COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 24 July 2013 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
Mrs A Green
Mr B Hannah
Mr P High
Mr T Ivory
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
20.
Mr G Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr J Punchard
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr J Savory
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr P Terrington
Mrs L Walker
Mr G Williams
Mr P Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr A Yiasimi
The Chief Executive, The Corporate Directors, the Monitoring Officer, the
Planning Policy and Performance Information Manager and the Democratic
Services Team Leader
Inspector Danny Kett
PRAYERS
The Chairman introduced the Reverend Canon Dr David Court, Vicar, Cromer Parish Church
with St Martins, who led the meeting in prayer.
21.
LABC AWARD PRESENTATION TO NORTH WALSHAM HIGH SCHOOL
The Chairman invited Mr R Oliver, Portfolio Holder for Corporate Assets to introduce this item.
He explained to Members that the Local Authority Building Control Awards were a celebration
of the best projects in the region for quality and compliance with building regulations. North
Norfolk District Council was the most successful authority on the night of the awards, winning
4 out of 12 categories. The award that was being presented at Council was for the best
commercial building and went to the Atrium, North Walsham.
Caroline Brooker, Head Teacher and Chris Tuth, Acting Head Teacher collected the award on
behalf of North Walsham High School.
22.
PRESENTATION ON RESTORATIVE APPROACHES
Mr B Hannah, County Council Restorative Approaches Champion for Restorative Approaches
gave a brief presentation in place of Kirsten Cooper who was unable to attend. Inspector D
Kett also spoke on how the police worked with both victims and offenders to try and bring
them together to resolve problems and prevent further crime.
Members were invited to ask questions:
Full Council
1
24 July 2013
1.
2.
23.
Mrs S Arnold asked about figures for improved victim satisfaction rates and also queried
the percentage reduction in crime and antic-social behaviour since restorative approaches
had been introduced. Inspector Kett said that he would try and obtain this information. He
said in relation to crime levels, the statistics were drawn from various workstreams and it
may be difficult to correspond the results directly to restorative approaches. He added that
the police were trying to bring volunteers into the restorative process to provide further
support.
Mr G Jones queried how many times restorative approaches could be used to deal with an
offender. Inspector Kett explained that it depended on the victim and their acceptance of
the process. The police would try and work out if there were reasons for the offences and
then see if the victim was willing to engage with the process. In response to a further
question as to whether restorative approaches could have an impact on drug-related
crimes, he said that it could. The police would always arrest and take an offender to court
if there was a serious offence such as a burglary but the victim could become involved
and could meet with the offender to explain the impact the crime had on them.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman said informed members that she had attended several events on behalf of the
Council, including the Lord Mayor’s show in Norwich, the County Council Chairman’s
reception and the funeral of former District Councillor Mrs V Woodcock.
She congratulated Mrs A Moore on becoming Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group.
The Chairman then took the opportunity to congratulate their Royal Highnesses the Duke and
Duchess of Cambridge on the recent birth of His Royal Highness Prince George.
24.
25.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS
Member
Minute No & Heading
Nature of Interest
Mr B Cabbell
Manners
Minute 32
Housing Incentives
Pecuniary interest by virtue of
being a trustee of an
organisation that has submitted
a planning application
Mr P W High
Minute 32
Material Recycling Facility
Pecuniary interest by virtue of
being an employee of Norse
Mr P Terrington
Minute 32
Housing Incentives
Pecuniary interest by virtue of
being a trustee of Homes for
Wells
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs H Cox, Ms V Gay, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr S
Ward and Mrs V Uprichard
26.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Council held on 22 May 2013 were approved as a correct
record.
Full Council
2
24 July 2013
27.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
28.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
29.
APPOINTMENTS
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick and seconded by Mr B Cabbell Manners that the
suggested appointments be approved en bloc.
