Council
Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
10th November 2015
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 November 2015 at 6.00 p.m.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are
requested to arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be
possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Chairman to
rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public.
Further information on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic
Services, Tel: 01263 516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings
and report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a
member of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that
you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: 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.
PRAYER
Led by Reverend Ian Christopher Whittle, St Andrews church, Langham
2.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
To receive the Chairman’s communications, if any.
3.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
4.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
5.
MINUTES
(pages 6, 18)
Minutes Appendix A – p.14 , Minutes Appendix B – p. 21
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 September 2015 and
the minutes of the special meeting held on 21 October 2015
6.
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.
7.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To consider any questions received from members of the public.
8.
APPOINTMENTS
To appoint Mr T FitzPatrick as a substitute to the Norfolk Joint Museums Committee
9.
FORMATION OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL TO REVIEW THE
MEMBERS’ SCHEME OF ALLOWANCES
(page 24)
(Appendix A – p.27)
Summary:
Conclusions:
The purpose of this report is to advise members of the
need to refresh and convene a meeting of the
Independent Remuneration Panel to review the North
Norfolk District Council Members’ Scheme of
Allowances, in accordance with the requirements of the
Local authorities (Members’ Allowances) Regulations
2003.
The North Norfolk District Council Members’ Scheme of
Allowances is now due for review. An Independent
Remuneration Panel must be convened to undertake
that review and report its findings and
recommendations to Full Council. The Council is
required to have due regard to the report of the
Independent Remuneration Panel in determining any
amendments to the current Scheme. The revised
Scheme should be adopted from May 2016.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Members approve the convening of the Independent
Remuneration Panel.
(2) Members approve the Terms of Reference for the
Independent Remuneration Panel.
(3) Any representations that Members wish the
Independent Remuneration Panel to take into
consideration should be made in writing through the
Group Leaders, to the Chief Executive, by 6 January
2016.
(4) The Independent Remuneration Panel reports its
findings and recommendations for consideration by Full
Council at its meeting in February 2016
(5) Members instructions are sought on whether
remuneration and/or expenses should be paid to panel
members
(6) Members resolve to delegate to the CEO the
appointment of the individual members to the
Independent Remuneration Panel
Cabinet member(s):
Wards affected
Contact Officer,
telephone number, and
e-mail:
10.
All
All
Emma Denny, Democratic Services Team Leader
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 02 NOVEMBER 2015
(page 28)
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
a) AGENDA ITEM 10: HALF YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR 2015/16
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that the Half Yearly Treasury Management
Report for 2015/16 is approved.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the above recommendations from
Cabinet at their meeting on 11 November 2015 – after the Council agenda was
published. The Chairman will provide an oral update at the Council meeting.
11.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 11
NOVEMBER 2015
To receive any further recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
meeting held on 11th November 2015.
12.
13.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REVIEW 2014/15
(page 38)
Summary:
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual
Review 2014-2015 summarises the work of the
Committee during the previous municipal year.
Recommendation:
That Council receives the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee Annual Review 2014 - 2015
Contact Officer
Tel. No:
Email:
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
TO RECEIVE THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED
COMMITTEES
Members are requested to note that the minutes of the undermentioned committees
have been approved. Copies of all the minutes are available on the Council’s website
or from Democratic Services.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
14.
Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 17 June 2015
Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 15 July 2015
Development Committee – 20 August 2015
Cabinet – 07 September 2015
Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 16 September 2015
Standards Committee – 22 September 2015
Development Committee – 17 September 2015
Development Committee – 15 October 2015
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
To receive reports, updates or briefings from members of the Cabinet.
15.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
Councillor Eric Seward has submitted the following question:
Broadband Roll-out Phase 2
NNDC has allocated £1million to help extend fibre coverage across the district which
is welcomed.
I am advised that officers (County & District) will submit an analysis of potential areas
for funding and that a report will be submitted to Cabinet (possibly January) to
presumably decide which areas will benefit from this funding.
How will local members be consulted in this process before any final decision is
made on how this funding is to be allocated?
16.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
To receive any opposition business.
17.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None
18.
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.”
19.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Circulation:
All Members of the Council.
Members of the Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public
COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 23 September 2015 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Officers in
Attendance:
Mr S Hester
Mr M Knowles
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mr W J Northam
Mrs J Oliver
Mr N Pearce
Ms M Prior
Mr J Punchard
Mr J Rest
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr S Shaw
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr S Ward
Mr A Wells
Mr A Yiasimi
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, The Corporate Directors, the Communications
Manager and the Democratic Services Team Leader
None
Press:
59.
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mrs S Butikofer
Mr N Coppack
Mrs H Cox
Mrs J English
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
PRAYERS
The Chairman invited Reverend Catherine Dobson from the Coastal Group of parishes to lead
prayers.
60.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman began by thanking everyone who had attended her recent civic reception, in
particular all those that had donated lots for the auction of promises and everyone that had
bought them. She went onto say that Greenbuild had been very successful this year, all the
more impressive because there had been substantial competition from several other local
events that were held over the same weekend.
The Chairman then spoke about the recent 1940s weekend in Sheringham and Holt. She had
been very privileged to have been invited to judge the best dressed market stall and trader and
she congratulated the winner who had made a huge effort.
The Chairman concluded by reminding Members that she was hosting a ‘Quiz and Chips’
fundraising event for her nominated charities on 3rd October.
61.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS
None
62.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
6
Apologies for absence were received from Mr N Dixon, Mr V FitzPatrick, Mr B J Hannah, Mr P
W High, Mr B Jarvis, Mr M Knowles, Mr J Lee, Mrs A Moore, Mr P W Moore, Miss B Palmer,
Mrs G Perry-Warnes, Mr R Price, Mr P Rice, Mr D Smith, Mr N Smith, Mrs L Walker and Mr G
Williams.
63.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2015 were approved as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
64.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
65.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
66.
APPOINTMENTS
None
67.
DEVOLUTION IN EAST ANGLIA
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, introduced this item. He explained that the government was now
seeking expressions of interest in potential devolution projects. It had been announced that
that any area wishing to engage with this agenda during the current spending review period
would have to submit proposals by 4th September 2015. Consequently, given the tight
deadline, the Leader had signed a ‘letter of intent’ on behalf of the Council, together with the
Leaders of other local authorities across the county and representatives from the University of
East Anglia and the New Anglia Local Area Partnership. Mr FitzPatrick explained that the
purpose of this expression of interest was so that government and local public sector
partnerships could explore which policy/budget areas might be advantageous to both of they
were to be devolved for more local control. He then outlined the significant potential benefits
associated with devolution, including support and devolved government funding to encourage
economic growth and infrastructure provision, better use of public funds in areas such as
health and wellbeing and more coordinated decision making in respect of major issues such
as strategic housing and infrastructure delivery.
Mr FitzPatrick said that there was no proposal for unitary authorities and that certain service
areas were such as planning, coastal defence and housing were already ‘clustering’. He
concluded by saying that doing nothing was not an option and that by taking the path to
devolution the pressure to form a unitary authority could be eliminated.
The Chairman invited Members to speak:
1. Mr A Wells said that he supported the idea of devolution as it was about communities
taking control. He proposed the following additional recommendation ‘That Council should
receive a briefing from the Chairman of the Local Enterprise Partnership on the work that
they were undertaking’. Mr FitzPatrick agreed to accept this recommendation.
2. Mr E Seward said that he was familiar with the proposals as he was also a County
Councillor. He said that Members needed to see what the proposals meant for North
Norfolk specifically and requested briefings and workshops for members at suitable times.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
7
RESOLVED
1. To note the contents of this report.
2. To agree that NNDC follows up work on the initial expression of interest undertaken with
partners across the Norfolk and Suffolk area to maximise the opportunity presented by the
Government’s commitment to devolution.
