Agenda Item 6
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 24 October 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mr M J M Baker
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B J Hannah
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
65.
Mr P W High
Mr T Ivory
Mr G Jones
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr R C Price
Mr R Reynolds
Mr J D Savory
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr P Terrington
Mrs H Thompson
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr G Williams
Mr P Williams
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (Nick Baker), the Monitoring
Officer, the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH) and the Democratic
Services Officer (AA)
Members of the Public.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The meeting was chaired by the Vice Chairman, Mr P W Moore who welcomed some former
Members who were attending the meeting. He reported that the Chief Executive had
telephoned the Chairman before the meeting and that he was in good spirits, thanking
everyone for their cards and letters. He welcomed visitors and hoped to be back in December.
The Chairman also reported to Members that toilet blocks in Sheringham and Happisburgh
had been successful in Loo of the Year Awards and made a short address to mark the
retirement of the Democratic Services Team Leader.
66.
67.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr T Ivory
71
Appointments
Personal and nonpecuniary – is a
Member of the Victory
housing Trust Board.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Full Council
11
24 October 2012
Agenda Item 6
Apologies for absence were received from Mr K E Johnson, Mr J H A Lee, Mr J H PerryWarnes, Mr J Punchard, Mr R Stevens, Mrs L Walker, Mr S Ward and Mr R Wright.
68.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 26 September 2012 were approved as a
correct record subject to the following drafting amendments:
a) Mr M J M Baker had been present.
b) Mr P Terrington had made his apologies.
c) Minute 61, Questions received from Members: leisure activities for Cromer should have
included Cromer Lawn Tennis Club which had received a grant of £29,670 for this
year.
d) Minute 63, Notices of Motion: the minutes should include that the Chief Executive said
that she had not received a letter from Norman Lamb MP.
NOTE: the Chief Executive subsequently informed Members via email that the letter
had been received in the building, although not received by the Chief Executive at that
date.
69.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
70.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
71.
APPOINTMENTS
RESOLVED
a) To appoint Miss B Palmer to replace Mr R Oliver on the Audit Committee.
b) To appoint Mr R Oliver to replace Mr K Johnson on the Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party.
c) To appoint Miss B Palmer to replace Mr J Savory on the Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage
Board.
d) To remove Mr K E Johnson and Mr T Ivory from the Victory Housing Trust Board
72.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 15 OCTOBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 23 OCTOBER 2012
ITEM 11: NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-2015 (SUPPORTING
VULNERABLE PEOPLE TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY)
This item was introduced by the Portfolio Holder, Mr T Ivory, who thanked the officers for the
work they had done on the Strategy. It was an important piece of work in a District which had a
high proportion of elderly and vulnerable people who preferred their support to be delivered in
their own home.
Full Council
22
24 October 2012
Agenda Item 6
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny confirmed that his Committee had examined the Strategy
and endorsed the recommendation.
Mr G R Jones congratulated the officers on their work. He advised the Council that there were
likely to be funding reductions at County level and that vigilance was necessary.
RESOLVED
to adopt the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Supporting Vulnerable People to live
independently within the Community).
73.
RECOMMENDATION FROM DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 18 OCTOBER 2012
ITEM 11: WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS AND SCHEME OF DELEGATION.
This item was presented by the Chairman of the Development Committee. She explained that,
at its meeting on 18 October, the Development Committee had agreed to recommend to
Council that the Scheme of Delegation within the Constitution be amended to allow
applications for wind turbines or for solar farms to be determined under delegated powers with
the agreement of the local District Councillor(s) and the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the
Development Committee, with the proviso that this matter be reviewed after 6 months. This
change would therefore allow additional scrutiny of these applications above and beyond that
presently applying to other types of development under the Scheme of Delegation.
RESOLVED that
a) The Scheme of Delegation within the Constitution be amended to allow applications for
wind turbines or for solar farms to be determined under delegated powers with the
agreement of the local District Councillor(s) and the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the
Development Committee.
b) This matter be reviewed after 6 months.
74.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REVIEW 2011 - 2012
The Review was commended to the Council by the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny. He
thanked the Members of the Committee for working so well together in 2011 – 2012, the first
year of the new Council. In his introduction to the 2010 – 2011 Review, the previous Chair had
referred to Overview and Scrutiny as a Critical Friend. It was important that the right balance
between Critical and Friend should be achieved. Overview and Scrutiny had a role to assist
the Council and should be evolving and developmental. A task and finish group from within the
Committee had been exploring ways of improving the Scrutiny process. Their final report had
been received by the Committee on 23 October 2012 and would now go through the cycle.
NNDC had taken part in a joint scrutiny of public transport with Broadland District Council. The
final report had come to Overview and Scrutiny on 23 October 2012. The joint report had not
provided sufficient guidance specific to our District and it had been agreed by the Committee
to set up their own Task and Finish group to provide a clearer steer for the funding of
community transport. The group would comprise the same Members who had represented
NNDC on the Joint Scrutiny Panel.
Mrs P Grove-Jones thanked the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny for the way the work of the
Committee was presented and made accessible to all Members. Mr W J Northam
congratulated the Committee, saying that it was well chaired and that the Members worked
very hard. Mr P W Moore said it was good to see cross party working in the Committee. The
Full Council
33
24 October 2012
Agenda Item 6
Deputy Leader, thanking Members, said that Cabinet found the work of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee useful.
RESOLVED
to receive the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Review 2011 – 2012.
75.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
to receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Audit Committee – 18 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 24 July 2012
Cabinet 10 September 2012
Development Committee – 20 September 2012
It was noted that the minutes of Cabinet 10 September 2012 stated that Mr P W Moore was
Vice Chair of Overview and Scrutiny. This was incorrect.
76.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
None received.
77.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
The following question was received from Mr G R Jones:
There have been a number of letters in the local press of late from visitors critical of the
council’s car parking policy. In a few cases they indicated that they, and their families,
will not be returning as a result of their parking experience. The attendance at the pier
show is down 10% and at least one of the letters indicated that they would not attend in
future despite previously being regular visitors.
In the financial year 2011/12 the number of excess penalty notices increased from about
2,000 to 6,579 and despite the fact that the government in November 2011 forced the
council to reduce the maximum penalty allowed from £75 to £35 income from this
source increased from £63,682 to £173,564. To be fair, there were issues about excess
charges collection in year 2010/11 and a better comparison would be with year 209/10
which was £154,682 an increase of £18,882 or 12%.
In the first six months of the current year there have already been 4,526 excess penalty
notices issued of which 1,127 were for evenings which was introduced this year for the
first time. Of the income of £77,225 from excess penalties in the latest half year only
60% will come to the district council the balance being retained by the collecting body.
Thus the income from this source is £46,335.
It is clear that the Administrations car charging policy is hopelessly out of line with the
council’s tourism objectives and could reasonably be described as non-visitor friendly.
It is clear that the evening charges regime was incoherent to some 1,500 plus visitors
and residents and the damage to tourism and the local economy could have a
devastating impact for a number of years to come.
Will Cllr Northam accept that there needs to be a radical review of the car parking
charges policy before further damage is done to the local tourism economy and, if he
Full Council
44
24 October 2012
Agenda Item 6
agrees, how will he go about this, bearing in mind that the government has made it
clear that local authorities should not, in future, regards parking charges as a “cash
cow” [or an alternative form of taxation]?
Although it had been received 3 days earlier this question had not been timely for inclusion on
the agenda. Mr B Cabbell Manners asked that the question should be deferred until the next
meeting because Members hadn’t had the opportunity to see it in advance. The Monitoring
Officer advised that the Constitution did not specify a timescale for the receipt of questions
from Members but that the protocol was to submit them well in advance of the meeting. The
Constitution would be amended to formalise this.
It was the decision of the Chairman to allow the question which was put to the relevant
Portfolio Holder who was Mr R Oliver, not Mr W Northam as stated in the question. Mr Oliver
said he would prefer to provide a written answer. This would be sent to all Members.
78.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
79.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received.
80.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
The meeting concluded at 6.40 pm.
___
Chairman
Full Council
55
24 October 2012
Agenda Item 12
NORTH NORFOLK
DISTRICT COUNCIL
Gambling Licensing Policy
(Statement of Principles)
North Norfolk District Council
Council Offices
Holt Road
Cromer
NR27 9EN
Telephone: 01263 516189
E-mail: licensing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
www.northnorfolk.org
Approved by Licensing Committee on: 19 December 2012
Approved by Council on: ?? December 2012
6
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
TDLIGA12
North Norfolk District Council
Gambling Act 2005
Statement of Principles
Contents
Item
Part A - Overview
1. The licensing objectives
2. Introduction
3. Declaration
4. Responsible Authorities
5. Interested parties
6. Exchange of information
7. Enforcement
8. Licensing authority functions
Part B – Premises licences
1. General Principles
2. Adult Gaming Centres
3. (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres
4. Casinos
5. Bingo
6. Betting premises
7.Tracks
8. Travelling fairs
9. Provisional Statements
10. Reviews
Part C - Permits / Temporary and Occasional Use Notices
1. Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre gaming machine permits
2. (Alcohol) Licensed premises gaming machine permits
3. Prize Gaming Permits
4. Club Gaming and Club Machines Permits
5. Temporary Use Notices
6. Occasional Use Notices
7. Lotteries
Part D – committee, officer delegation and contacts
1. Committee decisions and scheme of delegation
2. Contacts
Page
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
7
7
15
15
16
17
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
28
29
30
This Statement of Licensing Principles was approved by North Norfolk District
-1Council on December 2012.
All references to the Guidance refer to the Gambling Commission's Guidance
for Local Authorities, 3rd Edition, published May 2009.
Gambling Licensing Policy
1 of 32
7
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
PART A
OVERVIEW
1.
The Licensing Objectives
In exercising most of their functions under the Gambling Act 2005, licensing
authorities must have regard to the licensing objectives as set out in section 1 of
the Act. The licensing objectives are:
• Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being
associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
• Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
• Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or
exploited by gambling
It should be noted that the Gambling Commission has stated: “The requirement
in relation to children is explicitly to protect them from being harmed or exploited
by gambling”.
This licensing authority is aware that, as per Section 153, in making decisions
about premises licences and temporary use notices it should aim to permit the
use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it:
• In accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling
Commission
• in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling
Commission
• reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives
• in accordance with the authority’s statement of licensing policy
2.
Introduction
North Norfolk District Council is situated in the County of Norfolk, which contains
seven District Councils in total. The Council area has a population of 98,000
covering an area of 400 square miles making it one of the smaller districts in
Norfolk. The Council’s area is mainly rural/coastal.
The Mainstays of North Norfolk’s economies are tourism, agriculture and service
industries. The majority of these sectors have suffered decline in employment
and are prone to cyclical and seasonal variations.
Licensing authorities are required by the Gambling Act 2005 to publish a
statement of the principles which they propose to apply when exercising their
functions. This statement must be published at least every three years. The
statement must also be reviewed from “time to time” and any amended parts reconsulted upon. The statement must be then re-published. The Council’s first
gambling policy was adopted on 1st November 2006.
Gambling Licensing Policy
2 of 32
8
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
North Norfolk District Council, together with the other six licensing authorities in
Norfolk, consulted widely upon an updated policy statement in 2009 before
finalising and publishing. .
This updated version has been prepared in 2012, consulted upon prior to
adoption in December 2012
The Gambling Act requires that the following parties are consulted by licensing
authorities:
• The Chief Officer of Police
• One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the
interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses in the authority’s
area
• One or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the
interests of persons who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the
authority’s functions under the Gambling Act 2005
It should be noted that this policy statement will not override the right of any
person to make an application, make representations about an application, or
apply for a review of a licence, as each will be considered on its own merits and
according to the statutory requirements of the Gambling Act 2005.
3.
Declaration
In producing the final statement, this Licensing Authority declares that it has had
regard to the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act 2005, the guidance to local
authorities issued by the Gambling Commission and any responses from those
consulted on the statement.
Gambling Licensing Policy
3 of 32
9
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
4.
Responsible Authorities
The licensing authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will
apply in exercising its powers under Section 157(h) of the Act to designate, in
writing, a body which is competent to advise the authority about the protection of
children from harm. The principles are:
• the need for the body to be responsible for an area covering the whole of
the licensing authority’s area
• the need for the body to be answerable to democratically elected persons,
rather than any particular vested interest group
This Authority designates the Norfolk Local Safeguarding Children Board for this
purpose.
The contact details of all the Responsible Authorities under the Gambling Act
2005 are attached at appendix 1.
5.
Interested parties
Interested parties can make representations about licence applications or apply
for a review of an existing licence. These parties are defined in the Gambling Act
2005 as follows:
“For the purposes of this Part a person is an interested party in relation to an
application for or in respect of a premises licence if, in the opinion of the
licensing authority which issues the licence or to which the applications is
made, the person;
a) lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the
authorised activities
b) has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities
c) represents persons who satisfy paragraph (a) or (b)”
The licensing authority is required by regulations to state the principles it will
apply in exercising its powers under the Gambling Act 2005 to determine whether
a person is an interested party. The principles are:
• Each case will be decided upon its merits. This Authority will not apply a
rigid rule to its decision making. It will consider the examples of
considerations provided in the Gambling Commission’s guidance for local
authorities. It will also consider the Gambling Commission's guidance that
"has business interests" should be given the widest possible interpretation
and include partnerships, charities, faith groups and medical practices.
Gambling Licensing Policy
4 of 32
10
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
•
•
6.
Interested parties can be persons who are democratically elected such as
councillors and MP’s. No specific evidence of being asked to represent an
interested person will be required as long as the Councillor/MP represent
the wards likely to be affected. Likewise, parish councils likely to be
affected will be considered to be interested parties. Other than these
however, this Authority will generally require written evidence that a
person/body (e.g. an advocate/relative) ‘represents’ someone who either
lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected and/or
has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities.
A letter from one of these persons, requesting the representation is
sufficient.
If individuals wish to approach councillors to ask them to represent their
views then care should be taken that the councillors are not part of the
Licensing Committee dealing with the licence application. If there are any
doubts then please contact the Councils Licensing Team
Exchange of Information
Licensing authorities are required to include in their statements the principles to
be applied by the authority in exercising the functions under sections 29 and 30
of the Act with respect to the exchange of information between it and the
Gambling Commission and the functions under section 350 of the Act with the
respect to the exchange of information between it and the other persons listed in
Schedule 6 to the Act.
The principle that this Licensing Authority applies is that it will act in accordance
with the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005 in its exchange of information which
includes the provision that the Data Protection Act 1998 will not be contravened.
The licensing authority will also have regard to any guidance issued by the
Gambling Commission to local authorities on this matter, as well as any relevant
regulations issued by the Secretary of State under the powers provided in the
Gambling Act 2005.
Should any protocols be established as regards information exchange with other
bodies then they will be made available.
7.
Enforcement
Licensing authorities are required by regulation under the Gambling Act 2005 to
state the principles to be applied by the authority in exercising the functions
under Part 15 of the Act with respect to the inspection of premises; and the
powers under section 346 of the Act to institute criminal proceedings in respect of
the offences specified.
This Licensing Authority’s principles are:
Gambling Licensing Policy
5 of 32
11
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
I. It will be guided by the Gambling Commission’s guidance for local
authorities and will endeavour to be:
• Proportionate:
regulators should only intervene when
necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed and
costs identified and minimised
• Accountable:
regulators must be able to justify decisions and
be subject to public scrutiny
• Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and
implemented fairly
• Transparent: regulators should be open and keep regulations
simple and user friendly
• Targeted:
regulations should be focused on the problem and
minimise side effects
II. As per the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities this
Licensing Authority will endeavour to avoid duplication with other
regulatory regimes so far as possible.
III. This Licensing Authority has adopted and implemented a risk-based
inspection programme, based on:
• The licensing objectives
• Relevant codes of practice
• Guidance issued by the Gambling Commission, in particular at Part
36
• The principles set out in this statement of licensing policy
IV. The main enforcement and compliance role for this Licensing Authority in
terms of the Gambling Act 2005 is to ensure compliance with the premises
licences and other permissions which it authorises. The Gambling
Commission is the enforcement body for the operating and personal
licences. It is also worth noting that concerns about manufacture, supply
or repair of gaming machines are not dealt with by the licensing authority
but should be notified to the Gambling Commission.
V. This Licensing Authority also keeps itself informed of developments as
regards the work of the Better Regulation Executive in its consideration of
the regulatory functions of local authorities.
VI. Bearing in mind the principle of transparency, this Licensing Authority’s
enforcement, compliance protocols or written agreements are available
upon request to the Councils Licensing Team.
Gambling Licensing Policy
6 of 32
12
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
8.
Licensing Authority functions
Licensing authorities are required under the Act to:
• be responsible for the licensing of premises where gambling activities are
to take place by issuing Premises Licences
• issue Provisional Statements
• regulate members’ clubs and miners’ welfare institutes who wish to
undertake certain gaming activities via issuing Club Gaming Permits
and/or Club Machine Permits
• issue Club Machine Permits to Commercial Clubs
• grant permits for the use of certain lower stake gaming machines at
unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres
• receive notifications from alcohol licensed premises (under the Licensing
Act 2003) for the use of two or fewer gaming machines
• issue Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits for premises licensed
to sell/supply alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises, under the
Licensing Act 2003, where there are more than two machines
• register small society lotteries below prescribed thresholds
• issue Prize Gaming Permits
• receive and Endorse Temporary Use Notices
• receive Occasional Use Notices
• provide information to the Gambling Commission regarding details of
licences issued (see section above on ‘information exchange’)
• maintain registers of the permits and licences that are issued under these
functions
It should be noted that licensing authorities are not involved in licensing remote
gambling at all; this is regulated by the Gambling Commission via operating
licences.
PART B
PREMISES LICENCES: CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS
1.
General Principles
Premises licences are subject to the requirements set-out in the Gambling Act
2005 and regulations, as well as specific mandatory and default conditions which
are detailed in regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Licensing authorities
are able to exclude default conditions and also attach others, where it is believed
to be appropriate.
Gambling Licensing Policy
7 of 32
13
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
(i)
Decision making
This Licensing Authority is aware that in making decisions about premises
licences it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it
thinks it:
• in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling
Commission
• in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling
Commission
• reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives
• in accordance with the authority’s statement of licensing policy
It is appreciated that as per the Gambling Commission's Guidance for local
authorities "moral objections to gambling are not a valid reason to reject
applications for premises licences" (except as regards any 'no casino resolution' see section on Casinos below – page 9) and also that un-met demand is not a
criterion for a licensing authority.