RESOLVED
a) To appoint Mr G Williams to the Member Training Development and Support Group
b) To remove Ms V Gay and Miss B Palmer from Citizens Advice North Norfolk and appoint
them to the Stakeholder Forum to be established by CAB
c) To appoint Mr R Oliver to replace Mr R Wright on the Cromer Lawn Tennis and Squash
Association
30.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 13 MAY 2013
MINUTE 9: NEW HOMES BONUS
Mr W Northam presented this item. He explained that the over-riding principles of allocating
the New Homes Bonus funding needed to balance the loss of core funding, continue to
support the delivery of council services and to promote and encourage growth through
rewards or targeted funding.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the
Committee endorsed the Cabinet recommendations.
Mr D Young said that he had some concerns about the proposals. He queried who had
recommended this approach to Cabinet and what the implications would be for the Big Society
Fund. Mr W Northam replied that the Council was facing a 10% reduction in income and this
approach was the most appropriate with the money that was available. Mr T Ivory added that
Cabinet had taken some time to agree on taking this course of action. During the first year of
the New Homes Bonus it was additional money but subsequently it had been top-sliced off the
normal grant funding which essentially meant it was the same money via a different means.
He confirmed that the Big Society Fund was funded by second homes income and would not
be affected by the proposals.
It was proposed by Mr W J Northam, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED
1. That the New Homes Bonus is allocated within the base budget from 2014/15 onwards (as
detailed at section 4 within the report);
2. That of the unallocated balance of New Homes Bonus (£1,201,097) 50% is transferred to
the general reserve and 50% remains earmarked within the New Homes Bonus reserve for the
delivery of the Council’s Corporate objectives in respect of housing.
31.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 JUNE 2013
Full Council
3
24 July 2013
The Chairman proposed that items 12 and 13 of the Agenda be taken together.
MINUTE 17: 2012/2013 OUTTURN REPORT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance presented this item. He explained that as at 31
March 2013, the outturn position on the revenue account showed an underspend of £185,662,
which was being recommended to be transferred to the Invest to Save earmarked reserve.
The general fund balance remained within the current recommended level. He thanked the
Head of Finance and her staff for all their hard work.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the
Committee endorsed the Cabinet recommendations at their meeting on 19th June 2013.
It was proposed by Mr W J Northam, seconded by Mr N Smith and
RESOLVED to approve
a) The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2012/13;
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed within the report (and appendix C) along with
the corresponding updates to the 2013/14 budget;
c) The transfer of the surplus of £185,662 to the Restructuring and Invest to Save Reserve;
d) The financing of the 2012/13 capital programme as detailed within the report and at
Appendix D;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,745,452 at 31 March 2013;
f) The updated capital programme for 2013/14 to 2014/15 and the associated financing of the
schemes as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix E.
MINUTE 18: TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the report sets out the treasury
arrangement activities undertaken during 2012/13 compared with the treasury management
strategy for the year. He thanked the Technical Accountant for all his hard work.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the
Committee endorsed the Cabinet recommendation at their meeting on 19th June 2013.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr N Smith and
RESOLVED
That the Treasury Management Annual Report and Prudential Indicators for 2012/13 be
approved.
MINUTE 19: DEBT RECOVERY 2012-13
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that there had been some software
problems that had impacted on the work of the revenues and benefits staff. He praised them
for working so hard that they almost achieved their targets, despite the problems.
Mr G Jones asked how much has the shared Revenues and Benefits arrangement with Kings
Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council cost and when the system was likely to be fully
operational. He also asked for the level of surplus inherited from the previous administration.
Mr W Northam replied that he would provide a written answer as soon as possible.
Full Council
4
24 July 2013
Mrs L Walker queried the likely impact of the bedroom tax on future collection rates and
whether anything had been put in place in anticipation of this. Mr W Northam said that he
would respond in writing as soon as possible.
The Chief Executive advised Members that the Council would be making a full assessment of
the impact of the welfare changes and a report would be going to Cabinet and the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee. She informed Mr G Jones that regular updates on the revenues and
benefits partnership were provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr N Smith and
RESOLVED to
Approve the annual report giving details of the Council’s write-offs in accordance with the
Council’s Debt Write-Off Policy and performance in relation to revenues collection.