3. To delegate to the Leader in consultation with the Head of Paid Service any resources
required providing costs are met from the existing approved council budget.
4. To receive a briefing from the Chairman of the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership
on the work they are undertaking
68.
SHARED SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, introduced this item. He explained that like devolution,
encouraging the sharing of service provision between local authorities was a government
policy. There was the opportunity to explore a shared senior management arrangement with
Great Yarmouth Borough Council and support was now sought to commission work through a
company called Shared Service Architects (SSA) with funding secured from the LGA to look at
all the options. Mr FitzPatrick said that the focus would be on working together but each
council would continue to make their own decisions. He went onto say that it was an approach
that needed to be taken. There would be year on year reductions in government funding and
sharing services was an effective way of making savings without affecting frontline services.
The Chairman invited Members to speak:
1. Mr E Seward said that he had seen a motion submitted to the Council meeting at Great
Yarmouth Borough Council which indicated that the Leader of the Labour Group did not
support the proposal. He added that Great Yarmouth was known to be changeable
politically and it was therefore important to get secure political commitment for the
proposals. He went onto say that previous attempts by Great Yarmouth to share services
with other councils had failed. Mr FitzPatrick replied that there had been discussions with
a number of other Councils as well as Great Yarmouth but there was much in common
with Great Yarmouth, including a shared coastline. He added that the Leader of the
Labour group had led the previous attempts to share services.
2. Mr N Lloyd commented that Broadland DC might be a more suitable partner. Mr
FitzPatrick said that discussions had taken place with Broadland DC and Kings Lynn and
West Norfolk BC but there was not currently an appetite to share services from their side.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr A Wells and
RESOLVED
1. With financial support from the LGA, to explore with all Elected Members the possible
opportunities and benefits which could accrue through the sharing of management and
services with Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Alongside this an outline Business Case
should be prepared with both financial and technical assistance from the LGA. This would
include a more detailed financial analysis of investment needs and the potential savings
including an assessment of each Council’s Transformation agenda.
2. To delegate to the Leader of the Council in conjunction with the Chief Executive the
allocation of the £25,000 budget.
8
69.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 07 SEPTEMBER 2015
a) AGENDA ITEM 11:CORPORATE PLAN 2015-2019 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CONTEXT
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, introduced this item. He explained that the report outlined the
contextual issues which were taken into consideration when preparing the Corporate Plan. He
said that the issues covered by the plan were key to the District. Health and Wellbeing had
been added this time and localism had been removed as a specific priority as it was felt that it
cut across all of the priorities. Mr FitzPatrick concluded by informing Members that the
priorities laid out in the plan were not intended to be all-encompassing and that as in previous
years there would be an annual activity plan which would be delivered to ensure that any
required improvements or changes would were progressed in line with the ambitions of the
Corporate Plan.
The Chairman invited Members to speak:
Mr A Wells said that the Corporate Plan represented the aspirational priorities of the Council.
He agreed with the inclusion of ‘health and wellbeing’ and ‘jobs and the local economy’ but he
felt that there were some things missing. Localism could have been more explicit as local
communities were responsible for making more decisions. He also felt that there was a lack of
aspiration around environmental issues, particularly given the impact of building extra new
homes. Mr Wells went on to say that there was no mention of the Broads and that in 5 years
time it would be hard for the public to assess whether any of the priorities had been achieved.
Mr Wells concluded by saying that he proposed that the report was referred back to Cabinet to
undertake further work on it and to bring back to the next meeting of Council for approval.
Mr T FitzPatrick replied that he would not accept this proposal as the Corporate Plan had
already been to Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration. In
response to Mr Wells’ concerns regarding the delivery of some of the priorities, he said that
the Local Plan would ensure that the public could engage fully and feed-in to the process.
Regarding the Broads, Mr FitzPatrick said that a lot of specific issues and areas had not been
included and this had been done deliberately. However, the Corporate Plan was not overly
vague and it reflected the needs and aspirations of local people.
Mrs B McGoun queried a section in the Plan which referred to recycling rates being reduced
by tackling dog fouling. She said that she could not see the connection. The Deputy Leader,
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, said that Members should remember that the Annual Action Plan
underpinned the Corporate Plan and it was this document that provided the detail for how
each priority would be delivered. She acknowledged that the wording that Mrs McGoun
referred to was clumsy and that it should in fact be two separate points. The Leader agreed
and said that this would be corrected. The Chief Executive added that the section referred to
by Mrs McGoun should also include a reference to the Norfolk Waste Partnership Board and
that dog fouling was only one element of this.
Mr N Lloyd said that errors such as this showed that the Plan was not ready and that more
work was needed. The Chief Executive said that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had
already flagged up the issue regarding recycling rates.
Mr A Wells proposed the following amendment to the recommendation:
‘That the Corporate Plan 2015-19 should be referred back to Cabinet for further work and that
it should then come back to the next meeting of Council for consideration.’ Mr E Seward
seconded the proposal. The amendment was put to the vote. Ten members voted in favour,
20 against and the proposal was therefore not supported.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
9
RESOLVED
To approve the Corporate Plan 2015-2019
b) AGENDA ITEM 12: MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL STRATEGY
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced this item. He explained that the report
presented an updated medium term financial strategy for the period 2016/17 to 2019/20. The
strategy had been updated to support the Corporate Plan 2015 - 2019. Mr Northam said that
the shift in funding from central government towards local resources was a dominant feature of
the strategy. He referred Members to section 7 of the Strategy document which outlined the
key aspects and included indicative financial projections.
Mr Northam concluded by saying that the Council was in a good financial position and that the
Strategy reflected this whilst recognising the challenges ahead.
The Chairman invited Members to speak:
Mr D Young referred to the New Homes Bonus (NHB) reserve. He said that 75% went into the
base budget and the rest was put into an earmarked reserve and he wondered what this
earmarked reserve was for. Mr Young then went onto say that the figures quoted in Table 7 of
the strategy did not match the figures on page 76. The Head of Finance replied that the figures
differed because some expenditure was being funded from that reserve. In response to Mr
Young’s first question, the Head of Finance said that the earmarked reserve was used for
upfront costs for various schemes. She added that there were risks around the NHB and this
reserve provided a cushion.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
a) To continue the current Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2016/17;
b) That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme grant for parishes be offered to those
parish and town councils that accepted the grant in 2015/16 and the total amount
available is reduced in line with the Council’s relative funding reductions as outlined
within the strategy document;
c) To receive the revised reserves statement as included at Appendix A to the financial
strategy.
70.
ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
16 SEPTEMBER 2015
There were no recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
71.
RECOMMENDATION FROM LICENSING & APPEALS COMMITTEE 20 JULY 2015
AGENDA ITEM 13: MOBILE PARK HOMES FEES POLICY
Mrs H Cox, Vice-Chairman of the Licensing & Appeals Committee introduced this item. She
said that a lot of work had been undertaken by the Committee to reach this decision and she
recommended its approval.
It was proposed by Mrs H Cox, seconded by Mr R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
10
To approve the Mobile Park Homes Fees Licensing Policy
72.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
In the Audit Committee Chairman’s absence, Mr S Hester, a member of the committee said
that the Committee had given the Annual Governance Statement and the 2014/15 Statement
of Accounts detailed consideration and he was pleased to recommend their approval on behalf
of the Committee. The Chief Executive then explained that the two recommendations would
be considered separately.
73.
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2014/15
RESOLVED
To receive the Annual Governance Statement 2014/15
74.
2014/15 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
The Head of Finance introduced this item. She explained that the Statement of Accounts had
been considered by the Audit Committee at their meeting on 15 September 2015 and they had
received training on this too which the Council’s auditors attended. The outstanding queries on
the valuation of assets had now been completed and there were no concerns. Only minor
changes were now required.
RESOLVED
To approve the 2014/15 Statement of Accounts
75.