(ii)
Definition of “premises”
In the Act, "premises" is defined as including "any place". Section 152 therefore
prevents more than one premises licence applying to any place. But a single
building could be subject to more than one premises licence, provided they are
for different parts of the building and the different parts of the building can be
reasonably regarded as being different premises. This approach has been taken
to allow large, multiple unit premises such as a pleasure park, pier, track or
shopping mall to obtain discrete premises licences, where appropriate
safeguards are in place. However, the Licensing Authority shall pay particular
attention if there are issues about sub-divisions of a single building or plot and
shall ensure that mandatory conditions relating to access between premises are
observed.
The Gambling Commission states in its guidance to licensing authorities that: “In
most cases the expectation is that a single building/plot will be the subject of an
application for a licence, for example, 32 High Street. But, that does not mean
32 High Street cannot be the subject of separate premises licences for the
basement and ground floor, if they are configured acceptably. Whether different
parts of a building can properly be regarded as being separate premises will
depend on the circumstances. The location of the premises will clearly be an
important consideration and the suitability of the division is likely to be a matter
for discussion between the operator and the Licensing Officer. However, the
Commission does not consider that areas of a building that are artificially or
temporarily separated, for example by ropes or moveable partitions, can properly
be regarded as different premises.”
Gambling Licensing Policy
8 of 32
14
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
This Licensing Authority takes particular note of the Gambling Commission’s
Guidance to licensing authorities which states that: licensing authorities should
take particular care in considering applications for multiple licences for a building
and those relating to a discrete part of a building used for other (non-gambling)
purposes. In particular they should be aware of the following:
• The third licensing objective seeks to protect children from being harmed
by gambling. In practice that means not only preventing them from taking
part in gambling, but also preventing them from being in close proximity
to gambling. Therefore premises should be configured so that children
are not invited to participate in, have accidental access to or closely
observe gambling where they are prohibited from participating
• Entrances to and exits from parts of a building covered by one or more
premises licences should be separate and identifiable so that the
separation of different premises is not compromised and people do not
“drift” into a gambling area. In this context it should normally be possible
to access the premises without going through another licensed premises
or premises with a permit
• Customers should be able to participate in the activity names on the
premises licence
The guidance also gives a list of factors which the licensing authority should be
aware of, which may include:
• Do the premises have a separate registration for business rates
• Is the premises’ neighbouring premises owned by the same person or
someone else?
• Can each of the premises be accessed from the street or a public
passageway?
• Can the premises only be accessed from any other gambling premises?
This Authority will consider these and other relevant factors in making its
decision, depending on all the circumstances of the case.
The Gambling Commission’s relevant access provisions for each premises
type are reproduced below:
Casinos
•
•
•
The principal access entrance to the premises must be from a street
No entrance to a casino must be from premises that are used wholly or
mainly by children and/or young persons
No customer must be able to enter a casino directly from any other
premises which holds a gambling premises licence
Gambling Licensing Policy
9 of 32
15
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
Adult Gaming Centre
•
No customer must be able to access the premises directly from any other
licensed gambling premises
Betting Shops
•
•
Access must be from a street or from another premises with a betting
premises licence
No direct access from a betting shop to another premises used for the
retail sale of merchandise or services. In effect there cannot be an
entrance to a betting shop from a shop of any kind and you could not have
a betting shop at the back of a café – the whole area would have to be
licensed.
Tracks
•
No customer should be able to access the premises directly from:
o a casino
o an adult gaming centre
Bingo Premises
•
No customer must be able to access the premise directly from:
o a casino
o an adult gaming centre
o a betting premises, other than a track
Family Entertainment Centre
•
No customer must be able to access the premises directly from:
o a casino
o an adult gaming centre
o a betting premises, other than a track
The Gambling Commission’s guidance to licensing authorities contains further
guidance on this issue, which this Authority will also take into account in its
decision-making.
(iii)
Premises “ready for gambling”
The guidance states that a licence to use premises for gambling should only be
issued in relation to premises that the licensing authority can be satisfied are
going to be ready to be used for gambling in the reasonably near future,
consistent with the scale of building or alterations required before the premises
Gambling Licensing Policy
10 of 32
16
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
are brought into use.
If the construction of a premises is not yet complete, if they need alteration or if
the applicant does not yet have a right to occupy them, then an application for a
provisional statement should be made instead.
In deciding whether a premises licence can be granted where there is
outstanding construction or alteration works at a premises, this Authority will
determine applications on their merits by applying a two stage consideration
process:
• First - whether the premises ought to be permitted to be used for gambling
• Second - whether appropriate conditions can be put in place to cater for
the situation that the premises are not yet in the state in which they ought
to be before gambling takes place
Applicants should note that this Authority is entitled to decide that it is appropriate
to grant a licence, subject to conditions, but it is not obliged to grant such a
licence.
More detailed examples of the circumstances in which such a licence may be
granted can be found in the Gambling Commission guidance.
(iv)
Location
This Licensing Authority is aware that demand issues cannot be considered with
regard to the location of premises but that considerations in terms of the licensing
objectives are relevant to its decision-making.
As per the Gambling
Commission’s guidance for local authorities, this Authority will pay particular
attention to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed
or exploited by gambling, as well as issues of crime and disorder. Should any
specific policy be decided upon as regards areas where gambling premises
should not be located, this statement will be updated. It should be noted that any
such policy does not preclude any application being made and each application
will be decided on its merits, with the onus upon the applicant showing how
potential concerns can be overcome.
(v)
Planning
The Gambling Commission guidance to licensing authority’s states:
In determining applications the licensing authority has a duty to take into
consideration all relevant matters and not to take into consideration any irrelevant
matters, i.e. those not related to gambling and the licensing objectives. One
example of an irrelevant matter would be the likelihood of the applicant obtaining
Gambling Licensing Policy
11 of 32
17
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
planning permission or building regulations approval for their proposal.
This Authority will not take into account irrelevant matters as per the above
guidance. In addition this Authority notes the following excerpt from the guidance:
“When dealing with a premises licence application for finished buildings, the
licensing authority should not take into account whether those buildings have or
comply with the necessary planning or building consents. Those matters should
be dealt with under relevant planning control and building regulation powers, and
not form part of the consideration for the premises licence. Section 210 of the
2005 Act prevents licensing authorities taking into account the likelihood of the
proposal by the applicant obtaining planning or building consent when
considering a premises licence application. Equally the grant of a gambling
premises licence does not prejudice or prevent any action that may be
appropriate under the law relating to planning or building.”
(vi)
Duplication with other regulatory regimes
This Licensing Authority seeks to avoid any duplication with other
statutory/regulatory systems where possible, including planning. This Authority
will not consider whether a licence application is likely to be awarded planning
permission or building regulations approval, in its consideration of it. It will
though, listen to and consider carefully, any concerns about conditions which are
not able to be met by licensees due to planning restrictions, should such a
situation arise.
When dealing with a premises licence application for finished buildings, this
authority will not take into account whether those buildings have to comply with
the necessary planning or buildings consents. Fire or health and safety risks will
not be taken into account, as these matters are dealt with under relevant
planning control, buildings and other regulations and must not form part of the
consideration for the premises licence.
Licensing objectives - Premises licences granted must be reasonably
consistent with the licensing objectives. With regard to these objectives, this
licensing authority has considered the Gambling Commission’s Guidance to local
authorities and some comments are made below.
Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being
associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime - This
Licensing Authority is aware that the Gambling Commission takes a leading role
in preventing gambling from being a source of crime.
The Gambling
Commission's guidance does however envisage that licensing authorities should
pay attention to the proposed location of gambling premises in terms of this
licensing objective. Thus, where an area has known high levels of organised
Gambling Licensing Policy
12 of 32
18
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
crime this authority will consider carefully whether gambling premises are
suitable to be located there and whether conditions may be suitable, such as, the
provision of door supervisors. This Licensing Authority is aware of the distinction
between disorder and nuisance and will consider factors (for example whether
police assistance was required and how threatening the behaviour was to those
who could see it) so as to make that distinction.
Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way - This Licensing
Authority has noted that the Gambling Commission states that it generally does
not expect licensing authorities to be concerned with ensuring that gambling is
conducted in a fair and open way as this will be addressed via operating and
personal licences.
Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or
exploited by gambling - This Licensing Authority has noted the Gambling
Commission's guidance for local authorities states that this objective means
preventing children from taking part in gambling (as well as restriction of
advertising so that gambling products are not aimed at or are, particularly
attractive to children). The licensing authority will therefore consider, as
suggested in the Gambling Commission's guidance, whether specific measures
are required at particular premises, with regard to this licensing objective.
Appropriate measures may include supervision of entrances/machines,
segregation of areas etc.
This Licensing Authority is also aware of the Gambling Commission Codes of
Practice as regards this licensing objective, in relation to specific premises.
As regards the term “vulnerable persons” it is noted that the Gambling
Commission does not seek to offer a definition but states that “it will for
regulatory purposes assume that this group includes people who gamble more
than they want to; people who gambling beyond their means; and people who
may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling due to
a mental impairment, alcohol or drugs.” This Licensing Authority will consider
this licensing objective on a case by case basis.
Conditions - Any conditions attached to licences will be proportionate and will
be:
• relevant to the need to make the proposed building suitable as a gambling
facility
• directly related to the premises and the type of licence applied for
• fairly and reasonably related to the scale and type of premises
• reasonable in all other respects
Decisions upon individual conditions will be made on a case by case basis,
although there will be a number of measures this Licensing Authority will
consider utilising should there be a perceived need, such as the use of
Gambling Licensing Policy
13 of 32
19
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
supervisors, appropriate signage for adult only areas etc. There are specific
comments made in this regard under some of the licence types below. This
Licensing Authority will also expect the licence applicant to offer his/her own
suggestions as to way in which the licensing objectives can be met effectively.
This Licensing Authority will also consider specific measures which may be
required for buildings which are subject to multiple premises licences. Such
measures may include the supervision of entrances; segregation of gambling
from non-gambling areas frequented by children; and the supervision of gaming
machines in non-adult gambling specific premises in order to pursue the
licensing objectives. These matters are in accordance with the Gambling
Commission's guidance.
This Authority will also ensure that where category C or above machines are on
offer in premises to which children are admitted:
• all such machines are located in an area of the premises which is separated
from the remainder of the premises by a physical barrier which is effective to
prevent access other than through a designated entrance
• only adults are admitted to the area where these machines are located
• access to the area where the machines are located is supervised
• the area where these machines are located is arranged so that it can be
observed by the staff or the licence holder
• at the entrance to and inside any such areas there are prominently displayed
notices indicating that access to the area is prohibited to persons under 18
These considerations will apply to premises including buildings where multiple
premises licences are applicable.
This Licensing Authority is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than
one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the
track. As per the Gambling Commission's guidance, this Licensing Authority will
consider the impact upon the third licensing objective and the need to ensure that
entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded
from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.
It is noted that there are conditions which the licensing authority cannot attach to
premises licences which are:
• any condition on the premises licence which makes it impossible to
comply with an operating licence condition
• conditions relating to gaming machine categories, numbers, or method of
operation
• conditions which provide that membership of a club or body be required
(the Gambling Act 2005 specifically removes the membership requirement
for casino and bingo clubs and this provision prevents it being reinstated
• conditions in relation to stakes, fees, winning or prizes
Gambling Licensing Policy
14 of 32
20
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
Door Supervisors - The Gambling Commission advises in its guidance for local
authorities that if a licensing authority is concerned that a premises may attract
disorder or be subject to attempts at unauthorised access (for example by
children and young persons) then it may require that the entrances to the
premises are controlled by a door supervisor, and is entitled to impose a
condition on the premises licence to this effect.
Where it is decided that supervision of entrances/machines is appropriate for
particular cases, a consideration of whether these need to be SIA licensed or not
will be necessary. It will not be automatically assumed that they need to be
licensed, as the statutory requirements for different types of premises vary (as
per the guidance)
2.
Adult Gaming Centres
This Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect
children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and
will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient
measures to, for example, ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to
the premises.
This Licensing Authority may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives
such as:
•
Proof of age schemes
•
CCTV
•
Supervision of entrances / machine areas
•
Physical separation of areas
•
Location of entry
•
Notices / signage
•
Specific opening hours
•
Self-exclusion schemes
•
Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations
such as GamCare
This list is not mandatory or exhaustive and is merely indicative of example
measures.
3.
(Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres:
This Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect
children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and
will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority, for example, that there will be
sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the
adult only gaming machine areas.
Gambling Licensing Policy
15 of 32
21
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
This Licensing Authority may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives
such as:
•
CCTV
•
Supervision of entrances/machine areas
•
Physical separation of areas
•
Location of entry
•
Notices/signage
•
Specific opening hours
•
Self-exclusion schemes
•
Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations
such as GamCare
•
Measures/training for staff on how to deal with suspected truant school
children on the premises
This list is not mandatory or exhaustive and is merely indicative of example
measures.
This Licensing Authority will, as per the Gambling Commission’s guidance, refer
to the Commission’s website to see any conditions that apply to operating
licences covering the way in which the area containing the category C machines
should be delineated. This Licensing Authority will also make itself aware of any
mandatory or default conditions on these premises licences, when they have
been published.
4.
Casinos
This Licensing Authority will specifically have regard to the need to protect
children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and
will expect the applicant to satisfy the authority, for example, that there will be
sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the
adult only gaming machine areas.
This Licensing Authority may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives
such as:
•
CCTV
•
Supervision of entrances/machine areas
•
Physical separation of areas
•
Location of entry
•
Notices/signage
•
Specific opening hours
•
Self-exclusion schemes
•
Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations
such as GamCare
•
Measures/training for staff on how to deal with suspected truant school
Gambling Licensing Policy
16 of 32
22
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
children on the premises
This list is not mandatory or exhaustive and is merely indicative of example
measures.
This Licensing Authority will, as per the Gambling Commission’s guidance, refer
to the Commission’s website to see any conditions that apply to operating
licences covering the way in which the area containing the category C machines
should be delineated. This Licensing Authority will also make itself aware of any
mandatory or default conditions on these premises licences, when they have
been published.
5.
Bingo premises
This Licensing Authority notes that the Gambling Commission’s guidance states:
Licensing authorities will need to satisfy themselves that bingo can be played in
any bingo premises for which they issue a premises licence. This will be a
relevant consideration where the operator of an existing bingo premises applies
to vary their licence to exclude an area of the existing premises from its ambit
and then applies for a new premises licence, or multiple licences, for that or
those excluded areas.
This Authority also notes the guidance regarding the unusual circumstances in
which the splitting of a pre-existing premise into two adjacent premises might be
permitted, in particular that it is not permissible to locate sixteen category B3
gaming machines in one of the resulting premises, as the gaming machine
entitlement for that premises would be exceeded.
Children and young people are allowed into bingo premises; however they are
not permitted to participate in the bingo and if category B or C machines are
made available for use these must be separated from areas where children and
young people are allowed.
6.
Betting premises
Betting machines - This Licensing Authority will, as per the Gambling
Commission's guidance, take into account the size of the premises, the number
of counter positions available for person-to-person transactions and the ability of
staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an
offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering the
number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer.
Gambling Licensing Policy
17 of 32
23
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
7.
Tracks
This Licensing Authority is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than
one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the
track. As per the Gambling Commission's guidance, this Licensing Authority will
especially consider the impact upon the third licensing objective (i.e. the
protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by
gambling) and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are
distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not
permitted to enter.
This Authority will therefore expect the premises licence applicant to demonstrate
suitable measures to ensure that children do not have access to adult only
gaming facilities. It is noted that children and young persons will be permitted to
enter track areas where facilities for betting are provided on days when dogracing and/or horse racing takes place, but that they are still prevented from
entering areas where gaming machines (other than category D machines) are
provided.
This Licensing Authority may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives
such as:
•
Proof of age schemes
•
CCTV
•
Supervision of entrances/machine areas
•
Physical separation of areas
•
Location of entry
•
Notices/signage
•
Specific opening hours
•
Self-exclusion schemes
•
Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations
such as Game Care
This list is not mandatory or exhaustive and is merely indicative of example
measures.
Gaming machines – Where the applicant holds a pool betting operating licence
and is going to use the entitlement to four gaming machines, machines (other
than category D machines) should be located in areas from which children are
excluded.
Betting machines - This Licensing Authority will, as per the Gambling
Commission's guidance, take into account the size of the premises and the ability
of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is
an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering
the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator proposes to
offer.
Gambling Licensing Policy
18 of 32
24
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
Applications and plans
The Gambling Act (s51) requires applicants to submit plans of the premises with
their application, in order to ensure that the licensing authority has the necessary
information to make an informed judgement about whether the premises are fit
for gambling. The plan will also be used for the licensing authority to plan future
premises inspection activity. (See guidance to licensing authorities).
Plans for tracks do not need to be in a particular scale but should be drawn to
scale and should be sufficiently detailed to include the information required by
regulations. (See guidance to licensing authorities).
Some tracks may be situated on agricultural land where the perimeter is not
defined by virtue of an outer wall or fence, such as point-to-point racetracks. In
such instances, where an entry fee is levied, track premises licence holders may
erect temporary structures to restrict access to premises (See guidance to
licensing authorities).
In the rare cases where the outer perimeter cannot be defined, it is likely that the
track in question will not be specifically designed for the frequent holding of
sporting events or races. In such cases betting facilities may be better provided
through occasional use notices where the boundary premises do not need to be
defined. (See guidance to licensing authorities).
This Authority appreciates that it is sometimes difficult to define the precise
location of betting areas on tracks. The precise location of where betting facilities
are provided is not required to be shown on track plans, both by virtue of the fact
that betting is permitted anywhere on the premises and because of the difficulties
associated with pinpointing exact locations for some types of track. Applicants
should provide sufficient information that this authority can satisfy itself that the
plan indicates the main areas where betting might take place. For racecourses in
particular, any betting areas subject to the “five times rule” (commonly known as
betting rings) must be indicated on the plan. (See guidance to licensing
authorities). It is appreciated that racecourses may need the flexibility to provide
different facilities on different days without the need to vary the licence and this
will be reflected in the application process.
8.
Travelling Fairs
This Licensing Authority is responsible for deciding whether (where category D
machines and/or equal chance prize gaming without a permit is to be made
available for use at travelling fairs) the statutory requirement that the facilities for
gambling amount to no more than an ancillary amusement at the fair is met and
Gambling Licensing Policy
19 of 32
25
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
will also consider whether the applicant falls within the statutory definition of a
travelling fair.
It is noted that the 27-day statutory maximum for the land being used as a fair
applies on a per calendar year basis and that it applies to the piece of land on
which the fairs are held, regardless of whether it is the same or different travelling
fairs occupying the land. This Licensing Authority will work with its neighbouring
authorities to ensure that land which crosses our boundaries is monitored so that
the statutory limits are not exceeded.
9.
Provisional Statements
Developers may wish to apply to this Authority for provisional statements before
entering into a contract to buy or lease property or land to judge whether a
development is worth taking forward in light of the need to obtain a premises
licence. There is no need for the applicant to hold an operating licence in order to
apply for a provisional statement.