32.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 15 JULY
MINUTE 38: MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY
Mr J Lee, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services introduced this item. He said that there
had been a lengthy procurement process and the Council had worked very closely with the
seven other Norfolk councils to achieve the best outcome for residents. Once the contract was
in place, and the new sorting equipment commissioned, a wider range of materials would be
collected, including glass which could be placed directly into householders’ recycling bins,
making recycling easier for residents and leading to an increase in recycling rates – potentially
to 60%. The benefit of working as a consortium with other councils meant that the service
could be provided at a lower cost to NNDC.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the
Committee endorsed the Cabinet decision at their meeting on 17th July 2013.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mrs A Moore was concerned about the Council’s reputational risk following the cessation of
donations to local communities and charities. She said that it could be beneficial to phase
the old system out slowly to ensure the impact was not too great. Mr M Baker said that it
was clear that the proposals would have an impact on charitable income and he also
sought clarification on what measures would be put in place. Mr Lee replied that local
communities could keep their bottle banks if they wished. They had been informed of the
changes 15 months in advance of them being introduced and glass would not be collected
in household recycling bins during the first year of operation.
2. Mr P W Moore asked about tourist areas which relied on bottle banks to keep their
communities tidy. Mr Lee confirmed that these bottle banks could stay in place. Mr P
Williams commented that this was not made clear in the letter that had been sent out
advising those affected of the changes.
3. Mr P W Moore was concerned that even if communities chose to keep their banks, it was
likely that the return would be nil once householders were able to put glass into their
household recycling bins. Mr J Lee replied that the whole idea of including glass within
household recycling collections was to increase recycling rates. This would increase the
credits received and ultimately improve the Council’s income.
4. Mrs L Walker said that the impact on the income of some local communities would be
severe and some parish councils may have to put up their precepts. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
replied that it was important to remember that the bottle bank service had been introduced
relatively recently and prior to that, local communities had made their own arrangements.
Full Council
5
24 July 2013
5. Mr D Young said that a smoothing of the proposed arrangements would be beneficial to
communities. He suggested that it could be done over 3 year, reducing the payments from
the community banks by a third each year. He added that parish councils would need to
increase their precept by 10% to cover the loss. He concluded by asking for clarification on
the various operations within the joint venture and whether they would share losses as well
as profits. The Corporate Director (NB) replied that there would be the materials recycling
facility at Costessey and the composting plant at Marsham. There were also some
additional contracts held by Norse which would also transfer over. Regarding the sharing of
profits, he said that there would be a share of the sale of the materials collected and once a
certain level was reached the partners would share the profits.
6. Mrs B McGoun asked whether the collection of food waste had been considered. Mr J Lee
replied that it was not financially viable at the current time due to large distances between
villages in the District.
7. Mr G Jones commented that the 45% figure for recycling rates was not a true reflection as it
did not include collections from the bottle banks. He said that he felt that a 10 year contract
was too long. He concluded by saying that the District Council did not give relief on
business tax for village halls and this might be something that could be done going forward.
The Chief Executive replied that village halls could apply for business tax relief.
8. Mrs H Eales said that although she acknowledged that the withdrawal of the bottle banks
would impact on local communities, she would work with her local community groups and
parish councils to find alternative ways of raising money.
9. Mrs S Arnold queried whether broken glass in household recycling bins would contaminate
other recyclable materials. Mr J Lee said that it would not. Technology had moved on
considerably in recent years and it was now possible to sift out the glass.
Mr T FitzPatrick reminded members that the Council had an obligation to recycle materials or it
could be subject to penalties from central government.