TO RECEIVE THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
The minutes of the meetings below were noted as a correct record.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
76.
Standards Committee – 02 June 2015
Audit Committee – 16 June 2015
Licensing & Appeals Committee – 22 June 2015
Development Committee – 25 June 2015
Standards Committee – 30 June 2015
Cabinet – 06 July 2015
Development Committee – 23 July 2015
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
The Deputy Leader, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, said that she was delighted to report that the Council
had been asked to host the Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group
(SIG) field trip next June. This would be a great opportunity to showcase all of the work that
the Council undertook in relation to the protection of the coastline.
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick said details had been received from the Home Office on the
resettlement of Syrian refugees. He said that NNDC would confer with neighbouring
authorities to agree a way forward.
77.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
None
78.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
11
None
79.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
The following motion had been submitted by Mr A Wells and seconded by Mr D Young:
This Council notes:
 The Government’s proposal to extend the Right to Buy to Housing Association tenants,
to be paid for by selling off the most expensive Council Housing stock;
 The significant need for affordable housing in North Norfolk;
 The damaging potential impact of an extended Right to Buy on the highly-valued
charitable housing associations in many North Norfolk communities;
 That many former Local Authority properties sold under the right to buy are now owned
by private landlords and let out on a commercial basis;
 A recent opinion poll (1) suggesting that just 16% of the public believe that extending
Right to Buy to housing association tenants would be the most useful way of tackling
the affordability crisis; and

Advice from the Office of Budget Responsibility suggesting that the proposals, if
implemented, could add £60bn to the Government debt.
This Council therefore calls upon Cabinet to:
1. Continue working to build more affordable houses in North Norfolk;
2. Write to the Communities Secretary expressing concern about the proposals and
urging him to consider alternative approaches to provide more affordable housing; and
3. Write to our two local Members of Parliament requesting their support in opposing the
proposals.
[1] April 2015 - Poll conducted by National Housing Federation
The Chairman invited Mr Wells to introduce his motion. He replied that he wished to reserve
his right to speak until later in the debate.
Mr D Young then spoke as seconder of the motion. He said that in his experience when
people reached the top of the waiting list for social housing they felt as though they had won
the lottery, whereas those further down were having to pay higher and higher rents. The
Government’s proposals to extend ‘right to buy’ to housing association tenants would
exacerbate this gap. Mr Young referred to a recent presentation to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee by the Chief Executive of Victory Housing Association which had highlighted the
fact that the right to buy process only took a matter of months to complete and was often
funded by a tenant’s family whereas the process of building new properties to replace those
lost under right to buy could take years. For those local authorities with their own housing
stock, the new legislation would compel them to sell their houses to the private sector thus
diminishing the number of affordable homes available. Mr Young then spoke of a meeting he
had attended in Blakeney to discuss affordable housing. A local charitable housing association
had also attended the meeting. It was administered by volunteers and would struggle to
continue once the new legislation came into force. He questioned how it could be fair to allow
people to buy a housing association property at a low price and then sell it on. In conclusion,
Mr Young said that several organisations, including Shelter, had expressed serious concerns
about the proposals as in some areas up to half of all social housing stock could be sold off. It
was therefore imperative that NNDC added their voice to those calling on the Government to
think again about the proposals.
Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for housing said that he had been involved in setting up ‘Homes for
Wells’ and it was in fact an industrial provident society and not a charity as stated by Mr
12
Young. In reply to Mr Young’s reference to council housing stock, he said that NNDC did not
have any council housing and therefore would not be directly affected by the proposals. He
said that he was well aware of the numbers on the housing register but the Government had
suggested that they may insist that housing association properties were sold at the market
value. This would mean that the housing associations would get the receipt and the buyer
would still get the discount. Mr Rest then referred to the last point in the motion that the
proposals could add £60bn to the government debt. He said that as housing associations were
not public bodies this could not be true. Mr Wells replied to this point by saying that the Office
of Budget Responsibility had indicated that if the proposals came into force then housing
associations would effectively become public bodies.
Mr T FitzPatrick asked the Chairman to clarify whether Mr Wells had now used his right to
reply and was therefore unable to speak further. The Monitoring Officer suggested that Mr
Wells continued to speak at this point and should not respond later in the debate.
Mr Wells said that the EDP had recently shown that house prices across the District had
increased hugely and were now unaffordable for many people. He said that Blakeney Housing
Society had been set up in 1946 to purchase 5 properties in the village for local people. To
date 39 properties had been purchased. In a village with a large number of second homes,
these properties played a significant role. He asked what right the Government had to make
housing associations such as this one sell off their stock.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that he had attended the same meeting as Mr Wells and it was
disappointing that Mr Wells had not spoken during the meeting. He said that he believed in
opportunity and aspiration and was proud of the work that NNDC had undertaken to address
the gaps in the affordable housing market. Once houses were sold they were not lost as they
still existed. There had been a commitment from the Government to reinvest in new homes.
Mistakes had been made in the past with previous right to buy schemes but this time the
money would be put back into building new homes. He concluded by saying that he did not
agree with Mr Young’s comment that many privately rented houses were below standard. He
said that he would not support the motion.
Mr A Wells requested a separate recorded vote on each recommendation (see Minutes
Appendix A)
The Chairman informed Members that recommendation 1 had been supported.
Recommendations 2 and 3 had not been supported. It was therefore
RESOLVED to
Continue working to build more affordable houses in North Norfolk;
80.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
None
The meeting concluded at 7.15pm.
_________________________
Chairman
13
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: Agenda Item 11 a – Corporate Plan
Date:23 September 2015
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
Oliver, J
Butikofer, S
X
Pearce, N
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
Dixon, N
X
X
Prior, M
X
English. J
X
Punchard, J
X
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
Rice, P
Gay, V R
Seward, E
X
X
Grove-Jones, P
X
Hannah, B J
Hester, S
X
Shaw, S
X
Shepherd, R
X
Smith, B
X
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
Knowles, M
Uprichard, V
Lee, J H A
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
X
X
X
Moore, A
Williams, G
Moore, P W
Yiasimi, A
X
Young, D
X
Northam, W J
Abst
Palmer, B
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
Green, A R
Against
X
recorded votes form
14
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: 21 – Notice of Motion – Rec 1
Date: 23 September 2015
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
Oliver, J
Butikofer, S
X
Palmer, B
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
X
Punchard, J
X
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
Rice, P
Gay, V R
X
Seward, E
X
Green, A R
X
Shaw, S
X
Grove-Jones, P
X
Shepherd, R
X
Smith, B
X
Hannah, B J
Hester, S
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
X
Knowles, M
Uprichard, V
X
Lee, J H A
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
X
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
Moore, A
Williams, G
Moore, P W
Yiasimi, A
X
Young, D
X
Northam, W J
Abst
X
English. J
FitzPatrick, V
Against
X
recorded votes form
15
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: 21 – Notice of Motion – Rec 2
Date: 23 September 2015
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
Butikofer, S
Oliver, J
Against
X
Palmer, B
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
English. J
X
Punchard, J
X
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
Gay, V R
Rice, P
Seward, E
X
Green, A R
Grove-Jones, P
X
X
Hannah, B J
Hester, S
X
Shaw, S
X
Shepherd, R
X
Smith, B
X
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
Knowles, M
Uprichard, V
Lee, J H A
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
X
X
X
Moore, A
Williams, G
Moore, P W
Yiasimi, A
X
Young, D
X
Northam, W J
Abst
X
recorded votes form
16
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: Agenda Item 21 – motion – recommendation 3
Date: 23 September 2015
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
Butikofer, S
Oliver, J
Against
X
Palmer, B
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
English. J
X
Punchard, J
X
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
Gay, V R
Rice, P
Seward, E
X
Green, A R
Grove-Jones, P
X
X
Hannah, B J
Hester, S
X
Shaw, S
X
Shepherd, R
X
Smith, B
X
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
Knowles, M
Uprichard, V
Lee, J H A
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
X
X
X
Moore, A
Williams, G
Moore, P W
Yiasimi, A
X
Young, D
X
Northam, W J
Abst
X
recorded votes form
17
COUNCIL
Minutes of a special meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 21 October 2015 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs S Butikofer
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N Coppack
Mrs H Cox
Mr N Dixon
Mrs J English
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mr M Knowles
Mr J Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mr W J Northam
Mr N Pearce
Mrs G Perry-Warnes
Ms M Prior
Mr J Punchard
Mr J Rest
Mr R Reynolds
Mr P Rice
Mr E Seward
Mr S Shaw
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr A Wells
Mr G Williams
Mr A Yiasimi
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, The Corporate Directors, the Monitoring Officer, the
Head of Finance and the Democratic Services officer
Press:
None
42.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
None.
