Keith Johnson
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Steve Oxenham, 01263 516135
Steve.oxenham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
At its meeting on 22 February 2012 the Council adopted the annual budget for 2012/13.
Amongst its provisions is the inclusion of income-generating proposals of £10,000 and
£5,000 respectively relating to the introduction of fees for pre-application advice and “Do
I need Planning Permission?” enquiries which are currently provided free at the point of
delivery. This report suggests principles and attaches a proposed Schedule of Fees at
Appendix A for introduction on 1 May.
1.2
These proposals were considered by Cabinet on 12 March 2012 which recommended
their adoption following consultation with local agents, the development industry and
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the consideration of the outcome thereof by the
Corporate Director and the Head of Planning & Building Control in consultation with the
Portfolio Holder.
1.3
At its meeting on 28 March Overview & Scrutiny Committee confirmed that it had no
objection in principle to the proposals, that it was anxious to ensure that the service had
the resource to implement them and that they should be the subject of review in January
2013, i.e. following at least 6 months’ experience from implementation. A summary of
the consultation responses is set out in paragraphs 4.7, 5.3 & 6.2 below.
25
Full Council
18 April 2012
2.
Background
2.1
Approximately 440 formal pre-application enquiries are received per year, and some 320
“Do I need planning permission?” enquiries are also received annually. In addition, Duty
Planning Officers who operate on 5 half-days each week receive approximately 2,000
enquiries per annum, an average of 8 per session. Experience from a local authority in
Lincolnshire which introduced charges last year is that pre-application enquiries were
reduced to between 25-30% of those which had previously been received when the
service was free to users. If these figures are applied to North Norfolk we can be
reasonably confident that the budgetary target can be met, although the degree of
customer resistance to the proposals is not yet known.
3.
Principles of the Service
3.1
It is proposed that the scheme should be as simple as possible to administer, and seen
to be fair and easy for the public to understand. In the absence of any decision by the
Government to allow local fee-setting, it is suggested that the national fee scheme be
used as the basis for charging for pre-application enquiries. This is a well-established
and understood structure, and it has been used as the basis for the introduction of
similar charges last year by Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, so it will be
understood by a number of local agents.
3.2
It is also suggested that the pre-application fee be based on approximately 30% of the
national fee, rounded for ease of administration and with a minimum charge of £50 to
help meet administrative costs. It is also proposed that the same exemptions apply to
this service as are applied nationally, thus reducing the scope for local disputes over
“special cases”.
3.3
A draft schedule of fees is attached for consideration at Appendix A.
4.
The service offered
4.1
Clearly, if charges are to be levied for this service it is important that public expectations
of a good level of service are met. These should be set out clearly and monitored in
order to ensure that standards are maintained.
4.2
It is proposed that the following principles be applied.
4.3
The pre-application enquiry will be registered and an acknowledgement sent confirming
either that more information is required or that the enquiry has been registered and a
date specifying when a response will be provided, including details of the case officer,
and consultations where appropriate will be dispatched, all within 5 working days. For all
major developments a meeting with Officers will be offered within the period for
response, to which consultees will be invited in appropriate cases.
4.4
A full written response will be sent within 30 working days of registration unless another
timescale has been agreed between the parties. (It will be noted that the District Council
has no ability to control response times from consultees and therefore their advice may
have to follow the principal response).
4.5
The Council’s advice will cover the following items; the requirements to allow a valid
application to be registered, including the statutory fee required; a synopsis of the
26
Full Council
18 April 2012
planning history of the site; details of any statutory designations and constraints affecting
the site; the relevant planning policy context and assessment of the scheme against
planning policy; and an assessment identifying any other material considerations;
potential developer contributions; a summary of consultee responses; a synopsis of the
potential changes which may be required to improve the scheme and, if possible,
overcome objections; and an indication of the likely recommendation of Officers, making
it clear that this is without prejudice as to the final decision that the Council may wish to
make.
4.6
Once the regime is in place, Officers will give equal priority to pre-applications and
formally submitted applications; this may have implications for speed of determination of
the latter, depending on workload and resources available.
4.7
Consultation Comments.
The proposals were discussed at the quarterly meeting of Planning & Building Control
Agents in March, when a number of issues were clarified. One agent expressed concern
about the amount of money payable in advance and expressed a preference for a
negotiable scheme.
Some 56 agents, 17 local and regional developers and the North Norfolk Business
Forum were consulted in writing. Five individual responses have been received, three
from individual agents, one representing a major local housebuilder and one
representing North Norfolk Business Forum. Copies of these responses are available for
inspection in the Members’ Room.
All consultation responses supported the principle of pre-application discussions, but
only one of the consultees was broadly supportive of these proposals. All raised
divergent views as to the most appropriate means of pre-application engagement.
However, the key issues raised are considered to be as follows:•
The proposals will lead to more submissions without discussion, generating scope
for disagreement and delays.
•
Large pre-application fees could be financially damaging to the viability of major
schemes. The costs are significant in the context of other costs for major developers
and should be related to the actual time spent.
•
No offset is proposed towards the formal fee; it would be better to increase the
formal fee and leave the advice free.
•
There is no control over consultee responses; this is a concern in relation to timing
and delays.
•
It may lead to clients going direct to Officers on duty or by phone, increasing
pressure on them.
•
It may lead to adverse public relations for the Council.
•
It may increase pressure on staff because of the response timescales proposed.
•
The emphasis should be on fees for smaller schemes to discourage “timewasters”.
•
Small income expected is not balanced against the costs of operating the scheme.
27
Full Council
4.8
18 April 2012
•
It is not worth collecting fees as low as £50.
•
The proposed scheme is not simple.
•
The loss of “weeded out” schemes denies Officers the opportunity to improve them.
•
This would be a bureaucratic brake on development and smaller schemes would not
come forward in a timely manner or at all.
•
The written response should carry material weight.
•
A formal written response would leave the Council’s hands subsequently tied.
•
Fees should be confined to large and complex schemes.
•
Electronic submission should be the subject of additional copying charges.
•
As an alternative it would be better to attract additional work based on existing fees,
thus encouraging developers to do business in North Norfolk.
Officers’ Comments
There is understandably a reluctance on the part of the development industry to pay for
a service which is currently provided free at the point of delivery and there are also
conflicting views as to the most appropriate way of levying fees for this work. However,
the decision to levy fees has already been taken by the Council and it is therefore
considered necessary to select a means of doing so which best fits the Council’s
corporate priorities.
Since the delivery of new homes and economic development projects is a particularly
high priority, and taking into account the potentially large fees involved, it is suggested,
in order to mitigate the impact on the delivery of major schemes and to encourage
developers to progress their schemes to formal application stage, that for major
applications (as defined by DCLG Regulations) half of the pre-application fee be used to
offset the statutory fee payable at application stage.
The proposals are likely to lead to increased pressures on staff and their impact will
need to be monitored carefully and kept under review. Set against this, it is likely that
pre-application workloads will reduce since some prospective applicants will be deterred
by the prospect of paying.
It is considered that the proposed scheme, being based on the national system, is as
simple as possible to implement and it is not accepted that a £50 fee is too small to be
worth collecting; some national fees already collected are as low as £25.
A benefit of the scheme is considered to be that Officers’ advice will be on the record
and therefore should give confidence to developers, without compromising the ability of
elected Members to determine the outcome of subsequent applications.
Subject to the significant modification proposed above, it is recommended that the
scheme be adopted for pre-application charges.
28
Full Council
18 April 2012
5.
“Do I need Planning Permission?” Enquiries
5.1
There is a formal process by which applicants may apply for a Lawful Development
Certificate for a proposed use of buildings of land or operational development. The
statutory fee for this is half that for an equivalent planning application; thus for
householder applications this will be £75. It is proposed that a flat-rate fee of £50 be set
for all such enquiries, again making it clear that this represents the Officer’s professional
opinion but does not bind the Authority to a formal determination. Since fees are not
levied for Listed Building or Conservation Area consent applications it is proposed that
no fee is charged for enquiries of this type.
5.2
It is proposed to maintain the Duty Officer system as currently operated so that members
of the public will continue to receive a limited service free of charge, although the
pressure on this service is likely to increase significantly with the advent of charges and
this workload will therefore need to be monitored. Potential applicants will also be
signposted to the Council’s website and to the Planning Portal to which it is linked which
enables applicants to obtain free advice as to the need for permission via the web.
5.3
Consultation Comments
One respondent commented that there should be no charges for private householders
under any circumstances.
5.4
Officers’ Response
Comment noted but at present this service is subsidised by Council taxpayers and
sources of free informal advice will continue to be publicised.
6.
Planning Performance Agreements
6.1
Officers have drafted a paper which was the subject of consultation on Planning
Performance Agreements, a copy of which is attached at Appendix B. Subject to the
submission of a fee, a programme timetable would be drawn up for the consideration of
a proposal at pre-application and application stage. The paper sets out the proposed
commitments of the Council under this scheme and the responsibilities of developers.
6.2
Consultation Comments
Two of the consultees responded on this issue. One expressed the view that Planning
Performance Agreements should not be allowed to become a reason for slower progress
with applications where there is no Agreement. The other commented that the
proposals appeared to suggest without special consultation between the parties a
substandard service could be expected; a PPA is something which the Planning
Authority could offer without a specific charge.
6.3
Officers’ Response
It is proposed that Officers give further consideration to the issue of Planning
Performance Agreements and develop a Planning Performance Charter for subsequent
consideration by the Council.
29
Full Council
18 April 2012
7.
Financial Implications
7.1
It is intended that this initiative will lead to an increase in income of at least £15,000 per
annum. The additional projected income levels will be monitored as part of the regular
budget monitoring process and any issues regarding income levels will be flagged as
appropriate within these reports. The income levels generated and the success of the
scheme will be explored as part of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee review process
in January 2013.
8.
Risks
8.1
Customer resistance to these proposals is not known, but the experience of another
Local Authority which recently introduced similar charges has been used in their
preparation.
8.2
There is a risk that the charges will provide a disincentive to developers from entering
into pre-application discussions with Planning Officers; this could mean that the
programme of implementing major development residential allocations and other
economically valuable development could be adversely affected, in conflict with key
elements of the Council’s Corporate Plan.
8.3
There is also a risk that applicants may seek to develop without checking whether
planning permission is required which could lead to an increase in potential enforcement
cases.
8.4
These risks are to an extent mitigated by the fact that following consultation it is
suggested that the proposals be amended to enable half of pre-application fees for
major developments to be offset against the statutory fee payable upon submission of a
formal application. Furthermore, limited free pre-application advice will still be available
from Duty Planning Officers and via the website. A large number of Local Planning
Authorities also currently charge for pre-application advice.
9.
Sustainability
9.1
These proposals are not considered to have any impact on the Council’s sustainability
agenda.
10.
Equality and Diversity
10.1
The proposals take a similar position with regard to equality and diversity as do the
national statutory planning fee regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council adopts these proposals with effect from 1 May 2012, subject
in the case of major applications, to half of fees paid at pre-application stage being used to
offset the formal planning application fee.
30
Appendix A
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
Fees for Pre-Application and “Do I need Planning Permission?” Enquiries
These fees will be charged upon the submission of proposals for pre-application advice.
For advice on the service provided see separate note.
OUTLINE APPLICATIONS
i) site area up to 2.5ha.
ii) site area over 2.5ha.
£100 per 0.1ha. + VAT
£2,500 + £30 per additional 0.1ha
(maximum £30,000)
ERECTION OF DWELLINGS (FULL OR RESERVED MATTERS)
(including change of use to dwellings)
i) up to 50 dwellings
ii) over 50 dwellings
£100 per dwelling + VAT
£5,000 + £30 per additional
dwelling + VAT
(maximum £60,000)
ERECTION OF BUILDINGS (NON-RESIDENTIAL)
i) floor space 0 - 40 sq.m.
ii) floor space 40 – 3750 sq.m.
iii) floor space over 3750 sq.m.
£50 + VAT
£100 per 75 sq.m. + VAT
£5,000 + £30 per additional 75
sq.m. + VAT
(maximum £30,000)
ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS
i) floor space 0 – 465 sq.m.
ii) floor space 465 – 4215 sq.m.
£50 + VAT
£100 for 1st 540 sq.m. and £100 for
each additional 75 sq.m. + VAT
£5,000 + £30 per additional 75
sq.m. + VAT
(maximum £60,000)
iii) floor space over 4215 sq.m.
ERECTION OF GLASSHOUSES
i) floor space 0 – 465 sq.m.
ii) floor space over 465 sq.m.
ERECTION, ALTERATION
MACHINERY
i) site area up to 5ha.
ii) site area over 5ha.
OR
£50 + VAT
£500 + VAT
REPLACEMENT
OF
PLANT
OR
£100 per 0.1ha. + VAT
£5,000 + £30 per 0.1 ha. + VAT
(maximum £60,000)
ENGINEERING OR OTHER OPERATIONS
£50 per 0.1ha. + VAT
(maximum £500)
HOUSEHOLDER APPLICATIONS – (EXTENSIONS, GARAGES, SHEDS,
FENCES ETC)
i) 1 dwelling
ii) 2 or more dwellings
£50 + VAT
£100 + VAT
CAR PARKS AND SERVICE ROADS FOR EXISTING USES
£50 + VAT
CHANGE OF USE OF LAND OR BUILDING TO DWELLINGS
i) up to 50 dwellings
ii)
over 50 dwellings
OTHER CHANGES OF USE
h:\966\Proforma\Pre app & Do I need pp fees 2012
31
£100 per new dwelling created +
VAT
£5,000 + £30 per dwelling + VAT
(maximum £60,000)
£100 + VAT
Appendix A
VARIATION/REMOVAL OF A CONDITION AND RENEWAL OF A
TEMPORARY PERMISSION
REPLACEMENT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO NEW TIME LIMIT
i) Householder
ii) Major development
iii) Other
APPLICATIONS FOR NON-MATERIAL CHANGES
i) Householder
ii) Other
OF
£50 + VAT
£150 + VAT
£50 + VAT
Not part of pre-application service
APPLICATIONS FOR CONSENT TO DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENTS
i) relating to a business on the premises
ii) advance/direction signs
iii) other advertisements
APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED
£50 + VAT
WHETHER
£50 + VAT
£50 + VAT
£100 + VAT
PRIOR
REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING
CONDITIONS
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES – Special Form
DO I NEED PERMISSION?
Do I need planning permission?
All enquiries
£50 + VAT
Not part of pre-application service
Where no one substance exceeds
twice the controlled quantity = £70 +
VAT
In excess of twice the controlled
quantity= £100 + VAT
Removal of condition/s or alteration
to site area = £50 + VAT
£50 + VAT
Do I need Listed Building Consent?
Do I need Conservation Area Consent?
CONCESSIONS
1. Extension and alterations to registered disabled person’s dwelling to
improve their access to or within the dwelling or to provide facilities for
their greater safety, health or comfort and for applications to improve
access to public buildings including shops and cinemas. Any such
application should be accompanied by evidence that the resident or
proposed resident is a registered disabled person to whom Section 29 of
the National Assistance Act 1984 applies.
2. Any application for development which would not have required planning
permission were it nor for either a direction made under Article IV of the
General Development Order or a condition imposed upon a specific
planning permission taking away or limiting the permitted development
rights.
3. Application for development within 12 months of a refusal of an earlier
application of similar character on the same site for the same applicant or
within 12 months of the registration of a withdrawn application. N.B. This
exemption can only be claimed once.
No fee
No fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
Enquiries by Parish/Town Councils
Half the normal fee
Alternative applications for one site
Highest of the fees applicable for
each alternative and a sum equal to
half the rest.
h:\966\Proforma\Pre app & Do I need pp fees 2012
32
Appendix B
PLANNING PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
North Norfolk District Council is committed to supporting investment in new jobs and
housing in the district and, with a strong planning policy framework in place in the
form of adopted Core Strategy and Site Allocations Development Plan Documents,
wants to ensure that major planning applications are considered in a timely and
efficient manner.
Alongside the proposed introduction of fees for pre-application advice, the Council is
also proposing to offer developers with proposals for major developments the
opportunity of entering into a Planning Performance Agreement with the local
planning authority. Such Agreements will involve early discussion of the proposal
and agreement of a project plan which will detail the key issues to be considered in
the development and assessment of the proposal as well as identifying the resources
to be employed by the authority in the processing of the application and its
presentation to the Council’s Development Committee within an agreed timescale.
The Council is proposing to introduce a Planning Performance Charter which will
identify the types of applications the authority will be prepared to consider through a
Planning Performance Agreement, where such an arrangement is requested by the
developer. This paper therefore seeks to introduce the concept of Planning
Performance Agreements and detail the types of applications where the use of such
Agreements might be seen as appropriate, as the basis for consultation with the local
development industry.
Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs) were introduced into the planning system
in 2008 with the objective of improving the quality of planning applications and the
decision-making process through greater collaboration between the planning
authority and applicants. Such Agreements sought to bring the local planning
authority, developers and key stakeholders together, preferably at an early stage in
the development of a proposal, to develop a shared project management process for
an application which would provide greater certainty and transparency in the
development and assessment of development proposals.
Following the adoption of the Site Allocations Plan in early 2011 the Council identified
staff resources through a Major Applications Team to support the development of
applications on allocated sites. These arrangements are generally believed to be
working well, but with the Coalition Government’s wish to support economic and
housing growth as the principal means of rebuilding and strengthening the national
economy, the District Council believes it can and should do more to support future
investment in the District. The Council therefore believes that the use of Planning
Performance Agreements in the consideration of some major development proposals
will provide greater certainty to developers and investors around both the process
and timeframe over which development proposals are considered.
The Council therefore proposes that, at the request of developers, it will be prepared
in principle to enter into a PPA on proposals for residential developments allocated
through the Site Allocations Plan, together with industrial and commercial
developments deemed as major developments.
33
Appendix B
In such cases where PPAs are proposed there will be clear expectations upon both
the local planning authority and developers, as follows:In its capacity as local planning authority, the Council will:•
Identify a senior member of its Development Management or Major
Applications Teams to be the key point of contact within the Council for all
matters relating to the application. This individual will, as appropriate, bring
together a Development Team of relevant officers within and beyond the
authority, to support the development of the proposal through to submission
of a formal planning application, its appraisal and ultimate determination
under delegation / presentation to Development Committee.
•
Agree a project plan with the developer identifying key issues, need for
Screening Opinion under Environmental Assessment legislation, need for
technical reports relating to a proposal such as Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment, contaminated land reports, highways and travel plans, historic
environment assessment and the timeframe over which such reports will be
prepared; other key milestones such as timing of key consultations,
submission of application and target date for decision.