MINUTE 39: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
Mr B Cabbell Manners, Portfolio Holder for Planning introduced this item. He explained that
although the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been introduced in other districts, it was
felt that it did not provide enough value to make it viable in North Norfolk. Evidence indicated
that the growth that was planned in the district could be delivered without CIL and as market
conditions continued to remain uncertain and delivery rates for development were already
below required targets, it was likely that many large scale proposals would be unable to deliver
fully policy compliant development whilst remaining commercially viable. Consequently, it was
recommended that consideration of introducing the Community Infrastructure Levy should be
suspended and reconsidered at a future date when there were clearer signs of economic
recovery.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the
Committee endorsed the Cabinet recommendation at their meeting on 17th July 2013
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mrs A Moore and
RESOLVED
That consideration of the potential introduction of CIL is suspended.
MINUTE 40: HOUSING INCENTIVES
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr T Ivory, introduced this item. He explained that work
undertaken in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy on development viability had
indicated that the Core Strategy policy site size threshold and affordable housing percentage
requirements were not viable for many locations across the district, particularly when
Full Council
6
24 July 2013
combined with other policy requirements. It was therefore proposed that for a temporary
period, various measures would be introduced to incentivise housing development.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee said that the Committee
supported the Cabinet recommendations with the exception of Recommendation 2. At their
meeting on 17 July 2013, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had made the following
recommendation to Council:
That the recommendation: ‘that the incentive scheme set out in part 4 is approved’
should be amended to remove Measure 3: ‘relaxation of Level 3 Sustainable homes
construction standards if specified quantities of development are delivered quickly’
The amendment was seconded by Mr P W Moore.
The Chairman invited Mr T Ivory to respond to the proposed amendment.
Mr Ivory said that a housebuilder had spoken to himself, the Chief Executive and the Planning
Policy and Property Information Manager to outline the requirements of the Code. The reality
was that requirements for energy efficiency were met by the Building Regulations The Code
required extras relating to on-site energy generation such as solar panels. He explained that
the developer had a choice on how the additional requirements were delivered and this
covered a large range of extras from garden space to locks on sheds. In addition, a huge
amount of documentation was required to demonstrate that a specific level had been
achieved. He concluded by saying that the Building Regulations were due to be revised in
early 2014 and it was likely that the new version would exceed the requirements of Code 3
regarding energy efficiency.
Mr Seward’s proposal, seconded by M P W Moore was put to the vote and was defeated.
The Chairman invited Members to ask questions:
a) Mr P Terrington agreed that there was a need to incentivise developers to build houses but
he felt that the focus should be on providing affordable housing. Removing the requirement
for Code 3 would reduce affordable housing provision further as the Homes and
Communities Agency (HCA) required registered providers to meet Code 3. Mr Ivory
acknowledged that registered providers needed to meet Code 3 and said that was between
housing associations and developers and was not a matter for the Council.
b) Mrs L Walker said that she was opposed to the change in percentage levels for affordable
housing as it would keep young people out of homes. Mr T Fitzpatrick said that one of the
aims in the Corporate Plan was to deliver jobs and housing. So far the Council had failed to
deliver any housing. The proposals were aimed at cutting bureaucracy and increasing the
total number of affordable homes in the District. He also urged Members to bring forward
exception schemes in their wards. Mrs L Walker replied that properties were not selling so
the scheme would simply add to existing stock.
c) Mr D Young said that 30% would be preferable to the proposed 20%. As a compromise he
proposed that that 20% was deleted and replaced with 25% for affordable housing. Mrs B
McGoun seconded the proposal. Mrs B Mcgoun then raised concerns that developers
would always try to negotiate the percentage of affordable housing provision on a site and
they would try to go below 20%. Mr R Oliver replied that this was the first time there had
been an evidence-based policy to support reducing the affordable housing percentage
requirements. He said that the figure would be negotiable, adding that Broadland District
Council had a 30% affordable housing requirement so it was important to undercut that.
d) Mr P Williams sought clarification on whether the percentage requirement would expire
after 1 year. Mr T Ivory said that it would. The scheme was aimed at incentivising early
delivery but was limited to 1 year and there would be an early review to see whether it was
Full Council
7
24 July 2013
working. In response to the other concerns raised, he said that market housing was vital for
families on middle incomes and that current policies were failing this group.