43.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr V FitzPatrick, Mr B Hannah,
Mr S Hester, Mrs A Moore, Mr P Moore, Mrs J Oliver, Miss B Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr D Smith,
Ms L Walker and Mr S Ward.
44.
DEVOLUTION IN EAST ANGLIA
The Leader introduced the item and informed Members that the report was an updated
position of the devolution bid and the priorities highlighted. He said that the proposal details
were in the report and that there were two recommendations to consider.
The Leader gave a presentation on the report (slides attached).
Mr A Wells thanked the Leader for the helpful report and said that the general principals were
very positive. He said that the services in the region should reflect the needs of the people and
asked the Leader to explain what opportunities had been taken to involve residents of North
Norfolk to meet there concerns and to elaborate on what proposals had been made and who
would be accountable.
The Leader emphasised that no decisions had been made and that it was a bid to
Government. He commented that sceptics said that an agreement could never be reached for
18
a bid to Government. He said that the proposals were not binding and that two things would
happen:
1. The proposal would go to central Government and they would not be interested; or
2. It would be possible and then the rest of the work needed would begin including involving
local people.
The Leader assured Members that all Councils involved in the bid would be equal partners
and that bids brought funds down to finance services and that it would be dependent on what
powers were devolved. The Leader said that devolution was a part of the election manifesto
and that it was a real opportunity to make local councils relevant and that powers would be
devolved down to a local level with financial backing.
The Chief Executive added that there would be a statutory period of public consultation but
that this was a year to 18 months away after the decision is made. She said that the
consultation was likely to be a minimum of eight weeks.
Mrs B McGoun asked whether parishes could be informed that this was in progress.
The Leader said that he had shared the information with his ward since the last meeting of Full
Council when it was first discussed. He said that it was essential for people to be aware.
The Chief Executive suggested that she worked with the Communications Manager to draft
some material as part of the ‘improved narrative’ to simplify the process for communities –
better jobs, productivity and what it means for them.
Mr N Lloyd asked for assurance that if it didn’t work that NNDC could leave the agreement.
The Leader said that it was the consensus of all of the authorities involved that they could
leave. He said that if it didn’t represent the interests of North Norfolk then they could pull out.
He assured Members that he would not sign off a devolution deal alone and that it would
involve all Members with updates at each meeting.
Mr E Seward asked if the recommendations were approved, whether that would be sufficient
authority without the need for special meetings. He also whether public transport was on the
agenda for devolution.
The Leader said that the idea was to give delegation for the bid process on 4th November. In
response to the public transport query, the Leader said that it was a part of infrastructure and
that it was of particular interest for rural areas. He added that there would look at transport
links between Norfolk and Suffolk and the surrounding areas.
Mr Seward thanked the Leader for his answers and commented that if other authorities joined
in the future they could take transport links further.
The Leader said that this was a good point and said that following the dualling of the A11 the
North to South links were improved but that the A17 and A47 and the West-East links needed
much improvement.
PROPOSED by Cllr T FitzPatrick and SECONDED by Cllr J Rest and
RESOLVED to:
a) Endorse the proposal at Appendix 1 (subject to the refinements and enhancements
as agreed by Leaders at their meeting on 14th October) as the basis for the Challenge
Session Team to use at the Challenge Session; and
19
b) To give delegation to the Leader of the Council to continue to enter into a dialogue
on devolution and develop the proposition into a formal Devolution Deal.
45.
SHARED SERVICES OPPORTUNITIES
The Chairman informed Members that there were three recommendations in the papers.
The Leader said that the two shared services workshops had been well received. He said that
the Borough of Great Yarmouth Council (referred to as Great Yarmouth)had decided to end
their interim arrangement with their Chief Executive as a meeting the previous week and
would like to appoint NNDC’s Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer on an interim basis.
The Leader said that a shared management system could deliver benefits and enable them to
explore opportunities, adding that the grant received from the LGA would cover these costs.
The Leader said that it was a unique opportunity of a trial-run for how shared services would
work between the two councils.
Mrs B McGoun said that the Chief Executive was heavily involved with devolution and asked
whether now was a sensible time to help Great Yarmouth. She asked who would benefit and
asked whether NNDC would be the losers.
The Leader responded by saying that he had spoken with the Chief Executive and Section
151 Officer who were both enthusiastic about the opportunity. He said that it would help Great
Yarmouth but that it would also help NNDC and that both councils would benefit.
The Leader said that they would be able to provide a robust business case to see if shared
services would benefit both authorities and that it was an opportunity to practice; which no one
else had been able to do.
Mr N Lloyd asked whether it would be monitored to ensure that the consequences were
recognised. He said that the report mentioned backfilling positions and that there was little
information available to take a vote. He added that in principle he was not opposed to the idea
but suggested deferring.
The Chief Executive said that the backfilling part of the report was because of financial
implication of savings on an interim basis. She said that with sharing the post there would be
savings for both authorities but that it was suggested that this was not banked. She
emphasised that this was for an interim period and was not a permanent arrangement at this
stage.
The Chief Executive explained that they were developing a business case and that the ability
to backfill and have support was only in the interim period. She added they would explore the
potential benefits and potential risks for both councils.
Mr D Young agreed that there were potential savings and benefits in the future and that the
process evolves over time. He asked whether there would be equal sharing of the posts. He
also commented that there was no Chief Accountant in post and asked how the Corporate
Leadership Team would cope with work not being done in North Norfolk.
The Monitoring Officer said that if the decision was approved the details of the interim will be
agreed by management and that it would be subject to negotiation.
The Leader said that it had been discussed with the postholders and that Council had agreed
to look at the subject of shared services a s whole in the September meeting. He said that ut
was the perfect opportunity to test it with two of their most important officers.
20
The Chairman commented that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had received a
presentation from the Chief Executive.
Mr N Pearce commented that there was a lot of information and suggested formed a
consultative committee.
Mrs V Uprichard asked how long the trial run was; 3 months, 6 months or open ended.
The Leader said that either side could terminate the agreement and that if the trial run was
agreed and shared services were pursued, the arrangement would continue. He said that if it
was detrimental, NNDC would serve notice on the contract adding that it was not an openended commitment and that it would be under intense scrutiny.
The Chief Executive said that it would be an intense period of time with a large amount of work
required. She said that the partnership agreement would be put in place quickly to ensure no
detrimental impact on NNDC services.
Ms V Gay said that it was a distinct opportunity and that she had every confidence in the Chief
Executive and the Section 151 Officer and that their help would be beneficial to another
council. She added that the trial/interim period was asked about in the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee meeting and that a process of formal review could be built in so Members would
understand how it is working and that the arrangement would be reviewed.
The Chief Executive said that there was no set time frame but that it would be for a maximum
of eight months so that they could investigate what a timetable might look like. She said that
subject to Council’s agreement, there would be a series of steps to be taken and that
Members would be involved at each one with engagement throughout. The Chief Executive
informed Members that Unison were aware and that the Joint Staff Consultative Committee
would receive regular reports and that there would be formal briefings. She added that there
needed to be discussions outside of the formal decision making process.