Section 204 of the Gambling Act provides for a person to make an application to
the licensing authority for a provisional statement in respect of premises that he
or she:
• expects to be constructed
• expects to be altered
• expects to acquire a right to occupy
The process for considering an application for a provisional statement is the
same as that for a premises licence application. The Applicant is obliged to give
notice of the application in the same way as applying for a premises licence.
Responsible authorities and interested parties may make representations and
there are rights of appeal.
In contrast to the premises licence application, the Applicant does not have to
hold or have applied for an operating licence from the Gambling Commission and
they do not have to have a right to occupy the premises in respect of which their
provisional application is made.
The holder of a provisional statement may then apply for a premises licence once
the premises are constructed, altered or acquired. The Licensing Authority will be
constrained in the matters it can consider when determining the premises licence
application, and in terms of representations about premises licence applications
that follow the grant of a provisional statement, no further representations from
relevant authorities or interested parties can be taken into account unless:
• they concern matters which could not have been addressed at the
provisional statement stage
• they reflect a change in the applicant’s circumstances
Gambling Licensing Policy
20 of 32
26
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
In addition, the authority may refuse the premises licence (or grant it on terms
different to those attached to the provisional statement) only by reference to
matters:
• which could not have been raised by objectors at the provisional
statement stage
• which in the authority’s opinion reflect a change in the operator’s
circumstances
• where the premises has not been constructed in accordance with the
plan submitted with the application. This must be a substantial change
to the plan and this Licensing Authority notes that it can discuss any
concerns it has with the Applicant before making a decision
10.
Reviews
Requests for a review of a premises licence can be made by interested parties or
responsible authorities; however, it is for the licensing authority to decide whether
the review is to be carried-out. This will be on the basis of whether the request
for the review is relevant to the matters listed below:
• in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling
Commission
• in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Gambling
Commission
• reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives
• in accordance with the authority’s statement of licensing policy
The request for the review will also be subject to the consideration by the
authority as to whether the request is frivolous, vexatious, or whether it will
certainly not cause this authority to wish to alter/revoke/suspend the licence, or
whether it is substantially the same as previous representations or requests for
review.
The licensing authority can also initiate a review of a particular premises licence,
or a particular class of premises licence on the basis of any reason which it
thinks is appropriate.
Once a valid application for a review has been received by the licensing
authority, representations can be made by responsible authorities and interested
parties during a 28 day period. This period begins 7 days after the application
was received by the licensing authority, who will publish notice of the application
within 7 days of receipt.
The licensing authority must carry out the review as soon as possible after the 28
day period for making representations has passed.
Gambling Licensing Policy
21 of 32
27
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
The purpose of the review will be to determine whether the licensing authority
should take any action in relation to the licence. If action is justified, the options
open to the licensing authority are:• add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by the licensing
authority
• exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State (e.g.
opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion
• suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months
• revoke the premises licence
In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review, the
licensing authority must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the
Act, as well as any relevant representations.
In particular, the licensing authority may also initiate a review of a premises
licence on the grounds that a premises licence holder has not provided facilities
for gambling at the premises. This is to prevent people from applying for licences
in a speculative manner without intending to use them.
Once the review has been completed, the licensing authority must, as soon as
possible, notify its decision to:
• the licence holder
• the applicant for review (if any)
• the Commission
• any person who made representations
• the chief officer of police or chief constable
• Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs
PART C
PERMITS / TEMPORARY & OCCASIONAL USE NOTICE
1.
Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre gaming machine permits
(Statement of Principles on Permits - Schedule 10 paragraph 7)
Where a premise does not hold a premises licence but wishes to provide gaming
machines, it may apply to the licensing authority for this permit. It should be
noted that the applicant must show that the premises will be wholly or mainly
used for making gaming machines available for use (Section 238).
The Gambling Act 2005 states that a licensing authority may prepare a statement
of principles that they propose to consider in determining the suitability of an
applicant for a permit and in preparing this statement, and/or considering
Gambling Licensing Policy
22 of 32
28
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
applications, it need not (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives and
shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Commission under
section 25. The Gambling Commission’s guidance to licensing authorities also
states: “In their three year licensing policy statement, licensing authorities may
include a statement of principles that they propose to apply when exercising their
functions in considering applications for permits, licensing authorities will want to
give weight to child protection issues." (24.6)
Guidance also states: “An application for a permit may be granted only if the
licensing authority is satisfied that the premises will be used as an unlicensed
FEC, and if the chief officer of police has been consulted on the application.
Licensing authorities might wish to consider asking applications to demonstrate:
• a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling
that is permissible in unlicensed FECs
• that the applicant has no relevant convictions (those that are set out in
Schedule 7 of the Act
• that staff are trained to have a full understanding of the maximum stakes
and prizes
It should be noted that a licensing authority cannot attach conditions to this type
of permit.
This Licensing Authority has adopted the following Statement of Principles, in
respect of unlicensed FECs:
The licensing authority will expect the applicant to show that there are policies
and procedures in place to protect children from harm. Such policies/procedures
will be considered on their merits; however, they may include appropriate
measures on staff training on how to deal with suspected truancy, how to deal
with unsupervised very young children being on the premises and children
causing problems around the premises.
The licensing authority will also expect the applicants demonstrate a full
understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling that is
permissible in unlicensed FECs, and that staff are trained to have a full
understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes.
The Licensing Authority will require the following to be submitted in addition to
the application form and fee:
• Proof of the applicant’s identity and age
• Proof of the applicant’s right to occupy the premises for which the permit is
sought
• (Where the applicant is an individual) a ‘basic’ Criminal Records Bureau
(CRB) disclosure dated no earlier than one calendar month on the day the
application is received by the licensing authority. Holders of operating
licences issued by the Gambling Commission are exempt from this
Gambling Licensing Policy
23 of 32
29
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
•
•
2.
requirement
An insurance certificate (or certified copy) confirming the availability of
public liability insurance covering the proposed activity
A plan scale 1:100 of the premises showing:
o The boundary of the premises including any internal and external
walls, entrances, exits, doorways and windows, and indicating the
points of access available to the public
o The location of any fixed or temporary structures
o The location of any counters, booths, offices or other locations from
which staff may monitor the activities of persons on the premises
o The location of any public toilets within the boundary of the
premises
o The location of CCTV cameras
o The location of any ATM or other cash/change machines
o The proposed location of the Category ‘D’ machines
o Details of non category ‘D’ machines (e.g. skill with prizes
machines)
(Alcohol) Licensed premises gaming machine permits
(Schedule 13 paragraph 4(1))
Automatic entitlement: 2 machines
There is provision in the Act for premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption
on the premises to automatically have 2 gaming machines, of categories C
and/or D. The premises merely need to notify the licensing authority.
The licensing authority can remove the automatic authorisation in respect of any
particular premises if:
• provision of the machines is not reasonably consistent with the pursuit of
the licensing objectives
• gaming has taken place on the premises that breaches a condition of
section 282 of the Gambling Act (i.e. that written notice has been provided
to the licensing authority, that a fee has been provided and that any
relevant code of practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the
location and operation of the machine has been complied with)
• the premises are mainly used for gaming
• an offence under the Gambling Act has been committed on the premises
Permit: 3 or more machines
If a premises wishes to have more than 2 machines, then it needs to apply for a
permit and the licensing authority must consider that application based upon the
Gambling Licensing Policy
24 of 32
30
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
licensing objectives, any guidance issued by the Gambling Commission issued
under Section 25 of the Gambling Act 2005, and “such matters as they think
relevant.”
This Licensing Authority considers that “such matters” will be decided on a case
by case basis but generally there will be regard to the need to protect children
and vulnerable persons from harmed or being exploited by gambling and will
expect the applicant to satisfy the authority that there will be sufficient measures
to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming
machines. Measures which will satisfy the authority that there will be no access
may include the adult machines being in sight of the bar, or in the sight of staff
that will monitor that the machines are not being used by those under 18.
Notices and signage may also be help. As regards the protection of vulnerable
persons, applicants may wish to consider the provision of information
leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.
It is recognised that some alcohol licensed premises may apply for a premises
licence for their non-alcohol licensed areas. Any such application would most
likely need to be applied for, and dealt with as an Adult Gaming Centre premises
licence.
It should be noted that the licensing authority can decide to grant the application
with a smaller number of machines and/or a different category of machines than
that applied for. Conditions (other than these) cannot be attached.
It should also be noted that the holder of a permit must comply with any Code of
Practice issued by the Gambling Commission about the location and operation of
the machine.
3.
Prize Gaming Permits
The Gambling Act 2005 states that a licensing authority may “prepare a
statement of principles that they propose to apply in exercising their functions
under this Schedule” which “may, in particular, specify matters that the licensing
authority proposes to consider in determining the suitability of the applicant for a
permit”.
This Licensing Authority has prepared a Statement of Principles which is that the
applicant should set out the types of gaming that he or she is intending to offer
and that the applicant should be able to demonstrate:
• that they understand the limits to stakes and prizes that are set out in
Regulations
• that the gaming offered is within the law
• clear policies that outline the steps to be taken to protect children from
harm
Gambling Licensing Policy
25 of 32
31
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
The licensing authority shall also require (where the applicant is an individual) a
‘basic’ Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure dated no earlier than one
calendar month on the day the application is received by the licensing authority.
Holders of operating licences issued by the Gambling Commission are exempt
from this requirement.
In making its decision on an application for this permit the licensing authority
does not need to (but may) have regard to the licensing objectives but must have
regard to any Gambling Commission guidance. (Gambling Act 2005, Schedule
14 paragraph 8(3))
It should be noted that there are conditions in the Gambling Act 2005 by which
the permit holder must comply, but that the licensing authority cannot attach
conditions. The conditions in the Act are:
• the limits on participation fees, as set out in regulations, must be complied
with
• all chances to participate in the gaming must be allocated on the premises
on which the gaming is taking place and on one day; the game must be
played and completed on the day the chances are allocated; and the
result of the game must be made public in the premises on the day that it
is played
• the prize for which the game is played must not exceed the amount set out
in regulations (if a money prize), or the prescribed value (if non-monetary
prize)
• participation in the gaming must not entitle the player to take part in any
other gambling
4.
Club Gaming and Club Machines Permits
Members Clubs and Miners’ welfare institutes (but not Commercial Clubs) may
apply for a Club Gaming Permit or a Clubs Gaming machines permit. The Club
Gaming Permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (3
machines of categories B, C or D), equal chance gaming and games of chance
as set-out in forthcoming regulations. A Club Gaming machine permit will enable
the premises to provide gaming machines (3 machines of categories B, C or D).
Gambling Commission guidance states: "Members clubs must have at least 25
members and be established and conducted “wholly or mainly” for purposes
other than gaming, unless the gaming is permitted by separate regulations. The
Secretary of State has made regulation and these cover bridge and whist clubs.
A members’ club must be permanent in nature, not established to make
commercial profit, and controlled by its members equally. Examples include
working men’s clubs, branches of Royal British Legion and clubs with political
affiliations."
Gambling Licensing Policy
26 of 32
32
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
The Gambling Commission guidance also notes that licensing authorities may
only refuse an application on the grounds that:
• the applicant does not fulfil the requirements for a members’ or
commercial club or miners’ welfare institute and therefore is not entitled to
receive the type of permit for which it has applied
• the applicant’s premises are used wholly or mainly by children and/or
young persons
• an offence under the Act or a breach of a permit has been committed by
the applicant while providing gaming facilities
• a permit held by the applicant has been cancelled in the previous ten
years
• an objection has been lodged by the Commission or the police
There is also a ‘fast-track’ procedure available under the Act for premises which
hold a Club Premises Certificate under the Licensing Act 2003 (Schedule 12
paragraph 10). As the Gambling Commission’s Guidance for local authorities
states: "Under the fast-track procedure there is no opportunity for objections to
be made by the Commission or the police, and the ground upon which an
authority can refuse a permit are reduced." and "The grounds on which an
application under the process may be refused are:
• that the club is established primarily for gaming, other than gaming
prescribed under schedule 12
• that in addition to the prescribed gaming, the applicant provides facilities
for other gaming
• that a club gaming permit or club machine permit issued to the applicant in
the last ten years has been cancelled
There are statutory conditions on club gaming permits that no child uses a
category B or C machine on the premises and that the holder complies with any
relevant provision of a code of practice about the location and operation of
gaming machines.
5.
Temporary Use Notices
Temporary use notices allow the use of premises for gambling where there is no
premises licence but where a gambling operator wishes to use the premises
temporarily for providing facilities for gambling. Premises that might be suitable
for a temporary use notice, according the Gambling Commission, would include
hotels, conference centres and sporting venues.
The licensing authority can only grant a temporary use notice to a person or
company holding a relevant operating licence, i.e. a non-remote casino operating
licence.
Gambling Licensing Policy
27 of 32
33
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
The Secretary of State has the power to determine what form of gambling can be
authorised by temporary use notices, and at the time of writing this Statement the
relevant regulations (SI no 3157: The Gambling Act 2005 (Temporary Use
Notices) Regulations 2007) state that temporary use notices can only be used to
permit the provision of facilities or equal chance gaming, where the gaming is
intended to produce a single winner, which in practice means poker tournaments.
There are a number of statutory limits as regards temporary use notices. The
meaning of "premises" in Part 8 of the Act is discussed in Part 7 of the Gambling
Commission guidance to local authorities. As with "premises", the definition of "a
set of premises" will be a question of fact in the particular circumstances of each
notice that is given. In the Act "premises" is defined as including "any place".
In considering whether a place falls within the definition of "a set of premises",
the licensing authority needs to look at, amongst other things, the
ownership/occupation and control of the premises.
This Licensing Authority expects to object to notices where it appears that their
effect would be to permit regular gambling in a place that could be described as
one set of premises, as recommended in the Gambling Commission’s guidance
to local authorities.
6.
Occasional Use Notices
The licensing authority has very little discretion as regards these notices aside
from ensuring that the statutory limit of 8 days in a calendar year is not
exceeded. This Licensing Authority will though consider the definition of a ‘track’
and whether the applicant is permitted to avail him/herself of the notice.
7.
Small Society Lotteries
The licensing authority will register and administer smaller non-commercial
lotteries and applicants for lottery licences must apply to the licensing authority in
the area where their principal office is located.
For new applications, the licensing authority shall require the promoter of the
lottery to produce a ‘basic’ Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure dated no
earlier than one calendar month on the day the application is received by the
licensing authority.
The licensing authority may refuse an application for registration if in their
opinion:
• The applicant is not a non-commercial society
• A person who will or may be connected with the promotion of the lottery
Gambling Licensing Policy
28 of 32
34
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
•
has been convicted of a relevant offence
Information provided in or with the application for registration is false or
misleading
Where the licensing authority intends to refuse registration of a Society, it will
give the Society an opportunity to make representations and will inform the
Society of the reasons why it is minded to refuse registration and supply
evidence on which it has reached that preliminary conclusion. In any event, the
licensing authority will make available on its web-site its procedures on how it
handles representations.
The licensing authority may revoke the registered status of a society if it thinks
that they would have had to, or would be entitled to; refuse an application for
registration if it were being made at that time. However, no revocations will take
place unless the Society has been given the opportunity to make
representations. The licensing authority will inform the society of the reasons why
it is minded to revoke the registration and will provide an outline of the evidence
on which it has reached that preliminary conclusion.
PART D
COMMITTEE, OFFICER DELEGATION AND CONTACTS
1.
Committee decisions and scheme of delegation
The licensing authority is involved in a wide range of licensing decisions and
functions and has established a Licensing Committee to administer them.
Licensing Sub-Committees made up of three Councillors from the main Licensing
Committee will sit to hear applications where representations have been received
from interested parties and responsible authorities. Ward Councillors will not sit
on a Sub-Committee involving an application within their ward.
Where a Councillor who is a member of the Licensing Committee is making or
has made representations regarding a licence on behalf of an interested party, in
the interests of good governance they will disqualify themselves from any
involvement in the decision making process affecting the licence in question.
The Council’s Licensing Officers will deal with all other licensing applications
where either no representation have been received, or where representations
have been received and it is agreed by the parties that a hearing is not
necessary.
Gambling Licensing Policy
29 of 32
35
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
Decisions as to whether representations are irrelevant, frivolous or vexatious will
be made by Council Officers, who will make the decisions on whether
representations or applications for licence reviews should be referred to the
Licensing Committee or Sub-Committee. Where representations are rejected,
the person making that representation will be given written reason as to why that
is the case.
There is no right of appeal against a determination that
representations are not admissible.
The table shown at Appendix 2 sets out the agreed delegation of decisions and
functions to Licensing Committee, Sub-Committee and Officers.
This form of delegation is without prejudice to Officers referring an application to
a Sub-Committee or Full Committee if considered appropriate in the
circumstances of any particular case.
2.
Contacts
Further information about the Gambling Act 2005, this Statement of Licensing
Policy or the application process can be obtained from:The Licensing Team
Council Offices
Holt Road
Cromer
NR27 9EN
Tel:
Fax:
E-mail:
Website:
01263 516189
01263 514627
licensing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
www.northnorfolk.org
Information is also available from:Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham
B2 4BP
Tel:
Fax:
Website:
0121 230 6666
0121 230 6720
www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk
Gambling Licensing Policy
30 of 32
36
TDLIGA12
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
TDLIGA12
Appendix 1
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES
The Licensing Authority
North Norfolk District Council
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk NR27 9EN
The Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham
B2 4BP
Tel:
01263 516189
Fax: 01263 514627
Email: licensing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Tel: 0121 230 6666
Fax: 0121 230 6720
Email: info@gamblingcommission.gov.uk
Website:www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk
Police
Norfolk Constabulary Licensing Team,
4th Floor, Vantage House,
Fishers Lane,
Norwich,
Norfolk, NR2 1ET.