•
Identify consultation arrangements with statutory consultees
•
Advise of required pre-application and formal consultation arrangements
including briefings of local members and parish councils, the form of preapplication consultation exercises through exhibitions, presentations and
information campaigns
•
Review project plan on a monthly basis – providing progress reports to the
developer, senior management and members within the Council with details
of any changes / slippage / revision to key project outcomes / timescales
•
Provide a validation checklist and details of fee to be charged so as to avoid
any delays in the registration of the application
•
Advise on Committee processes including the need for site visits and the
arrangements for the consideration of the application at Committee –
including the nature of presentations and arrangements for public speaking.
•
Provide guidance on draft Heads of Terms for any Section 106 obligations,
other planning obligations and draft conditions attached to any permission
so as to minimise the time following any approval before a formal Decision
Notice can be issued and works commence on site.
Responsibilities of developers:•
Agree the project plan and commit to realistic timeframes for the
commissioning / preparation of technical studies etc in support of the proposal.
•
Pay the required fee for the PPA
•
Engage in meaningful pre-application discussions with statutory bodies, key
stakeholders and consultation with the local community and amend proposals
34
Appendix B
as appropriate to address legitimate concerns expressed in response to such
consultations
•
Attend project meetings with the lead officer and other relevant bodies as
appropriate in the development of the proposal
•
Keep the Council informed of the progress of the project, and particularly of
any changes / slippage / revision to key projects outcomes / timescales.
•
Submit a complete planning application, with relevant fee and supporting
documentation, including draft legal agreements / unilateral obligations where
required, and attend any site visits / meetings of the Development Committee
at which the proposal is discussed.
35
Cabinet
Overview & Scrutiny
TBC
Full Council
18th April 2012
Agenda Item No____13_________
A policy position on Section 106 financial contributions associated with retail
developments
Summary:
At the present time North Norfolk District Council does not have an
agreed policy position in respect of negotiating Section 106
contributions from new retail developments in the District. The
Council is aware of a number of proposals for new retail developments
which might be considered acceptable subject to assessing the impact
of the proposals and any mitigating measures on established town
centres in the District. The Council therefore needs to agree an
interim policy position in respect of such proposals as a matter of
some priority.
Conclusions:
In order to consider the impact of new retail proposals on the vitality
and viability of established town centres across the District the
Council should develop a clear policy position with regard to such
proposals as a matter of priority.
Recommendations:
Full Council is recommended to:Ask the Cabinet to explore the policy options available to the Council
in seeking to secure Section 106 contributions from new retail
proposals at its meeting of 14th May 2012 meeting and draft an interim
policy for debate and endorsement by Full Council at its meeting of
30th May 2012.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Cllr Keith Johnson
Wards in North Norfolk’s eight principal settlements
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Steve Blatch, Corporate Director
Steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Tel:- 01263 516232
1.0
Introduction
1.1
In recent weeks a number of new retail developments have been proposed in locations
across the District – ie. at North Walsham, Holt and Wells; in respect of which questions
have been asked about the Council’s ability to secure financial contributions from such
proposals through formal legal agreements in order to mitigate the impact of new
developments upon established town centres.
36
Cabinet
Overview & Scrutiny
TBC
Full Council
18th April 2012
1.2
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements, often referred to as planning obligations, with applicants for
planning permission to regulate the use and development of land which might involve
payment of a financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the National Planning
Policy Framework published on 27th March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning
obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:•
•
•
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
1.3
At the present time the District Council does not have an approved policy framework for
the negotiation of Section 106 agreements in respect of retail proposals and therefore in
light of the retail proposals now being developed in the District it is suggested that the
authority should adopt an interim policy, pending the preparation of a Planning
Obligations Supplementary Planning Document or agreement to introduce a Community
Infrastructure Levy. Full Council is therefore recommended to ask Cabinet to give
urgent consideration to the development of an interim policy with the matter being
brought back to the meeting of Full Council on 30th May 2012 for endorsement.
2.0
Context
2.1
Whilst the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy policy EC5 outlines the approach the
Council will adopt in considering proposals for new food / convenience retail proposals
and makes reference to the impact such proposals might have on the vitality and viability
of existing town centres, no specific reference is made to the Council’s ability to secure
planning obligations from such developments which might seek to address such impacts
to the point that the development proposal might be considered acceptable.
2.2
Retail policies contained within the adopted Core Strategy were informed by a Retail and
Leisure Study prepared in 2005 which did not identify any quantitative need for new
convenience floorspace in the district over the period to 2016. The current range of
proposals for new stores in North Walsham, Holt and Wells-next-the-Sea seek to
promote increased consumer choice and retention of expenditure within local
catchments and it will therefore be for the Council to determine, in considering planning
applications for these proposals, whether the scale of any impact on established town
centre businesses might be reduced or considered to be acceptable through the funding
of mitigation measures. .
2.3
Such measures might include finance being provided for town centre enhancement
works, town centre management and marketing initiatives, local transport services /
infrastructure and support for local Chambers of Trade. Such contributions have been
secured by local authorities approving retail proposals elsewhere in the country over
recent years, but to date the District Council has not negotiated any such payments in
respect of retail proposals in North Norfolk.
2.4
Following adoption of the LDF Core Strategy and Site Allocations Plans it was proposed
that the Planning Policy Team would prepare a Supplementary Planning Document on
Planning Obligations. However, given the emphasis placed on working with developers
to bring allocated sites forward for development and the Council’s decision to consider
over the coming months the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), this
work has not been progressed to any extent. The Council therefore has no clear policy
position with respect to negotiating Section 106 contributions beyond the historic position
of negotiating contributions for affordable housing, open space and County Council
service infrastructure (education, libraries, public transport and fire hydrants) largely from
new residential developments. Certainly the Council does not have any previous
37
Cabinet
Overview & Scrutiny
TBC
Full Council
18th April 2012
experience or approved policy relating to the negotiation of Section 106 contributions in
seeking to mitigate the impact of new retail developments upon established town
centres, potentially placing the authority at a disadvantage in seeking to secure such
contributions from promoters of current proposals.
2.5
It is therefore recommended that Full Council asks Cabinet to give this matter urgent
consideration at its 14th May meeting, exploring the policy options available to the
authority and develop an interim policy for debate and endorsement by Full Council at its
meeting of 30th May 2012.
3.0
Financial Implications and Risks
3.1
The District Council is aware of a number of proposals for new retail developments in
the District, which might be considered acceptable through the formal planning
application process, subject to assessing the impact of the proposals and any mitigating
measures on established town centres in the District. Where a negative impact is
identified it might be possible to secure a financial contribution from the developer
through a Section 106 Agreement in order that the impact of such developments might
be reduced / mitigated. At the present time the District Council does not have an
approved policy framework in place for negotiating or securing planning obligations
associated with new retail proposals. It is therefore important that the Council adopts an
interim policy as a matter of urgency if it is to seek such contributions from development
proposals which are currently under consideration or are the subject of pre-application
consultation. Without an agreed policy with respect to the negotiation of such
obligations, the authority might face the risk of challenge regarding any negotiations to
secure such payments or fail to secure wider community benefits from such
developments.
4.0
Sustainability
4.1
This report does raise some issues in relation to sustainable development, particularly
with respect to the viability and vitality of the district’s town centres. The report proposes
the consideration and development of policy which seeks to reduce or mitigate the
impact of new retail proposals on established town centres.
5.0
Equality and Diversity
5.1
This report does not raise any equality and diversity issues.
6.0
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
6.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Crime and Disorder.
38
Full Council
18 April 2012
Agenda Item No______14_______
CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY - ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT
Summary:
The Constitution Working Party has identified a number of sections
within the Constitution document that require amendments and
updates, for which approval is sought. In addition, Members of the
Working Party have identified a number of provisions that will need
amendment or updating that are contingent on the outcomes of
structural review, the publication of regulations and guidance or
technical review by other committees or officers of the Council.
Conclusions:
The Constitution should be amended or updated in accordance with
the recommendations of the Constitution Working Party, where those
amendments or updates are not contingent on other events or
information.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Members:
(i)
approve the Constitution amendments and actions
proposed in Appendix C;
(ii)
note the provisions within the Constitution that will be
reviewed after the management restructure is completed,
to be reported to the Council for approval at a later meeting
(Appendix D);
(iii)
note those provisions within the Constitution where
amendments or updates stand deferred pending
publication of relevant regulations and guidance
(Appendix D);
(iv)
note those provisions within the Constitution that are to be
referred for review by the relevant committees and/ or
officers before amendments or updates are considered by
the Constitution Working Party (Appendix D).
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
Tony Ing, Strategic Director – Information
01263 516080, tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
1.
Introduction
1.1
Following the decision of Full Council at its meeting of 22 February 2012 appointing Cllrs
A.M. Fitch-Tillett, V.R. Gay, K.E Johnson, A.M. Moore and H. Thompson to serve on the
39
Full Council
18 April 2012
Constitution Working Party, a first meeting was convened on 9 March 2012. At that
meeting Cllr H. Thompson was elected as Chairman.
1.2
In fulfilling their responsibilities, Members worked sequentially through the current
Constitution focusing on changes arising from:
•
new or amending legislation (e.g. the Localism Act 2011)
•
relevant audit recommendations (e.g. the Corporate Governance audit)
•
operational experience of applying the Constitution since April 2011
•
inconsistencies, referencing, formatting etc. identified within the document
•
any other relevant review or change of circumstances (e.g. agreed recommendations
of the Independent Remuneration Panel).
2.
Constitution Working Party findings
2.1
As a result of the considerations of the Working Party following meetings held on 9 and
28 March 2012, Members have identified those elements of the Constitution that should
be amended or updated as a result of this initial work. These proposed amendments
and actions can be found at Appendix C.
2.2
In addition, Members clearly highlighted those provisions in the Constitution that would
require amendment but were contingent on the outcome of other activities (e.g.
management restructuring and publication of regulations and guidance), as well as those
provisions that require further work or consideration by other committees and/or officers
before recommendations for amendment can be made. These can be found at
Appendix D.
2.3
Members also discussed the format and style of the Constitution, proposing that the
amended document should be re-issued in loose-leaf form to make it easier to
incorporate future updates.
3.
Financial Implications
3.1
There are no direct financial implications associated with the annual review of the
Constitution.
4.
Risks
4.1
In order to mitigate any potential risks associated with the Constitution, it is important
that the document is updated to reflect any new or amended, relevant legislation to
ensure the conduct of business and decision making processes are effective and legally
sound.
40
Full Council
18 April 2012
5.
Sustainability
5.1
There are no direct sustainability implications associated with the annual review of the
Constitution.
6.
Equality and Diversity
6.1
There are no direct equality and diversity implications associated with the annual review
of the Constitution. However, if there are any significant changes arising from the
review, they will be subject to an equality impact assessment before being adopted by
Council.
7.
Crime & Disorder
7.1
There are no direct crime and disorder implications associated with the annual review of
the Constitution.
41
Full Council
18 April 2012
APPENDIX C
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution
Constitution Reference
Amendment or Action
Chapter 2, Full Council
Paragraph 3.8, page 2.7,
Opposition Business
Amendment
“Each opposition or minority Group will have the
opportunity at up to three ordinary meetings of Council to
propose a single item of business on the following
procedural basis:
(a) Opposition Group Leaders may submit a notice of
opposition business in writing to the Chief Executive for
the next ordinary Council meeting at least ten clear days
before the date of the meeting to which it is addressed.
(b) The written notice must identify the nature of the item
to be discussed and the nominated representative of the
political group who will present the business to Council, to
which the Leader or appropriate Portfolio Holder will
respond.
(c) The written notice must relate to a matter which affects
the Council or the District and must relate to a matter in
respect of which the authority has a relevant function or
legitimate local interest.
(d) The Council may vote on the substance of the debate
particularly where recommendations have been made for
future actions. The time allotted for opposition business
would be no more than 30 minutes.”
Paragraph 12, page 2.12, Petitions
and questions
Action
To review arrangements for managing questions and
prepare a practical procedure to report back to a future
meeting.
Paragraph 18.6, page 2.22,
Recorded vote
Amendment
“Notwithstanding Rule 18.5, if any Member present at the
meeting so demands, the names for and against the
motion or amendment or abstaining from voting will be
taken down in writing and entered into the minutes. The
procedure for a recorded vote shall be as follows:
(a) The Chairman shall put the motion and the Chief
Executive or Monitoring Officer shall call out the names of
Members and record their votes or abstentions
(b) The Chairman shall declare the result of the vote and
the vote of each Member shall be recorded in the
minutes.”
42
Full Council
18 April 2012
Paragraph 20.3, page 2.23,
Telephones and electronic
equipment
Amendment
NEW PARAGRAPH page 2.25,
Substitution
Amendment
“Each Member shall ensure that his/her mobile telephone
and other electronic equipment is switched to, and kept
on, silent mode throughout the meeting. The voice facility
of such mobile telephones and electronic equipment shall
not be used to make calls, receive calls or check
messages. Only text or non-voice uses can be made of
this equipment. The person presiding at the meeting may
require all mobile telephones or electronic equipment to
be switched off at any time, where necessary to ensure
that such equipment does not interfere with the proper
conduct of the meeting or lawful decision-making.”
“When acting as a substitute, such a member is free to
make their own independent decisions and is under no
obligation to vote in accordance with the intentions or
wishes of the member for whom he/she will substitute.”
Chapter 3, The Executive
Paragraph 1.1, page 3.5
Action
Delete the note in italics
Paragraph 3.1, page 3.6
Action
Delete the note in italics
Paragraph 3.2, page 3.6
Action
Delete paragraph 3.2 as the reference to portfolio
responsibilities was felt to be unnecessary.
Chapter 5, Committees
Paragraph 5.5, page 5.4,
Recorded vote
Amendment
“If any Member present at the Committee so demands, the
names for and against the motion or amendment or
abstaining from voting will be taken down in writing and
entered into the minutes. A demand for a recorded vote
will override a demand for a ballot.”
Part 5, page 5.11, Audit
Committee Terms of Reference
1.2(b)
Amendment
“Reviewing the annual statement of accounts and whether
appropriate accounting policies have been followed.”
43
Full Council
18 April 2012
Chapter 9 – Rules, Codes and
Protocols – Part 2 – Contract
Procedure Rules
Paragraph 9.2, pg 9.33
Amendment
“All exemptions, and the reasons for them, must be
recorded using the form in the Procurement Toolkit.
Exemptions shall be signed by the Officer and the relevant
Director, and countersigned by the Procurement Officer
and the Monitoring Officer. All exemptions granted during
the financial year will be summarised and reported for
information within the Monitoring Officer’s Annual Report.
Chapter 11, Members’
Allowances
NEW APPENDIX, Basis of the
allowance
Action
To introduce a new appendix, using the information
provided to the Independent Remuneration Panel, to
explain the roles and responsibilities of Members to the
reader of the Constitution, providing context for the
allowances paid.
Chapter 12, Partnership
Arrangements and Outside
Bodies
Paragraphs 1 to 4, page 12.1
Action
Wherever reference is made to “area partnerships” delete
the word “area”.
Part 2, page 12.5
Amendment
“For the avoidance of doubt, whenever a Member is
appointed to represent the Council on any Outside Body
or acts in their capacity as a Member of the Council on
any Outside Body, then that representation should be
declared in the Member’s register of interests.”
44
Full Council
18 April 2012
APPENDIX D
Provisions within the Constitution that will be reviewed after the management restructure
is completed, to be reported to the Council for approval at a later meeting
Constitution Reference
Action
Chapter 6, Officers
Defer until the senior management restructure
has been completed
Provisions within the Constitution where amendments or updates stand deferred
pending publication of relevant regulations and guidance
Constitution Reference
Action
Chapter 3, Part 1, page 3.1, paragraphs 4b)
and 5b), The Cabinet
When the new Standards arrangements take
effect, it will be necessary to delete these subparagraphs as there will be no sanction of
suspension available.
Chapter 7, Part 1 and 2 Standards and the
Members’ Code of Conduct
Defer until the new regulations and guidance
are published.
Chapter 11, paragraph 13, page 11.5,
Allowances while suspended from Council
Duties
When the new Standards arrangements take
effect, it will be necessary to delete this
paragraph as there will be no sanction of
suspension available.
Provisions within the Constitution that are to be referred for review by the relevant
committees and/ or officers before amendments or updates are considered by the
Constitution Working Party
Constitution Reference
Action
Chapter 4, Overview and Scrutiny
Overview and Task Group currently looking at
the Overview and Scrutiny function. Defer
until the outcome of the review.
Chapter 7, Part 3 and 4, Employee Code of
Conduct and Member/ Officer Relations
Refer for consideration by the Joint Staff
Consultative Committee
Chapter 9, Part 1 and 2, Financial Regulations
and Contract Procedure Rules
Refer for consideration by the Corporate
Finance Manager and Procurement Officer
Chapter 10, Officer Employment Procedure
Rules
Refer for consideration by the Organisational
Development Officer
Chapter 12, Part 2, Outside Bodies
Defer update until the schedule of Outside
Bodies is agreed at the annual meeting of the
Council in May 2012.
45
Agenda item no ______3______
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on
14 November 2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B Hannah
Mr P High
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mr J Wyatt
Mrs L Brettle
Mr E Seward
Also present:
Officers in attendance:
The Licensing Manager, the Legal Advisor, the Environmental
Health Manager, the Licensing Administrators and the Democratic
Services Officer (AA).
21
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Jarvis and Mr R Reynolds.
22
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
23
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 19
September 2011 and also the minutes of the meetings of the Licensing SubCommittees held on 14 September 2011 and 12 October 2011 were approved as
correct records and signed by the Chairman.
24
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
25
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
14 November 2011
46
26
LICENSING ACT 2003 – REPORT COVERING 2012-11
The report provided an overview of the operation of the Act during the past 12
months.
Concern was expressed by a Member that consultees were only required to respond
to applications when they had a comment to make. For audit purposes, he
considered that that a response should be made even if it was to state that there was
no comment to make. The Licensing Manager responded that chasing up responses
was not good office practice and was not required by law. There was also some
confusion as to how the consultation period was calculated. The Police Licensing
Officer confirmed that his team responded to all licensing applications from all
authorities. This was by email and, in the case of a hearing later on, a hard copy
would also be sent.
In response to concerns about licensing hours for late night refreshment houses, the
Licensing Inspector for Norfolk stated that, currently, many takeaway premises
requiring a license did not have conditions attached to it. This was a big issue as
some premises were trading beyond their licensed hours and was something which
the Police were trying to highlight.
The issue was raised of young people buying alcohol cheaply from supermarkets,
consuming it and then creating a public order problem and also what the Council
could do to prevent this. There was also the potential problem of alcohol
consumption by young people at home being unsupervised. The Licensing Manager
explained that, together with trading standards agencies, Council officers monitored
sales of alcohol to young people. If on three separate occasions, premises sold
alcohol to those who were underage, the possibility of losing their licence could be
looked into. Staff in supermarkets were trained on ensuring that alcohol was not sold
to anyone who was underage. The Licensing Manager believed that the Government
was trying to make the price of alcohol in supermarkets more realistic, but failing
because of rules by the European Union. Concern was expressed by a Member,
however, that higher alcohol prices could lead to it being sold on the black market at
a lower price.