The Leader said that eight months would provide a good indication and that the two Councils
would be making decisions. He said that Great Yarmouth elected by thirds and that it was split
politically in three as well. He said that shared services was not a decision for him as Leader
or Cabinet but that they had to agree what was best for North Norfolk.
The Chief Executive added that the Local Government Association had offered peer support.
Mr G Williams said that he had similar concerns and had wondered whether it was the right
thing to do now and how easy it would be to end the agreement if they were not happy with
the arrangement. He said that they didn’t know what would happen, but that if they did not
have the trial run of an interim arrangement they would be looking at a business case in the
future from a theoretical basis. Mr Williams said that it was an opportunity to gather
information and for Member engagement and would mean that they were better informed to
make a decision in the future.
Mrs McGoun said that she had a huge amount of respect for the Chief Executive’s integrity.
Mr A wells said that when they mention shared services to Town and Parish Councils they are
concerned with what it will mean for North Norfolk. He said he wanted to explore the proposals
and that it was hard to say no to Great Yarmouth but that there was little detail about it. He
asked whether a condition could be added that there was a report back to Full Council with as
much detail as possible; the financial implications, how budgets would be managed with less
officer attention.
21
The Leader said that there would be a revised paper at the next Full Council meeting. He said
that there was an existing framework for seconding officers which they would use, but that
there would be no savings made to protect North Norfolk. He said that the next meeting may
be too soon for the full details but that they would be provided.
The Chief Executive said that she would try and get more information for the next meeting.
Mr R Reynolds said that safeguards were in place and that it had been explained in depth. He
said that business plans took time to emerge and that they should be flexible and expect 8-10
months for the interim. He said that he was supportive of what was suggested.
Ms M Prior said that they had been told very clearly that they would not be trapped and that
they had heard a lot of detail for an interim situation. She said that she agreed with the Leader
and Mr Williams and that they had been presented with opportunities that wouldn’t normally be
there. Ms Prior said that it was a win-win situation and that she supported it.
Mr N Smith said that Overview and Scrutiny was there to iron out issues from Members and
that it was a discussion forum.
The Leader asked for a recorded vote.
PROPOSED by Cllr T FitzPatrick and SECONDED by Cllr G Williams and
[RECORDED VOTE]
RESOLVED to:
1) Agree to the secondment of the Head of Paid services and s151 Officer on an interim
basis
2) To note that a revised Pay Policy Statement will be submitted to Full Council in
November 2015
3) To note that the financial support from the LGA has been received
46.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
None
The meeting concluded at 7.10pm.
_________________________
Chairman
22
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion:
Date: 21 October 2015 – Special meeting
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
X
Oliver, J
Butikofer, S
X
Palmer, B
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
X
Perry-Warnes, G
X
Cox, H
X
Prior, M
X
English. J
X
Punchard, J
X
Rest, J
X
Reynolds, R
X
Rice, P
X
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
FitzPatrick, V
Gay, V R
X
Seward, E
X
Green, A R
X
Shaw, S
X
Grove-Jones, P
X
Shepherd, R
X
Hannah, B J
Smith, B
X
Hester, S
Smith, D
High, P W
X
Jarvis, B
Knowles, M
X
Lee, J H A
Smith, N
X
Stevens, R
X
Uprichard, V
X
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
Moore, A
Williams, G
X
Moore, P W
Yiasimi, A
X
Young, D
X
Northam, W J
Abst
Price, R
Dixon, N
FitzPatrick, T
Against
X
recorded votes form
23
Full Council
15 October 2015
Agenda Item No_____9________
FORMATION OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL TO REVIEW THE
MEMBERS’ SCHEME OF ALLOWANCES
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to advise members of the need to refresh
and convene a meeting of the Independent Remuneration Panel to
review the North Norfolk District Council Members’ Scheme of
Allowances, in accordance with the requirements of the Local
authorities (Members’ Allowances) Regulations 2003.
Conclusions:
The North Norfolk District Council Members’ Scheme of Allowances is
now due for review. An Independent Remuneration Panel must be
convened to undertake that review and report its findings and
recommendations to Full Council. The Council is required to have due
regard to the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel in
determining any amendments to the current Scheme. The revised
Scheme should be adopted from May 2016.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Members approve the convening of the Independent
Remuneration Panel.
(2) Members approve the Terms of Reference for the Independent
Remuneration Panel.
(3) Any representations that Members wish the Independent
Remuneration Panel to take into consideration should be made in
writing through the Group Leaders, to the Chief Executive, by 6
January 2016.
(4) The Independent Remuneration Panel reports its findings and
recommendations for consideration by Full Council at its meeting in
February 2016
(5) Members instructions are sought on whether remuneration and/or
expenses should be paid to panel members
(6) Members resolve to delegate to the CEO the appointment of the
individual members to the Independent Remuneration Panel
Cabinet member(s):
All
Wards affected
All
Emma Denny, Democratic Services Team Leader
01263 516010, emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
24
Full Council
15 October 2015
1.
Requirement to undertake an independent review of the Members’ Scheme of
Allowances and convene the North Norfolk District Council Independent
Remuneration Panel
1.1
The Local Authorities (Members Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 require each
Council to establish and maintain an Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) and to
undertake a review of its members’ allowances scheme at least every four years. The
Council implemented its current Scheme in May 2012 following a review undertaken by
its IRP. The regulations require each council to have regard to the recommendations of
its IRP prior to amending, revoking or replacing its members’ allowances scheme.
1.2
The 2003 Regulations require the panel to comprise at least three members, who cannot
be elected councillors of any local authority, anyone who would be disqualified from
being an elected member of a local authority or co-opted members of the Council’s own
committees.
1.3
Before the IRP can be convened, it will be necessary to refresh the members of the
Panel. The regulations do not specify how a local authority should go about finding
members of its IRP. The guidance from government states that an authority should
have regard to the need to ensure that the process commands public confidence. In
particular the membership should be truly independent, well qualified to discharge the
functions of the IRP and representative of the diversity of the communities in the District.
1.4
It is intended that the proposed nominees to be appointed to fulfil the role of members of
the IRP will be reported to Full Council in December 2015.
1.5
The Council can decide to pay an allowance and travelling expenses to the Panel to
reflect the commitment of time being a member of the IRP will require, the amount of
which is a matter for the Council to consider. It should be noted that when the IRP was
originally established the Council decided that members of the IRP should only be paid
for travel and subsistence. However, some Councils across the Eastern region do pay
an allowance (see Appendix A) and Council may wish to consider making a payment.
1.6
The IRP will also need to have adequate administrative, information and technical
support to inform the review. It is suggested this is fulfilled by the Chief Executive,
Monitoring Officer and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
1.7
In addition, Members may wish to make representations to the IRP on issues relating to
the Scheme of Allowances. Should this be the case, it is recommended that such
representations should be made in writing through the Group Leaders who would then
be asked to submit them to the Chief Executive. In order that such representations are
available to the members of the IRP in good time, it is requested that they should be
submitted to the Chief Executive by 6 January 2016.
2.
Terms of Reference
2.1
The Regulations provide that the IRP can make recommendations to the Council on the
following matters:
a)
The amount of basic allowance which should be payable equally to each elected
Member.
b)
The roles and responsibilities for which a special responsibility allowance should
be payable and the amount of each such allowance.
c)
Travelling and subsistence.
25
Full Council
15 October 2015
d)
Co-optees’ allowance.
e)
Whether an allowance in respect of expenses of arranging for the care of
children and dependants should be included and, if appropriate, the amount of
allowance and means by which it is determined.
f)
Backdating of allowances to the beginning of a financial year in which the
scheme is amended.
g)
Annual adjustments of allowances.
h)
Which Members are to be eligible for contributory membership of the Local
Government Pension Scheme.
i)
Whether basic allowance or Special Responsibility Allowance are eligible.