Fire Authority
Divisional Commander
Fire Station
Friars Lane
Great Yarmouth
NR30 2RP
Email. licensingteam@norfolk.pnn.police.uk
Tel. 01603 276024,
Fax. 01603 276025
Tel: 01493 843212
Fax: 01493 339940
Email: Gtyar@fire.norfolk.gov.uk
Planning Authority
North Norfolk District Council
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk NR27 9EN
Environmental Health
North Norfolk District Council
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk NR27 9EN
Tel:
01263 516143
Fax: 01263 514627
Email: planning@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Tel:
01263 516085
Fax: 01263 514627
Email: ep@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Norfolk Safeguarding Children Board,
Room 60 Lower Ground Floor
County Hall Martineau Lane
Norwich
NR1 2UG
HM Revenue and Customs
Gambling Unit
Nelson House
Prince of Wales Road
Norwich
Norfolk NR1 1DR
tel 01603 223409
http://www.nscb.norfolk.gov.uk/Contacts.asp
Gambling Licensing Policy
31 of 32
37
Tel:
0845 366 7851
Agenda Item 12
NNDC ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Gambling Licensing Policy - 2012 version
TDLIGA12
APPENDIX 2
TABLE OF DELEGATIONS OF LICENSING FUNCTIONS
MATTER TO BE DEALT WITH
FULL
COUNCIL
Three year licensing policy
X
Policy to permit casino
X
LICENSING COMMITTEE/
OFFICERS
SUB-COMMITTEE
Fee Setting - when appropriate
X
(with Cabinet approval)
Application for premises
licences
Where representations have
been received and not
withdrawn
Where no representations
received/ representations
have been withdrawn
Application for a variation to a
licence
Where representations have
been received and not
withdrawn
Where no representations
received/ representations
have been withdrawn
Application for a transfer of a
licence
Where representations have
been received from the
Commission
Where no representations
received from the
Commission
Application for a provisional
statement
Where representations have
been received and not
withdrawn
Where no representations
received/ representations
have been withdrawn
Review of a premises licence
Application for club gaming
/club machine permits
X
Where representations have
been received and not
withdrawn
Cancellation of club gaming/
club machine permits
Where no representations
received/ representations
have been withdrawn
X
Applications for other permits
X
Cancellation of licensed premises
gaming machine permits
X
Consideration of temporary use
notice
X
Decision to give a counter
notice to a temporary use
notice
Gambling Licensing Policy
X
32 of 32
38
Agenda Item No______14______
Community Asset Transfer Policy
Summary:
A view was taken that the Council’s Acquisition and
Disposal Policy required supplementation in anticipation
of possible future requests from other public and third
sector / community groups wishing to take over the
Council’s assets with reference to the localism agenda.
The Asset Management Board considered an initial
report at its March 2012 meeting which referred to the
aspects of the then Localism Bill with recommendations
that a Policy be created to provide a framework for
asset transfer to community groups and the like.
A draft Community Asset Transfer Policy was submitted
to Cabinet on the 14 May 2012 with a recommendation
to issue the draft as a basis of consultation with relevant
community group, town and parish councils being
approved.
The matter was presented to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on the 23 May 2012, which agreed to
Cabinets resolution but in addition required
consideration to be given to support for capacity building
and post transfer care. The draft was amended to reflect
this observation. A consultation period closed on the 20
July 2012, eight returns being received although none
with any particular relevance to the draft policy.
The results and an amended draft policy were reported
to both the Asset Management Board in September
2012, being returned to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee of the 25 September, with agreement for the
matter to be returned to Cabinet for approval to be given
for consideration to forward the matter to Full Council for
adoption.
The draft Policy was presented to Cabinet on the 12
November where approval was given for submission for
adoption by Full Council on the 19 December.
Options considered:
The Localism Act sets out guidance and parameters in
respect of Community Right to Bid/challenge. The
proposed policy is to assist these aspects in respect of
the property element as well as dealing with straight
forward approaches over acquisition by community
groups.
Conclusions:
The Policy has been amended to reflect observations
made by the Asset Management Board, the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee, the consultation together with
the Right to Bid and Challenge provisions under the
Localism Act 2011.
Recommendations:
For Full Council to adopt in order to provide the
Council with a clear framework and procedural
39
guide to assist in it achieving a Corporate Plan
ambition.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Localism Act, 2011
North Norfolk District Council Corporate Plan
North Norfolk District Council Acquisition and Disposal Policy
Cabinet Report 14.5.2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 23.5.2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 25.9.2012
Cabinet Report 12.11.2012
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr. Rhodri Oliver
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Martin Green x.6049 martin.green@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Localism agenda has generated interest by Third Sector Organisations
(TSO’s) which may seek to succeed the management of community assets,
including land and buildings currently held in public ownership. This proposed
Policy is set to provide a framework to manage and enable the transfer of
Council assets to such groups, setting down criteria for doing so. The Policy
acknowledges the distinctions and specific criteria of the Community Right to
Buy and Right to Challenge Provisions as set out in regulations emanating
from the Localism Act 2011.
1.2
The Council’s Corporate Plan includes the priority “to embrace the
Government’s Localism agenda to empower individuals and communities to
take more responsibility for their own futures and to build a stronger civic
society.” The Annual Action Plan states that “we will establish a protocol and
put in place the means to respond positively to requests from Town and
Parish Councils to share in the benefits of growth” and “subject to guidance,
we will assess expressions of interest from voluntary or community groups
who wish to take over the running of a service and/or community asset, and
complete the initial assessment within three months of receiving the request.”
This policy provides an important means by which communities may take
over the running of services within their area/communities and to ensure that
in this process, address the property asset element of these actions.
2.
The Community Asset Transfer Policy
40
2.1
The proposed policy document can be found in Appendix A. It sets out a
procedure to follow in the determination of requests for the transfer of
NNDC’s assets.
2.2
The Asset Management Board considered a draft of this policy on the 12
March 2012, when it was proposed that a period of consultation take place
with community groups, parish and town councils. The policy was presented
before Cabinet on the 14 May 2012 and the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on the 23 May 2012, with observations in respect of capacity
building and post transfer monitoring required to be taken into consideration.
The Policy was accordingly amended to reflect these desires.
2.3
An eight week consultation period, both web-based together with letters being
sent to interested community groups closed on the 20 July 2012 with eight
responses being received from a mix of Parish and Town Councils. Those
responses were considered at the Asset Management Board meeting of the
30 July 2012 where there was agreement to take the policy forward for
Cabinet and Full Council approval. The responses varied with enquiries being
made regarding a local list of the District Councils assets within individual
areas to that of welcoming the principle of the policy.
2.4
The Policy was presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee hearing of
the 25 September 2012 where it was recommended that it be forwarded to
Cabinet and then to Full Council for adoption. In turn, on the 12 November
2012 Cabinet approved that the policy be forwarded to Full Council for
adoption.
3.
Conclusion
3.1
A Corporate Plan aim is to support local communities in investing and
becoming stakeholders in their areas. The Localism Act 2011 provides tools
in this regard. The Council’s Annual Action Plan states that a protocol will be
established to respond positively to approaches it receives from both public
and third sector organisations wishing to take over the running of services
and / or a community asset. The Policy will address the property element of
these approaches.
4.
Implications and Risks
4.1
The adoption of a Community Asset Transfer policy with clear procedural
guidelines should reduce the council’s corporate risk, as greater clarity will be
provided to applicants, members and staff.
4.2
For those assets transferred, following this policy, the legal responsibility for
assets will become that of the transferee whether by freehold transfer or long
lease, in respect of maintenance and legislative responsibilities.
The majority of transfers will be on a leasehold basis where in essence there
will be “arms-length” control. Whilst post transfer support will be provided,
ultimately, in the case of failure the asset can be recovered.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
41
5.1
The adoption of the policy should have no financial implications. The financial
implications of acquisitions or disposals will be considered on a case by case
basis with reference to the Asset Management Board at all stages and
Cabinet when making decisions on individual cases. There may be occasions
where the Council will need to recover lost income or be involved in
expenditure in respect of ongoing or agreed obligations. The policy does
relate to disposals at less than best consideration for which there will be
financial implications for the council.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
It is hoped that the transfer of buildings into community ownership and
management will ensure that buildings are used sustainably.
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1
No equality and diversity implications have generally been identified in
adopting this policy although it is recognized that on occasions a diversity
impact assessment will need to be considered, particularly where premises
may be used by or for target groups which may have some impact.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1
No section 17 crime and disorder considerations have been identified in
adopting this policy.
42
Appendix A
North Norfolk District Council
Community Asset Transfer Policy
43
Contents
1. Background
2. Policy context
3. Policy statement.
4. Legal context
5. The Community Asset Transfer process.
Appendices
44
1. Background and Purpose
1.1. The purpose of this policy is to set a clear framework to enable asset transfer
from the Council to Third Sector Organisations (TSOs) and ensure transfers are
sustainable and successful in the long term. The policy recognises the Right to Bid
and Right to Challenge provisions under the terms of the Localism act 2011. Due
reference should be made to guidance available from both the Department for
Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and that of the Council’s relevant
Communities officers in respect of approaches received under those provisions. Also
see 1.5 and 1.6 below.
1.2. The “Third Sector” is the voluntary sector of the economy which is neither public
(such as central or local government) nor private sector (such as private individuals
or profit-making business). With the Big Society and Localism initiatives, it is the
Third Sector which is now being promoted as one of the most efficient and productive
elements of a dynamic and healthy society. However, lower tiers of local government
(parish and town councils) are included within this initiative.
1.3. For the purposes of this policy, a community asset is defined as an asset owned
by the District Council which is not held for investment reasons and not essential for
operational purposes. It may include operational assets such as Tourist Information
Centres, Public Conveniences, Community Centres, Theatres and Sports Clubs.
Asset transfer can relate to freehold transfer but, more commonly, a long-term (over
25 years) lease.
1.4. An asset transfer decision will usually be a choice between:
•
Maintaining the status quo;
•
Commercial disposal on the open market;
•
Seeking the service and community benefits generated by a decision to
transfer an asset to a TSO (Community Asset Transfer);
This policy relates to the situation when the last of these three choices is the
appropriate one.
1.5. It is important not to confuse Community Asset Transfer with the provisions of
the Localism Act relating to disposal of Assets of Community Value. Essentially, the
45
Localism Act has introduced a moratorium on sale of “Assets of Community Value” to
allow community groups a right to make a bid (at open market value). Registers of
Assets of Community Value will relating to both public and privately held assets are
to be compiled by relevant Local Authorities. The government has produced
appropriate guidance in this respect.
1.6. The Localism Act also provides the Community Right to Challenge which a right
is provided in the first instance to community or voluntary groups to request taking on
themselves the provision of services provided by the local authority. In some cases,
there may be a relationship between taking on a service and related local authority
assets. However, at this stage, this policy considers the process for discretionary
community asset transfer outside of the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.
1.7 The term ‘community asset transfer’ relates primarily to long leasehold or
freehold transfer in order that the asset may be used or managed by a TSO at less
than ‘open market value’ e.g. transferred as a gift or leased for a peppercorn or
below market rental.
2. Policy context
2.1. The 2006 Local Government White Paper confirmed the last Government’s
intention to increase opportunities for community asset ownership and management,
and promoted asset transfer as part of a local authority’s ‘place-shaping’ role. The
Secretary of State for Communities commissioned Barry Quirk, Chief Executive of
the London Borough of Lewisham to carry out a review into the barriers preventing
community asset transfer. It also indicated that a fund would be established to help
with this, later announced as the £30 million Community Assets Fund managed by
the Big Lottery Fund.
2.2. The ‘Quirk Review’s’ findings Making Assets Work were published in May 2007.
All the Review’s recommendations were accepted by the Government and published
a week later as an implementation plan in Opening the transfer window: the
government’s response to the Quirk Review. The Government’s plan for taking the
review forward included an asset transfer demonstration programme with local
authorities and their partners, a guide to managing risks in asset transfer and a
series of regional awareness-raising workshops.
46
2.3. The Quirk Review found that a careful increase in the community’s stake in an
asset can bring a wide range of additional benefits for the community, the
organisation receiving the asset and the local authority facilitating the transfer. The
benefits of community ownership and management can outweigh risks and
opportunity costs.
2.4. The Government’s Empowerment Action Plan published in 2007 included
actions relating to the transfer of assets and to a programme of support for
community anchors, including the availability of further funding to support the
development of anchors.
2.5. In July 2008 the Communities and Local Government White Paper “Communities
in Control: real people, real power” confirmed ongoing support for the Quirk review,
announced the establishment of a national Asset Transfer Unit, extended the
Advancing Assets programme by a further year and announced a £70m “Community
Builders” fund. The origins of this agenda go back to the ODPM’s 2003 Communities
Plan Sustainable Communities: Building for the future). This acknowledged that
sustainability is only possible where local communities play a leading role in
determining their own future development.
2.6. The Localism Act was given royal assent in November 2011. The Government’s
agenda is to continue and extend the previous government’s policy of asset transfer
for community benefit. The Council’s Asset Management Plan will ultimately be
adjusted to take account of the new Localism Act provisions (re Assets of Community
Value and the Community Right to Challenge mentioned above.)
2.7. As mentioned above, this policy does not concern “market value” transfers which
are dealt with as part of the Council’s Asset Management Plan.
2.8. The Council has a long record of commitment to supporting community groups
and the principles of Community Asset Transfer. The following local policy
documents cite asset management and transfer to the third sector/partners as central
objectives:
• The Corporate Plan
• The Asset Management Plan
47
3. Policy statement
3.1. The Council recognises that the way its physical assets are managed can have a
positive impact on the long-term strength of the third sector and local communities
more generally. Through asset ownership and management, TSOs can grow and
become more secure, gaining access to sources of additional investment that the
Council itself may not be able to access. The aim is to ensure that the way assets are
managed underpins the wider corporate aims and where appropriate, will use asset
transfer as a means of enabling TSOs to become sustainable on a long-term basis.
3.2. The Council’s existing assets include land, buildings and other structures used
for a variety of different social, community and public purposes. For some of these
assets community management and ownership could deliver:
•
benefits to the local community; e.g. closer association and influence over the
management of the facility making it more responsive to local needs with
reduced overhead running costs (enabling fees and charges to be kept
relatively low) ;
•
greater use of the facility with the potential to increase new social and
economic opportunities for communities that extend their capacity to support
localities and organisations where they live and improved health and other
well being outcomes for the community.
•
benefits to the Council and other public sector service providers; e.g.
improved levels of volunteering, civic participation, and engagement in
positive activities in the area; reduced financial implications for the Council,
including staff and asset overhead costs and business rates.
•
benefits for the organisation taking ownership; both financial and nonfinancial; e.g. charitable tax exemptions, improved access to funding
opportunities at local, regional and national levels for both capital and
revenue based support; accessible staff and/or volunteer learning and
development opportunities as part of a career path; building partnership with
other organizations and users to promote economic development and social
enterprise.
3.3. Public assets are rarely used by everyone, their ‘value’ being locked-in to a
particular use or a particular group of people. However, changing ownership or
48
management can offer such groups opportunities to capacity build in order to make
assets and their services more accessible, more innovative, more flexible and more
relevant to communities, increasing their value in relation to the numbers of people
that benefit and the range of opportunities offered. Community-lead ownership can
offer additional opportunities to secure resources within a local area and to empower
local citizens and communities.
4.
Legal Context
4.1. As Community Asset Transfers, under this policy, will be at under market value,
community benefit will have to be demonstrated pursuant to s123 Local Government
Act 1972 as further refined by Local Government Act 1972: General Disposal
Consent (England) 2003.
4.2. Under this statutory guidance, community benefit is judged in terms of whether
the disposal will secure the promotion or improvement of the economic, social and
environmental well being of the inhabitants of the district. In these respects an
assessment will be made of the TSO’s Business Plan, their experience/skills to
deliver the Plan and to complement the Council’s Corporate objectives such as
promoting tourism, environmentally sustainable economic growth and healthy
lifestyles.
4.3. Independence of the TSO from the Council will need to be demonstrated in order
to maintain clarity of roles and responsibilities in any partnership arrangements or
agreements.
4.4. It is important to note that Community Asset Transfer will not involve a freehold
transfer in most cases. Even in a situation where a TSO is a fully constituted charity
with corporate status, a long lease at peppercorn rental will, in general, be the
preferred option in relation to the use of valuable assets as a leasehold structure
provides legal mechanisms through which the Council’s interests of provision of
community benefit can be protected in the long term.
4.5. In cases where the organisation is an unincorporated association which is not
registered as a charity, it is likely that the only appropriate option will be a shorter
term lease (e.g. up to 15 years) but, again, with below market rental. The reason for
this is that the Council would always wish to avoid the intractable legal problems
49
which can occur when land is transferred into the name of private individuals on trust
for an unincorporated association. For example, if a property is held by a number of
individuals as trustees, then upon their retirements or deaths the property must be
formally assigned to new trustees. However, it is easy for small voluntary
organisations to omit to take on such an onerous task of formal legal transfer (which
can only take place by deed). This may ultimately lead to a situation in which all the
original trustees retire or die and the true legal owner is untraceable. For this reason
(inter alia), any TSO which seeks to take a long lease or freehold, must first gain
charitable status and/or incorporate as a not-for-profit company.
5
The Community Asset Transfer Process
The Council will consider requests for Community Asset Transfer in the following
manner, via the Asset Management Board which will be reported to after each stage
below;
•
Initial application and response (1&2)
•
Full application (3)
•
Agreement of Heads of Terms and Asset Management agreement
(4&5)
•
Cabinet Decision (6)
•
Legal Transaction (7)
There are seven key stages in this application process including the requirements on
an applicant together with an eighth stage which is in respect of post transfer, as set
out below:
Stage 1: Initial application
A TSO which believes it could successfully take over and run a Council-owned
property should submit an initial application and expression of interest to the Head of
Service for Assets. They should use the application form shown in Appendix 1 or
submit a more informal request. An informal request will probably be no more than 23 sides of A4 and it should contain the following information.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Name of Organisation
Contact details
Address for correspondence
Telephone number
Email address
Status of organisation (charity, club, new group)
Charity or Company registration number
Date when organisation established in present form
50
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Governance arrangements (e.g. constitution set or rules etc.)
Proposals for incorporation, registration as CIC or application for charitable
status (if these have not yet been achieved).
Number of members
Number of members of management committee
Number of staff/volunteers
Insurance policy/public liability/professional indemnity levels of cover
Details of lease and name of current trustees (if currently a sitting tenant
holding as unincorporated association)
A short statement saying why the asset is needed
If the applicant is a sitting tenant, a statement saying why an extended lease
or freehold transfer is needed
Future objectives upon transfer
Details of indications of support from sponsors.
Stage 2: Initial response
All initial applications will be report to the Asset Management Board with a
recommendation to continue or to reject, providing reasons for rejection which will be
shared with the applicant.
If the Asset Management Board agrees that the proposal has merit, the applicant will
be asked to submit a full application.
Stage 3
Full application
A full application to be submitted by a TSO will include the following:1)
A statement of objectives (a mission statement for the organisation).
2)
Full details of legal form of the organisation (NB for consideration of a grant of
a long leasehold interest of over 15 years, it must have corporate or charitable status
or both).
3)
Details of the asset applied for and the holding sought with reasons including
details of funding and external funding commitments or opportunities.
4)
A business plan for the whole organisation (not just a specific project)
demonstrating the following:How asset will be used
•
A summary of wider benefits for the organisation, the public and the Council.
•
Stakeholders engaged in current and future management and use of the
asset
•
Core activities and services delivered currently
51
•
Proposed projects, activities and actions that will be developed through future
management of the asset
•
Organisational management (structure, number, posts both paid and
voluntary)
•
Experience and track record including experience/expertise of management
board etc.