RESOLVED that
Members note the report and support current monitoring activities, liaison groupings
and compliance initiatives.
27
PRESENTATION/QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH SENIOR POLICE
OFFICERS ON LICENSING ISSUES
Tony Brown, Police Licensing Officer, Inspector E Brown and Chief Inspector N Baily
were introduced to the meeting.
They explained how the Police gave out data on licensed premises in North Norfolk.
The Police were involved in managing public disorder and had dialogue with and
monitored premises of concern. Copies of data showing incident rates were
circulated to the meeting. The number of incidents were very low in North Norfolk.
The Police worked very closely with licensees and tried to offer support. In the case
of drugs, people entering premises could be screened beforehand or the premises
themselves could be scanned afterwards. In the case of alcohol, young people’s
details could be taken and linked with other Police authorities. The first time a letter
Licensing and Appeals Committee
14 November 2011
47
sent to the young person’s parents, the second time, a talk with parents and the third
time could result in the young person going to court. Test purchasing could be used
to determine whether a shop was selling alcohol to someone underage. An
underage person asking an adult to buy alcohol for them could be monitored. Some
of these practises, however were outdated, as alcohol was purchased mainly from
supermarkets and consequently obtained by young people at home.
A Member who had experience of working in a prison and of being a licensee
considered that most alcohol-related problems were with adults and not young
people.
It was noted that the Council worked with publicans to try to urge them to pre-empt
incidents and ask for help. There was a need for all parties to work together and
share information on, for example, common problems, intelligence, level of lighting in
the street, street furniture, issued raised through neighbourhood watch. It was
suggested that often a change in a premises licence could often change the type of
appeal of a premises.
The Police were thanked for the way in which they handled these matters.
28
LICENSING ACT 2003 – CONSULTATION ON DEREGULATION OF
ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING
The report related to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)
consultation on the proposed deregulation of entertainment licensing.
The Licensing Manager said that the key points arising from the consultation were
that the current licensing system provided forewarning of an event for which advice
could be given. If it was deregulated, this would not be possible. Also, the
occasional use of venues could be a significant concern to the community and there
would be no licensing framework.
A Member expressed concern over the lack of control of noise levels from premises
should control be deregulated. He considered that should it be left to Environmental
Health Officers, their effectiveness would have limitations.
Members raised other areas of concern including children cage-fighting, firework
displays although these were not currently regulated.
Inspector E Brown considered that the most problematic events were at premises
which already had a licence in place and did not therefore need to apply for
permission (or give notice) for a particular event. Police officers had already made
representations to the Government about temporary event notices as there was often
very little to object to on evidence grounds, if the venue had not been used in the
past, and not enough detail.
Members considered that it was vital for there to be a framework to work around and
tools to manage events which was what licensing regulation provided. The
deregulation of licensing should be objected to in the strongest terms.
The Licensing Manager informed the meeting that the views of Members and Officers
would be collated and signed off by the Cabinet or Portfolio Holder at the end of the
month. He would email all Members with the final document but they would have the
opportunity to add their own views direct to the DCMS to the points already made.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
14 November 2011
48
A Member also put forward the view that there was too much regulation and it may
be appropriate in some cases to deregulate it, and there was enough legislation
under the Licensing Act 2003 to cover the salient points.
The Environmental Health Manager pointed out that there could be danger in
stereotyping events as to whether they could be problems or not and this should be
taken into consideration when making a response. The Safety Advisory Group in
North Norfolk tried to advise event organisers on good practice. If the proposals to
deregulate went ahead, the Group would need more help. It could also impact on
other service areas of the Council.
RESOLVED that
Members endorse a reply to the consultation.
29
LICENSING ACT 2003 – UPDATE ON TAXI WORKING GROUP AND
CONSULATION ON REVISION TO HANDBOOK
The report highlighted the work undertaken to date and outlined a proposed
consultation exercise.
Officers were thanked for all the hard work they had undertaken.
The Licensing Manager explained that a points system of enforcement for breaches
of licence conditions would enable the Council to give a taxi driver a visual reprimand
and to sanction them
A Member was concerned about introducing legislation where none was needed.
The Legal Advisor added that it was important that a taxi driver would be able to
disagree with points given by the Council.
It was noted that approximately one third of local authorities nationwide operated a
points system, including some rural Norfolk authorities.
RESOLVED that
Members endorse the approach being undertaken.
_____________________
Chairman
26 March 2012
Licensing and Appeals Committee
14 November 2011
49
Agenda Item
5
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 6 December 2011 in the
Committee Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N D Dixon (Chairman)
Mr B Jarvis
Mrs A Moore
Mr J Punchard
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Acting Financial Services Manager, the Deputy Audit Manager, the
Interim Accountancy Manager, the Policy and Performance Management
Officer (for minute 30), the Environmental Health Manager (for minute 31)
and the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH).
Also in
Attendance
Julian Rickett (for items 1 – 10), Sarah Brown (PriceWaterhouseCoopers)
36 APOLOGIES
None received.
37 SUBSTITUTES
None.
38 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
39 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
40 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
41 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 13 September 2011 were
approved as a correct record.
Audit Committee
1
50
6 December 2011
42 AUDIT UPDATE AND ACTION LIST
Members were updated on progress on actions arising from the minutes of the meeting
of 13 September 2011.
a) To review the working protocol: the draft Protocol for 2012/13 had been prepared.
There were no significant amendments. The Committee had previously agreed that
they only required any significant amendments to be reported in future.
b) Partnership arrangements: a report was on the Agenda.
c) Network Audit report: a briefing note had been provided for Members and was on the
Agenda.
d) September Audit Committee: the 2012 meeting had been programmed for 18
September. The 2012/13 Programme of Meetings was expected to be approved by
Full Council on 14 December 2011.
e) Terms of Reference: the Audit Committee Terms of Reference had not yet been
amended. This would be addressed as part of the review of the Constitution in the
New Year.
f) Business Continuity: an oral update was on the Agenda.
43 AUDIT OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH
2011 AND ANNUAL SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The report supplemented the matters that were reported to the Audit Committee on 13
September 2012 in the 2010/11 report to those charged with governance (ISA 260 (UK &
I)). Although this report had not been listed on the forward work programme it had been
scheduled as a report that would normally come to the Audit Committee in the meeting
following the presentation of the ISA 260. The Democratic Services Team Leader
undertook to contact the Manager, PWC in between meetings to ensure that the work
programme accurately reflected the reports.
The summary included 20 recommendations, all of which had been agreed by
management. Timetables were in place for their implementation.
Members discussed the report:
a) Overpayments had been made to Members who had changed their role after the
2011 election. This had been the result of human error and the money had been
recovered. The Acting Financial Services Manager suggested that a trigger be put in
place on the Human Resources system to prevent a recurrence. He would confirm to
Members when this trigger was in place.
b) In reply to a Member’s question Julian Rickett explained that the wording “We
reiterate our original recommendation” was used when a recommendation had been
proposed in a previous year. Officers pointed out that sometimes recommendations
were not implemented because it was not possible. The limitations of the Civica
system was an example of this. The Audit Committee had to consider the balance
between risk, recommendations and operational necessity.
c) There had been a significant number of recommendations regarding Asset
Management. The Acting Financial Services Manager had been discussed this with
the Council’s valuer within Property Services to ensure that recommendations were
carried out and that there was an improvement for next year.
d) Suspense accounts: having a balance at the year end was discouraged because
they could mask other transactions. The balance held in the suspense account at the
year end was £7,052.80, made up of 3 items. The Acting Financial Services Manager
had presented this to the Audit Committee in September and had explained the items
and the reasons they were held in suspense. Sometimes credits were received
Audit Committee
2
51
6 December 2011
AUDIT OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH
2011 AND ANNUAL SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
(Continued)
without description. They were held in suspense until they could be allocated. In other
organisations such accounts were called “Other Creditors” or similar.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
44 ANNUAL AUDIT LETTER 2010/11 AUDIT
The purpose of the letter was to provide a high level summary of the results of the
2010/11 audit work that PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) had undertaken at North
Norfolk District Council.
Reports already issued included the Audit opinion for the 2010/11 financial statements,
including the value for money conclusion, the Report to those charged with Governance
(ISA (UK&I) 260) and the Audit of the Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31
March 2011/ summary of audit recommendations.
In the view of PWC the underlying quality of the process for producing the accounts,
including the supporting papers, was good subject to several concerns that were
discussed in detail with the Audit Committee on 13 September 2011.
External Audit had issued an unqualified opinion on the accounts for 2010 – 11 and the
value for money conclusion. There were no matters which they wished to bring to the
Committee’s attention.
RESOLVED
To note the Annual Audit Letter 2010/11
45 PROGRESS REPORT ON INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY, APRIL – OCTOBER 2011
The report provided an update to the Committee on the outcomes of audit work
completed since the previous report (up to August 2011), and assessed the performance
and effectiveness of the Internal Service in delivering the Annual Audit Plan between
April and October 2011. Three additional audit assignments had been completed since
the previous report to Committee, 57% of the work had been completed and the audit
plan remained on schedule to deliver the Annual Report and Opinion of the Head of
Internal Audit. Internal Audit continued to deliver an effective service to the Council.
The Business Continuity audit had been moved to December because of changes in
service management but would now take place in Quarter 4 because it would be more
effective. The Audit Committee was receiving regular quarterly updates on this service.
The audit on communications had been deferred as it was considered that there were no
areas where an audit could add value. Three additional assignments had been
completed since the September progress report. The outcomes of these audits were
included at Appendix B to the report. The review of the waste management contract with
Kier had resulted in a limited assurance opinion being awarded. One high priority item
was raised in respect of the income payable to the Council for garden waste collections.
Subsequent to the completion of the audit fieldwork, management had confirmed that the
income due had now been received.
Audit Committee
3
52
6 December 2011
PROGRESS REPORT ON INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY, APRIL – OCTOBER 2011
(Continued)
There had been significant improvement in timeframes to deliver final reports once the
draft report had been issued. This meant that the overall time to deliver audit reports had
also improved. In response to a Member’s question the Deputy Audit Manager explained
that some audit reports had taken longer to deliver because of the very robust internal
review process required. There was no significant impact if a report went 4 or 5 days
over the target date. The quality of the report was more important than the target.
RESOLVED
to note the progress made in delivering the Annual Audit Plan, and the outcomes of the
work of Internal Audit completed at this stage.
46 THE STATUS OF AGREED AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS DUE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION BY 30 SEPTEMBER 2011
The report provided an overview of the progress made in implementing the audit
recommendations due at 30 September 2011. No high priority issues due at this stage
remained outstanding, and the overall number of outstanding items had continued to
reduce. Action had been taken to address areas of weakness in respect of network
infrastructure in particular. There had been significant improvement in follow-up over the
past year.
5 recommendations remained outstanding in respect of partnerships. The Interim
Accountancy Manager was undertaking work on the Council’s partnership framework
and the audit recommendations were being considered as part of this work. There were
4 outstanding recommendations in respect of the Environmental Health Service which
had arisen from difficulties in finalising the contracts for pest control and dog kenneling
services.
In response to a Member’s question the Deputy Audit Manager said that it was easy to
track the progress of recommendations because they were held in the TEN performance
management system. However, there was more work to be done on updates. When a
recommendation was implemented it should be updated on the TEN system but there
were occasions where this did not happen.
It was acknowledged that TEN was not a user-friendly system. Other systems were
available but there were no plans to upgrade at present. The Acting Financial Services
Manager would discuss this with the Performance Management Officer. TEN held
service plans, policies, consultations and frameworks as well as audit recommendations.
Training needed to be provided if the TEN system was to be retained. Members
expressed concern that the TEN system had significant limitations and that the system
should be reviewed in light of the best way forward for the future.
RESOLVED to
1. Note the progress made to implement audit recommendations, and the areas where
further work is required.
2. Add a review of the TEN system to the Audit Committee action list.
47 AUDIT COMMITTEE SELF-ASSESSMENT
This item had been deferred from the meeting of 13 September 2011. However, it was
agreed that to work through the Self-Assessment now could be disadvantageous to new
Members who might not make input or be able to identify training needs. Members were
Audit Committee
4
53
6 December 2011
AUDIT COMMITTEE SELF-ASSESSMENT
(Continued)
requested to complete the Self-Assessment in their own time and to return it to the
Deputy Audit Manager by 16 December 2011. The Deputy Audit Manager would collate
the responses into an action plan which she would bring initially to the pre-Agenda
meeting, then to the March meeting of the Committee.
It was noted that the terms of reference in the CIPFA guidance were significantly
different from those in the Audit Committee Terms of Reference in the Constitution. This
needed to be reviewed in light of the changes to public audit.
RESOLVED
1. To complete the Self-Assessment and to return it to the Deputy Audit
Manager by 16 December 2011.
2. That the Deputy Audit Manager should collate the responses into an action
plan to be reported back to the Committee.
48 THE FUTURE PROVISION OF EXTERNAL AUDIT
In August 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government had
announced that new arrangements would be put in place for auditing local public bodies
in England. Since then a consultation exercise had taken place. The report updated
Members with developments, including future arrangements following the abolition of the
Audit Commission.
Professional audit would still be necessary. It was likely that the Government would
increase the list of auditors for Auditor Choice. The Council would be able to choose its
own auditor although PWC would be retained for the audit of the 2011/12 accounts, after
which they would have a watching brief for a period after the new auditor was appointed.
The new auditors would draw up the audit plan and would have rights to use the
outgoing auditor’s working papers. The same level of audit work would still be required.
The consultation had placed an emphasis on the introduction of independent Members
to the Audit Committee. The outcome of this was awaited but it seemed that Audit
Committees could be different in the future.
A further report would be brought to the Audit Committee when there was greater clarity.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
49 REVIEW OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
The Revised Corporate Risk Framework drew extensively on the current provisions for
identifying risk, recording risk and reviewing risk while, at the same time, developing a
different reporting structure to allow for ongoing risk assessment and review. Certain
risks needed to be reviewed by the Audit Committee on a regular basis. The Audit
Committee had a responsibility to be aware of the risks to the organization. The previous
method of reporting had given a very limited overview.
Audit Committee
5
54
6 December 2011
REVIEW OF THE RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
(Continued)
The Audit Committee was asked to comment on the draft revised Framework. The
comments would be passed to the Performance and Risk Management Board for
consideration in preparing a final version.
a) There was no longer a Corporate Risk Officer. The “risk owner” was the Strategic
Director responsible for the risk and its mitigation, although the mitigation could be
owned by someone else in the directorate. Actions would be carried out by heads of
service.
b) The previous framework had lacked presentation of the dynamics, key drivers and
trends surrounding a risk. The final revised framework should be capable of
displaying these things.
c) The next step would be to populate the framework with risks and put it to the test.
d) Some authorities offered risk management training or workshops to help equip
Members and officers. The possibility of offering this at NNDC was being investigated
by the Interim Accountancy Manager and the Organisational Development Manager.
RESOLVED
That the Risk Management Framework should be taken forward to the Performance and
Risk Management Board and that the Audit Committee should keep a watching brief.
50 REVIEW OF THE PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK
It was an opportune time to review the Partnership Framework. Some of the partnerships
listed in the current Framework were no longer in operation and the document failed to
define or categorise partnerships effectively. The revised Framework aimed not only to
define and categorise partnerships but to provide Members with support when they
attended meetings of outside bodies, especially when their role was that of trustee.
The draft Framework was discussed:
a) Regular reports should be received on major partnerships. The revised Framework
would address this.
b) The report suggested that there were 3 levels of partnership but it was recognised
that these definitions were not absolute. The Interim Accountancy Manager would
reflect on this and revise the wording if necessary.
c) The arrangements put in place needed to be proportionate to the needs of the
partnership.
d) The governance arrangements of partnerships needed to be considered.
e) The Interim Accountancy Manager invited further comments by email.
f) The comments of the Audit Committee would be forwarded to the Performance and
Risk Management Board.
RESOLVED
That comments from the Audit Committee on the revised Partnership Framework be
collated and passed to the Performance and Risk Board to develop a final version to be
adopted by the Council.
Audit Committee
6
55
6 December 2011
51 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW – DRAFT
The report presented the key revisions made to the Performance Management
Framework and the revised version of the document which would ensure that the
Council’s approach to performance management remained fit-for-purpose and would
ensure delivery of the priorities in the Corporate Plan.
The key changes to the framework were:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Inclusion of the Annual Action Plan
Removal of Organisational Development Plans from the previous Corporate Plan
Removal of National Indicators
Removal of Local Area Agreement Indicators
Addition of collection of database of performance management reporting
including information about;
a. What is performance managed
b. Who is responsible
c. How it is managed/ by whom
d. How often
e. Where it is stored and in what format
6) Projects would be reported on quarterly (previously monthly) and the
performance system will show clearly where reporting has not taken place
The document would be circulated to all managers in NNDC and be discussed at the
regular meetings between the Policy and Performance Management Officer and
Managers to ensure smooth implementation.
The framework would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee alongside
the first Annual Action Plan in early 2012. Comments from the Audit Committee would be
communicated to Overview and Scrutiny. It was intended that the framework would then
go to Cabinet and Full Council and be implemented in April 2012. Members requested
that it should come back to the Audit Committee in March, before it was signed off.
A Member asked how, with national performance indicators removed, we could compare
our performance. The Policy and Performance Management Office replied that NNDC
belonged to SPARSE who supplied key indicators for comparable councils. It was,
however, more important to set targets to fit the needs of North Norfolk.
RESOLVED
That a further report should be made to the Audit Committee in March 2012, before the
Performance Management Framework went to Full Council.
52 NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE, SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUDIT
A briefing note had been received from the ICT Manager updating Members on progress
with the implementation of audit recommendations. Members were satisfied with
progress and
NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE, SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUDIT
(Continued)
RESOLVED
to remove the Network Infrastructure, Security and Telecommunications Audit report
from the Action List.