3.
Financial Implications
3.1
The financial implications of the review of the Members’ Scheme of Allowances are
currently unknown. It will be a matter for the Council to determine any additional costs
or savings in relation to the Scheme when the final report is considered and decisions
taken on the adoption of any recommended changes.
4.
Risks
4.1
The main risk associated with the review of the Members’ Scheme of Allowances is
reputational in nature. When Members consider the findings and recommendations of
the Independent Remuneration Panel, there will be a need to evaluate them in the
context of the prevailing circumstances. While Members are required to have due
regard to the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel, it still a matter for the
Council to decide whether it adopts the associated recommendations in full or part.
5.
Sustainability
5.1
There are no direct sustainability implications associated with the review of the
Members’ Scheme of Allowances.
6.
Equality and Diversity
6.1
There are a limited number of equality and diversity implications associated with the
review of the Members’ Scheme of Allowances, the principal issue being any decisions
relating to the Carers’ Allowance.
7.
Crime & Disorder
7.1
There are no direct crime and disorder implications associated with the review of the
Members’ Scheme of Allowances.
26
Appendix A
Authority
Payments
Expenses
Breckland DC
£150 per meeting attended
Standard mileage
Broadland DC
No payment
Standard mileage
Great Yarmouth BC
No payment *
Kings Lynn & West
Norfolk BC
payment is made –
depends on the number of
meetings attended
Standard mileage
Norfolk County Council
No payment
Standard mileage
Norwich City
No payment
Standard mileage
South Norfolk DC
No payment
Standard mileage
Waveney DC
£200 payment to each
panel member to cover as
many meetings as
required.
Standard mileage
*Great Yarmouth BC used to have a joint panel with Broadland DC, however, a
few years ago Full Council agreed that Members Allowances, including SRA’s,
would increase in line with the staff pay awards. For the last two years Council
have agreed not make any increases to their allowances.
27
Agenda Item No____10______
HALF YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2015/16
Summary:
This report provides information on the Treasury
Management activities undertaken in the first six months
of 2015/16.
Options considered:
It is a requirement of the Chartered Institute of Public
Finance & Accountancy’s (CIPFA) Code of Practice for
Treasury Management that this mid-year review is
prepared and presented to Full Council.
Conclusions:
That the treasury activities for the half-year have been
carried out in accordance with the CIPFA Code and the
Council’s Treasury Strategy.
Recommendations:
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that the Half
Yearly Treasury Management Report for 2015/16 is
approved.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The recommendation is being made in compliance with
the CIPFA Code.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Arlingclose Report Template – Semi-Annual Treasury Report 2015/16
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Wyndham Northam
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Tony Brown
01263516126
tony.brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Treasury
Management Code (CIPFA’s TM Code) requires that authorities report on the
performance of the treasury management function at least twice yearly (midyear and at year end).
1.2
The Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2015/16 was approved by
Full Council on 25 February 2015, and this sets out the anticipated treasury
activities for the year. The Council has invested substantial sums of money
and is therefore exposed to financial risks including the loss of invested funds
28
and the revenue effect of changing interest rates. This report covers treasury
activity and the associated monitoring and control of risk.
2.
UK Economy
2.1
The UK economy has remained resilient over the first six months of the
financial year. Although the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) slowed
in the first quarter of 2015 to 0.4%, year-on-year growth to March 2015 was a
relatively healthy 2.7%. In the first quarter of the financial year, GDP growth
bounced back and was confirmed at 0.7%, with year-on-year growth showing
slight signs of slowing, decreasing to 2.4%. GDP has now increased for ten
consecutive quarters, breaking a pattern of slow and erratic growth since
2009.
2.2
Inflation, as measured by the annual rate for consumer price inflation (CPI)
briefly turned negative in April, falling to -0.1%, before fluctuating between
0.0% and 0.1% over the next few months. In the August Quarterly Inflation
Report, the Bank of England’s projections for inflation remained largely
unchanged from the May report with the Bank expecting inflation to gradually
increase to around 2% over the next 18 months, and then remain there for the
near future.
2.3
Further improvement in the labour market saw the unemployment rate for the
three months to July fall to 5.5%. Average earnings excluding bonuses for
the three months to July rose 2.9% year-on-year.
2.4
The outcome of the UK general election, which was largely fought over the
parties’ approach to dealing with the consequences of the structural deficit
and the pace of its removal, saw some very big shifts in the political
landscape and put the key issue of the UK’s relationship with the EU at the
heart of future politics.
3.
Debt Management
3.1
The Council has remained debt-free. The Capital Programme included with
the period 6 budget Monitoring Report assumes expenditure will be financed
using currently available resources, for example capital receipts, government
grants and revenue contributions. This has lowered the overall treasury risk
by reducing the level of investments and avoiding external debt, and
continues to be the most cost effective way of funding capital expenditure.
3.2
As capital projects are reviewed and considered, the funding source and
financial impact will be evaluated and used to inform the decision making on
the method chosen.
4
Investment Activity
4.1
The Investment Guidance from the Department for Communities and Local
Government, gives priority to security and liquidity, and the Council’s aim is to
achieve an interest return commensurate with these principles.
4.2
The table below gives Members an appreciation of the investment activity
undertaken in the first six months of 2015/16, showing the position at the start
and end of the period, together with the transactions during the period. The
percentages show the investment return achieved for each investment
category.
29
Balance
01/4/2015
Invested
Matured
Balance
30/9/2015
£000s
£000s
£000s
£000s
%
Term Deposits & Money
Market Funds
5,010
64,365
(58,545)
10,830
0.42
Certificates of Deposit
4,250
6,000
(5,750)
4,500
0.66
Covered Bonds
4,500
0
0
4,500
1.30
LAMIT Pooled Property
Fund
5,000
5,000
6.08
6,000
0.85
30,830
1.58
Pooled Funds
Total
6,000
18,760
76,365
(64,295)
4.3
Security of the capital sum remained the Council’s main investment objective.
This was maintained by following the Council’s investment counterparty policy
set out in its Treasury Management Strategy Statement for 2015/16.
4.4
Counterparty credit quality was assessed and monitored with reference to
Credit Ratings (the Council’s minimum long-term counterparty rating of A- (or
equivalent) across the rating agencies Fitch, S&P and Moody’s); credit default
swaps; GDP of the country in which the institution operates; the country’s net
debt as a percentage of GDP; sovereign support mechanisms and potential
support from a well-resourced parent institution and share price.
4.5
The original budget for 2015/16 anticipated that £430,610 would be earned in
interest from investments and loans, from an average balance of £19.6m at
2.2%. In the first 6 months of the financial year the average amount invested
was £30.4m at an average rate of interest of 1.58%, resulting in an overall
interest return of £240,875.
4.6
Investment balances remained higher than budget in the six month period and
the opportunity was taken to make further investments in pooled funds. The
most appropriate funds were selected in consultation with the Council’s
treasury advisers, Arlingclose, and £3m was invested in the Royal London
Cash Plus Fund, and £3m in the Payden & Rygel Sterling Reserve Fund.
4.7
The Royal London fund is rated AAA and offers the opportunity for enhanced
returns over the liquidity money market funds which the council currently uses.
The fund manager aims to achieve this through a diversified portfolio of cash
instruments and short-dated fixed income assets. The sum invested can be
withdrawn with 2 days’ notice if necessary, and income earned is distributed
quarterly. The fund has a performance benchmark of 7 day LIBID +0.75%
before fees. The Payden fund operates in a similar way and so far an average
of 0.85% has been earned from these investments.
5.