•
Robustness of governance structure (in place or being developed)
•
Details of partnership working if any
•
Community involvement and engagement currently and in the future
•
User involvement (including membership information, age profile of users,
public use, educational use)
•
Financial projections including a three year cash-flow forecast, projected
income and investment (grants/loans) including any relating to development
of the asset and consideration of overheads such as utilities and business
rates
•
Analysis of funding opportunities with realistic assessment of risk
•
Projected facility user numbers and rates of use over three year period
•
Effective management of the asset (bookings, health and safety, repair and
maintenance)
•
Professional advice or details of advisers to be used and how this will be
funded
5) Sitting tenants should additionally demonstrate:
•
Effective management and maintenance of the asset to date
•
Last three years’ accounts
•
Sufficiently wide and diverse membership
•
Effective bookings system
•
Suitable occupancy agreements for any third party use
Stage 4: Consideration, valuation and negotiation
Following submission of a full application, the Head of Service for Assets will appoint
a member or members of his/her team to correspond with the TSO to consider
professional valuation of the asset (if that is deemed necessary and, if so, how the
valuation is to be funded) and to draft Heads of Terms. The Council will also arrange
for an internal title report to be produced to identify any legal issues such as
restrictive covenants which may affect the asset.
52
While stated briefly, this stage will probably be the longest in duration. It may take
several months to complete and involve significant, detailed work and
correspondence. If it is not possible to agree Heads of Terms, the reasons will be
given to the applicant and alternatives (such as short term lease or licence) will be
explored. By way of additional policy guidance, in assessing the merits of the
application and negotiating Heads of Terms, the Council will ask itself the questions
set out in the Appendix 2 below.
Stage 5: Report to AMB
If Heads of Terms are agreed, the Head of Service for Assets will submit a report to
the Asset Management Board containing the full application and the business plan
with recommendation as to the specific details of the proposed asset transfer which
have been provisionally agreed with the TSO i.e. heads of terms, leasehold
conditions, asset-lock proposals etc.
The Asset Management Board will consider the report and decide whether the
transfer should proceed and add further conditions, or not as it deems necessary.
In the event that the AMB recommend the proposed asset transfer, a report will be
submitted to Cabinet recommending that authorisation is granted to proceed.
The impact on Council resources needs to be assessed by the Asset Management
Board. This might include:
•
The level of initial and ongoing support/advice required from services e.g.
Property, Legal, Environmental, Planning
•
Any capital contribution, match funding or loans required
•
Initial involvement in setting up a legal trust body, social enterprise or legally
constituted community group
•
Ongoing obligations that may fall to the Council under the terms of a Lease
and associated costs that it incurs as a result of those obligations
•
Consideration of an exit strategy in the event that the asset transfer fails.
Stage 6: Report to Cabinet
Cabinet will consider the report and add any conditions they deem appropriate or not
and, should they agree with the recommendation will provide delegated authority to
the Council’s Legal and Democratic Services Manager to carry out the transaction.
53
Stage 7: Legal transaction
The applicant will be informed of the Cabinet’s decision and in the event that the
decision is to proceed with transfer, the legal process of Asset transfer will be carried
out between the Council’s lawyers and the applicant TSO’s lawyers. Again, while
simply stated, the legal process may take several months depending on the
complexity of the title or proposed lease and the readiness of the applicant to engage
in the legal process that is required for transfer of the asset to be completed.
Stage 8: Monitoring and Support
Once completed, the performance of the applicant TSO will be monitored with advice
and support provided when deemed necessary to assist and enhance its future and
viability.
54
Appendix1: Application form
COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER
APPLICATION FORM
Name of Community Group or Organisation
Contact address
Email
Telephone number (s)
Status of organisation
(charity, club, new group)
Charity and/or Company
registration number
Date when organisation
established
in present form
Governance arrangements
(e.g. constitution set or
rules etc.)
Proposals for
incorporation, registration
as CIC or application for
charitable status (if these
have not yet been
achieved)
Accounts available (Y/N)
How many years accounts?
Number of members
Number of members of
55
management committee
Number of staff/ volunteers
Insurance policy/public
liability/professional
indemnity levels of cover
Details of lease and name
of current trustees (if
currently a sitting tenant
holding as unincorporated
If the applicant is a sitting
tenant a statement saying
why an extended lease or
freehold transfer is needed
Future objectives upon
transfer
Details of indications of
support from sponsors
Any other relevant
supporting information
A short statement saying why the asset is being requested for transfer
56
Appendix 2
Assessment of application
•
Is it part of long-term support to / engagement and partnership with the
third sector?
•
Is it sustainable in the long term (for both the TSO and the Council) and
are the terms and conditions imposed upon the TSO not unduly onerous
but reasonable and affordable (TSO governance arrangements,
robustness of Business Plan and terms of any Service Level Agreement)?
•
Does it complement the Council’s corporate strategy and priorities,
allowing a comparison with open market disposal?
•
Does the assessment of the TSO’s Business Plan identify clear economic,
social or environmental outcomes and demonstrate the TSO’s ability and
experience to deliver these?
•
Can the community benefit be demonstrated under the Local Government
Act 1972: General Disposal Consent (England) 2003, if the Council is
considering disposal for less than open market value?
•
Does the TSO have policies and commitment towards actions on
staff/volunteer training and development, safeguarding children, equalities
and climate change, or is seeking to provide to meet the conditions of
asset transfer?
•
Has the proposed transfer been appraised alongside the options of - (i)
Maintaining the status quo; (ii) Expenditure on other services made
possible as a result of a decision for ‘commercial’ disposal?
•
What are the risks of service failure, TSO failure, misuse/disuse of assets,
premature changes to any proposed SLA and what is the exit strategy
that is in place and the best possible transfer type (leasehold, freehold), if
still appropriate?
57
Agenda Item No____17________
NNDC REVISED CONSTITUTION
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to submit to Council for
approval a revised Constitution
Conclusions:
The report explains the changes in the Constitution and
asks members to consider the revised version for
adoption
Recommendations:
To adopt the revised Constitution appended to the
report with effect from 20th December 2012.
Cabinet Member(s)
All
Wards affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: David Johnson Interim Monitoring
Officer, 01603 222313 david.johnson@norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
I have been instructed by the Constitution Working Party and the Chief Executive
Officer to prepare and submit a revised constitution for the Council
1. 1
A new revised constitution document has been sent to all Members. I will be
at the meeting of Council on 19 December to answer questions on the revised
constitution.
1.2
The changes from the previous constitution comprise and reflect:•
•
•
•
2.
.
Changes in the law
Changes in the internal structure of the Council, titles of postholders etc.
Improvements on specific aspects of the previous constitution suggested by
the Officer responsible for those specific aspects.
Decisions of the Constitution Working party.
Legal Status of Constitution
In terms of the underlying legal obligation to have a Constitution the law
(Section 9P of the Local Government Act 2000) says only that an Authority
must include in its Constitution its Code of Conduct, its standing orders and
any other document it wishes or which the Secretary of State requires. The
Secretary of State has never issued any directions. The contents of a
Constitution are therefore reasonably flexible but North Norfolk, as with other
58
Authorities, appropriately includes in the Constitution all such matters relating
to structures, processes and other information that the public reasonably
require for their dealings with the Council.
The Constitution is required to be a publicly available document.
3.
Implications and Risks
As with all publicly available documents there is a need to keep the
Constitution under review and ensure it is updated from time to time. The
Monitoring Officer has the power to make minor changes and more significant
amendments will be submitted to Council for approval.
4.
Financial Implications and Risks
No significant financial risks are identified in this report
5.
Sustainability
No specific implications
6.
Equality and Diversity
The Constitution reflects the Council’s duty under the Equality Act 2010 to
have due regard in carrying out its functions to the elimination of
discrimination etc and the promotion of equality.
2.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
No specific implications.
David Johnson
Interim Monitoring Officer
10 December 2012
59
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 11 September
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00
pm.
Members present:
District
Councillors:
Mr B Hannah
Mr P W Moore
Ms B Palmer
Mrs H Thompson
Mr P Williams
Co-opted
Members:
Mr H Gupta
Mrs A Shirley
Mr M Coates
Officers in
Attendance:
The Interim Monitoring Officer
The Independent Person
The Democratic Services Officer (ED)
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr R Barr, Mr A Bullen, Mrs M Evans and Mr A
Nash
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
3.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 17 July 2012
were approved as a correct record.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
6.
PARISH AND DISTRICT MEMBERS’ REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND
OFFICER REGISTER OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY
The Registers were open to display and were available for inspection in the
Legal Services area.
Standards Committee
1
60
11 September 2012
The Chairman raised the issue of the hospitality provided at twinning events
and whether this should be registered at all. It was agreed that on such
occasions invitees could be considered to be attending as representatives of
the community not in their capacity as councillor.
7.
NEW STANDARDS REGIME
The Interim Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on progress with
implementing the new regime:
Independent Person - Mr Alex Oram had recently been appointed as
Independent Person. It was a central role and he had already met with the
Interim Monitoring Officer to review the outstanding Standards complaints.
Registration of Interests – this was ongoing. Parish Councils were still
updating their register of interests and they would all be published on the
Council’s website in due course. Although there was no legal requirement for
councillors to update their register except following an election, the
Government had advised that all declarable registrable interests should be
added.
Code of Conduct – Most parish councils had now adopted a Code of
Conduct. There was roughly a 50:50 split on those that had opted for the
NNDC Code and those that had chosen the NALC Code. Any future
complaints regarding parish councillors would have to be assessed against
the parish council’s adopted Code of Conduct.
The Interim Monitoring Officer advised that there were still several issues to
be addressed:
Declaration of interests at meetings – there was still a wider debate about
how to differentiate between declarable pecuniary interests and other
interests at meetings. It was intended that the Monitoring Office and the
Independent Person would work together to produce guidance on
recommended practice for district councillors initially, then parish councillors.
Training – once the regime had bedded in training would be organised for
both district councillors and parish councillors on complying with the new
requirements. Guidance would also be provided on recording hospitality and
gifts.
Members discussed the update:
1. Mr B Hannah asked whether the District Council would hold a copy of
each parish council’s adopted Code of Conduct. The Interim Monitoring
Officer said that a copy should be published on each parish council’s
website.
2. Mr P Williams asked about timescales. The Interim Monitoring Officer said
that he was reluctant to commit to a definite timescale until there was
clarity about controversial issues and he was able to give definitive
advice.
The Chairman then invited the Independent Person, Mr A Oram to address
the Committee.
Standards Committee
2
61
11 September 2012
Mr Oram explained that his main role was to provide an opinion on complaints
and advise on how they should be responded to and whether they should
progress to a Hearing. He had already met with the Monitoring Officer and
looked at ongoing cases and offered a view on how to move forward.
Historical cases would be dealt with under the previous Code of Conduct but
the process would fall under the new regime. For all new cases received, a
written report would be produced recommending further investigation, no
further action or alternative action. The written report would then be passed to
the Monitoring Officer who would decide how to implement the
recommendations.
Mr Oram explained that the principles of the Code of Conduct were being
applied as they had been under the previous regime. He added that he
intended to provide Members with guidance on the Code soon as it was not
very prescriptive and placed much more emphasis on principles.
Consequently there was an important role for the Standards Committee to
play in providing guidance to other Members.
Mr Oram concluded by saying that there were two levels of behaviour for
elected Members – the gold standard and the minimum standard. It would be
very helpful if the Committee were able to have an input and offer advice on
supporting those members currently at the minimum standard of behaviour.
The Committee agreed that this was a good idea. The Chairman added that it
was important that all Members attained the highest possible standard and
the Committee welcomed the opportunity to provide a structure to guide them
towards this.
Members asked questions:
a) Mr B Hannah requested more information on Mr Oram’s background.
b) Mr P W Moore asked whether it would be possible for the written reports
on the assessment of complaints to be shared with the Committee. Mr
Oram replied that he was currently just providing them to the Monitoring
Officer but was willing to share them with the Committee and would
welcome their input. The Monitoring Officer agreed. He said that the
assessment documents would be provided to the Committee in the form
of exempt reports.
8.
STANDARDS CASES
The Interim Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of
complaints received. He said that the list had now reduced considerably –
due to the change of regime several cases had been in limbo but these had
now been dealt with.
There was a theme running through most of the cases – in many, the
complainant had not highlighted the relevant part of the Code of Conduct that
had been breached. There were also several instances where the complaint
referred to issues outside the remit of the Code. In future the list of cases
would just refer to relevant, substantial complaints and Members would be
provided with all the relevant paperwork. In response to a request from Mr P
Moore, he agreed to highlight whether the complaint referred to a District or
Parish councillor.
Standards Committee
3
62
11 September 2012
Members discussed the report:
1. Mr P Moore asked how appeals would be dealt with. The Interim
Monitoring Officer explained that under the new regime there was no right
of appeal or review and this applied to older complaints too as they were
now proceeding under the new arrangements.
2. Mr B Hannah asked how members of the Standards Committee should
deal with discussions at parish council meetings where individual
standards cases were raised. The Interim Monitoring Officer advised if
that situation arose then the Member should withdraw as there was a
possibility that they could be involved in a Hearing at a future date.
3. Mr P Moore wondered whether Parish Councils should be discussing
Standards complaints at their meetings as they always contained
confidential information. The Interim Monitoring Officer advised that some
parish councils had made a complaint as a corporate body and they would
report on the progress of the complaint at each meeting. Mr Oram said
that under legislation, a named individual must make a complaint and that
the best way forward would be to advise parish councils that complaints
should be made on an individual basis and treated as confidential.
The Chairman concluded by saying that she hoped the new Standards
regime would remind people of their obligations. The Interim Monitoring
Officer added that there was sufficient flexibility within the new regime to give
scope to tackle complaints in the most appropriate way.
AGREED
To note the report
The meeting concluded at 14.48 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
4
63
11 September 2012
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 18 September 2012 in the
Committee Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N D Dixon (Chairman)
Mr B Jarvis
Mrs A Moore
Mr R Oliver
Mr R Reynolds
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Head of Financial Services, the Procurement Officer, the Deputy
Audit Manager, the Civil Contingencies Manager (for minute 25) and the
Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH).
Also in
Attendance
Julian Rickett, Charlotte Kennedy (PriceWaterhouseCoopers)
14 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
The Chairman welcomed Mr R Reynolds to his first meeting of the Audit Committee. He
also introduced Emma Hodds, Deputy Audit Manager and Charlotte Kennedy, Manager,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
15 APOLOGIES
None received.
16 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Reynolds was substituting for Mr S Ward and would be replacing him on the Audit
Committee with effect from 26 September 2012.
17 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
18 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
19 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
20 MINUTES
Audit Committee
1
64
18 September 2012
The Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 18 June 2012 were approved
as a correct record.
21 AUDIT UPDATE AND ACTION LIST
Members were updated on progress on actions arising from the minutes of the meeting
of 18 June 2012.
a) Training on the Final Accounts had been delivered before the commencement of the
meeting.
b) External Audit fee: this was addressed in the ISA 260 report.
c) Inconsistencies regarding Rights of Access to records, assets, personnel and
premises had been notified to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion in the review of the
Constitution. Mrs A Moore, as a Member of the Constitution Working Party, would
monitor progress.
d) Fraud Risk: the Head of Financial Services was liaising with the Monitoring Officer
regarding work on Counter Fraud activities.
e) Implementation of internal audit recommendations: the full position would be reported
to the Performance and Risk Management Board on 28 September 2012. Deloittes
would be doing follow-up work in October and a report would be brought to the Audit
Committee in December.
f) Monitoring Officer’s report: the information about complaints should include a
summary of what the complaints were about, how they were dealt with and how long
they had been outstanding. The Audit Committee did not require the depth of detail
which was provided to the Standards Committee as this was not within its remit.
22 2011/12 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
The Head of Financial Services notified the Committee of an amendment to the
Statement of Accounts document. This was a disclosure regarding related party
transactions concerning Victory Housing and dated back to the Housing Stock Transfer.
There were no further changes to any of the figures. The reserves were in a healthy
position.
The Audit Committee had received training on the Statement of Accounts prior to the
meeting. During the training a lot of ground had been covered and questions had been
asked. The Chairman asked the Democratic Services Team Leader to read out the
following points that had been raised at the training:
a) International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) had been introduced for 2010/11.
The Procurement Officer provided a refresh on IFRS and said that very little had
changed since last year.
b) One of the steers from the Audit Committee in 2011 had been to improve on working
papers, especially in relation to valuations. This year there had been no material
adjustments.
c) The Council had built up a good working relationship with PriceWaterhouseCoopers,
who would be the external auditors for the next 5 years. The Finance team received
a de-brief from PWC after last year’s Statement of Accounts. It had been very helpful.
d) The level of reserves was discussed. The ISA 260 report indicated that the external
auditors were satisfied with the level of reserves held by the Council.
e) Reserves were analysed into “usable” and “unusable”. Robustness of reserves
referred to usable reserves.
f) In response to a question about holding reserves against an eventuality such as
flooding it was explained that it would not be appropriate to hold an earmarked
2011/12 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
(Continued)
Audit Committee
2
65
18 September 2012
reserve for an indefinite period. Provision for flooding or other emergencies would
come from the general reserve, or possibly the Bellwin Scheme.
g) Some of the movements between years on the balance sheet reflected treasury
management decisions made during the year, such as the reduction in long term
investments due to the disposal of Euro bonds. The Council had a good relationship
with the financial advisors, Arlingclose.
h) The level of audit fees would be challenged by the Committee.
i) Exposure to risk: pension investment was the province of Norfolk County Council
Although NNDC knew what was invested they had no control over the investment.
j) The 2011/12 ISA 260 report identified items that needed to be addressed:
1. Data extraction: work would be needed with the auditors to discuss how this
could be improved.
2. Contingent liabilities: it was suggested that the wording should indicate the
level of contingency.
3. Appropriate inclusion of finance leases: consideration was needed as to
whether embedded leases (e.g. refuse vehicles) should be included within the
Prudential indicator report for next year when reporting on the authority’s debt
and the calculation of any Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP).
4. Benefit accrual: this went into the general reserve and was the only figure
which had needed to be changed in the accounts. A new system of Council
Tax support could potentially impact on the reserves if the full savings
envisaged were not achieved.
k) The Audit Committee needed to understand the technical issues, but it was for the
Finance Team to decide how they should be resolved.
l) The Council produced a high level summary of the Statement of Accounts for
publication on the website.
The Chairman summed up by saying that the Committee had gained a good overview of
the Accounts and of the Council’s stewardship over its resources. He invited further
questions and discussion:
a) A breakdown of earmarked reserves could be found in note 6 on pages 40 to 43.
b) It was not the role of External Audit to determine reserve levels, but to consider the
levels in the context of both their responsibilities re financial standing and the overall
use of resources. In both regards there was nothing to draw Members’ attention to.
c) It was important for Members to understand the levels of reserves versus the risks.