Audit Committee
7
56
6 December 2011
53 BUSINESS CONTINUITY
a) The Business Continuity Working Group would reconvene on 15 December 2011,
meeting monthly thereafter. Members were asked if they wished to make a
nomination as there had previously been Member representation. The Chairman
advised Members that CIPFA guidance advised against the Audit Committee getting
involved in executive matters. It was decided that the Portfolio Holder, Mr J Lee,
should be asked to join the Group.
b) The Business Continuity Manager was producing a diagram which indicated the
potential risks in each service area. This would be included in the next report to the
Committee.
c) There had been 2 disruptive events recently:
i)
Very high tides on 26 November 2011: there had been significant work for the
flood wardens and minor flooding. This had led to a review of some of the
arrangements particularly regarding the shutting of flood barriers and ensuring
effective communications.
ii) Industrial Action on 30 November 2011: Civil Contingencies staff had gone round
the office checking services for ability to maintain services and meet legal
requirements. In most teams it had been a matter of deferring work until the next
day. There would be a debriefing at the Business Continuity Working Group.
d) Arrangements for provision of a generator were being reviewed. Members were
concerned that an arrangement had not yet been put in place and asked that this
should be actioned before the next meeting.
e) The corporate plan was under review. It was still valid but some posts had changed
or no longer existed.
f) In the event of the main office being unusable business arrangements could be up
and running in the Annexe in about an hour although some of the systems, such as
Revenues and Benefits, would take longer. It was acknowledged that if the disruption
to business had been caused by fire this arrangement might not be viable. If all else
failed there was still a reciprocal arrangement with Victory Housing Trust.
g) Future objectives for the next 6 months included:
i) Reinstating the Business Continuity Working Group
ii) Revising the template for team business continuity plans.
iii) Identifying those teams which needed plans.
iv) Ensuring that teams completed their individual business continuity plans.
h) In response to a question from the Committee the Environmental Health Manager
said that there were 41 teams but that some might be covered by an over-arching
plan. There would be more clarity on this when the next report was brought to the
Committee.
i) Members were concerned that there had been little progress with business continuity
over a significant period of time, although they recognised that there had been
problems regarding staffing.
RESOLVED
That the report made to the Committee in March 2012 should include information about
the risks to each service area, the number of team business continuity plans in place and
confirmation that arrangements for a generator were in place.
Audit Committee
8
57
6 December 2011
54 AUDIT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
The following updates were made to the Audit Committee Work Programme for March:
a) The Audit Plan, Audit Letter and Annual Grant Certification Report would be received
from PWC.
b) The Performance Management Framework would be brought back to the Committee.
c) The Self-Assessments would be brought to the Committee as an Action Plan.
RESOLVED
To note the Work Programme.
The meeting ended at 5.00 pm.
______________________
Chairman
Audit Committee
9
58
6 December 2011
Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 25 January
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr P Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Sustainability Co-ordinator (for item 112) The Strategic Director Environment (for Items 112 - 115) and the Democratic Services Team
Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Ms V Gay, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr P High, Mr K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mrs A
Moore, Ms B Palmer, Mr S Ward and Mrs V Uprichard
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
101 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr R Wright
102 SUBSTITUTES
None
103 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Questions had been received for the item on Flooding at Walcott. These would be taken
when the item was considered.
104 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2011 were signed as a correct record.
105 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
59
25 January 2012
106 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
107 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting.
108 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None.
109 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet’s proposal that the Big Society Fund should be subject to pre-scrutiny had been
welcomed by the Committee. The item would be considered at a special meeting on 31
January 2012.
110 THE FORWARD PLAN
The Democratic Services Team Leader reminded Members to check the Management
of Council Business matrix that was circulated weekly to ensure that they were kept up
to date with the reports coming to Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and Full Council.
111 NORTH NORFOLK HEALTH TRAINER SERVICE
The Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing introduced this item. She explained that
local authorities now had responsibility for public health. Although the Health Trainer
Team was employed by the NHS, they would be based at the Council Offices enabling a
close working relationship which she hoped would form the basis of a long term
partnership with health providers locally.
John Russell, Health Trainer Co-ordinator for North Norfolk gave a brief presentation on
the work of the Health Trainer Team. He said that there were 6 trainers each working 30
hours a week. They provided a service to anyone over the age of 16 and aimed to
provide motivation, support and guidance to help them improve their health and
wellbeing. This approach fitted in well with the Council’s Health Strategy and tied in with
the rest of the county where health trainer teams were already operating.
The biggest challenge was the distance that needed to be covered and finding suitable
accommodation for visits.
Members discussed the presentation:
a) The Chairman asked how long the project had been going. John Russell explained
that it had been established countrywide in 2006 and started in Norfolk in 2010 in
Thetford, Kings Lynn and Norwich. The North Norfolk service intended to have an
initial ‘soft’ launch at 3 medical practices to make sure the general approach was
right.
b) A Member asked for clarification regarding the type of venues the team required.
John Russell said that the room should be suitable for up to 3 people and must be
private.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
60
25 January 2012
c) The issue of mental health was highlighted. The remit of the Health Trainer Service
did not appear to cover this. John Russell explained that there was a Mental Health
service that offered that same service as the Health Trainer Team but focussed on
mental health issues. People would be signposted to this service if it was felt that it
was more relevant to them.
d) A Member asked whether GPs referred people to the service. John Russell said that
experience showed that around 65% of referrals came from medical practitioners. In
response to a further question regarding other methods of referral, he said that it
was hoped that the official launch in June 2012 would highlight the service to the
public.
e) The issue of self-referral and how the service was promoted to people was raised.
John Russell said that people needed to be ready to change and that if they were
referred by their GP when they were not interested in changing their lifestyle then
they would not engage. Previously links with the home library service had worked
well as it was an effective way of reaching residents who were housebound.
f) The size of the area that was covered by the Team was commented on. It was felt
that it was very large and that it would be necessary to target particular areas
initially. John Russell said that the Council had directed the Team to the places
within the top 40% of deprivation. In response to a further question regarding obesity
in children, it was explained that the Health Trainer Service focussed on people over
16 and that the school medical service would deal with younger people often on a
whole family basis.
g) There was a concern that the limited number of staff would struggle to cover such a
large area. John Russell said that it was intended that they would spend time in
each area over a two week period. This would allow for fortnightly consultations with
people. It was hoped that some sessions could be provided via email or over the
telephone. The technology was currently being put in place to enable this from June
2012 onwards. There would also be an electronic referral form on the website.
h) The Chairman asked how long the project would be running for. John Russell said
that it would run until April 2013 when the service would be put out to tender.
AGREED
1 That future Health Strategy updates to the Committee would include the work of the
Health Trainer Team.
2 That a copy of the presentation would be published in the Member’s Bulletin.
3 The Health Trainer Team would provide an update to the Committee in 12 months on
their progress and achievements.
112 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY REVIEW
The report outlined progress with projects in the Carbon Management Plan and wider
sustainability work. It included a draft revision of the Council’s Environmental
Sustainability Strategy.
Members discussed the report:
1. A Member asked whether the Greenbuild event would continue. The Deputy Leader
said that it would and it was hoped that the event would continue to be sponsored by
an external organisation. In response to a further question as to whether the event
depended on sponsorship, the Deputy Leader said that it did not but that there was
a finite budget.
2. The recent changes to the Feed-in tariffs and the likely impact on uptake was raised.
The Sustainability Coordinator said that it was probable that there would be a
reduction in uptake and this would become clearer over the next 6 months.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
61
25 January 2012
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
However, there were still good deals available and she was confident that demand
for renewable technologies would remain reasonably strong.
The cost of energy use at the Council Offices was raised. A Member asked whether
there had been an in-depth study into how energy use could be reduced further. The
Sustainability Coordinator said that the Carbon Management Plan had looked at this
issue closely. Electricity was the main cost. Only the servers were left on
continuously now. Lights and PCs were turned off overnight. The Strategic Director
– Environment added that the Council’s Property Services team had arranged for an
in-depth study of council buildings. This included the leisure centres where there
was a huge use of energy – particularly at Splash in Sheringham.
A Member asked whether the Sustainability Coordinator was confident that the
Council would achieve its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 33% by 2014. She
replied that the Council was not on target at the moment. There had been several
mitigating factors and these were being dealt with but it was likely that the target
would need to be lowered.
The lack of a back-up generator at the Council offices was raised. A Member
suggested that a renewable energy source should be considered. The Strategic
Director – Environment said that the main priority was having access to an
alternative energy supply quickly and that would be the main priority and govern the
selection of a suitable resource. In response to a further question regarding the
necessity of providing power to the whole building in the event of a power-cut, the
Strategic Director said that it was necessary as there would be no way of knowing
how long the power would be out for. Mr R Reynolds suggested that obtaining a
smaller generator, capable of providing power for telephones, ICT and other
essential items should be considered.
A Member asked how many of the 30 projects within the Carbon Management Plan
had been completed. The Sustainability Coordinator said that it was at least 10 but
this would be confirmed at the next update to the Committee.
The ongoing power-saving campaign for staff was highlighted. It was felt that this
should be enforced strictly if savings were to be made. The Sustainability
Coordinator explained that there had been a continual fall in energy use since the
start of the campaign. She added that PCs had been fitted with a power-down plug
and the Environmental Health team were trialling timers on their shared printers.
Environmental Sustainability Strategy Review April 2012 – March 2015
The Committee was invited to comment on the new draft Environmental Sustainability
Strategy which was due for review by April 2012. The following points were made:
a) The most important part of the document was the Foreword which mentioned the
importance of achieving a balance between protecting the environment and
maintaining social and economic development. It was felt that this approach was not
reflected fully throughout the strategy document. (p.17)
b) The targets and Action Plan needed adjusting slightly. (p. 25 – 30)
c) The Council should be more pro-active in attending outside events and parish
council meetings to promote awareness of sustainability issues. (p.26)
d) Plain English should be used where possible to ensure all stakeholders are able to
understand the strategy.
e) The corporate approach to sustainability seemed separate from the economic
approach. More could be done to draw them together.
f) Green business start-ups should be included within the strategy.
g) It was not clear whether the reference to the impact of development on designated
wildlife sites and protected species was limited to the Council or whether other
organisations were involved.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
62
25 January 2012
h) Councillor Glyn Williams offered to suggest amendments on the document in writing
on behalf of the Committee, which would be considered with the comments above in
the final draft.
113 FLOODING AT WALCOTT
David Kemp and Carol Maystan, representatives of the Environment Agency, were
attending the Committee to address concerns regarding flooding at Walcott on 27th
November 2011. The Chairman read out some questions from the local Member for
Walcott, Councillor Lee Walker:
a) Please can you explain to the Committee how the current flood warning system
works?
b) Why do you think the warning system failed in November 2011?
c) Can you explain why several people registered with the warning system did not
receive a call – including Tony Andrews the Head warden?
d) What contingency plan is in place for when the power lines fail? Would sirens not be
more effective on such occasions?
e) What more do you feel the Environment Agency can do to ensure a safe and reliable
system is in place?
David Kemp said that he would try and respond to the questions during his presentation
to the Committee. He began by explaining how the Environment Agency’s flood warning
service worked. Coastal areas were given 12 hours warning and there were three levels:
•
•
•
Flood Alert – low lying floods, properties would not be affected
Flood Warning – some properties could be affected
Severe Flood warning – possible danger to life
Residents must be registered with the Agency to receive these warnings and they were
issued by telephone (landline and mobile), text and email. The Environment Agency
received feedback on how many calls had been answered and were able to request a
multi-agency response if they felt an insufficient number of people had been alerted.
Following the flood in Walcott in 2007, it was agreed that there should be flood warnings
specifically for Walcott as areas of the village could flood even when the levels were
relatively low.
In November 2011 a flood alert was issued at 10.45am in anticipation of the high tide at
7.30pm. Properties would not be affected but it was likely that there would be water on
the road and this proved to be the case. Flood alerts were only issued to those people
who had requested them. Following the incident in November, letters were sent to all
households registered with the Environment Agency explaining what a flood alert was
and giving them the option to receive them in future. David Kemp explained that the
sirens had been provided and operated by the County Council and that the Environment
Agency was not involved in the decision to remove them except to state their position of
the sirens not being required. Their system had always operated independently of the
sirens.
Looking to the future, David Kemp stressed that it was important that residents worked
with the Environment Agency. He added that work was being undertaken on wave
forecasting which would make flood predictions more precise and that Walcott would
have a flood alert of it’s own in future. In addition, more advice would be provided to
residents on what they should do when a flood warning was issued.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
63
25 January 2012
The Chairman invited Jan Deakin, Chairman of Walcott Parish Council to put forward
questions on behalf of the Parish Council:
1. Why was nobody apparently issued with any warning about the incident a few weeks
ago except the flood wardens?
2. Why is the demarcation of the area that can be registered for flood warnings so
abrupt? One possible problem with this is that you might want to make sure where
your cat is during and event like the other evening or somebody in the village may
want to be alerted so that they can check on an elderly or infirm neighbour. There is
an element of social responsibility required in such situations; as Parish Councillors
we feel a certain responsibility to be aware of any possible crisis in our village in
order to be able to give support and be able to react as required.
3. What happens if the phones/electricity go down during an incident? How are they
going to issue warnings?
4. Is it moral that the local primary incident response is left to unpaid amateurs? (No
disrespect intended to our flood wardens who did manage the latest situation
extremely well)
In addition, Pauline Porter a local resident asked the following questions:
1
2
As a former Civil Protection officer for another parish, I have been registered to
receive all of the flood alerts and warnings. I did not receive an alert on the 27th
November 2011 and this could have had serious consequences for my neighbour as
she is on oxygen and I need to assist her during an emergency. Why did I not
receive an alert on this occasion?
Does the Environment Agency ever attend the scene to study the water levels in
Walcott?
David Kemp said that he would look into the problems relating to registration for flood
alerts. Residents should contact Floodline and they would pass the information on to his
team and ensure that they were registered. He offered to attend a meeting to explain the
process to local residents.
The Chairman invited Paul Morse, County Councillor for North Walsham East and North
to comment on the discussion so far. Mr Morse said that he felt that it was vital that the
problem was solved. He said that multi-agency working could prove challenging and that
the problems that occurred during the flood of 2007 had not been resolved. There
seemed to be a real difficulty with people understanding the difference between a flood
alert and a flood warning and there needed to be a continual campaign to ensure
awareness was maintained.
Members discussed the presentation:
a) Mr B Smith, Local Member for Mundesley Ward, which was adjacent to Walcott said
that he had visited Walcott the day after the flood in November 2011 and spoken to
several residents. There seemed to be an inconsistency in who had received the
alerts. He highlighted the fact that a policeman on foot had alerted a residential
home. He also had concerns that the flood warning system seemed to rely on
contacting people by landline. On this occasion the phone lines had been down for
two days. David Kemp said that he accepted that there had been problems
regarding registration for flood alerts. In response to the concern regarding phone
lines, he said that the data indicated that 79% of calls got through on this occasion.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
64
25 January 2012
b) The Chairman asked if there was any contact with people in the affected area who
could appraise the Environment Agency of the situation on the ground. David Kemp
said that they would welcome any reports from the scene that could assist the
Agency to control the situation.
c) Several Members commented that the system would be more effective if all
residents could be registered for all three levels of flood warning. David Kemp said
that since 2007 automatic registration had been allowed. However, flood alerts were
not included in this arrangement.
d) A Member asked about visitors staying in the area and how they were alerted when
there was a flood. David Kemp said that this was a big challenge. Several of the
holiday camps were registered for alerts but not all. The Environment Agency was
looking into the possibility of cell broadcasting – when a message was sent to all
mobile phones in a specific area. In response to a further question as to whether
they used the Radio Amateurs Emergency Network (RAYNET), he confirmed that
they did.
Two of the questions received from Walcott Parish Council referred to the District
Council. The Chairman invited John Lee, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services to
respond:
1. Could NNDC provide us with the evidence, in the form of accredited peer reviewed
scientific studies that show that the use of warning sirens is likely to induce mass
panic or that they are less effective and reliable than the high technology system they
advocate. What evidence is there about the relative costs? We believe that the
electorate are entitled to see the evidence that our democratic representatives are
using to guide their decisions. Councillor Lee said that the decision to remove the
sirens was taken by the County Council and that the District Council had not been
involved.
2. Now that the NNDC is not to issue sandbags and is passing its stock to a parish like
Walcott, what guidance/policy/budget will be passed over to the parish? Is the
NNDC now abdicating its civil protection role? Councillor Lee confirmed that the
District Council had withdrawn the offer to provide sandbags on advice from the
Environment Agency. It was felt that they were relatively ineffective against flood
waters and that flood boards would provide better protection. As a consequence the
Council was donating its remaining supply of sandbags to parishes that wanted them.
He suggested that Walcott should be represented on the Senior Flood wardens
group if this was not already the case.
The Chairman suggested that the issue of sandbags could be considered further during
the next item - Civil Contingencies Update. It was agreed that the Committee would like
to be kept informed of any developments regarding flooding at Walcott and that this
should be covered in future updates to the Committee on civil contingencies and
emergency planning.
AGREED
To receive a regular briefing on flooding at Walcott as part of the Civil Contingencies
Update.
114 CIVIL CONTINGENCIES AND BUSINESS CONTINUITY UPDATE
The report provided a six monthly update on civil contingencies and business continuity
planning, the progress made to date, ability to respond to any disruptive events that had
recently occurred and the outline of future objectives.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
65
25 January 2012
Members discussed the report:
a) The Chairman requested that Members should be kept informed of any changes or
amendments to emergency and business continuity plans. It was important that all
Members were aware of the out of hours emergency contact number. The Strategic
Director – Environment said that the out of hours arrangement continued as
previously, the only change was that there would be one officer on call now, with a
standby system in place.
b) A Member asked why the supply of sandbags was being withdrawn and whether the
decision had been made on the basis of cost. The Strategic Director – Environment
said that the scheme cost £8000 a year and that the sandbags needed to be
renewed regularly due to rot. In addition, the provision to supply sandbags via the
waste contractor was no longer in place. In response to a further question regarding
whether residents had been made aware of the decision to withdraw the provision of
sandbags, the Strategic Director – Environment said that the Council had contacted
residents who had used the service previously and information had been provided
on the Council’s website. He added that it was not a district council function to
provide sandbags and that they would be working with local groups and the
Environment Agency to increase awareness. From an insurance perspective
homeowners were expected to take their own measures to protect their home from
flooding.
c) The possibility of providing economic assistance to residents for flood protection was
raised. The Strategic Director – Environment said that the Council did not provide
financial assistance but that items such as flood boards were very effective and
inexpensive to install and maintain.
d) The Chairman asked for further information regarding the impact of the industrial
action on 30th November on business continuity. The Strategic Director –
Environment confirmed that the early forewarning of the event helped to mitigate the
impact on the Council’s services. He added that it provided a good opportunity for
managers to review their business continuity plans.
AGREED
That details of the emergency out of hours contact number would be published in the
Member’s Bulletin on a regular basis.