Credit Risk and Counterparty Update
5.1
Counterparty credit quality as measured by credit ratings is summarised
below. The table below and charts at Appendix D show that, compared to the
Arlingclose client base (for English non-metropolitan district councils), the
30
credit quality of the Council’s investments at the end of June 2015 on a value
weighted basis was better than the client base average of 4.35. On a time
weighted basis the average was again better than the client base figure of
3.62 indicating the high credit quality of the Council’s long-term investments.
Date
Value
Weighted
Average –
Credit Risk
Score
Value
Weighted
Average –
Credit
Rating
Time
Weighted
Average –
Credit Risk
Score
Time
Weighted
Average –
Credit
Rating
31/03/2015
AA
3.37
AAA
1.43
30/06/2015
AA
3.50
AAA
1.23
Scoring:
Value weighted average reflects the credit quality of investments according to
the size of the deposit
Time weighted average reflects the credit quality of investments according to
the maturity of the deposit
AAA = highest credit quality = 1
D = lowest credit quality = 15
Aim = A- or higher credit rating, with a score of 7 or lower, to reflect current
investment approach with main focus on security
5.2
Appendix E also includes a chart showing the rate of return on the total
investment portfolio. The chart shows that at the end of June 2015 the
Council had achieved the second best rate of return on its investment portfolio
compared to all other Arlingclose clients. The chart must be viewed in the
context of the Council’s Investment Strategy and reflects both the capital
growth and income from investments. The result is due in large part to the
investment in the LAMIT pooled property fund made on the advice of
Arlinclose who facilitated the Council’s entry into the fund at the (lower) bid
price.
6.
Compliance with Prudential Indicators
6.1
The Council can confirm that it has complied with its Treasury Prudential
Indicators in the first six months of 2015/16 as set out in Appendix ?
7.
Conclusion
7.1
In compliance with the requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice this report
provides members with a summary of the treasury management activity
during the first 6 months of 2015/16. As indicated in this report none of the
Prudential Indicators have been breached and a prudent approach has been
taking in relation to investment activity with priority being given to security and
liquidity over yield.
8.
Implications and Risks
8.1
The treasury management activities in the first 6 months of 2015/16 have
been undertaken in accordance with the Treasury Management Strategy
Statement 2015/16.
31
9.
Financial Implications and Risks
9.1
The financial implications and risks of treasury decisions have been
considered in the light of advice from the Council’s treasury advisor and this
report confirms that the Council considers that security and liquidity are the
primary objectives of its prudent investment policy.
10.
Sustainability
10.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Sustainability
11.
Equality and Diversity
11.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Equality and Diversity.
12.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
12.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Crime and Disorder
considerations.
32
Appendix D
Credit Score Analysis
Long-Term
Credit Rating
Score
AAA
1
AA+
2
AA
3
AA-
4
A+
5
A
6
A-
7
BBB+
8
BBB
9
BBB-
10
Not rated
11
BB
12
CCC
13
C
14
D
15
33
34
35
Appendix E
1
1.1
2
2.1
2.2
Compliance with Prudential Indicators
The Council complied with the Prudential Indicators for 2015/16, which were
set on 25 February 2015 as part of the Council’s Treasury Management
Strategy Statement.
Treasury Management Indicators
The Council measures and manages its exposures to treasury management
risks using the following indicators.
Security: The Council has adopted a voluntary measure of its exposure to
credit risk by monitoring the value-weighted average credit score of its
investment portfolio. This is calculated by applying a score to each
investment (AAA=1, AA+=2, etc.) and taking the arithmetic average, weighted
by the size of each investment.
Actual
Target
Portfolio average credit score
2.3
6.0
A credit score of ‘6’ equates to a long-term rating of ‘A’ (Fitch and S&P) or A2
(Moody’s).
Liquidity: The Council has adopted a voluntary measure of its exposure to
liquidity risk by monitoring the amount of cash available to meet unexpected
payments within a rolling three month period, without additional borrowing.
Actual
Target
Total cash available within 3 months
2.4
2.5
3.5
£3m
£2m
Interest Rate Exposures: This indicator is set to control the Council’s
exposure to interest rate risk. The upper limits on fixed and variable rate
exposures, expressed as the proportion of net principal borrowed (i.e. fixed
rate debt net of fixed rate investments, will be:
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Estimate
Estimate Estimate
%
%
%
Upper Limit for Fixed Interest Rate
Exposure
Actual
100%
Upper Limit for Variable Interest
Rate Exposure
100%
Actual
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
7%
The purpose of the limit is to ensure that the Council is not exposed to interest
rate rises on any borrowing which could adversely impact the revenue budget.
Variable rate borrowing can be used to offset exposure to changes in short
term rates on investments. However, the Council does not anticipate entering
into a borrowing during the period of the Strategy. These limits therefore
allow maximum flexibility for fixed or variable rate investments and investment
decisions will ultimately be made on expectations of interest rate movements
as set out in the Strategy.
36
2.6
Fixed rate investments and borrowings are those where the rate of interest is
fixed for the whole financial year. Instruments that mature during the financial
year are classed as variable rate.
2.7
Maturity Structure of Fixed Rate borrowing:
2.8
This indicator highlights the existence of any large concentrations of fixed rate
borrowing needing to be replaced at times of uncertainty over interest rates
and is designed to protect against excessive exposures to interest rate
changes in any one period, in particular in the course of the next ten years.
2.9
It is calculated as the amount of projected borrowing that is fixed rate maturing
in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that is fixed rate.
No borrowing was undertaken in the first six months of the financial year, and
the Council does not anticipate borrowing in 2015/16 (other than for short
periods for cash flow purposes). However, should the Council require to
borrow for the long-term, the limits provide the flexibility to borrow fixed rate
loans in any of the maturity bands below.
Lower Limit Upper Limit
Actual
Maturity structure of fixed
for
2015/16
for
2015/16
For
2015/16
rate borrowing
%
%
%
under 12 months
0
100
0
2.12
12 months and within 24
months
0
100
0
24 months and within 5 years
0
100
0
5 years and within 10 years
0
100
0
10 years and above
0
100
0
Principal Sums Invested for Periods Longer than 364 days: The purpose
of this indicator is to limit exposure to the possibility of loss which may arise as
a result of the Council having to seek early repayment of the sums invested.
The limits on the total principal sum invested to final maturities beyond the
period end will be:
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
Limit on principal invested beyond year
£12m
£12m
£12m
end
Actual
£4.5m
£4.5m
£4.5m
37
Overview and Scrutiny Annual Review 2014 – 2015
Chairman’s Introduction
This is the eleventh report by North Norfolk District Council’s
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which gives an overview of
the Committee’s activities over the past year and its plans for
the future as well as explaining the aims and functions of
Overview and Scrutiny.
This report covers the last year of the Council that was elected
in 2011. The committee continues to play a valuable role in
reviewing and discussing the Council's financial position and
performance. The Committee has continued to focus on
issues of concern to local residents. In particular, the
Committee has looked at such issues the services offered by
the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the impact of the tidal surge of
2013 and mental health provision. In January we had a Councellors’ Call for Action over
residential permits and pay and display parking, proposed by Norfolk County Council.
I should like to thank my Vice Chairman Cllr Norman Smith and Democratic Services
Officers Emma Denny and Lydia Hall for their help and support throughout the year, and
also Tessa Gilder-Smith who left in August 2014.
My ethos is to encourage full participation. Portfolio Holders are expected to present
reports relating to their responsibilities and residents of the District and representatives
from the town and parish councils are welcome to attend any of the Committee's meetings
so they can learn more about the Council's work and how it is scrutinised. Members of the
public are also entitled to ask questions and make contributions. Several have done so
during our meetings and in fact, interest in the items has been so strong that meetings can
take longer than anticipated.
Councillor Peter Moore
Scrutiny Handbook and Annual Report
1
38
2014/2015
1. What is Scrutiny?
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is the Council’s watchdog, ensuring that the
Cabinet is held to account and is carrying out the Council’s aims as well as getting the
best value for money as a result of its decisions. Originating from the Local
Government Act of 2000 Scrutiny Committees not only keep an eye on the Council but
can also review the work of other bodies such as the Police, our utility providers and
the voluntary sector.