The Budget Setting report that was made annually to Full Council included levels of
reserves arrived at as a result of a detailed process.
d) The Committee had drawn assurance from the fact that there were no material
adjustments. The issues from the 2010/11 ISA 260 had been noted. Members had
been assured that they had been addressed and that there was a good working
relationship with the external auditors.
RESOLVED
That having considered and reviewed the Statement of Accounts for 2011/12 the Audit
Committee recommended their approval to Full Council.
23 REPORT TO THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE (ISA 260)
The purpose of the ISA 260 was to fulfil the external audit requirement to report to those
charged with governance the significant findings from the audit of the Financial
Statements before giving an opinion on the accounts. It had been agreed that those
charged with governance at North Norfolk District Council were the Audit Committee.
REPORT TO THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE (ISA 260)
Audit Committee
3
66
(Continued)
18 September 2012
The audit work during the year had been performed in accordance with the plan
presented to the Committee on 6 March 2012.
There were no significant matters that had been discussed with management during the
course of the work. However a number of less significant matters had been identified:
a) The difficulties encountered in the extraction of the required data set through
Computer Assisted Auditing Techniques (CAATs) to facilitate testing of manual
journal transactions.
b) The appropriateness of inclusion of transactions as Contingent Liabilities.
c) The calculation of the Minimum Revenue Provision and the appropriate inclusion of
finance leases within this calculation and how it is reported to Members.
d) The inclusion of an accrual for over claimed benefit subsidy.
Members discussed extraction of data:
a) Julian Rickett was asked if other authorities using the same computer package as
NNDC had similar problems. Julian Rickett replied that this was something that
needed to be discussed with management. NNDC’s problem was shared by other
authorities. External audit had been able to obtain the necessary information but
better and quicker methods of extracting it were required. CAATs enabled external
audit to look at a whole population in an easy way rather than to take samples.
b) In response to a question about financial implications of improved data extraction the
Head of Financial Services said that the Council already had tools to interrogate the
system. It would be necessary to talk to external audit to see if they would be
compatible. The Council’s system (Business Objects) didn’t extract information from
the basic level. However it would be a question of configuration of the existing
system rather than purchasing new software. The finance team would work with
PWC to find out how this could be done. Any work would be carried out by in-house
ICT support.
c) Mr R Oliver asked if PWC’s CAATs system was commonly used by auditors or if
there was a possibility that more changes would be needed in 5 years time. Julian
Rickett was unable to give a definitive answer but hoped that all auditors would
require the information provided by CAATs.
d) Members decided that exploring the feasibility of using CAATs should be added to
the Action List.
e) Mr D Young asked if using CAATs would lead to a reduction in the audit fee. Julian
Rickett replied that it wouldn’t, because, in setting the fee, the Audit Commission
assumed an efficient audit approach. Any saving would be in officer time.
The report also detailed significant risks and proposed audit approach shown in the
March audit plan, with outcomes. The significant risks were:
a) Fraud and management override of controls.
b) Recognition of income and expenditure.
Other risks were:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Heritage assets.
Valuation and accounting treatment of leases.
Redundancy costs.
Savings plans.
REPORT TO THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE (ISA 260)
Audit Committee
4
67
(Continued)
18 September 2012
When the report was written:
a) Testing of exit packages had been completed.
b) The explanatory forward had been reviewed. External audit was satisfied that it was
consistent with the Code and the rest of the accounts.
c) NNDR balances: certification work had been completed on an NNDR claim form.
d) Testing of related parties had been completed. It had been agreed to add Victory
Housing.
e) Testing of Members’ allowances had been completed.
f) Internal review and quality control procedures were ongoing.
g) The review of the final version of the financial statements, approval by the Audit
Committee and receipt of all relevant signed statements and the management
representation letter were matters of process.
Julian Rickett reported to the Committee that there was nothing to draw to their attention
regarding the Valuation of Property.
The following judgments and accounting estimates had been used in the preparation of
the financial statements:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Property, Plant and Equipment – Depreciation and Valuation.
Bad Debt Provision.
Accruals.
Provisions.
Pensions.
Provision for accumulated absences.
Economy, efficiency and effectiveness: the value for money code gave external audit
responsibility to carry out sufficient and relevant work in order to conclude that the
Council had proper arrangements to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the
use of resources. The conclusion was based on 2 criteria:
a) The organisation has proper arrangements for securing financial resilience.
b) The organisation has proper arrangements for challenging how you secure economy,
efficiency and effectiveness.
It was anticipated that an unqualified value for money conclusion would be issued.
Fees update: until the audit work was completed PWC was not in a position to provide
Members with an update on fees for 2011/12. This would be included as part of the
Annual Audit Letter which would be received by the Committee in December, but Julian
Rickett believed it would be within the proposed sum of £118,750. The lower fee
proposed for 2012/13 reflected the fact that commission was no longer taken by the
Audit Commission.
The fees were discussed:
a) The Chairman said that because of the reduced funding from central government and
the subsequent spending cuts in local government, it had been hoped that a
reduction of fees could be achieved. Julian Rickett explained that the Audit
Commission had consulted in depth with local authorities and other interested parties
and had subsequently reduced the fee. PWC could not reduce lower than the Audit
REPORT TO THOSE CHARGED WITH GOVERNANCE (ISA 260)
Audit Committee
5
68
(Continued)
18 September 2012
Commission scale fee which pre-supposed good organisation of background papers
and a straightforward audit.
b) Mr R Oliver asked if goodwill was taken into account. Julian Rickett explained that
PWC asked for information that, in their professional opinion, they needed. The
Audit Commission scale fee was set at a level that enabled a proper audit to be
carried out at the correct level. It was very rare for PWC to reduce fees, especially
as they were already set at a relatively low level. The scale fees were published
nationally and applied to all public authorities.
c) Mr D Young asked about the current status of the Audit Commission. Julian Rickett
explained that the Audit Commission would remain in being for as long as the statute
requiring the appointment of auditors to public bodies remained in current legislation.
The Audit Commission would continue to set a scale fee until at least 2017/18. If
PWC significantly increased their fee they would be accountable to the Audit
Commission.
d) Julian Rickett told the Committee that, although PWC had given consideration, they
couldn’t reduce the fee below a level which was appropriate for a proper audit. He
agreed to produce a statement that, in response to a robust request from the Audit
Committee, the possibility of reducing the fee had been fully explored but a reduction
was not possible.
RESOLVED
To receive the ISA 260 report.
24 PROTOCOL FOR LIAISON BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL AUDITORS
The purpose of the Document was to set out the general approach and principles to be
put in place to facilitate the delivery of a managed audit. This would aid joined-up
working and reduction of duplication of audit work. The document set out:
a) Confirmation of the liaison arrangements between Internal and External Audit.
b) The requirements to be followed in order that PWC could place the desired level of
assurance on the work of internal audit.
c) PWC requirements on sample sizes.
d) A detailed summary of controls and suggested testing that PWC considered key in
proving the internal financial control systems.
The arrangements were subject to regular review by both parties and amendments could
be made subject to mutual agreement. PWC had placed complete reliance in last year’s
internal audit work.
RESOLVED
to note the Protocol.
25 PROGRESS ON INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY, APRIL TO SEPTEMBER 2012
The report examined progress made between April and early September 2012 in relation
to delivery of the Annual Audit Plan for 2012/13. The report detailed the delivery of audit
work and outcomes of work undertaken. Good progress was being made on the plan.
The organisation should be congratulated on achieving adequate assurance levels in
respect of 3 audits completed in the first 5 months of the financial year. The audits were:
PROGRESS ON INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY, APRIL TO SEPTEMBER 2012
(Continued)
Audit Committee
6
69
18 September 2012
a) NN/13/01 Property Services and Coastal Protection.
b) NN/13/02 Strategic Housing and Homelessness.
c) NN/13/03 Corporate Policy, Planning and Performance Management
Management summaries were attached to the report.
Since the previous report to the Committee in March there had been some changes to
the Annual Audit Plan, initiated by Management. The changes were:
a) Expansion of the Property Services Audit which led to the job budget being increased
from 14 to 19 days.
b) Inclusion of an audit to examine data verification and governance arrangements
applying to the Revenues and Benefits Shared services. A budget of 14 days had
been provided and the work would be done in 2 phases. Phase 1 was completed in
July 2012 and it was envisaged that Phase 2 would be carried out in the early part of
2013.
c) At the request of Corporate Leadership Team the job budgets in relation to 2
computer audits had been reduced. The reviews were the Cash Receipting
Application and IT Project Management Arrangements. It had been possible to
commute the job budgets while ensuring that assurances could be provided.
In response to a question from Mr D Young regarding the Strategic Housing and
Homelessness audit, the Deputy Audit Manager explained that debts dating back to
2007 were still being paid off, albeit at a slow rate.
RESOLVED
To note the outcomes of the three audits completed between April and August, together
with recent amendments made to the Annual Audit Plan for 2012/13.
26 BUSINESS CONTINUITY
a) The existing top level plan, last reviewed in 2009, needed review to make it fit for
purpose and reflect changes following the management restructure. The policy
document had been reviewed and signed off by CLT. The old plan had been
updated to improve the structure and format of a number of areas and to update the
information so it is fit for purpose. The draft plan had been peer reviewed by the
Business Continuity Working Group (BCWG) and was now at a final draft stage
waiting final formatting. It would be completed by mid October. Further updates to
improve the format of the plan would be undertaken during its coming review cycle.
The review would be undertaken by the BCWG and the Civil Contingencies Manager
and would form a standing item on the Group’s meeting agenda.
b) The Civil Contingencies Manager had recently completed and passed the Business
Continuity Institute Certificate in Business Continuity Management. This had led to a
review of the requirements placed on teams within the organisation in relation to
business continuity. All teams should produce a Business Impact Assessment (BIA).
This would allow an analysis of the team to be carried out and give a rating to show if
the team delivered a critical service. At present the BCWG have reviewed the old
critical service list from the 2009 plan and from knowledge and experience have
defined the Authorities’ critical services. This would be reviewed once all BIAs had
been produced. At this stage only teams with critical elements would be required to
produce a team Business Continuity plan. In response to a question from the
BUSINESS CONTINUITY
(Continued)
Audit Committee
7
70
18 September 2012
Chairman, the Civil Contingencies Manager said that it was aimed to have all plans
completed by the time the Audit Committee met in December. The Audit Committee
wished to support the Civil Contingencies Manager in bringing the Business
Continuity plans to fruition and asked to receive an update in December.
c) The Civil Contingencies Manager was still working with managers to produce their
plans. He had also put other teams’ Business Continuity plans onto the intranet to
provide a working guide.
d) Business Continuity training would be given to all new employees and the Civil
Contingencies Manager would attend team meetings to help explain the need for
Business Continuity. He would also be working with Corporate Health and Safety to
deliver the new evacuation procedure to the existing wardens in October/November.
e) A feasibility study had been undertaken regarding the use of Fakenham Connect if
the Council Offices were unusable. ICT had already installed disaster recovery
facilities at Fakenham therefore the investment would be minimal. The timescale for
implementation was November/December to coincide with the demolition of the
Annexe. An update would be made to the Committee in December. The feasibility
report would be emailed to Members.
RESOLVED
to receive a further update, including progress on business continuity and the use of
Fakenham Connect for disaster recovery, in December.
27 AUDIT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
RESOLVED
to note the Work Programme.
The meeting ended at 3.45 pm.
______________________
Chairman
Audit Committee
8
71
18 September 2012
Agenda item ___________
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 24
September 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
The Licensing Manager, the Head of Legal and the Democratic
Services Officer (AA).
10
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received.
11
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
12
MINUTES
The minutes of the meetings of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held on 21
May 2012 and also the minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Sub-Committees
held on 30 May, 20 June, 18 July and 21 August 2012 were approved as correct
records and signed by the Chairman.
13
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
14
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
15
CHANGES TO THE LAW AFFECTING SALE OF ALCOHOL AND
ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AND OTHER TOPICAL ISSUES
The Licensing Manager presented the report and explained the key changes which
would come into force on 1 October 2012 for Live Music and Premises Licences, and
on 31 October 2012 in respect of a Late Night Levy. Some regulations were yet to be
made. Statutory guidance was due out in about 5-6 weeks but no authority was clear
on the details. Certain areas would be unregulated and there would be other grey
areas until the guidance came out. All relevant premises were licensed in North
Norfolk. The new legislation related to smaller premises. The Licensing Manager
suggested that Members await statutory guidance on the interpretation of the law
before making any comment.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
1
72
24 September 2012
The Chairman asked to record the Committee’s concern that the Council had
received notification of the changes in the law, without clarification of their
implications, only a few weeks before coming into force.
The Licensing Manager confirmed that in the case of live music and premises
licences, larger premises (with a capacity of greater than 200) would still need to go
through the full application process. Also, smaller premises seeking to do something
larger (eg an event in a marquee) would also need to apply. Historically, licences
showed the permitted number of people on the licence. Exemption in the new
legislation referred to audiences only of up to 200 and not the whole number of
people who may be present elsewhere in the building. This may exempt some
venues, for example village halls, from requiring a licence. The onus would be on the
person claiming the exemption in larger venues to prove that there was an audience
less than 200 people.
The Licensing Manager answered Members questions and added that hopefully all
the new legislation would be clarified in a few weeks.
The Chairman suggested that a letter be written to all establishments regarding the
change in law and to say that whilst conditions on their licences were unenforceable
up to 11pm, in order to protect the interests of local residents, it was hoped that
licencees would stick to the conditions on their licence. The Licensing Manager
responded that whilst the Council was not obliged to do so, it would be good practice.
RESOLVED
That a letter be written to licence holders informing them of changes to the law
affecting the sale of alcohol and entertainment licensing.
16
REGULATION OF COSMETIC PIERCING AND SKIN-COLOURING BUSINESSES
Members considered the report which proposed that the Council adopt legislation
that facilitated regulation of cosmetic piercing and semi-permanent skin-colouring
businesses. This would provide for greater protection of the public from risks
associated with these techniques including blood-borne viruses such as HIV,
hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Adoption of the provisions would bring these businesses
into line with existing regulated cosmetic treatments (such as electrolysis,
acupuncture and tattooing) requiring person carrying on such businesses to register
themselves and their premises and in compliance with byelaws in respect of matters
related to the cleanliness and hygiene of such businesses. By adopting the new
provisions, the Council would enable tighter control of businesses performing
cosmetic piercing and semi-permanent skin-colouring. This would ensure that they
maintained high standards of public health and safety, therefore contributing to a
safer and healthy North Norfolk.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To adopt provisions under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1982
as amended to regulate additional treatments namely cosmetic piercing and semipermanent skin-colouring and to recommend to Full Council for approval including:
•
Adoption and authorisation of new bye-laws subject to any consultation
responses received;
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2
73
24 September 2012
•
•
17
A resolution authorising the affixing of the common seal to the bye-laws; and
Authorising the Head of Legal to carry out the necessary procedure and apply
to the Secretary of State for confirmation.
TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
Hackney Carriage and Private Hire
The Chairman informed Members that the Taxi Forum had been reinstated. Its first
meeting had decided on terms of reference. The next meeting, tomorrow, would
decide which representatives there would be from taxi licencees. Recommendations
from the Forum would be made to the Taxi Working Group. They would invite
representatives from the taxi licensing trade to join in. The new taxi handbook was in
operation and a newer one was in progress.
Alternative Trading
Charitable Collections and Lotteries
Officers had not called meetings for these two groups because of resourcing issues.
It was hoped that it would be possible to make progress soon. The Chairman
suggested that a meeting with the Leader Portfolio Holder, the Licensing Manager
and himself could look at the budget and decide how to make the best use of time.
The meeting closed at 11.05am.
_____________________
Chairman
Licensing and Appeals Committee
3
74
24 September 2012
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 25 September
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Mr P Terrington
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Head of Financial
Services, the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager, the Strategy
Team Leader, the Policy Performance and Management Officer and the
Scrutiny Officer.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr P W High, Mr K Johnson, Mrs B McGoun, Mrs A
Moore, Mr W Northam, Ms B Palmer, Mr R Shepherd and Mrs V Uprichard.
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
54 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Ms V Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr N Smith and Mr R Smith.
The Chief Executive informed Members that Mr J Perry-Warnes was still in hospital and
a card for him from Members would be passed round at tomorrow’s Full Council meeting
for them to sign.
55 SUBSTITUTES
Mrs B McGoun for Mrs A Green, Mr R Shepherd for Mr N Smith and Mrs V Uprichard for
Mr R Smith.
56 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mr G Berry, Chairman of Happisburgh Parish Council and Mr M Kerby wished to speak
on a petition which had been submitted concerning the steps to the beach at
Happisburgh. This would be taken under agenda item 7 – Petitions from Members of
the public (minute 60).
57 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 24 July
2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
75
25 September 2012
58 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
59 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
Item
Interest
No.
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
68
North Norfolk Housing Strategy
2012-15 (Making the Best Use
of the Existing Housing Stock)
Personal – is selling
an empty property.
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
69
Overview and Scrutiny Update
Personal – has
recently used the East
of England
Ambulance Service.
60 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
a) Mr G Berry, Chairman of Happisburgh Parish Council said his Council had a good
working relationship with the District Council. He stood by the District Council’s
decision to reinstate the steps at Happisburgh when conditions would allow. It was
not possible to reinstate them at the present time. There had been a loss of 4 metres
of beach in the last 6 months.
b) Mr M Kerby of Happisburgh said he was present to support the decision by the
District Council. Happisburgh Parish Council and the District Council working
together had achieved so much. He supported the decision and hoped it would be
ratified by Full Council.
c) The Scrutiny Officer said the petition had been received in paper form. The petitioner
had not specified where the petition was to go and considered that it had triggered a
debate at Full Council. The Council’s Constitution stated that individuals who signed
the petition must either live, work or study in Happisburgh Ward and the number of
names required must be 10% of the Ward electorate. There were 161 signatures,
many from individuals with caravans and holiday homes. At the meeting of Cabinet,
the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had said the Committee
would monitor progress regarding cliff erosion and the possibility of reinstating the
steps at a later date.
d) The Chairman pointed out that a decision made by Cabinet could be called in by 10
members of the public but this had not happened. He had recently visited the beach
and the work which had taken place there was very impressive. A monitoring report
would be added to the Work Programme for October 2013.
e) The Scrutiny Officer said this matter did not need to go to Full Council as it was a
decision of the Cabinet.
f) The Chairman thanked Mr Berry and Mr Kerby for attending the meeting.