115 WASTE CONTRACT UPDATE
The Strategic Director – Environment updated the Committee on the waste contract:
a) There had been no disruption to the waste and recycling collections over the
Christmas and New Year period.
b) Changes to the collection rounds during the autumn had gone relatively smoothly
c) The outstanding software issues with the contractor were being dealt with.
d) Improvements had been agreed regarding cleansing operations in market towns.
e) Litter picking would commence shortly until Easter.
f) The first draft of the Annual Contract Improvement Plan was now in and any
changes would be implemented from 1st April 2012.
g) The public conveniences were being cleaned to a high standard. Two were currently
closed for essential maintenance.
h) The Edgefield landfill site would close in 2013 and alternative arrangements were
being agreed.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
66
25 January 2012
i)
Following the departure of the Environmental Services Manager, the Council had
entered into a shared management arrangement with King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
Borough Council. It was working well so far and would be kept under review.
Members discussed the update:
1. The Chairman asked who Members should contact now if they had any concerns
regarding waste. The Strategic Director – Environment said that if it was a minor
issue then they should contact the technical officers in the Environmental Services
team. If it was a major concern then they should contact the Environmental Services
Manager, Barry Brandford.
2. The local Member for Lancaster North, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, praised the quick
response to the concerns about litter picking in Fakenham. The concerns had been
particularly about the verges near Morrison’s, the football ground and traveller site
and on the Norwich Road but litter picking was essential to all areas of the town.
She asked whether there was a possibility that the Council’s waste contractor could
go into administration given the recent collapse of Norwich City Council’s
environmental management contractor, Fountains. The Strategic Director –
Environment explained the Council’s waste contractor, Kier was very different to
Fountains and was financially backed by a large construction company. They had a
good working relationship and it was unlikely that the partnership would end
prematurely. In response to a further question as to whether there was a
contingency plan in place, he said that in the unlikely event of contract failure it was
probable that there would be several companies who would be keen to take over the
work.
116 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme
1. The Housing Strategy: this involved several pieces of work being drawn together.
The Housing Services Manager had proposed that it should be presented to the
February meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
2. The Constitution: there had been a recent audit of corporate governance
arrangements. The Constitution Working Party would be approved at the February
meeting of Full Council with the aim of having the review completed by April 2012.
3. Task and Finish Group: the Group had met once and the meeting had gone very
well. It was anticipated that they would meet again with the aim of bringing a report
to the Overview and Scrutiny Workshop in April.
4. Annual Plan: The Deputy Chief Executive was working on a timetable for this item. It
would come to the Committee for consideration following the public consultation.
5. Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel: little progress had been made to
date. Councillor Roy Reynolds reported that an expert would be attending the panel
regarding buses. It was hoped that there would be pressure brought to bear on the
bus companies regarding timetabling and allowing communication between
operators.
6. Councillor Annie Claussen-Reynolds updated the Committee on information
regarding ambulance response times. Additional information was now available
regarding performance in North Norfolk against the 8 minute emergency response
standards. The East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust (EEAST) had been
invited to attend the next meeting of the East of England Health Scrutiny Chairs
Forum on 23 February 2012. Councillor Claussen-Reynolds would report back at a
future date on the outcome of this meeting. She also outlined the current work
programme for the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC).
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
67
25 January 2012
AGREED
That the Housing Strategy would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
on 15th February 2012.
The meeting concluded at 13.03 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10
68
25 January 2012
Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 31
January 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Officers in
Attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive
Members in
Attendance:
Ms V Gay, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr P High, Mr T Ivory, Mr K Johnson, Mr J
Lee, Mrs A Moore, Ms B Palmer, Mr S Ward and Mrs V Uprichard
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
117 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
118 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright
119 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Questions had been received in advance of the meeting. These were taken when the
item was considered.
120 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
69
31 January 2012
121 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mrs A
ClaussenReynolds
Minute No.
Norfolk Community Foundation
Mr N Smith
122 NORTH NORFOLK
FRAMEWORK
Item
North Norfolk Big Society Fund
BIG
SOCIETY
FUND
–
Interest
Personal – is an
NNDC representative
on the Fakenham
Area Partnership
Personal – is involved
with an organisation
that had received
funds via the NCF
PROPOSED
OPERATIONAL
Councillor Trevor Ivory, Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society introduced the
item. He explained that the same three funding streams were still proposed: community
grant giving, community capacity building and support for the voluntary sector. The
focus of the meeting was to consider the detail of the community grant giving aspect of
the Fund before it was presented to Full Council on 22 February 2012. The other two
streams would be provided via the voluntary sector and would be specified, costed and
monitored through a service level agreement (SLA). A three month extension to
Voluntary Norfolk’s existing contract was proposed to allow them additional time to put a
suitable support structure in place.
The Portfolio Holder drew the Committee’s attention to the allocation of the funding. The
total available for the launch in 2012/13 was £1.169 million, with £675,000
approximately being available on an ongoing basis. A remaining, unallocated sum was
from unspent funding for the Local Strategic Partnership. It was anticipated that some of
this money would be held back and used through subsequent years.
The Chairman introduced Mr Graham Tuttle, Director of the Norfolk Community Fund
(NCF). It was proposed that the funding stream for community grant giving would be
administered on behalf of the Council by the NCF. Mr Tuttle said that he would explain
the role of the Community Fund to the Committee and was willing to answer any
questions relating to their work. Several questions had been received in advance of the
meeting and it was agreed that these would be addressed by both The Portfolio Holder
and Mr Tuttle, where appropriate.
Ms Angela Simkiss, Project Manager of First Focus in Fakenham had submitted the
following questions:
a) When will there be a clear strategy for use by small charitable organisations to
enable them to present their services for commissioning opportunities and is it likely
to be before April 2014?
b) As much of the funding received by small charities from statutory bodies has now
effectively ceased and the prospect of gaining income from commissioning their
services is still very vague, could you advise as to the best way to maintain the
valuable local services currently offered by such organisations?
The Portfolio Holder said that support to charitable organisations was an important part
of the Big Society Fund and this would come through the service level agreements with
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
70
31 January 2012
the voluntary sector. He added that funding from the community grant giving fund was
also available to charities. In response to the second question, he said that the
commissioning of services was not within the remit of the Big Society Fund. However, it
was part of the Council’s wider agenda. It was within the corporate plan as an objective
and the County Council were also considering options.
Mrs Gloria Lisher, Chairman of the Fakenham Area Partnership had submitted the
following question:
1. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that the new organisation which
decides and distributes funding is efficient and meets the necessary criteria of giving
funding equally and fairly to voluntary organisations in the North Norfolk area?
The Portfolio Holder said that the eligibility criteria for applications to the Big Society
Fund ensured that funding would be distributed fairly. In addition, the decision-making
process for allocating grants would be politically balanced.
Several questions had been received from Janet Holdom, Coordinator of the Fakenham
Area Partnership:
1. The constant response from NNDC Members is that no funding will be given for
administration costs. What does this include? Surely telephone, broadband, IT
support, stationery, printing, postage and some organisational time are crucial to
almost every project you’re likely to be seeking support for.
The Portfolio Holder explained that core funding was not covered by the Fund.
Administration costs linked to the delivery of projects would be included but general
overheads would not. This was in-line with other grant-giving organisations.
2. Recently, when I was enquiring about the possibility of funding for marketing
software connected with the Fakenham Community Campus project, Norfolk
Community Foundation informed me that they are not accepting any funding
applications from local area partnerships (LAPs). I explained this was not in relation
to core costs but for project equipment and was told that it was not their policy to
fund LAPs for any activity
Mr Tuttle explained that the Norfolk Community Foundation was not a decision-making
body. It distributed funds on behalf of other organisations and projects needed to be in
line with the aspirations of the fund. Each year the NCF received £3m of requests for
£1.5m of funding. It was impossible to support everyone that applied but there was
definitely no bias against anyone or any organisation.
3. I am concerned that there is an inbuilt bias against LAPs within the Norfolk
Community Foundation, specifically with regard to the North Norfolk Community
Fund
Mr Tuttle said that there was no built-in bias against the Local Area Partnerships. The
NCF processed any applications they received and presented them to any eligible
panel. All applications were presented in a standard format and if they didn’t fit the
criteria then they would be signposted to a more suitable source of funding. The
Portfolio Holder added that the LAPs were encouraged to apply to the Big Society Fund
but that core funding was not covered and this applied to everyone.
4. Is the Norfolk Community Foundation the best choice to manage the new Big
Society Fund, with a history of questionable independence and neutrality?
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
71
31 January 2012
The Portfolio Holder said that various options for administration of the Fund had been
considered, including managing it internally. The NCF was able to run the Fund very
efficiently and their knowledge of other funding sources meant that the potential of the
Big Society Fund would be maximised as applicants could be signposted to other
funding sources if they did not meet the criteria or their application was unsuccessful. Mr
Tuttle added that the NCF was an independent organisation and that its aim was to get
money out to the local community. Decision making was not within its remit – it
processed the applications and presented them to the most appropriate funding panel.
The NCF worked closely with several other bodies to ensure that as many sources as
possible were available to those seeking funding.
5. Is a 12% administration charge (a potential £84000 fee) the best value for money?
Mr Tuttle said that the administration charge was 6% which amounted to £27000. This
was comparable to the amount paid by other local authorities.
6. The Norfolk Community Foundation application form is overly bureaucratic and not
very efficient in terms of time response.
Mr Tuttle explained that it was a standard application form and the same template was
used by all 57 community foundations across the country. There were 17 pages in total
including several pages of guidance notes. All the information requested on the form
was there to support the reputation of the donor and their funding. Applications took
approximately 3 weeks to process and could also be submitted online.
7. Regarding actual applications to the Big Society Fund – can a prompt and sensitive
response time be built into the application process? Regular meetings and faster
turnaround sensitive to community groups needs rather than the current funding
panel’s time management.
The Portfolio Holder explained that there were two levels of application. Requests for
over £5000 would be approved by the Cabinet at their monthly meeting. Applications for
less than £5000 would be assessed by a Committee which would meet as regularly as
necessary. The eligibility criteria had been kept to a minimum to ensure the process was
simple.
The Chairman asked whether applications that required Cabinet approval were subject
to a call in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Deputy Chief Executive
explained that requests under £10000 could be dealt with under delegation. Anything
over £10000 could be called in.
8. Regarding qualification criteria – can there be clear guidelines as to what is ruled in
and ruled out so the goal posts can’t be moved whenever it is politically expedient?
The Portfolio Holder reiterated that the criteria were not overly prescriptive so that the
application process was simple and to encourage as many people as possible to apply.
The Committee considering applications would be politically balanced. He added that
any changes to the eligibility criteria would be a decision for Full Council.
The Chairman asked the Committee whether they wished to clarify any of the issues
raised so far:
1. A Member asked where the gap would be filled for projects such as Voyager which
required significant input in terms of ideas for activities. Mr Tuttle said that funding
had been supplied for the Griffon Partnership which ran the Voyager Community
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
72
31 January 2012
2.
3.
4.
5.
Group. The NCF were willing to advise any project on how to fill a funding gap. They
would work with organisations to try and anticipate any future needs and find
suitable organisations that could assist.
A concern was raised that support was lacking at local level for small projects and
they would begin to disappear without the support of the Local Area Partnerships.
The Portfolio Holder said that the Local Area Partnerships would continue to
operate. The Big Society Fund was being set up in recognition of the support
needed for local projects. It was important that the community decided which
projects they would like funding for. He added that capacity building was critical in
ensuring sustainability and this was a vital part of the support structure that was
being proposed.
A Member asked whether the NCF were able to advise an applicant if the amount of
funding requested was too high. Mr Tuttle said that was not the role of the
Foundation, however, they may be aware of cheaper sources or providers for
equipment or facilities and they could advise the panel that a lower amount may be
more appropriate. The final decision would always lie with the panel.
Clarification was sought on the meaning of core funding. The Portfolio Holder
explained that projects would need to cover costs for administering an individual
project but general overheads and ongoing costs for office staff would not be
included in the funding. He said that it was important that the maximum amount of
money reached the front line and that organisations did not become dependent on
funding. It was hoped that the Big Society Fund would encourage more people to
volunteer their services and this was unlikely to happen if people were paid to take
on such roles.
A Member asked whether an organisation could reapply for funding once it had been
refused. The Portfolio Holder said that there was no limit on the number of
applications that could be made and no time limit. In response to a further question
regarding advice on altering applications to maximise the chances of obtaining
funding, Mr Tuttle said that the NCF were willing to do this. They employed 3
dedicated grants officers and they would always try and ensure that applications
were of the highest standard and went to the most appropriate fund. Sometimes
funding would be shared between panels. Voluntary Norfolk and the Norfolk Rural
Community Council (NRCC) would also help with the application process.
The Chairman asked the Committee if there were any specific questions for Mr Tuttle
relating to the Norfolk Community Foundation.
1. A Member asked how many staff were employed by the Foundation and if there
were any volunteers. Mr Tuttle confirmed that there were 5 members of staff and 5
volunteers. They were based in Norwich and had no premises costs. A donor paid
50% of Mr Tuttle’s salary. This meant that only 4-5% was spent on core costs each
year.
2. Clarification was sought regarding the application process and whether the NCF
checked to see if applicants had sought funding elsewhere. Mr Tuttle said that the
NCF was aware that people made duplicate applications to several funds. There
were 12 charitable trusts in Norfolk and they met 4 times a year. Four charities were
invited to each meeting to pitch direct for funding. The NCF recognised that there
were lots of vulnerable organisations and they would even approach them direct if
they became aware that they were struggling and offer support in obtaining funding.
3. A Member asked how easy it was for smaller groups or individuals to apply for
funding. Mr Tuttle said that the NCF supported both registered and unregistered
charities. They were the only organisation in the region to support unregistered
charities.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
73
31 January 2012
The Chairman asked the Committee for comments and questions relating to the
proposed operational framework of the North Norfolk Big Society Fund:
1. A Member was concerned that the profile of the Council should not disappear within
the Community Foundation’s general branding. It should be made clear to potential
applicants that the Big Society Fund was an initiative of North Norfolk District
Council. The Portfolio Holder agreed. He said that it was important that the Council
received credit for the Fund. He explained that the NCF would direct applicants to
the Council and that all information provided would be clearly branded with the
NNDC logo. Once applicants were directed to the Big Society Fund, additional
information would be requested and then explored further in dialogue.
2. It was important that the Council worked closely with the organisation responsible for
capacity building. They should work as a partnership and the terms of the Service
Level Agreement (SLA) should be negotiated rather than predetermined.
3. Links between the Council and parish and town councils were very important and
should be strengthened if the Big Society Fund was to achieve its full potential.
4. The Chairman suggested that a cap of 5% could be placed on administration costs
for each application.
5. There was no upper funding limit for the Big Society Fund but it could be made clear
to applicants that grants for large amounts would be exceptional.
6. Large projects may need funding for longer than the 1 year stated. It could be
acknowledged within the eligibility criteria that funding could be extended but that it
was dependant on the continued receipt of second homes income from the County
Council. The Portfolio Holder said that it was stated within the appendices to the
framework document that 2 years funding could be proposed, with 50% in the
second year coming from other sources.
7. The £5000 trigger for Cabinet to consider applications to the Fund could be too low
and could generate a considerable amount of work for them.
8. There should be regular reports back to the Scrutiny Committee on the progress of
the Big Society Fund.
9. A Member queried the cost of back office support for the Fund. The Portfolio Holder
said that 6% (£27000) would go the Norfolk Community Fund and £50,000 would go
towards community capacity building. In response to a further question regarding
concerns about the Voyager Project in North Walsham, he said that he would look at
their needs in further depth.
10. There was a concern that parish and town councils were not empowered enough to
represent the views of their communities. The Portfolio Holder said that it was
fundamental that more power was driven down to parish and town councils. The Big
Society Fund would encourage this by allowing them to apply for funding for
community projects.
11. It would be helpful if a detailed annual report could be produced providing an
analysis of donations. Nr Ivory explained that the Council would use its own panel to
determine applications and that a detailed report could be provided.
12. The concept of real need could be introduced to the eligibility criteria in addition to
the requirement of community support.
13. The role of Ward Members should be mentioned within the Framework document.
14. The eligibility criteria should be kept to a minimum but there did need to be a ‘driver’.
The Corporate Plan could offer guidance and help provide a framework. It was
suggested that the two Members of the Committee who would be nominated to work
on the Service Level Agreements could also consider the criteria.
15. The examples of projects eligible for funding should be carefully chosen to give real
encouragement to potential applicants.
16. It was important to clarify what the Big Society Fund would cover and when the
capacity building process would start.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
74
31 January 2012
17. Environmental projects appeared to be excluded from applying to the Fund. Perhaps
the eligibility criteria could be worded to indicate that they will be considered if they
are supported by the community and strengthen ties.
18. A Member asked whether grants made by the Big Society Fund would be monitored.
The Portfolio Holder said that they would be and that it was a crucial part of the
process.
19. There was a concern that there would be a disproportionate number of applications
to the Fund from the larger towns and that smaller towns and villages could struggle
to come up with ideas. The Portfolio Holder agreed that there was the potential for
too many applications but it was hoped that town councils would take the lead in
prioritising the needs of the local community. Large scale projects would be dealt
with differently as they required a lot of input from the Council and would be
resourced internally.
20. A Member asked whether the income from second homes was likely to stay at the
same level. The Portfolio Holder said that it had declined noticeably recently. It
wasn’t clear whether this was due to holiday homes switching to business rates or
whether they had been sold. The Deputy Chief Executive added that the proposal to
remove the 10% discount on second homes would mean that the income stream
would be lost as there would be no way of identifying which properties were in this
category. In response to a further question regarding the role of the County Strategic
Partnership, The Portfolio Holder said that they had previously administered the
sustainable community strategies.
21. The possibility of an application coming forward for funding late in the financial year
when available funds could be low was raised. The Portfolio Holder explained that
although there was a finite pot of money there was a reserve fund which could be
drawn on if the grants committee wished to fund a specific project. He added that
the Norfolk Community Foundation were able to signpost applicants to other
available sources of funding.
22. There was a possibility that some funding could be wasted if further follow-on
funding was not found for some projects. They may need assistance to start looking
for additional funding during the early stages of the project.
23. The general outline for the service level agreements (SLA’s) was good. They should
not be too prescriptive and need to be outcome-based. NNDC should work with the
chosen provider as a partner and negotiate the terms rather than pre-determining
them.
The Chairman proposed two additional recommendations to the Committee:
1. That the Group developing the formal service level agreements would also consider
the eligibility criteria for the community grant funding scheme.
2. That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would receive six monthly reports on the
operation of the Big Society Fund
RESOLVED
a) To recommend the proposed structure of the Big Society Fund to Cabinet
b) To nominate two Members of the Committee, Mr G Williams and Mr N Smith to work
with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Portfolio Member in developing a
formal service level agreement based upon the draft outcomes incorporate within
the appendices
c) That the Members listed above would also consider the eligibility criteria for the
community grant funding scheme.
d) That their conclusions on the above would be reported to Full Council on 22
February 2012.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
75
31 January 2012
e) To refer comments and observations to Cabinet for consideration on 6 February
2012 prior to submission of the recommended operational framework to Council
f) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive six monthly reports on
the operation of the Big Society Fund
The meeting concluded at 12.07 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
76
31 January 2012
Agenda Item no _________2________
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 6 February 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members present:
Mrs H Eales (Chairman)
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Ms B Palmer
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mr D Young
Officers in attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Strategic Director – Information, the
Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager, the Acting Financial
Services Manager, the Technical Accountant and the
Democratic Services Officer (AA).