As outlined within the Council’s Constitution, the Committee’s terms of reference are
as follows:

To scrutinise and review decisions or other actions taken with respect to nonexecutive functions.

To make reports or recommendations to the Full Council or to the Cabinet about
one or more particular issue(s), service(s) or matter(s), which affects North
Norfolk and its residents. Reports or recommendations may be carried out on
whatever issue, service or matter the Scrutiny Committee thinks fit and may be
carried out on any subject if the Full Council or the Cabinet requests it to do so.

To carry out best value reviews.

To act as the Council’s Crime and Disorder Committee.

To produce an annual report to Council on the work of the Committee over the
year.

To ensure effective scrutiny of the treasury management strategy and policies.
The remit of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee also includes undertaking policy
review and development, monitoring performance management, promoting community
well-being and improving the quality of life in the District. Scrutiny is Member-led and
independent of political party arrangements. At North Norfolk District Council the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee is chaired by a member of the opposition. Scrutiny is
a function which belongs to, and benefits the whole council.
2. Who gets involved in Scrutiny?
a) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee take a
pro-active role throughout the process, attending pre-Agenda meetings and steering
and scoping the direction of questioning and investigation. They attend, when
appropriate, meetings with relevant officers at other authorities or with other bodies,
and participate in internal and external training.
b) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Members – Scrutiny is different from other
committees and calls for Members with investigative and creative minds who are
prepared to “do their homework” out of the Council Chamber and to think outside of
the usual committee framework, tailoring the method of review to suit the topic.
c) Cabinet Portfolio Members are always expected to attend meetings of Overview
and Scrutiny which involve their portfolio. The aim is that the Portfolio Member, as
Scrutiny Handbook and Annual Report
2
39
2014/2015
d)
e)
f)
g)
well as the officers, should respond to questions and, where appropriate, introduce
the topic.
All non-Executive Members are invited to attend, to ask questions or to suggest
topics for scrutiny.
Officers are involved in a number of ways – those directly involved in supporting the
Scrutiny process and those who are called to make reports to the Committee.
Invitees and Witnesses can be called not just from within the Council, but from
partners and utilities providers.
The public are always welcome to attend meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and to suggest areas of public concern that they would like to see
tackled by the Committee. A pro forma to request scrutiny of a topic can be found
on page 6.
3. Overview and Scrutiny Activities
Scrutiny activities include:
a) Scrutiny of Decisions made by Cabinet – Call-ins. The Overview and Scrutiny
Committee can “call in” a decision which has been made by the Cabinet but not yet
implemented. This enables the Committee to consider if the decision is appropriate
and it may recommend that the Cabinet reconsiders the decision.
b) Commenting on Budget Proposals – Budget Monitoring and Draft Budget reports
are cyclical items on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
c) Pre - Scrutiny:
 Commenting on and making input into Corporate Priorities
 Contributing to the Development of Draft Policies
 Looking at key agenda items before they go to Cabinet.
Pre – Scrutiny enables greater co-ordination between the Cabinet and Scrutiny
work programmes ensuring Overview and Scrutiny Committee input into key
agenda items, thus reducing the likelihood of Call–ins.
d) Performance Monitoring – this is a regular cyclical item on the work programme.
Performance Monitoring reports are a useful tool in highlighting areas which may
require further investigation. They are equally important for showing areas of the
Council’s work which are going particularly well!
e) Presentations – the Committee may request presentations from external bodies on
an item of interest. These are usually followed by a question and answer session to
gain a further insight into the chosen subject.
f) Reviews – the Overview and Scrutiny Committee may choose to look at a topic in
depth and over a period of time. This could be undertaken by the whole Committee
or by a Task and Finish Group.
g) Petitions – the Committee considers petitions received from members of the public.
These can be submitted electronically or in hard copy
4. The work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee 2014 - 2015
There have been a number of areas of work carried out by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee over the year:




Holding the Cabinet to account
Budget monitoring
Pre-scrutiny
Review work
Scrutiny Handbook and Annual Report
3
40
2014/2015

Petitions
Minutes and reports of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings can be found
on the Council’s website via the link below:
http://www.northnorfolk.org/apps/committees/default.asp?pathh=Scrutiny%20Committee
a) Call-in
The Committee did not Call-in any Cabinet decision during 2014/15. However, they
did have a ‘Councillor Call for Action’ on car parking in Cromer and Sheringham.
b) Budget Monitoring
Budget Monitoring reports were received in September and November 2014 and
February and March 2015. Reports have also been received on the Local
Investment Strategy, Treasury Management and Debt Management. The Financial
Strategy was also considered by Scrutiny.
c) Pre-scrutiny
Pre-scrutiny in the year 2014/15 was a review of the information and advice service
provided by Citizens Advice Bureaux Norfolk and Mid-Norfolk. The Committee
recommended that Cabinet looked at the funding NNDC provided and this started a
process regarding provision for the district.
d) Review work
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has continued to review specific areas of
service provision within the Council. Regular updates have been received on the
waste contract, the Big Society Fund, the work of the Enforcement Board, the
Business Transformation Project and Tourism.
e) Petitions
Two petitions were received. One was regarding the proposals to move the market
place and taxi rank in Cromer and the second was about the proposals put forward
by Norfolk County Council for residential car parking permits and pay and display
spaces in both Cromer and Sheringham. This topic was raised through a
‘Councillors’ Call for Action’.
5. Successes and challenges
During 2014-15, the Committee received several presentations on topics of interest to
them. These included the planning service: overview and future, the Police and Crime
Commissioner, Better Broadband for Norfolk, the services provided by the Citizens
Advice Bureaux in the District and car park management and pricing. These sessions
were well attended by Members and enabled the Committee to ask some probing
questions. It is anticipated that the regular updates will continue to be received during
2015/16 on the changes to services for the CAB.
Scrutiny Handbook and Annual Report
4
41
2014/2015
There was a special meeting in July, in addition to the scheduled meeting, which
looked exclusively at housing in the District. Reports on the Housing Association,
Passiv Housing, Homelessness and the Housing Allocation scheme were all
scrutinised and discussed.
There were two visits arranged for the Committee; a visit to the Ambulance Hub in
Hellesdon and a visit to a local Passivhaus scheme.
Challenges for 2015/16 include:

Focussing on topics of interest to residents of the District. The committee is
keen to continue to look at housing provision across the district more closely –
continuing their focus on affordable housing.

Continuing to monitor performance against the Annual Action Plan.

Continuing to review areas of interest to committee members and local
residents including tourism, leisure, cultural services and further reports on the
progress in service provision of the CAB.
6. Members of the Committee 2014 – 2015
Councillors: Peter Moore – Chairman
Norman Smith – Vice-Chairman
Annie Claussen-Reynolds, Virginia Gay, Ann Green, Benjamin Jarvis, Barbara
McGoun, John Perry-Warnes, Roy Reynolds, Richard Shepherd, Peter Terrington.
7. How to get in touch with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Members of the public wishing to find out more about the scrutiny process are
requested to contact Democratic Services at democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
If you have any topic suggestions for scrutiny please use the form attached at the end
of this document.
Scrutiny Handbook and Annual Report
5
42
2014/2015
If you would like this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative
format or in a different language please contact democraticservices@northnorfolk.gov.uk
Request form to raise an item for Scrutiny Review
Councillors should be asked to carry out the following scrutiny review:
Please give your reasons (continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Name:
Address:
Daytime Tel No
Email:
Signature
Date
Please return this form to Democratic Services, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer,
NR27 9JW
Tel 01263 516047
Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Scrutiny Handbook and Annual Report
6
43
2014/2015