61 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
76
25 September 2012
62 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Scrutiny Officer referred to the appointment of temporary extra resources in
Planning Enforcement and said that her report showed that this was being addressed.
63 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
a) The Scrutiny Officer said that new changes in legislation meant that key decisions
must be on the Forward Plan 28 calendar days before they were reported to Cabinet.
If a report was late, it must be reported as an item of urgent business. Officers
reports must refer to any background papers and would need to state clearly why the
decision needed to be taken and the minutes should show the options discussed.
Officers were currently looking into how other councils dealt with this.
b) In response to a question from the Chairman, the Scrutiny Officer said she would find
out whether the new legislation applied to parish and town councils.
64 BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13 PERIOD 4
a) Mr W Northam presented the report which summarised the budget monitoring
position for the revenue account and capital programme to the end of July (Period 4).
The overall position at the end of period 4 showed a forecast overspend of £69,074
for the current financial year on the revenue account. The forward financial
projections for the period 2013/14 to 2016/17 were currently being worked upon for
the financial strategy that covered the same period and would be presented to
Members in October.
b) Mr P Moore commented that this was only a factual report and considered that there
was no need for a full debate.
c) The Chief Executive responded to the Chairman that there did tend to be slippage in
the capital programme for one reason or another.
RESOLVED
1) To note the contents of the report and the current forecast for the current financial
year;
2) To note the current position on the approved capital programme and approve the
recommended amendments.
65 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
QUARTER 1
a) Mr K Johnson said this report was similar to the previous report as it was factual.
b) Mr P Moore referred to recommendation (b) in the report concerning additional
support for planning enforcement being progressed with the Borough Council of
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. He queried why money was being given to another
council for planning enforcement support which could instead be used to fund two
planning assistants. Mr Johnson explained that the backlog in Planning Enforcement
was being addressed and in addition a peer review of the department was taking
place in order to identify where resources should be focussed. The Council was also
keen to explore any mutual benefits of shared services. The Chief Executive added
that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk’s planning and enforcement team was more robust
and their director had been asked for temporary support at this Council. The peer
review was to take place in the autumn and would look at planning resources in its
entirety. It was hoped to be able clear the backlog in Planning Enforcement. The
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
77
25 September 2012
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Planning Enforcement Manager welcomed the offer of peer support from another
authority.
Mrs B McGoun asked how much Officer time had been used on resources when it
could have been used to clear the backlog. The Chief Executive replied that it was
important to put the right people in the right roles.
The Chief Executive responded to Mrs McGoun that an Officer in the Housing
Department was dealing with empty homes. Work could be carried out with the
Council Tax Department on this.
Ms B McGoun queried 1.12 being the figure for sickness absence as this did not tie
up with figures reported to the Joint Staff Consultative Committee. The Chief
Executive clarified that 1.12 sickness absence was 4.5 days per person per year.
Two years ago this figure had been 11 days. Significant improvements had been
made on sickness levels. The different figure could be a revised one.
The Chairman hoped that the defaults on cleansing could be resolved. The Director
said there had been some improvements although not as fast as hoped. Overall the
trend for defaults was down. The Council had received a 5 gold star award for its
cleansing services this year.
The Chief Executive confirmed to Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds that 124 unemployed
people had been in touch with the Learning for Everyone programme over 4 months.
She would confirm to Members whether demand for the programme outstripped
resources.
In response to the Chairman, the Chief Executive confirmed that she would find out
more information about rolling out Broadband across North Norfolk and let Members
know. The new contract for superfast Broadband should take coverage in North
Norfolk to 87%. Mr R Reynolds asked that black spots also be looked into.
Mr P Terrington asked whether a meeting concerning offshore renewable energy
sector had taken place with Warwick Energy yet. The Chief Executive confirmed that
an informal meeting had taken place at which she had taken notes which she would
email to Members.
To support the RECOMMENDATION to Full Council that two additional planning
assistants be recruited on a temporary basis for a 12 month period pending the outcome
of the peer challenge, to be funded from a combination of the HPDG earmarked reserve
and the additional revenue from the proposed national fee increase from October 2012.
That additional support for planning enforcement is progressed with Kings Lynn and
West Norfolk Borough Council
66 COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY
a) Mr W Northam presented the report and said 8 responses had been received in
response to the consultation on the Community Asset Transfer Policy. The
recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be included when
it was reported to Cabinet and Full Council. He thanked Mr M Green, Estates and
Valuation Manager for his hard work in creating the Policy.
b) Mrs B McGoun asked what would be the cost to the Council of transferring assets.
The Chief Executive explained that there would have to be a business case for
transferring assets. The Council had not previously had a policy for dealing with
community asset transfer but had dealt with it on an ad hoc basis. The Localism Act,
however, stated how this should be dealt with.
c) Mr P Moore wondered whether parish councils were aware of the running costs of
some assets and it may be better if the District Council retained control of strategic
issues such as public conveniences and car parks.
d) The Chairman wondered whether parish and town councils had fully understood the
powers which had been devolved down to them under the Localism Act.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
78
25 September 2012
RESOLVED
For the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to approve the return of the amended draft
Policy to Cabinet following the consultation responses received.
67 DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH NORFOLK INTEGRATED APPROACH TO
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
a) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett presented the report and said that a meeting of the Coastal Issues
Forum had been held on 10 September, followed by a workshop for the community
including parish councils and representatives from Natural England, the Environment
Agency, National Trust and National Farmers’ Union. Coastal issues had included
offshore wind farms, energy generation, tourism and coast protection. It was aimed
to integrate all these aspects. Engagement with the community was key. The newlylaunched CIF would aid this.
b) Mr P Terrington congratulated Mrs Fitch-Tillett, the Coast and Community
Partnerships Manager and team on the report. He expressed concern that terrestrial
and marine planning weren’t better integrated. Mrs Fitch-Tillett said that the Marine
Management Organisation (MMO) was a new initiative which had responsibility for
planning up to the mean high water mark. She referred to Mrs L Brettle’s motion
(Marine Conservation Zones) going to Full Council on 26 September 2012 which
considered the impact of human beings on the marine environment.
c) Mr Terrington asked if the Council’s protocols could include integration of terrestrial
and marine planning. The Coast and Community Partnerships Manager explained
that the MMO was working on an East of England Marine Plan to address this
because it had been missed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act.
d) Representatives from the MMO and Environment Agency had attended the meeting
of the Coastal Issues Form and were likely to continue attendance.
e) Mr P Moore said that the Council needed to re-think its planning policies to integrate
marine and terrestrial considerations. Suitably qualified Officers would be needed to
do this. The Coastal Community Projects Manager said that it would be necessary to
work with the MMO as well as the planning department. Resources for this were
being investigated.
f) Mrs Fitch-Tillett said that the Council was known as a trailblazer in coastal issues. It
was hoped that DEFRA would hold us up as an example of good practice.
g) In response to a question from Mrs B McGoun concerning tidal energy, the Coastal
Community Projects Manager said that there was a project in the Wash area looking
at tidal energy. The Coastal Issues Forum was also considering renewable energy.
To support the RECOMMENDATION to Full Council:
a) That the integrated approach to coastal management, in particular the work schemes
set out in Table 1 of the report be endorsed
b) That the remaining unallocated coastal pathfinder budget (approximately £65,000
revenue) and receipts including the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant (£60,000 capital)
and any income from successful Pathfinder replacement housing are incorporated into
a new integrated coastal budget for the purpose of funding specific coastal projects
and resources in line with the integrated approach.
c) That the allocation of the integrated coastal budget is delegated to the Chief Executive
in consultation with the Coastal Portfolio Holder.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.00am and reconvened at 11.15am.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
79
25 September 2012
68 NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-15 (MAKING BEST USE OF THE
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK)
a) Mr K Johnson presented the report and thanked Officers for the way in which they
had produced the documents.
b) Members were urged to attend the workshop on 4 October 2012. This was part of the
process of formulating the Allocations Policy which was going to Cabinet and Full
Council in December.
c) The second part of the Strategy focussed on existing homes. The action plan set out
new actions, although the team would also be doing other actions.
d) The Allocations Policy was on target for review in January and implementation in
April.
e) There was a difference between the Allocations Policy and the Local Lettings
agreement. This would be dealt with at the workshop.
f) Strong links: the Local Lettings Agreement specified connection with the Parish or
adjoining parishes (residence, employment, family members, previous residence).
Adjoining parishes were included because there were some parishes where
affordable housing was not possible.
g) A concern regarding the renewal of the provision of care contract for residents of
Victory sheltered housing schemes should be raised at the workshop.
h) Empty homes: an increase in council tax on empty properties would be the subject of
a report to Cabinet and would then come to Council in December. If this was agreed
it would give a financial incentive to owners to bring their properties back into use.
i) The Empty Homes Policy was going to Cabinet in October. This set out a range of
advice and assistance which would be provided to owners of empty homes, to
include a loan. If necessary enforcement action would be taken which could include,
where the Council had taken action to improve the condition of the property, enforced
sale.
j) The Strategy Team Leader would find out if it was possible to list the name of the
owner in the Empty Homes Register.
k) Mr P Terrington asked how the properties which were subject to NNDR could be
separated from those liable for Council Tax. The Chief Executive would take this
query to Council Tax and copy the reply to the Committee.
l) Mr P Moore raised a concern about planning permissions that had been commenced
but not completed. The Strategy Team Leader said that this was an action in the
Housing Strategy and the team was aware there were a number of such planning
permissions. Part of their work was to understand the reasons why sites were not
being developed. It was aimed to complete this action by the end of the year.
m) In response to a question from the Chairman regarding the turnover of 467 social
housing properties in 2011/12, the Strategy Team Leader said that most rehoused
applicants were in Band 1, with some in Band 2.
n) As part of the Allocations Policy the waiting list was being reviewed and a new
approach with 3 registers was being proposed of which the Housing Register would
represent those with the strongest needs (Emergency Card, Bands 1 and 2)
o) Victory Housing was required to charge affordable rent for new properties as part of
tendering arrangements for new homes. Tenants could claim housing benefit if they
couldn’t afford the rent.
p) The Chairman asked for the number of empty houses liable for council tax to be
notified to the Committee.
RECOMMENDED
That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee supports Cabinet’s recommendation to
adopt the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Making Best Use of the Existing Housing
Stock) document to Full Council, and in addition the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
80
25 September 2012
looks forward to Cabinet’s recommendation, at its November meeting, on financial
incentives to bring empty homes back into occupation.
69 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) Ambulances: the Chief Executive had invited a representative of the East of England
Ambulance Trust to Full Council but had not received a response to date. The District
Council could only invite. Only the County Council had the power to oblige
attendance. Health Scrutiny powers rested with the Norfolk Health Overview and
Scrutiny Committee. The situation would be monitored.
b) A meeting between the Leader, Chief Executive and Chair of Scrutiny had been held.
Assurance had been given that a dedicated Scrutiny Officer would be appointed. A
business manager had been appointed, subject to references being received.
c) Next year’s programme of meetings had allowed for longer intervals between
Scrutiny and Full Council.
d) Fly tipping: the Scrutiny Officer would ask the Head of Environmental Health why
larger loads had been recorded in May.
e) The Chief Executive advised that November would be the best time to receive an
update on the Big Society Fund.
f) The Task and Finish Group was meeting on 9 October.
g) An update on Happisburgh Beach Access Steps would be added to the Work
Programme for October 2013.
h) RESOLVED to adopt the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Review 2011 –
2012 and forward it to Full Council on 24 October 2012.
The meeting concluded at 12.15pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
81
25 September 2012
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 15 October 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson (Chairman)
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Mr R Oliver
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
47.
The Chief Executive, the Head of Finance, the Technical Accountant,
the Housing Services Manager, the Strategy Team Leader, the Coast
and Community Partnerships Manager and the Community Projects
Manager.
The press
LEADER’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Leader welcomed Councillor Rhodri Oliver to the Cabinet.
48.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
49.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2012 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
50.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
51.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
52.
Cabinet
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
1
82
15 October 2012
None
53.
MEMBERS TRAINING DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT GROUP
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Member Training Development and Support Group
held on 22nd May 2012 be received subject to the following amendment on page 2,
paragraph 7:
‘An article had been put in the Members’ Bulletin regarding a £70.000 fine for a
council that had mislaid paper records containing sensitive information’.
54.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 25
June 2012 be approved.
55.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT – INVESTING IN POOLED PROPERTY FUNDS
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that Cabinet and the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee had recommended that further consideration should be given to
investing a proportion of the investment portfolio in pooled property funds when
appropriate. With interest rates and investment returns likely to remain low for a long
period, now was an appropriate time for the Council to consider alternative asset
classes for its investments. The Council’s treasury advisors, Arlingclose, suggested
that £5m was a suitable initial size of investment for NNDC to make into a property
fund. For a deposit of this size, it was not felt to be worth diversifying between two
funds and it was proposed that the Council invested with the LAMIT Fund.
Depending on the amount available for investment in the future, an additional
allocation could be made to property at a later date through the Lime Fund.
Options considered:
Investment in other types of pooled investment funds has been considered, together
with a continuation of the current strategy of only investing in cash orientated
investments, but these options do not offer the potential of a higher return for the
Council when compared to the pooled property funds.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mrs A Moore was concerned that £5m amounted to approximately a quarter of
the capital fund. The Technical Accountant replied that the money was from core
investments and had been there for many years. He added that it needed to be a
substantial amount to ensure a decent return.
b) Mr P W Moore said that Arlingclose had always advised the Council well in the
past. He asked how quickly the money could be accessed if required. Mr W
Northam replied that it could withdrawn on a monthly basis. If a large amount was
required then it may take longer as a property may need to sold to fund the
request.
c) Mr D Young sought further information on the reserves that would be established
if the investments in LAMIT went ahead. The Technical Accountant explained that
as the returns from this type of investment could fluctuate over time it was
suggested that reserves were established to smooth out the return to the
Cabinet
2
83
15 October 2012
Revenue Account. Mr W Northam added that security was paramount. The
LAMIT had been operating for 30 years and was highly regarded.
d) Mr D Young requested that the Council considered investing in the Norfolk Credit
Union at a future date.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr J Lee and
RESOLVED
That delegated powers be given to the Portfolio Holder for Resources and the
Section 151 Officer to invest in the Local Authorities Property Fund (LAMIT) and
Aviva Lime Property Fund as appropriate.
Reason for the Decision:
To diversify the Council’s investments and secure a higher return than existing
investments.
56.
NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-2015 (SUPPORTING
VULNERABLE PEOPLE TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY)
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that this was the third and final
document in the suite of housing strategy documents. It considered how vulnerable
people could be supported to live independently within the community and contained
a detailed action plan for the period 2012-2015.
Options considered:
a) To do nothing. The Housing Strategy would be incomplete if this option was
taken.
b) To complete the document and address the needs of vulnerable people in the
District.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To adopt the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Supporting Vulnerable People to live
independently within the Community)
Reasons for the decision:
To adopt the final document in a suite of three, which together form the North Norfolk
Housing Strategy 2012-15. Each document concentrates on a specific area and has
an action plan
57.
HOUSING ENFORCEMENT POLICY
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that the Council had not had a Housing
Enforcement Policy in place before and the intention was to provide a transparent
approach to the action that would be taken to improve poor dwelling conditions
across the district. It would form part of a wider strategy aimed at bringing together all
the enforcement powers available to the Council and provide a more holistic
approach.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
Cabinet
3
84
15 October 2012
RESOLVED to
Adopt the Housing Enforcement Policy
Reasons for the decision:
To provide a transparent approach to improving poor dwelling condition
across the District.
58.
THE NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND – SECOND ROUND LARGE
GRANT APPLICATIONS
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. More applications had been received than previously
and it had been necessary to be strict in assessing them against the Fund’s criteria to
ensure that funds remained available for eligible and worthwhile projects that might
be submitted in future rounds.
Five applications requesting funding of over £10,000 were submitted. Of these, one
had insufficient information to be considered and two had been deferred pending
further work to investigate a sustainable way forward. Two applications had been put
forward for consideration by Cabinet. The first project sought to provide a multi-use
games area (MUGA) for Erpingham and the second aimed to provide a new National
Coastwatch Institute facility at East Runton.
Members discussed the report:
a) Ms V Gay sought clarification on the application from Erpingham Parish Council.
She felt that as it was proposed to pledge up to £10,000 it could have been
referred to the North Norfolk Big Society Fund Board. Mr T Ivory explained that
whilst the recommendation was for £10,000, the application had been for
significantly more funding and that was why it had been referred to Cabinet for a
decision.
b) Mr P W Moore asked whether the funding for the MUGA was conditional on
obtaining match funding or whether Erpringham Parish Council would receive it
regardless. Mr T Ivory said that it was contingent on the Parish Council finding
the balance and they would only receive the grant once the additional funding
was in place.
c) Mr W Northam said that he was very pleased that Coastwatch had been awarded
a grant.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr J Lee and
RESOLVED
1. To pledge support from the Big Society Fund up to £10,000 to Erpingham Parish
Council, contingent on the balance of funding for the MUGA project being
forthcoming from elsewhere
2. That funding of up to £12,000 be provided to National Coastwatch Institution,
Mundesley in respect of its proposed East Runton facility.
59.
Cabinet
NORTH WALSHAM TOWN CENTRE ENHANCEMENT AND SIGNAGE SCHEME
4
85
15 October 2012
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that approval was sought for £46,000
partnership funding support from the Council’s Leadership of Place Programme
budget to contribute to the Market Place improvements and highway signage scheme
that had been initiated by Norfolk County Council and agreed by North Walsham
Leadership of Place Steering Group and constituent local organisations. The total
cost of the scheme was £96,000 and the County Council had a budget of £50,000
that had been approved by their Cabinet in March 2012. The scheme aimed to
improve the physical infrastructure of North Walsham town centre and had been put
forward as a partnership initiative to support the various projects aimed at improving
the overall economic and community well being of North Walsham.
The proposed scheme focused on making improvements to highways, parking and
traffic flows in conjunction with signage improvements. It was anticipated that a safer
pedestrian environment would be provided as a result of the initiative.
The Council were not leading on this project as the County Council had responsibility
for highways.
Members discussed the report:
1. Mr W Northam said that when he had met with North Walsham Town Council
about car parking within the town, they had raised concerns about signage. It was
felt that visitors to the town found it difficult to find the car parks and therefore any
improvements to signage were to be welcomed.
2. Mr E Seward, Member for North Walsham North and Chairman of the Leadership
of Place Project welcomed the proposals. He said that it was a modest scheme
aimed at improving public safety and enhancing the appearance of the town
centre. He added that there was broad consensual support for the scheme from
within the town.
3. Mr P Moore, Member for North Walsham East, supported the scheme. He said
that signage throughout the town should be looked at – including shop fronts and
that improvements to road and pavement surfaces should also be considered as
there were currently several variations throughout the town centre.