Mr D Young’s proposal to increase the proposed affordable housing percentage requirement
from 20% to 25% was put to the vote and defeated. Five members abstained.
Mr T Ivory proposed an amendment to the Cabinet recommendations:
‘That a Housing Incentive Scheme incorporating measures 1-4 as outlined in Section 4 of the
Cabinet report of the 15th of July is introduced subject to amendment of the proposed
affordable housing zones to correspond with Parish boundaries.’
Subject to inclusion of the above amendment, it was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mrs
S Arnold and
RESOLVED
1.
2.
3.
33.
That the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, slow housing delivery
rates, and the CIL housing viability evidence are sufficiently material to justify the revised
affordable housing site size thresholds and percentage requirements outlined in part 4 of
this report in the determination of individual residential planning applications.
That the incentive scheme set out in part 4 is approved
That the measures outlined in the report are widely advertised within communities and the
development industry.
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)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
34.
Audit Committee – 19 March 2013
Cabinet – 04 March 2013
Cabinet – 15 April 2013
Cabinet – 13 May 2013
Development Committee – 21 March 2013
Development Committee – 11 April 2013
Development Committee – 09 May 2013
Development Committee - 30 May 2013
Development Committee – 06 June 2013
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 20 March 2013
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 23 May 2013
Standards Committee – 16 April 2013
Standards Committee Hearing – 14 May 2013
Standards Committee Hearing – 04 June 2013
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
Mr R Wright informed members that the apprenticeship scheme was ongoing. He would bring
a full update to the September Council meeting.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that the Coastal team had applied for funding from DEFRA for coastal
defence works at Mundesley and Sheringham.
Mr T Ivory reminded Members that North Walsham Rond Table had organised the town’s first
beer festival
35.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
Full Council
8
24 July 2013
Mr M Baker had submitted the following question:
The traveller's sites at Fakenham and Cromer have now been operating for a few years, and
should now be known within the travelling community. Can you please supply the following
information for the financial year 2012/3 for each site.
 The overall gross costs of running each site, to include all attributable council overhead
costs.
 The number of pitch days used.
 The income received from those pitch rentals.
 Any third party subsidy e.g. government grants etc.
 Any costs relating to equipment loss.
A written response had been circulated to members. The Chief Executive advised members
that the figures did not include the rental costs of the sites. These costs were currently covered
by a government grant for the first 10 years. After this the costs would fall to the Council to
cover.
36.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
37.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
Appointments to Outside Bodies
Proposed by Mr E Seward, seconded by Mr P Terrington:
This Council notes that at its Annual Meeting on May 22nd this year it approved councillor
nominations to 35 outside bodies comprising 57 places. Of the 57 places 49 were filled by
Conservative members (86%) and 8 (14%) by Liberal Democrat members. The 48 members of
the Council comprise 28 (58%) Conservatives 17 (36%) Liberal Democrats and 3(6%)Other
Affiliations/Independents.
This Council believes that representation to outside bodies should be more representative of
the political composition of the Council. It therefore asks for the Constitution Working Party to
report back to the Council within the current calendar year on arrangements for bringing this
about.
The Motion was debated:
Mr E Seward said that the figures were similar for the previous administration. He felt that the
current system did not reflect the interests or knowledge of members.
Mr P Terrington said that it was reasonable to reflect the skills and expertise of members when
appointments were made to outside bodies.
Mr T Ivory said that he wished to propose an amendment to the motion. He proposed that the
last line should state ‘it therefore refers the matter to the Constitution Working Party to report
back to Council within the current calendar year with their recommendations’
Mr T FitzPatrick seconded the amendment, adding that there would be a need to appoint
portfolio holders to some outside bodies. Mr E Seward said that he was willing to accept the
amendment.
RESOLVED
Full Council
9
24 July 2013
To support the motion.
The meeting concluded at 8.15 pm.
_________________________
Chairman
Full Council
10
24 July 2013