82
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None.
83
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 9 January 2012 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
84
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None.
85
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
86
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
Cabinet
1
77
6 February 2012
87
MEMBERS TRAINING, DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT WORKING
GROUP
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Members’ Training, Development and
Support Working Group held on 30 August 2011 be received.
88
BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 9
The report presented the budget monitoring position for the revenue account
and capital programme to the end of period 9 (31 December 2011) and also
included a review of the current capital programme.
RESOLVED to
a)
b)
89
note the contents of the report and the revenue account forecast for
the current financial year;
note the current position in relation to the 2011/12 capital programme
and approve the additional funding for the emergency works to the
roof of the Mundesley public conveniences.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY 2012/13 TO 2014/15
The report set out details of the Council’s treasury management activities
along with the Prudential Indicators, and presented a strategy for the prudent
investment of the Council’s surplus funds for Members to approve.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
a)
b)
90
the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment
Strategy and Prudential Indicators, for 2012/13 to 2014/15, are
approved.
the revised Treasury Management Policy Statement is approved.
2012/13 BASE BUDGET AND PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
The report presented for approval the proposed budget for 2012/13 for both
revenue and capital and also provided indicative budgets for the following
three financial years 2013/14 to 2015/16.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a)
The 2012/13 revenue account budget as outlined at Appendix F and
that the surplus of £87,975 be allocated to the Restructuring
Proposals reserve;
b)
The demand on the Collection Find will be subject to any amendments
as a result of final precepts;
(i)
Cabinet
£5,789,172 for District purposes;
2
78
6 February 2012
(ii)
91
£1,561,174 (subject to confirmation of one final precept) for
Parish/Town precepts;
c)
The movement on the reserves as detailed at Appendix I;
d)
The updated Capital Programme and it’s financing for 2011/12 to
2014/15 as detailed at Appendix J and as contained within the report
along with the authority to negotiate for the purchase of a new waste
vehicle;
e)
f)
The new capital bids as detailed at Appendix K;
That Members note the current projections for 2013/14 to 2015/16.
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
The report presented the Corporate Plan: Annual Action Plan 2012/13.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
to approve the Corporate Plan: annual Action Plan: Annual Action Plan
2012/13 for consultation.
92
NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND – PROPOSED OPERATIONAL
FRAMEWORK
The report set out the draft operational framework for the Big Society Fund
and considered how it could be segmented into a number of complementary
funding streams. It looked at different arrangements for delivering outcomes
involving the Council and partner organisations, and identified possible
funding criteria as well as the form of service level agreements that could be
adopted as a basis for procuring support services for capacity building and
community development.
RESOLVED to
a)
b)
consider the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recorded
at its meeting on 31 January 2012.
give approval to the proposed operational framework but delegate to
the Portfolio Holder, Mr T Ivory and the Chief Executive, the task of
reviewing the detail of the comments received and recommend them
to Full Council.
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL to
c)
d)
e)
Cabinet
refer the Big Society Fund operational framework for adoption by
Council at its meeting on 22 February 2012 and recommend that
Council formally establishes the Fund to be launched on 2 April 2012
and appoints Members to sit on a politically balanced Big Society
Board to act as the grant giving panel.
require that the annual report will be produced bi-annually
summarising how resources have been applied through the Fund and
the outcomes achieved.
agree a three month extension to Voluntary Norfolk’ existing contract.
3
79
6 February 2012
93
MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY (MRF) CONTRACT PROCUREMENT
The report outlined the issues around procuring a contract to handle the dry
recyclable waste collected by the Council. The current contract, which the
Council shared with a Consortium of the other six Waste Collection
Authorities in Norfolk, would run out in March 2014, and was of significant
financial and reputational importance to the Council.
RESOLVED that
a)
b)
c)
d)
94
the Council continues with its membership of the MRF Consortium in
Norfolk on the basis that all costs associated with the new
procurement and future processing will be equitably shared amongst
its members.
through the MRF Consortium, the Council enters into an EU compliant
procurement process for dealing with dry recyclables. This contract to
commence 1 April 2014 for the most effective term, as yet to be
decided.
a budget of £25,000 is allocated for the procurement process across
the 2011/12 and 2012/13 financial years.
delegated responsibility is given to the relevant Corporate Director,
s151 Officer and Portfolio Members for Environment and Resources
respectively to make appropriate decisions relating to this
procurement up until the award of the contract which will need to be
approved by Cabinet and Full Council.
CROMER PIER STRUCTURAL REFURBISHMENT
Cromer Pier was presently safe for public use. With regard to the Cromer
Pier Major Works, at their meeting of the 7th June 2010 Cabinet resolved to:1 Promote a phased programme of work within current capital budgets
2 Instruct design consultants Hemsley Orrell Partnership (HOP)
3 Procure works contractors
4 Obtain all necessary consents.
5 Make an allocation in the revenue budget for annual inspections and
maintenance.
These recommendations were implemented and HOP was instructed to
instigate a tender process which culminated in the submission of five tenders.
Following a tender appraisal which included an in-depth financial investigation
of the lowest tenderer it was considered unsafe to award a tender and a
second tender process was initiated.
This report summarised the re- tender process and examined the HOP tender
appraisals of the four tenderers which incorporated an appraisal of the lowest
tender.
The meeting was informed that on Tuesday, 30 January 2012, Council
representatives met with Hemsley Orrell Partnership (HOP), interviewed
Fairport Process Equipment (FPE) and were satisfied as to their abilities and
the sufficiency of their tender. They therefore recommended the tender
submitted by FPE as amended in the tender report be accepted.
Cabinet
4
80
6 February 2012
RESOLVED to
a)
b)
c)
d)
accept the tender submitted by Fairport Process Equipment (FPE) as
amended in the tender summary.
instruct Hemsley Orrell Partnership (HOP) to project manage the
implementation stage of the works.
agree to increase the contingency sum by 5% as recommended in the
HOP report.
agree the principle of making provision for future inspection and
maintenance of the Pier.
The meeting closed at 10.42am.
___________________
Chairman, 12 March 2012
Cabinet
5
81
6 February 2012
9 FEBRUARY 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
N Smith - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
P Terrington - substitute for M J M Baker
Mrs V Uprichard - substitute for S J Partridge
T Ivory - Scottow Ward
Mrs A M Moore - North Walsham West Ward
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
Miss B Palmer - on behalf of S Ward, Lancaster South Ward
G Williams - Worstead Ward
K E Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Mr D Sutton - Environmental Protection Officer
Mr P Rhymes - Conservation and Design Officer
Mr S Coleman - Highway Development Management Officer (NCC)
(201) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, S J Partridge
and J H Perry-Warnes. There were three substitute Members in attendance as
shown above.
Councillor Miss B Palmer attended the meeting in place of Councillor S Ward who
had intended to speak on application PF/11/1492 as adjoining local Member but had
been unable to attend the meeting.
(202) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 12 January 2012 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
1
Development Committee
82
9 February 2012
(203) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at North Walsham,
reference PF/11/1503, which would be considered prior to consideration of item 2
given its bearing on the decision in respect of that item.
Reason for urgency: to expedite processing of the application.
(204) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minutes of
the items concerned.
(205) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly
report on planning applications and appeals for the period from October to December
2011, which covered the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes.
Figures were also included for land charge searches.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that it was not known whether a
decision would be made by the Government on fee setting in the near future. No
response had been received in respect of a letter sent by the Portfolio Holder for
Planning on 12 December 2011. It was agreed that a reminder letter be sent.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed his gratitude to the staff of the Planning Division,
who were always helpful to him, made time for meetings and no matter was too great
or too small. The Committee endorsed this comment.
The Head of Planning and Building Control thanked him for his comments and
referred to the good working relationship the team had with Members which enabled
many applications to be determined under delegated powers.
The Development Manager stated that it was preferable if Members contacted
Officers as soon as they realised that there could be a problem with an application in
order that a way forward could be found if possible without involving the Committee.
The Head of Planning and Building Control and Development Manager considered
that the call-in system was working well at the moment, so that only the more difficult
cases came to Committee.
The Committee noted the report.
(206) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1503 - Use of land for parking of heavy goods
vehicles; 7 Cornish Way Business Park for HFS Property Ltd
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, declared a personal interest in this
application as she was a resident of Spa Common, which was close to the
applicant’s existing site.
2
Development Committee
83
9 February 2012
Public Speaker
Mr Wait (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that this application
related to the use of an area of land for the parking of HGVs in order to relocate the
applicants’ vehicles from their existing site at Marshgate, which was the subject of an
enforcement case to be reconsidered by the Committee (see minute 207 below).
No objections had been received from the Highway Authority or Environmental
Health in respect of this application. The proposal was acceptable in principle and in
accordance with Development Plan policy. However, the Environment Agency had
raised concerns in respect of possible contamination entering the ground given the
hardcore surfacing of the site and had requested that the site be hard surfaced and
for drainage proposals to prevent contamination. Given the situation in respect of
Marshgate, the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) had reconsulted the
Environment Agency requesting it to reconsider its requirements in the light of the
pressing need to relocate the existing business from Marshgate. The applicants had
indicated that they would be willing to hard surface the site as requested, but it would
take time to carry out the required works.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) considered that the applicants
should be allowed to use the site with a hard core surface pending the carrying out of
hard surfacing works. If the Committee were minded to approve this application it
would be necessary to inform the Environment Agency of the decision to allow a
further opportunity for it to comment. He considered that approval of this application
would be a pragmatic approach which was mindful of the residents of Marshgate.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested delegated authority
to approve this application following consultation with the North Walsham (West)
Ward Members and the Chairman of the Committee in respect of any further
comments received from the Environment Agency, and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include hard surfacing works to be completed within 12
months of the date of the decision.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, supported the recommendation.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended of the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases), which was
seconded by Councillor B Smith.
In response to a question by Councillor P Terrington, the Planning Legal Manager
explained that it was a requirement to refer back to the Environment Agency, giving
reasons for the Committee’s decision.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that VOSA required
planning permission to be in place before it would grant a licence for the site.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application following consultation with the North Walsham
(West) Ward Members and the Chairman of the Committee in respect of
any further comments received from the Environment Agency, and
3
Development Committee
84
9 February 2012
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include hard
surfacing works to be completed within 12 months of the date of the
decision, parking use only, and no maintenance or washing down of
vehicles to be carried out on the site until the required hardstanding and
drainage systems are in place.
Reason: The applicants have indicated that they are willing to install
hard surfacing within the timescale. The proposal would bring forward
environmental benefits through the applicant being able to relocate
from an existing inappropriate site.
(207) NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works
Councillor B Smith referred to a personal interest he had declared at the previous
meeting as he knew the proprietor at the time of the original application in 2008.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports which sought the
Committee’s reconsideration of action in respect of an Enforcement Notice relating to
the premises.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that following approval of
the planning application PF/11/1503 (above) in respect of the site at Cornish Way, it
would be only a matter of weeks before Enviroco would be able to remove its HGVs
from the land. However, there was still an issue regarding the buildings on the site.
The buildings were causing less concern locally than the HGVs. He recommended
that a period of time be given following the issue of the decision in respect of
PF/11/1503, either 14 or 28 days, to remove the vehicles. He sought the
Committee’s views regarding the office buildings.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, thanked the Committee for taking a
pragmatic approach to solving the problem regarding HGVs. He considered that
there would be no problem with the office use remaining on the site. He expressed
concern that lorry drivers would go to the site to drop off timesheets etc and
requested that there should be no access to the site for HGVs.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, supported Councillor Moore’s views.
However, she had concerns as to where the vehicles would be maintained and
washed down. She did not wish to see HGVs travelling along Manor Road or past
the school.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Wait explained that vehicles had to be serviced
by an authorised garage or repairer and he currently used a garage in Norwich. He
confirmed that no cleaning would be carried out on the new site. Drivers would travel
in their cars to the Marshgate site to collect worksheets and deliver their timesheets.
It was the company’s intention to eventually move all its operations to Cornish Way.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard and
RESOLVED
That Enforcement action be held in abeyance for a period of 28 days
following the issue of the decision notice in respect of planning
application PF/11/1503 to allow the Company to relocate its HGV
4
Development Committee
85
9 February 2012
vehicles to 7 Cornish Way, North Walsham and an application be
invited, without prejudice, for the retention of the office buildings on the
site. In the event of the Company failing to relocate the vehicles within
this timescale, proceedings will be commenced for non-compliance with
the Enforcement Notice.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(208) FAKENHAM - PF/11/1492 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings with cartsheds;
Land rear of 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he lived
close to the site. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application.
All Members declared a personal interest in this application in respect of their
acquaintance with Councillor Reynolds and Councillor Mrs Claussen-Reynolds.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the drawings had been amended to correct
an error identified at the site inspection. A rooflight had also been deleted from the
scheme in respect of the proposed dwelling on plot 4.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape) had no objection. The Building Control Manager was now
satisfied in respect of the turning area for emergency vehicles.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Miss B Palmer, speaking on behalf of Councillor S Ward, local Member for
Lancaster South Ward, stated that when outline planning permission was granted for
the four plots it had been made clear that one of the dwellings would be 2bedroomed and 70m2 or less. She was concerned that there would be an adverse
impact on traffic and access for emergency vehicles would be difficult.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Design and Access Statement
submitted with the outline application for the four plots (20090468) referred to a
dwelling of 70m2, however that application established only the principle of
5
Development Committee
86
9 February 2012
development. The current application related to two of the plots and it was not
possible to insist that one of the dwellings meet this criteria. The site had been split
into two at the Officers’ suggestion to allow the developer to move forward given
problems that had been encountered on part of the site. He suggested that the
Committee may wish to express a view that a smaller dwelling should be built on one
of the remaining plots. The majority of the dwellings in the surrounding area were
large family homes and he was not convinced that a small dwelling would be in
keeping with the area. However, if the Committee considered that a smaller dwelling
was appropriate a letter would be sent with the decision notice stating that one of the
remaining plots should comply with the original requirement.
With regard to highway concerns, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the roads
were fairly congested because of parked vehicles which restricted vehicle speeds.
Visibility was adequate in both directions. He considered there was no highway
reason to refuse this application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions and that a letter be sent with the decision notice
to inform the developer that proposals for the remaining plots should
include a dwelling of no more than 70m2.
(209) SCOTTOW - PF/11/1426 - Construction of biomass (renewable energy) facility;
Land at Oak Grove, Scottow Road for Oak Grove Renewables
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
See minutes of 08.03.12 amendment to include Cllr
Reynolds’ declaration of interest
(personal) as he is an electrician.
Mr Mellors (objecting)
Mr Lucas (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that three further
comments had been received raising similar issues to those contained in the report.
He recommended that the routing agreement put forward by the applicant be
accepted although it was not required by the Highway Authority. He read to the
Committee a response from the applicant in respect of suggestions that vehicles
should be prevented from using Aylsham Road. The applicant considered that it was
not appropriate, necessary or enforceable to include this in the routing agreement.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) recommended approval of this
application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and submission of a
Unilateral Undertaking in respect of the routing agreement.
Councillor T Ivory, the local Member, referred to the divided local opinion on this
issue. He considered that development of this type should be encouraged as it was
diversification of agriculture. However there were issues relating to this application
which needed to be addressed. He stated that Scottow Parish Council objected to
this application. He referred to highway concerns which had been raised by local
residents and welcomed the offer of a routing agreement which sought to address
these problems. However, he understood that the entire length of Scottow Row
6
Development Committee
87
9 February 2012
would be included in the agreement. The general concerns locally were in respect of
traffic along the Scottow Road which travelled at high speeds and problems that
could arise because of turning lorries. With regard to the landscaping proposals, he
asked the Committee to ensure that the screening would be adequate. However, he
considered that the screening itself would have an impact on the open vista which
currently existed.
Councillor G Williams, Member for the adjacent Worstead Ward, disputed the figures
contained in the traffic report and considered that the number of traffic movements
would be double the number quoted. He was particularly concerned in respect of
Aylsham Road which was likely to be used to deliver crops from the north of the site.
He stated that there was a chicane in Swanton Abbott which was difficult to
negotiate. He requested that, if the Committee were minded to approve this
application, the routing agreement be revisited, in particular with regard to a possible
one-way routing system to avoid the need for tractors to pass each other.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that he was a farmer but he would not benefit
from this facility because of the distance from his land. He stated that the agricultural
industry was looking into such facilities as it provided somewhere to take crops and
would produce much-needed humus to enrich the soil which would reduce reliance
on fertilizers, in addition to renewable energy production. In terms of the highway
network, he considered that the site was in an ideal position with good connections to
the main road. He considered that there would be no noise, the site would be
screened by woodland and high hedges. He proposed approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern regarding possible odour from the site. He
referred to another site in Taverham which had resulted in complaints by residents.
The Environmental Protection Officer reported that because of the location of the site
it was considered that there would be no problem. There would be some odour
release on filling of the silage clamps and hoppers but not at other times.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded the proposal.
Councillor P W High stated that he was a regular user of Aylsham Road and
considered that traffic management was needed in Swanton Abbott.
The Highway Development Management Officer suggested that signage could be
erected.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the agreement of the
applicant would be needed to include signage in the routing agreement.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Lucas stated that the suggestion of a one-way
system would be worthy of investigation and this was common practice in the
agricultural industry. It would not be feasible to prevent vehicles using Aylsham
Road as agricultural vehicles currently used the road.
In answer to a question by Councillor B Smith, the Landscape Officer explained that
there had been concerns about the industrial nature of the tanks. Painting the tanks
to help blend in with the background could reduce the impact. Whilst the proposed
planting would not completely screen the tanks, it would integrate them into the
surrounding area.
7
Development Committee
88
9 February 2012
Councillor P Terrington expressed concern that odour from silage would spread over
a wide distance. He requested conditions to prevent the introduction of animal slurry.
The Environmental Protection Officer stated that the odour assessment had been
robust and explained the measures to prevent nuisance.
The Development Manager suggested a condition to restrict the materials to
vegetable matter only.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there would be one or two staff based
at the site. He considered that it was unlikely that an agricultural dwelling could be
justified.
At the request of the Chairman, and in response to a question by Councillor R
Shepherd, Mr Lucas explained that it was proposed to sink the tanks 1.5 metres into
the ground. There would be operational difficulties if they were any deeper.
In response to questions by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Environmental
Protection Officer confirmed that the only lighting would be pathway lighting. The site
would be operational during normal working hours and a condition would be imposed
to this effect.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the routing agreement was the applicant’s
initiative and, following legal scrutiny, he considered that it was fit for purpose.
However, he considered that it would need further consideration in respect of
signage and construction traffic. He suggested that the document be published on
the Council’s website and that local Members be requested to feed back their views
on whether it covered the right routes.
The Development Manager requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to a Unilateral Undertaking by the applicant in respect of the routing
agreement, to be amended to include a one-way system and construction traffic in
consultation with the local Members, and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include signage in respect of traffic, landscaping and painting of the
tanks.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to a Unilateral Undertaking by the
applicant in respect of the routing agreement, (to be amended to include
a one-way system and construction traffic) in consultation with the local
Members, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to
include signage in respect of traffic, landscaping and external finish of
the tanks.
(210) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
(211) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
8
Development Committee
89
9 February 2012
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
(212) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(213) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(214) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(215) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(216) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(217) PROPOSED DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 4(1) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING ACT (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 (AS
AMENDED) FOR LAND AT SHERINGHAM
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he lived very close to the land
in question and many of the residents who would be affected by the Order were
neighbours. He therefore left the meeting during consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ exempt reports which sought
authority to serve an Article (4)1 Direction on land at Sheringham.
The Conservation and Design Officer reported that an area of land at the rear of 7-29
Nelson Road and 1-3 Hillside, Sheringham had been sold to the owners of those
properties. In order to prevent subdivision of this open area of land by means of
enclosure he recommended:
1.
That a Direction under Article (4)1 of the Town and Country Planning Act
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 be served immediately in
respect of permitted development rights for means of enclosure on the land at
the rear of 7-29 Nelson Road and 1-3 Hillside, Sheringham.
2.
That the owners of the properties be formally notified of the making of the
Direction.
3.
That the Direction be brought before Committee within six months for
confirmation.
9
Development Committee
90
9 February 2012
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED unanimously
1.
That a Direction under Article (4)1 of the Town and Country
Planning Act (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 be
served immediately in respect of permitted development rights for
means of enclosure on the land at the rear of 7-29 Nelson Road and
1-3 Hillside, Sheringham.
2.
That the owners of the properties be formally notified of the making
of the Direction.
3.
That the Direction be brought before Committee within six months
for confirmation.
(218) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ exempt reports which updated the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 December
2011.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that initiatives had been put in
place to reduce the backlog of cases. Higher priority was being given to enforcement
and one of the Planning Officers was helping with the work. A programme of site
inspections was to be arranged and the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special
Cases) would contact the local Members to agree courses of action. A revised
Enforcement Policy was being drafted and would be brought to the Committee at a
future meeting for consideration.
Councillor Mrs A R Green suggested that an article be published in the press to
inform the public of the need to check if planning permission were needed.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that a charging scheme was being
drawn up for informal enquiries and it would be appropriate to include Councillor Mrs
Green’s suggestion in the publicity at that time.
RESOLVED
1. That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of
Current Enforcement Cases be noted.
2. That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed
from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 12.15 pm.
Development Committee
10
91
9 February 2012
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15 February
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Acting Financial Services Manager (for minutes 117 - 130), the Health
Improvement Officer (for minute 131) and the Democratic Services Team
Leader.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs H Eales, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr T Ivory, Mr K Johnson and Mr W J
Northam.
Democratic Services Officer (MMH)
123 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) The Committee Room had been used for the meeting because the Council Chamber
was booked out for training. The acoustics and general accommodation in the
Committee Room were not suitable for the needs of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and the room must not be used for this purpose in future.
b) Mr J Perry-Warnes had undergone surgery very recently. The Leader would update
Members on his progress via the Democratic Services Team Leader.
124 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr G Williams and Mr R Wright.
125 SUBSTITUTES
Ms V R Gay for Mr G Williams and Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
92
126 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
127 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2012 were signed as a correct record
after the following amendments had been agreed.
a) Minute 112, Environmental Sustainability Strategy Review, item 5, page 4, Back-up
Generator: to add “Mr R Reynolds suggested that obtaining a smaller generator,
capable of providing power for telephones, ICT and other essential items should be
considered.”
b) Minute 115, Waste Contract Update, item 2, page 9: to change the first sentence to
read “litter picking” instead of “street cleaning”. To add a second sentence “The
concerns had been particularly about the verges near Morrison’s, the football ground
and traveller site and on the Norwich Road but litter picking was essential to all areas
of the town.”
128 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
An oral report on the Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel was brought
forward from item 15, Overview and Scrutiny Update. This was because Ms V R Gay,
who was giving the report, needed to leave the meeting early.
The Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel was a joint group with four Members
each from Broadland and North Norfolk District Councils. It was largely concerned with
the provision of public transport in the 2 districts and had met 4 times to date. The
membership included Councillors who regularly used public transport.
The latest meeting, on 8 February 2012, had been very useful and the Panel was
starting to coalesce. The meeting had been attended by 2 officers from Norfolk County
Council who had been able to give a comprehensive picture of provision across the
county. The County strategy appeared to be concentration on community transport. The
next step would be to question the bus operators. There had been an initial
misunderstanding that Members could not talk to the operators, but this was not so. In
response to a question from Mr P W Moore, Ms Gay said that this misunderstanding
had not prolonged the work and that the process of questioning County had been very
economical, with questions refined in advance by email.
Mr T FitzPatrick was organising a meeting of the 4 NNDC Members of the Panel to
discuss progress and the value of the work. A concern was expressed that changes of
meeting dates had prevented some Members and the officer from NNDC from attending
the Panel because of prior commitments.
129 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following Members declared interests in the items listed below:
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr R C Price
130
2012/13 Base Budget and
Projections for 2013/14 to
Personal and non
prejudicial – owns a
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
93
2015/16
Mrs A R Green
130
second home which is
registered as a
business.
2012/13 Base Budget and
Projections for 2013/14 to
2015/16
Personal and non
prejudicial – owns a
holiday letting cottage.
130 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting.
131 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None.
132 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Big Society Fund had been
forwarded to Cabinet. At the meeting of 6 February 2012 Cabinet had resolved to:
a)
consider the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recorded at its
meeting on 31 January 2012.
b)
give approval to the proposed operational framework but delegate to the
Portfolio Holder, Mr T Ivory and the Chief Executive, the task of reviewing the
detail of the comments received and recommend them to Full Council.
A group comprising the Leader, Portfolio Holder and 2 nominated Members of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee had met for the first time on 14 February 2012, with
Graham Tuttle of the Norfolk Community Fund. Some of the comments from the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be incorporated into the resultant document.
133 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
The Committee noted the information.
134 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 9
The Portfolio Holder reported that the Budget was on course for a balanced position at
the end of the year. The report was discussed:
a) The Acting Financial Services Manager would check with the relevant officer to clarify
a variance regarding the North Norfolk Youth Voice. There was a potential
underspend which would be rolled forward. Concern was expressed that money had
been put in the budget but remained unspent. It was explained that this was a timing
issue and that the money would be spent for the purpose it was originally budgeted
for.
b) Leisure complexes variation: a meeting was due to take place at the Splash on 15
February 2012 to discuss maintenance and upkeep in the longer term.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
94
BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 9
(Continued)
c) Budget Monitoring Position – Summary (Page 18, 6.1): the following corrections were
highlighted:
• The Service Variance Total was £56,197 not £55,197
• The General Fund Reserve was £82,493 not £84,493. This meant that there
was a minor overspend, not an underspend.
d) £10,000 was the de minimus for capital spend. Expenditure above that amount could
be capitalised but it also depended on the nature of the work.
RESOLVED
To note the contents of the report and the revenue account forecast for the current
financial year.
135 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
STRATEGY 2012/13 TO 2014/15
STATEMENT
AND
INVESTMENT
The preparation of the Strategy Statement was necessary to comply with the Chartered
Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice for Treasury
Management in Public Services. The Code had been revised in November 2011 and this
Strategy Statement incorporated the changes which had been made. The prime
objective of the Treasury Management Strategy was to ensure the security of the
Council’s investments.
The report was discussed:
a) At the current time the Co-operative Bank plc did not meet the minimum credit criteria
of a long term rating of A- or equivalent. This was because of a number of reasons
including the size of the bank. Arlingclose was still comfortable with the bank being
used for overnight and weekend investments for a maximum sum of £500,000.
b) There was continual monitoring of all banks and investments.
RESOLVED
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that;
(a) The Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy and
Prudential Indicators, for 2012/13 to 2014/15, are approved.
(b) The revised Treasury Management Policy Statement is approved.
136 2012/13 BASE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
The report was introduced by the Portfolio Holder. He said that officers and Cabinet
Members had worked hard on the Budget which was fair, benefitted the Council and
residents of the District and had been achieved without an increase in Council Tax. The
Budget made savings without making enforced redundancies and despite a reduction in
government grant.
The report was discussed:
a) Mr P W Moore commended the retention of the restructuring fund. Ms V R Gay
asked why it was necessary to have money in the reserves for Restructuring and
Organisational Development. The Acting Financial Services Manager explained that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
95
2012/13 BASE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
b)
c)
d)
e)
(Continued)
the Organisational Development reserve was set up for Pay and Grading issues. The
Restructuring reserve was to help with finance when a service was restructured.
There was a second level of management restructure still to come. This could result
in some one-off costs.
£150,000 savings had been estimated from the restructuring of the management
team. Potentially there could be a higher saving but the main priority was to get the
right structure in place for the organisation. The report made to Full Council on 14
December 2011 had given £150,000 as the minimum figure.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the Portfolio Holder said that the New
Homes Bonus was not ring-fenced but the Cabinet had decided that it should be
used for the community, in accordance with the Government’s aims. If sufficient
savings had not been made and help from the Government regarding freezing the
Council Tax had not been received Cabinet would have had to consider using the
New Homes Bonus for other purposes.
Revenue Support Grant and Business Rates: in response to a question from the
Chairman, the Acting Financial Services Manager said that the projections for 2013
onwards had been reduced based on the forecast that had been received and in the
understanding that central government might reduce the Revenue Support Grant
even further in subsequent years. A possible increase in the number of houses had
not been taken into account in the projections. There were reasons, including the
transfer of properties from Council Tax to Business rates, to be prudent.
Concern was expressed that, because North Norfolk had a significant number of
second homes and holiday homes, a switch from Council Tax to Business Rates
would impact on receipts. The Acting Financial Services Manager said that
consultations were taking place on how the new Business Rates system would work.
A scheme was being set up to provide a safety net and North Norfolk District Council
would almost certainly be in receipt of top-up.
RESOLVED
to add this topic to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
A payment of £150,000 had been received from central government because the
Council Tax had not been increased. This was for one year only and would have
implications on the 2013/14 budget if the Council Tax was to remain frozen.
g) A perceived inconsistency with Small Business Rate Relief needed further
investigation. The subject of Business Rates and Small Business Rate Relief would
be put on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme,
h) The funding for community transport such as NWACTA was in the Big Society Fund
and was secure for the coming year.
i) Mr P W Moore asked about the impact on income that might result from the abolition
of free car parks, especially in North Walsham. The people who normally used free
car parks tended to be those who worked in the town. If they bought season tickets
they could opt to park in more convenient town centre car parks, leaving less room
for shoppers. The Portfolio Holder replied that it was hoped that people would use
the Vicarage Road Car Park which tended to be under-used. He pointed out that
NNDC had to maintain free car parks although they didn’t bring in any income. The
scheme would be reconsidered at the end of the year if it proved to be unsuccessful.
The impact of increased season ticket holders on car park income was largely
unknown at present although some financial modelling had been carried out.
j) Mr P Terrington asked that, as he had to report back to his parishes, he might be
informed of the outcome of consultations on parking charge orders.
f)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
96
2012/13 BASE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
(Continued)
RESOLVED
to include this topic, including the outcome of consultations, for a regular update on
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme.
Members considered the recommendations and voted on them individually.
a) It was RESOLVED with 3 Members voting against
To recommend to Full Council that the 2012/13 revenue account budget as
outlined at Appendix F and that the surplus of £87,975 be allocated to the
Restructuring Proposals reserve;
b) It was RESOLVED with 2 abstentions
To recommend to Full Council that the demand on the Collection Find will be
subject to any amendments as a result of final precepts;
(i)
£5,789,172 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,561,174 (subject to confirmation of one final precept) for
Parish/Town precepts;
c) It was RESOLVED with 2 Members voting against
To recommend to Full Council the movement on the reserves as detailed at
Appendix I;
d) It was RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council the updated Capital Programme and it’s
financing for 2011/12 to 2014/15 as detailed at Appendix J and as contained
within the report along with the authority to negotiate for the purchase of a
new waste vehicle;
e) It was RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council the new capital bids as detailed at Appendix K.
f) It was RESOLVED
To note the current projections for 2013/14 to 2015/16.
137 HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT
a) Under new legislation the Council had a large responsibility for Health and Wellbeing.
Significant work had been done with commissioning groups, 4 community gyms
(including one in the Broadland district) had been set up and the Warm Homes
Healthy People Fund had been launched. All targets were on course and some had
already been exceeded.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
97
HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT
(Continued)
b) A presentation had been made by the Health Trainer team at the Overview and
Scrutiny meeting on 25 January 2012. Health Trainers were able to refer people to
NNDC schemes via the North Norfolk Activity Referral Scheme which would be
launched at the end of February/beginning of March. To prevent inequity for some
patients it was necessary to persuade all GPs to participate in the scheme
c) The Warm Homes Healthy People Fund was funded by central government. Despite
a tight timescale NNDC officers had made a successful bid and had received
approximately £320,000 to implement the agreed projects by April 2012. NNDC
officers were now managing 2 projects across Norfolk – distribution of 7000 winter
warmer packs to vulnerable people and installation of low level insulation. Members
were shown the contents of a winter warmer pack which included thermal blanket,
hat, gloves, hot water bottle, room thermometer and chair-bound exercise DVD. The
packs had been distributed to colleagues in agencies which had contact with
vulnerable people, to ensure that they were only given to those in real need. NNDC,
via Age UK, could provide extra insulation. 25 heaters would soon arrive. These
could be distributed when necessary. There was also a bank of emergency heating
oil. Work was being done with a credit union to negotiate a scheme for cheaper
purchase of heating oil. Mr R C Price suggested that the credit union should make a
presentation to Full Council. Members supported this idea and suggested it should
be passed on to the Chair of the Council.
d) In response to a Member’s question regarding the criteria for deciding if someone
was vulnerable, the Health Improvement Officer said that generally it was people who
were old, ill or disabled. The reason the packs were being distributed by other
agencies was to ensure that they were given to the right people. Every agency had
been asked how many packs they needed. Some packs had been kept back for
people who, because of pride or other reasons, might “slip the net”. There were only
1000 packs in total, but the need was greater. If funding was still available further
applications would be made to ensure that the scheme could continue. There was
also an arrangement with other district councils to take up any under-use. Road
shows were taking place to promote use of the scheme and to encourage parish
councils to take ownership of some of the projects.
e) A concern was raised that some older people had to choose between buying food or
paying fuel bills and that there was lack of referral to the Meals-on-Wheels scheme.
The Health Improvement Officer would raise this issue with the GP Consortium.
f) Members requested that information about the Warm Homes Healthy People Fund
should be published in the Members’ Bulletin. The next Healthy Strategy report
should also include an update.
g) Rural Isolation Project: this project aimed to reduce the impact of rural isolation on
people’s physical, mental, social and economic health. The Rural Community Council
was keen to do some joint work on this.
h) North Norfolk Work Out Project: the project had been very successful. Funding ran
out at the end of June but, because of its success, the project had been identified as
one for which additional funding could be applied. Eventually it was envisaged that a
community group be set up to take on the project.
Community Hospitals: NNDC had fought hard to keep community hospitals and it
was now paying dividends. In response to a question from Mr P Terrington the Health
Improvement Officer said that Wells Cottage Hospital had not taken part in the Warm
Homes Healthy People project although packs had been distributed via Heritage
House.
i) There were no beds at Cromer Hospital and this influenced the procedures and
services which could be provided. However the GPs would have more influence on
service provision than they had in the past.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
98
HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT
(Continued)
j)
A suggestion was made that the Health Trainers should take part when the Olympic
Torch passed through North Norfolk. There would be 2 Health Trainers based in
each of the towns involved.
k) Concern was expressed that a disabled group had been prevented from using
facilities at Fakenham although the rationale was not known.
l) The Leader informed the Committee that a Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board was
being set up for Norfolk. The role of Health and Wellbeing Boards was to provide
leadership across health, social care and public health. They would take on a
convening role in health improvement, tackling the causes of ill-health, improving
health and social care services, and promoting integration of health and social care.
Health and Wellbeing Boards would be formal sub-committees of upper tier councils
and would be statutorily operational from April 2013. They were expected to work in
‘shadow’ form from April 2012. It was important that each district should have its own
representative. The Leader would be nominated to the Shadow Board at Full Council
on 22 February 2012. The Chairman commended this and reminded Members that
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at the meeting of 18 October 2011, had made
a recommendation to support the Chief Executive in getting effective district
representation on the Health and Wellbeing Board.
m) The Portfolio Holder summed up by saying that the Health Improvement Officer was
demonstrating now how councils would work in the future with multi-agency cooperation and sourcing money from elsewhere.
RESOLVED
that the next Health Strategy report should include an update on the Warm Homes Healthy
People scheme and that information about the scheme should be published in the Members’
Bulletin.
138 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The minutes from the meeting of 25 January 2012 had been sent to Walcott Parish
Council. The item on Flooding at Walcott had been attended by representatives from
the Environment Agency, the local community and County Councillor Paul Morse.
Following the meeting they had been able to get together and explore how to gain a
better understanding of the system and to get more people on the flood alert scheme.
This had fulfilled one of the prime aims of Scrutiny – to make a difference.
b) Planning Enforcement: Members had asked for a report to be brought to the March
meeting. However the Head of Planning and Building Control had advised, after
discussion with the Chair of the Development Committee, that it would be better to
report to the meeting on 23 May 2012. This was because a number of initiatives had
just been introduced and it was too early to evaluate their effectiveness. Members
agreed to receive the report in May.
c) In the course of the meeting 2 further topics had been identified for inclusion on the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
• The impact of second homes switching from Council Tax to Business Rates.
• Progress on car park charges and income, including outcome of consultations.
Members had also asked that the next Health Strategy Update report should include
an update on the outcomes of the Warm Homes Healthy People scheme.
d) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds attended a seminar at Westminster on 14 February 2012.
The event was organised by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and included the
opportunity to see a Parliamentary Select Committee at work and to understand the
role of forensic questioning in effective scrutiny. Mrs Claussen-Reynolds would bring
a report to the March meeting.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
99
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Continued)
e) Coastal issues: the Vice Chair would liaise with the Portfolio Holder about the
possibility of having an item on Coastal Issues on the work programme later in the
year, possibly in May. It was understood that the Coastal Management Board would
meet soon.
The meeting concluded at 12.15 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
100
8 MARCH 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
N D Dixon - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Miss B Palmer - The Raynhams Ward
P Terrington - Priory Ward
K E Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
(219) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor J H Perry-Warnes. There was
one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
The Chairman reported that Councillor Norman Smith had had a heart attack and the
Committee wished him well.
(220) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 9 February 2012 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of a
declaration of personal interest by Councillor R Reynolds in Minute 209 as he was an
electrician.
(221) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(222) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minutes of
the items concerned.
Development Committee
1
101
8 March 2012
(223) WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm: land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
Appeal reference: APP/Y2620/A/12/2170245
The Planning Legal Manager explained that there would be no opportunity for public
speaking on this matter. It was outside the scope of the public speaking provisions
as the matter did not involve consideration of a planning application or confirmation
of a Tree Preservation Order.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which requested the
Committee to give further consideration to its representations following the decision
of Full Council on 22 February 2012 not to make funds available to defend the appeal
in this case.
The Planning Legal Manager emphasised that this was not an opportunity for the
Committee to reconsider the application or the planning merits of the case as the
application had been determined and the Decision Notice had been issued. He
outlined the options for the Committee to consider, as set out in the report. He read
to the Committee an extract from the advice of Counsel in respect of the risk of costs
being awarded against the Council.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that since preparation of the report the date for
the Inquiry had been moved back to 24 May 2012. The Inspector had agreed that
the Inquiry would take 6 working days. He referred to a letter received from the
applicant’s Solicitors which was appended to the report, which sought reasoning for
the Committee’s decision and put the Council on notice that preparation of the case
would commence on 12 March, following the Committee’s decision as to how it
wished to proceed.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the suggested conditions appended to the
report and recommended strongly that the Committee resolve not to defend the
appeal and invite the Inspector to allow the appeal and grant planning permission,
but reserving the right to submit representations on conditions to be imposed and to
respond to any claim for costs made on behalf of the appellant.
Councillor D Young, Member for High Heath Ward, asked if there were any mature
hedgerows other than those already identified that should be subject to horizontal
directional drilling (HDD). He also asked where the watercourses were addressed in
the conditions and what impact would occur prior to reinstatement of watercourses
which were trenched. He requested a definition of “practical completion” as there
was scope to keep the trenches open.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he would need to consider
these issues further before responding.
Councillor Mrs A R Green expressed disappointment with the recommendation not to
defend the appeal. She referred to the opposition to the application in her Ward.
She considered that it would unacceptable to reopen trenches and disturb
agricultural land for a second time if approval were given for stage 2 of the project,
and the Council should therefore make representations at this stage. She
considered that all ancient hedgerows should be replaced like for like with mature
plants. She requested that these matters be made the subject of additional
conditions. She referred to the letter from the applicant’s Solicitors appended to the
report and considered that the area of land which would be affected would be in
excess of the 17 hectares quoted in that letter.
Development Committee
2
102
8 March 2012
Councillor P Terrington, Member for Priory Ward, considered that the appeal would
be defendable on landscape grounds, particularly in respect of the crossing of
watercourses. He considered that all watercourses should be crossed by HDD. He
considered that the objectors had made a compelling case in terms of impact on the
local agricultural economy. He considered that questions in respect of soil heating
had not been sufficiently answered.
Councillor Terrington considered that it was unlikely that Members had the expertise
to defend the appeal. The Council would be liable for costs if the case were lost and
the Council had already voted against defending the case on costs grounds. He
considered that the Council did not have the capability to deal with very complex
issues such as major infrastructure projects. The Inspector could take a much wider
view of the issue than the Council. He referred to a review by National Grid in
respect of connections in the East Coast regions and an offer by Triton Knoll to allow
Dudgeon to connect at Bicker Fen in Lincolnshire. He considered that the Council
should have defended the appeal and should not simply invite the Inspector to
approve the application. However, he considered that the Inspector should be asked
to give careful consideration to possible offshore routes, to refuse stage 2 and to
impose conditions where possible to protect the landscape.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that clear evidence to substantiate reasons for
refusal was essential to defend any appeal. The Council was clearly at risk of an
adverse award of costs. He referred to the Government’s circular relating to costs,
reference 03/2009.
Whilst the Committee was not bound to accept the advice of
Officers, they had given a clear and unequivocal recommendation of approval and for
this reason the Officers could not defend the appeal. Therefore the Committee was
recommended to invite the Inspector to approve the application subject to conditions.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle stated that the Parish Councils in her Ward had supported
the application and she supported the recommendation.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that if Members of the Committee
volunteered to present evidence on the Council’s behalf it was likely that they would
be questioned on their qualifications and expertise. In the absence of such authority
the Inspector would give little weight to their evidence. He supported option 2 subject
to tightening up of the conditions, in particular to ensure that work on the heavier
soils in the Ryburgh and Stibbard area was restricted to prolonged dry periods only.
He also supported Councillor Terrington’s comments regarding the crossing of
watercourses by HDD. He proposed that option 2 be accepted subject to tightening
up of the conditions.
Councillor R Reynolds referred to his support of the two small farms which would be
affected by the cable route. He considered that subject to the suggestion regarding
timing of the work, the conditions had addressed some of the concerns and to refuse
would involve the Council in additional costs. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that evidence of soil disturbance which occurred 2000
years ago could still be seen from the air and therefore there was clear evidence to
support the reasons for refusal. He expressed concern at the impact on tourism,
agriculture and the local population. He was also concerned at the additional
disturbance in the event of phase 2 taking place. He expressed doubt with regard to
the comments of the applicant’s soil expert with regard to soil management. He
considered that the appeal should be defended.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Council’s soil expert
considered that the soil could be managed in an acceptable way. He stated that
condition 20 was intended to limit the time the trenches could be open and was a
positive effort to reduce the amount of time the soil would be disturbed.
Development Committee
3
103
8 March 2012
Councillor B Smith supported the views which had been expressed, and considered
that many of the conditions had addressed some of the concerns. He referred to
excavations that had taken place in respect of the gas pipeline where the soil had
recovered well. He considered that any inconvenience would be for a short period.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the proposal. He asked if, in the event of HDD
failing, whether the applicant could erect pylons as this would be undesirable. He
also asked whether the conditions would still apply in the event of the applicant
obtaining all permissions and selling them on.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that the benefit of planning permission went
with the land, together with the burden of conditions.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the proposal was for a trench
system with a number of HDD points. Whilst Members may wish to increase the
number of HDD points, pylons did not form part of this application and would require
another planning permission.
Councillor Mrs A R Green proposed an amendment to request the Inspector to
consider an alternative route. This was not seconded.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that the appeal involved reasons for refusal
put forward by the Committee. The objectors could request the Inspector to consider
this issue but the Council could not.
The proposal was put to the vote, and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 3
That the Council does not defend the appeal and requests the Inspector
to allow the appeal and grant planning permission, but reserves the
right to submit representations on conditions to be imposed in
accordance with the schedule contained in Appendix 1 of the report,
subject to further amendments, and to respond to any claim for costs
made on behalf of the appellant.
At the request of Councillor B Cabbell Manners and Councillor R Reynolds, with the
agreement of the Chairman, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs L M Brettle
B Cabbell Manners
N D Dixon
Mrs P Grove-Jones
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
(11)
Development Committee
Against the proposal
Abstentions
M J M Baker
Mrs A R Green
P W High
(3)
(0)
4
104
8 March 2012
Following a short break, the Committee reconvened to discuss the amendments
which it wished to make to the schedule of conditions.
In response to concerns raised by Councillors Young and Terrington regarding the
impact of the work on the watercourses and concerns regarding contamination, the
Landscape Officer advised the Committee that HDD was an invasive process which
required a large working area either side of the drill site. It was standard practice
with smaller watercourses to dam the watercourse and pipe the water to maintain
flow during trenching works. This would maintain ecological and wildlife habitats
through the site. These methods would form part of the ecological mitigation
management plan which was required by a condition. Pollution prevention controls
would be put in place to prevent contamination.
With regard to the definition of “practical completion” which had been raised by
Councillor Young, the Planning Legal Manager suggested that condition 20 be
clarified by the words “practical completion means for the purposes of this condition,
the installation of a physical connection of the northern end of the cable to the landfall
of Stage 1 of the Dudgeon Offshore Windfarm and connection of the southern end of
the cable in the Breckland District to a substation connected to the national
transmission line and installation of all Stage 1 cabling in between.” Councillor
Young supported this suggestion.
In answer to a question by Councillor Baker, the Planning Legal Manager stated that
the developers would not be requested to comment on the proposed conditions.
They would be put forward to the Inspector and the developers would also have the
opportunity to submit their proposed conditions.
Councillor Young requested that the time period allowed for commencement be
tightened and asked if a time period could also be set for practical completion. He
queried “appropriate consents” which were not listed or defined.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that the commencement
period be reduced to three years. He explained that “appropriate consents” meant
consents for all elements of the project. He suggested that a note be added to
condition 3 to define this.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that he would take on board the suggestion of a
time limit for practical completion.
It was agreed that no further amendments were necessary in respect of the HDD
points.
In response to a question by Councillor Baker, the Head of Planning and Building
Control explained that if only stage 1 took place the developer would be required to
reinstate the soil. In the event of approval of stage 2 during the course of
development of stage 1, work on stage 2 could commence within one year, but if not,
the developers would not be allowed to leave the land unrestored.
Councillor R Reynolds asked if it was possible to impose a condition to ensure that
as little disturbance as possible was caused to the two small farms on the route.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that all conditions had to meet a number of
tests, in particular enforceability and precision. Such a condition would not meet
these tests.
Development Committee
5
105
8 March 2012
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it would be possible to add a
note to the Inspector requesting that development should be carried out in a way that
would cause the minimum disturbance to the farms.
Councillor P Terrington requested a condition to require work on stage 2, if approved,
to commence within three years otherwise a new planning application would be
required.
The Planning Legal Manager considered that an attempt had been made to address
this issue by proposed condition 3. He was unsure as to what purpose it would serve
to tie the development by such a time constraint or whether the Inspector would
accept it.
Councillor Mrs Green, supported by Councillor Baker requested that a condition be
imposed to require work on Stage 2 to commence within three years of the
commencement of work on Stage 1.
The Planning Legal Manager considered that such a condition would be acceptable
as it did not impose a requirement to submit a further application.
At the suggestion of the Head of Planning and Building Control it was agreed that
Officers would consider whether it should be included within another condition or as a
separate condition.
RESOLVED
1.
That a definition of “practical completion” as suggested by the Planning
Legal Manager be included in condition 20.
2.
That a definition of “appropriate consents” be added to condition 3.
3.
That consideration be given to a time limit for practical completion.
4.
That no additional HDD points be requested.
5.
That a note to the Inspector be added to request that development be
carried out in a way that causes minimum disturbance to the land
farmed by Mr Runciman and Mr Boesen.
6.
That a requirement for work on Stage 2 (if approved) to commence
within three years of the commencement of work on Stage 1 be
considered either as an addition to a condition or as a separate
condition.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Development Committee
6
106
8 March 2012
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(224) BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Brear (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Environmental Protection Officer
considered that whilst there was potential for noise and disturbance and odour from
the adjacent café, no complaints had been received from nearby residents and
therefore there were no grounds for objection. He recommended approval of this
application.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, expressed concern at the loss of the shop,
which was a valuable local facility and would add to the decline in businesses in the
village. He considered that the conversion of the shop would make no difference in
terms of addressing the affordable housing issue. He referred to sites that had been
allocated for housing in the Core Strategy in the village and stated that facilities were
needed for residents, otherwise it would encourage car use. He considered that the
proposal would have an impact on the other businesses in the row as they would be
separated from each other. He read an email from Councillor W J Northam, also a
local Member, referring to a representation he had received from a local resident that
the business had been run down. He considered that the property had not been
properly marketed and that the application should be refused.
Councillor Smith referred to comments he had made in the press stating that he was
not happy with the application. The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that this was
an expression of predisposition and not predetermination, therefore it was in order for
him to remain in the meeting and to vote on this application.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the construction of the shop unit was unlikely
to meet the sustainability criteria or standards required for habitable accommodation.
He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard.
In answer to a question, the Head of Planning and Building Control explained that a
marketing exercise was not required as the shop was not the last facility in the
village.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that sustainability was not a relevant issue in
this case.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that, whilst he considered the proposed change
of use would not be beneficial to Bacton, it was not possible to force businesses to
remain if they were not viable. He considered that there was no planning reason to
refuse the application.
Development Committee
7
107
8 March 2012
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that there was a
judgement to be made as to whether or not the proposal would provide an
acceptable level of amenity for the resident. However, Officers had recommended
approval as it was considered to provide a basic level of amenity.
On the question of viability, Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to the email
referred to by Councillor Smith stating that the business had been viable when the
present owner purchased it only a short while ago.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney reported that she had been contacted by a former
councillor who had received comments in support of the retention of the business
and had asked for her views to be reported to the meeting.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that the proposed conversion did not offer sufficient
amenity and supported refusal on that ground.
In response to a comment by Councillor B Smith, the Head of Planning and Building
Control stated that the motivation or actions of the applicant could not be taken into
account.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
provide insufficient residential amenity.
(225) EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0411 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 09/0926 to allow collection of vehicles by customers; RGC Classic
Cars, Lower Barn, Ramsgate Street for RGC Classic Cars
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst he had had no contact with the
developers in respect of this application, Mr Travers had purchased a car from him
some years ago.
Councillor R Shepherd declared a personal interest in this application as he had
served as a police officer with Mr Travers.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no clarification had been received in
respect of parking. He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons
stated in the report.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that if vehicles were collected by customers
there would need to be some maintenance and cleaning of the vehicles at the site.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the proposal would result in fewer vehicle
movements than if vehicles had to be delivered to another site for collection. She
proposed approval of this application. There was no seconder.
Councillor P W High stated that the road was very narrow and additional traffic would
cause problems. He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by
Councillor J A Wyatt.
Development Committee
8
108
8 March 2012
Councillor R Shepherd referred to his experience of accidents on this road when he
was a serving police officer. He supported refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs Green withdrew her proposal.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1
That this application be refused for the following reasons:
The unclassified roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate
to serve the development proposed, by reason of their poor alignment,
restricted width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at
adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to
give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with
Development Plan Policy CT5 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore, as far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the
applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate
visibility at the site access. The proposed development would therefore
be detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with Development Plan
Policy CT5 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(226) HOLT - PF/11/1431 - Erection of smoking shelter; The Kings Head, 19 High
Street for Mr Wilson
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, referred to representations he had received
from the local business community regarding the structure. He considered that the
design was unsympathetic and expressed concern that it had been erected without
planning permission.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, was unhappy with the design of the structure.
However, he considered that it was necessary for smokers to have somewhere to
smoke and the structure was suitable for that purpose. For that reason, he proposed
approval of this application.
Concerns were expressed by a number of Members regarding the design and size of
the structure.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the design of the structure should be
modified and that it was necessary to ensure that there was adequate provision for
disposal of cigarette ends and matches. She considered that the Committee needed
to be sensitive to non-smokers as well as smokers.
Councillor B Smith considered that the structure was intrusive and inappropriate in
terms of its colour, bulk and massing. He considered that a smaller, more compact
structure would be more acceptable.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the current philosophy
regarding extensions to such buildings was to produce a design of its own time,
rather than replicating the original. The Committee was entitled to refuse the
application and take enforcement action, or alternatively to seek improvements to the
appearance of the structure.
Development Committee
9
109
8 March 2012
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had no objection in principle to the erection of
a smoking shelter, but he was unhappy that it had been erected without permission
and considered that the structure was over-engineered and inappropriate.
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that it would be difficult to alter
the framework of the structure. However, he suggested a reduction in the amount of
horizontal boarding and an increase in the amount of glazing.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the application should be refused but an
indication given that the Committee supported the erection of a smoking shelter in
principle.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that a note be added to the
decision notice to indicate support in principle.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that the shelter should be relocated so that
smoke did not affect passers-by.
Following further discussion, it was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded
by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
1.
That this application be refused on grounds of inappropriate design,
scale and massing, siting and impact on the Conservation Area and
Listed Building.
2.
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to serve
an Enforcement Notice to require the removal of the unauthorised
structure within 12 months of the effective date of the Notice for the
reasons given in the decision notice.
(227) MATLASKE - PF/12/0033 - Erection of timber garage/garden room; 19 The
Street for Ms G Rodwell
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Scott (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape) had no objection to this application. He recommended
approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that her concerns had now been addressed.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
10
110
8 March 2012
(228) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0079 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
All Members were acquainted with the applicant as he was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Bryan (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an objection had been received from the
resident of a property to the rear of the site, who was concerned at the proximity of
the proposed development to her property and potential loss of light. The objector
had also raised an issue regarding a restrictive covenant on the land. However, this
was a civil matter which could not be taken into account when considering the
planning application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Town
Mayor be invited to attend.
(229) STODY - PF/11/1442 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions and
two-storey side extension; Sunnyside Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr
Tollett
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs MacNicol (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the description of this application should
refer to a two-storey side extension and not first-floor side extension as stated in the
report.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to Mrs
MacNicol, mainly in respect of the Parish Council having not received a copy of the
application. She considered that the proposed extension was disproportionate, out of
keeping with surrounding development and would impinge on The Green. She was
concerned that if the neighbour proposed a similar extension it would create a
terrace.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
Development Committee
11
111
8 March 2012
(230) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
STIFFKEY – PF/11/1257 – Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation
at The Red Lion, 44 Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion Ltd
(231) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(232) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(233) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(234) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(235) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(236) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.45 pm.
Development Committee
12
112
8 March 2012
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
ORDER
Tree Preservation Order relating to Kelling Heath Holiday Park, Sandy Hill Lane,
Weybourne, Holt, NR25 7HW
Tree Preservation Order relating to The Old Chapel, Lodge Hill, Upper Sheringham, NR26
8TJ.
Tree Preservation Order relating to The Old Rectory, The Street, Saxthorpe, Norwich, NR11
7BJ.
AGREEMENT
Loan Agreement between North Norfolk District Council (1) and Brenda Taylor (2) for the
sum of £1110-00.
DEEDS
Deed of Surrender between North Norfolk District Council (1) and Trystan Paul Taylor and
Patricia Bernadette O’Brien (2)
LEASES
Lease of Land comprising the Land and Café at Runton Road car Park, Cromer between
North Norfolk District Council (1) and Trystan Paul Taylor and Patricia Bernadette O’Brien
(2)
Full Council
18 April 2012
113