4. Mrs V Uprichard, Member for North Walsham East, said that she was concerned
that the disabled parking and loading bay in Church Street seemed to have been
left out of the proposals.
5. Ms V Gay, Member for North Walsham West, welcomed the improvements but
said that it was important to ensure that they were in keeping with the church and
the surrounding area. She thanked Mr E Seward for all his hard work – recently
and prior to the establishment of the Leadership of Place project.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RESOLVED
1. To approve £46,000 funding support from the Council’s Leadership of Place
Programme budget, to contribute to the Market Place improvements and highway
signage scheme in support of the Leadership of Place Programme.
2. To confirm that conditional to £46,000 being provided as a scheme contribution by
NNDC that any overspend on the total cost of this amount is covered by Norfolk
County Council from its own budget and that the signage works as part of the overall
scheme are completed within the financial year 2012-13.
Cabinet
5
86
15 October 2012
3. That officers within both Conservation and Design and Property sections of the
District Council are fully engaged in the detailed design aspects of the schemes with
Highway officers working with Norfolk County Council.
Reasons for the decision:
To improve the existing highways and signage in North Walsham Town Centre,
encouraging better usage of the facilities and the provision of a safer pedestrian
environment.
60.
4/4a MARKET STREET (AND ADJACENT FORMER PUBLIC CONVENIENCES)
NORTH WALSHAM
Mr T Ivory explained that the report sought to address the issues relating to the
Council’s own landholding at a site in North Walsham town centre and recommended
a way forward that would ensure that the derelict building occupying the adjacent site
(number 4 and 4a Market Street was improved). Now that the public toilets had been
relocated to Vicarage Street, it was possible to bring forward a scheme that did not
include the toilet facilities on the site. It was proposed that the Council should, under
the auspices of the ‘infrastructure’ theme of the approved Leadership of Place Action
Plan take the appropriate steps to facilitate the improvement of the site within a
reasonable timescale.
Members discussed the proposals:
a) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett welcomed the proposals. She said that the site had originally
come to the Development Committee seven years ago and it was imperative that
action was taken to improve the site.
b) Mr E Seward, commented that concerns about the site pre-dated his time as a
councillor. Twelve months had been lost over a dispute with the Land Registry
over a small strip of land behind the site, delaying any progress further. He said
that he welcomed private development initiatives but not if it leads to such a log
period of delay and that he supported the Council’s resolve to take action should
it be necessary and would support the recommendations.
c) Mrs V Uprichard sought clarification on the term ‘a reasonable period of time’. Mr
T Ivory said that he felt that had passed already and that if necessary the
compulsory purchase order process could commence. The Chief Executive
added that six months would be allowed for a developer to submit their proposals
then a further 15 months for substantial completion.
d) Ms V Gay commented that the site was a source of great concern to the residents
of North Walsham.
e) Mr P W Moore said that he would prefer tighter timescales. He commented that
the planning system required that certification of ownership must be abided by
and that this may have been the cause of previous problems and delays.
The Leader thanked the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager for his hard
work on a very challenging project.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED
1) That authority be given to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Corporate
Assets portfolio holder, to agree the transfer of the Council’s asset (site and
building) at the Butchery toilets, North Walsham in accordance with the terms
Cabinet
6
87
15 October 2012
outlined in this report, to the owner of the adjacent site (4/4a Market Street, North
Walsham); and
2) That authority be given to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Corporate
Assets portfolio holder, to acquire the site comprising 4 and 4a Market Street,
North Walsham, by private treaty for a sum not exceeding £35,000, or by
compulsory means for the sum determined by any confirmed Compulsory
Purchase Order (by reference to Cabinet if necessary), should disposal under
recommendation 1) not be satisfactorily completed within a reasonable period of
time.
Reasons for the decision:
To improve a long-term derelict site within North Walsham Town Centre.
The Meeting closed at 10.50am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
7
88
15 October 2012
18 OCTOBER 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Terrington – substitute for Mrs A R Green
Mrs H Eales – The Runtons Ward
N Smith – Erpingham Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(100) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, Mrs A R Green
and J H Perry-Warnes. There was one substitute Member in attendance as shown
above.
(101) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 20 September 2012 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(102) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(103) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of
the item concerned.
1
Development Committee
89
18 October 2012
(104) Horning - Tree Preservation Order 2012 No 7, Land at rear of Cedar Close,
Lower Street
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several individual trees and two groups of
trees at the above site.
Public Speaker
Hilary James (objecting)
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this matter be deferred to allow an inspection of
the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(105) SUTTON – Tree Preservation Order (Sutton) 2012 No.8 at Staithe Road/Old
Yarmouth Road
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That Tree Preservation Order (Sutton) 2012 No. 8 be confirmed.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(106) ERPINGHAM - PF/12/0624 - Erection of rear sunlounge; Ash House Barn,
School Road for Mrs L Warner
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr T Warner (supporting)
2
Development Committee
90
18 October 2012
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that the proposed sun lounge had been
designed to avoid damage to the barn. The building was not in a Conservation Area,
had been altered over time, and the sun lounge would not be visible except from the
adjacent fields. He supported this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the proposal would not cause any
harm and proposed approval of this application.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that the design would require good flashing to prevent water ingress
and would require downpipes which were not shown on the illustration. Councillor
Smith stated that he understood that the structure had been designed to cope with
rainwater.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern with regard to the colour of the
structure and asked if it could be coloured to match existing paintwork. Following
comments by the applicants at the invitation of the Chairman, it was agreed that the
colour should be left to the applicants’ discretion.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That this application be approved.
Reason: The Committee considers that this is a bespoke design which
is acceptable in this location and will not be visible outside the site.
(107) HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Bryan (supporting)
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposed dwelling would be tight
on the site and expressed concern that approval might set a precedent for other infill
development on this estate. Whilst the development at the entrance to Waveney
Drive was typically small dwellings in small gardens, in this location the prevailing
development mainly consisted of large dwellings in large gardens. She proposed
refusal of this application.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that in her opinion the scope for infill development
was limited.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that the proposal would overdevelop the
site. She had observed that the neighbouring dwelling appeared to be dark and
considered that this proposal would exacerbate the problem. She seconded the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that it was preferable for development to be
contained within housing estates rather than in the countryside. At her request, the
Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the immediate neighbour had not objected.
3
Development Committee
91
18 October 2012
Councillor P W High suggested that the applicant be requested to consider a smaller
dwelling on the site.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor Mrs A C
Sweeney and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions
That this application be refused on grounds relating to
overdevelopment, since having regard to the space available and in the
context of the area, the proposed dwelling is considered to be excessive
in terms of bulk and massing.
(108) LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Hewitt (objecting)
Mr J Milton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from
Solicitors acting for the landowner which had been copied to all Members. A letter
had been received from the applicant countering comments contained in the letter
and giving information regarding the use of the access by the public.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs A
R Green, the local Member, who did not support the formation of a car park but
would support improvements to visibility. Councillor Mrs Green had also requested
monitoring of fly tipping.
The Senior Planning Officer requested deferral of this application to enable the
applicant’s lease to be examined with regard to the terms of public access.
In response to questions by Councillor P Terrington, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that there was no other access available into the site, and the site was not
subject to any other designations.
At the request of the Chairman, and in response to a further question regarding
alternative access by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, Mr Milton explained the extent
of the lease to the Norfolk Wildlife Trust and access to adjoining land by the Forestry
Commission.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners questioned the value of the site for wildlife given the
limited size of the site and unrestricted access to the public. He considered that it
would be preferable to share access via Wallgate Lane with the Forestry
Commission.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that if the lease provided for unrestricted public
access, the applicant could remove the barrier and allow access into the site in its
current condition. He stated that if deferred a plan would be requested to indicate the
extent and dimensions of the area leased by the applicant.
4
Development Committee
92
18 October 2012
The Head of Development Management stated that deferral would also enable the
applicant to be requested to explore the possibility of an agreement with the Forestry
Commission for an alternative access from Wallgate Lane.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he travelled along the A148 almost daily and very
rarely saw any vehicles parked at the access. He was concerned at the impact of the
proposal on the natural beauty of the site.
Councillor P W High stated that he had witnessed a vehicle reversing out onto the
A148 and considered that the proposal would be safer than the current arrangement.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred:
1. To allow sight of the applicant’s lease with regard to provision for
unrestricted public access;
2. To obtain a plan indicating the extent and area of the site;
3. To request the applicant to explore with the Forestry Commission
the possibility of an alternative access from Wallgate Lane.
(109) RUNTON - PF/12/0138 - Change of use from residential to a mixed use of
residential/A1 (retail); Ceres, 16 High Street, East Runton for Mrs Mc Knespiey
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs C McKnespiey (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that revised drawings had been received
indicating the arrangement of the proposed ice-cream parlour, which would allow
customers to stand inside the building. He considered that the issues of concern
relating to the width of the footpath had been resolved.
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, the local Member, stated that she had called in the
application because of concerns raised by the Parish Council. She was fully
supportive of businesses in the village. However, she had concerns regarding the
traffic congestion in the village and referred to a number of recent accidents which
had occurred nearby. The footpath on the north side of the road was narrow.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the proposal was acceptable as
customers would be able to step inside. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney supported the Officer’s recommendation.
considered that most customers would approach from the car park.
5
Development Committee
93
She
18 October 2012
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the location was dangerous as traffic calming
measures on the south side of the highway meant that some vehicles were almost
forced onto the pavement on the north side.
Councillor P Terrington suggested that the applicant be requested to use the side
entrance into the building instead of siting the entrance at the front of the building.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that this option had been explored but it was
considered marginally worse for people to exit between the two buildings.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Development Control Officer
(Highways) stated that it was questionable as to whether a barrier along the
pavement at this location would be appropriate as it would need to be set in from the
kerb and would narrow the pavement even more.
The Chairman asked the applicant if she would consider increasing the depth of the
shop to allow more space for customers. Mrs McKnespiey confirmed that there was
sufficient space within the building and that she willing to do so. She further
confirmed that there would be level access into the shop.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor Mrs L M
Brettle and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to an increase in the depth of the shop to
provide a larger area for customers, and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(110) STALHAM - PF/12/0787 - Retention of solar panels; 129 High Street for Mr J
Dace
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she had discussed this application with the
applicant.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr J Dace (supporting)
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager referred to the need for a
balance between design, heritage and conservation issues. Whilst it was necessary
to encourage the use of sustainable energy, this should not be at the expense of the
character of towns and historic buildings. In this case, the proposal had an impact on
an important building in Stalham Conservation Area. He referred to the Stalham
Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and the importance of retaining
the character and setting of the Conservation Area. He considered that the panels
were very prominent, not only from the walkway from Tesco but also along the High
Street.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member, referred to the policy conflict
between energy conservation and conservation and design issues. She requested a
site inspection.
6
Development Committee
94
18 October 2012
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the panels were not visible from the
High Street and could only be seen from the Tesco direction. He considered that the
applicant should be allowed to make a contribution to sustainable energy. He
proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd.
Members expressed concern regarding the signage on the neighbouring shop.
However, the Head of Development Management considered that the sign in
question did not require consent.
In response to a question by Councillor P Terrington, the Senior Planning Officer
explained the planning criteria with regard to whether or not planning permission was
required for solar panels.
Following further debate, Councillor J A Wyatt seconded Councillor Mrs GroveJones’ proposal for a site inspection as an amendment.
The amendment was put to the vote, declared carried by 6 votes to 5 and on being
put as the substantive motion it was
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 5
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Chairman
of the Town Council be invited to attend.
(111) WALSINGHAM - PF/12/0877 - Conversion of outbuilding to residential annexe;
16-18 Todds Yard, off Bridewell Street for Mr T & Mr V Fitzpatrick
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as Mr FitzPatrick was a
fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
In response to concerns raised by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney regarding parking,
the Senior Planning Officer stated that the Highway Authority had no objection on the
basis that the accommodation was to be used as an annexe. The Head of
Development Management recommended a condition to restrict the annexe to
ancillary use only.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include a restriction to ancillary use in
connection with the existing dwelling.
7
Development Committee
95
18 October 2012
(112) WALSINGHAM - LA/12/0878 - Internal and External Alterations to facilitate
conversion of outbuildings to residential annexe; 16-18 Todds Yard, off
Bridewell Street for Mr T & Mr V Fitzpatrick
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as Mr FitzPatrick was a
fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(113) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Planning Legal Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Ms
V R Gay, a local Member, who supported the recommendation for a site inspection.
RESOLVED
That site visit be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Town Mayor be invited to attend:
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/12/0887 – Conversion of bed and breakfast
lodges to veterinary surgery; Toll Barn, Heath Road for Toll Barn
Veterinary Practice
(114) WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS AND SCHEME OF DELEGATION
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports which sought the
Committee’s view as to a possible change to the Scheme of Delegation involving the
determination of wind turbine applications.
Councillor P Terrington expressed concern that Norfolk County Council had no policy
on wind turbines and that this Authority was a consultee for those applications on
County Council land. He considered that the Committee required an overall picture
of how many wind turbines were being erected in the District. He was particularly
concerned about the cumulative effect of wind turbines. He requested that the scope
of the proposed change to the Scheme of Delegation be widened to include solar
farms.
The Head of Development Management referred to the number of applications which
had been considered over the past two years and stated that, although he did not
have the exact figures, approvals and refusals were fairly even. Many had been
refused under delegated powers. He supported the suggestion to include solar
farms. The Landscape Officer took the cumulative effect of wind turbines into
account when making her recommendations. Local Members knew their local area
better than Officers and could call in applications if they were concerned. If his
recommendation were approved the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Committee
would also be consulted.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that the request to call-in all applications had
arisen as a result of a site visit at East Ruston, where a wind turbine had already
been erected without the Committee being aware of it. A number of objections had
8
Development Committee
96
18 October 2012
been received subsequent to its erection. She considered that there was concern
that a local Member may not be concerned about an application, whereas the
Committee may consider there were legitimate reasons for objection.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that small turbines raised little concern and
suggested that the scheme be applied to those above 15m in height.
The Chairman considered that the approach recommended in the Head of
Development Management’s report was a sensible one and could be reviewed after
six months.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That Full Council be recommended to amend the Scheme of Delegation
to allow all applications for wind turbines and solar farms to be
determined under delegated powers with the agreement of the local
Member(s) and Chairman (or Vice-Chairman) of the Development
Committee, and that this be reviewed after six months.
(115) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(116) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(117) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(118) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(119) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(120) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.30 pm.
9
Development Committee
97
18 October 2012
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 October
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager, the
Housing Services Manager, the Health Improvement Officer and the
Scrutiny Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr G Jones, Mr P
W High, Mrs A Moore, Ms B Palmer, Mr R Shepherd, Mrs A Sweeney, Mr
G Williams
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
70 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Perry-Warnes.
71 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Shepherd for Mr J Perry-Warnes.
72 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
73 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 25
September 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Performance Management – Delivery of Annual Action Plan Quarter 1
The Chairman asked for a response to be followed up in respect of whether a meeting
concerning offshore renewable energy sector had taken place with Warwick Energy yet.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
98
23 October 2012
North Norfolk Housing Strategy 2012-15 (Making Best Use of the Existing Housing
Stock)
Mr P Terrington asked for a response to be followed up in respect of how the properties
which were subject to NNDR could be separated from those liable for Council Tax.
74 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
75 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
76 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
77 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
78 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that Full Council had accepted this
Committee’s recommendations at its September meeting and had noted its interest in
looking forward to a policy on bringing empty homes back into occupation.
79 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
Noted.
80 SCRUTINY TASK AND FINISH GROUP – SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK
PROGRAMME AND RELATED ISSUES
a) Mr P Moore, Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, said it had achieved good
cross-party working. The main objectives had been a simplification of the system,
easily understandable reports in plain English and enough time for reports to feed
into the system.
b) Mr G Williams said the issues discussed included style of approach, how to improve
the way in which this Committee operated, how to engage all Members, how to
improve working with the Cabinet. It had clearly been about process not politics and
about getting this Committee to do what it already does better. The Group had
extended its remit to include related matters ie how the Committee brought outside
people in – witness protocol sounded too formal, and how did the Committee gather
and understand issues. The Committee currently met approximately 12 times per
year with a few additional meetings – this was not enough time to be able to do it all.
How do we make the Committee valuable to the Council? The Group had discussed
possible approaches of dealing with important issues. The current report template
had been altered, but needed further alteration. A quick update slot would make
better use of time. Briefing notes could be useful. A two-meeting cycle would make
a significant difference to decision-making. The new report template should help
achieve a better consistency of reports. Meetings off-site may be useful in some
situations. The proposals in the report should create more efficiency and help the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
99
23 October 2012
allocation of resources. Overall, the report gave a range of process-based
improvements which had the potential to make Overview and Scrutiny more
effective but it needed buy-in from Cabinet, Corporate Leadership Team and Officer
teams in the Council to complete the template. It was about more good use of the
meetings scheduled each year. The process should be reviewed after one year. It
may require constitutional change.
c) The Chief Executive welcomed schedules and templates in helping to focus and
progress reports.
RECOMMENDED to:1. Agree use of the work template outlined in Fig 1. for all new areas of work to be
considered by Scrutiny Committee.
2. Support the sequencing of meetings as outlined in Fig 1.
3. Recommend the updated report format in Appendix A.
4. Adopt the updated Witness protocol outlined in Appendix B
5. Hold meetings off site where appropriate in 2013/14 as a pilot scheme.
6. Consider more use of Task and Finish Groups to deliver the work programme of the
Committee
7. Request the Corporate leadership Team and the Democratic Services Team to
manage the implementation of these recommendations including any necessary
training to assist with new or revised procedures.
8. Propose that any financial implications of these revisions be considered as part of the
2013/14 budget round
9. That the annual review of the Scrutiny Committee should include an assessment of
these issues to ensure progress is being achieved.
10.That these recommendations be considered by the Corporate leadership Team and
Full Council as appropriate.
11.To forward the recommendations to the Constitution Working Party so that they
might consider if the Constitution should be reviewed to accommodate any agreed
changes from these proposals.
81 FINAL REPORT OF THE JOINT PUBLIC TRANSPORT TIME AND TASK PANEL
a) The Scrutiny Officer had prepared a colour-coded grid indicating which
recommendations were not applicable to North Norfolk, which would be impractical
and which were joint actions with Broadland and/or Norfolk County Council.
b) The Chairman said that the joint scrutiny project had been an interesting exercise but
that the only thing to come out of it relevant to North Norfolk was community
transport.
c) Ms V R Gay asked for thanks to Broadland District Council to be formally recorded.
There wasn’t much that she disagreed with in the recommendations but had
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
100
23 October 2012
concerns that they didn’t reflect the discussions held in the meetings, including the
discussions of rail travel and considerable work done on community transport.
d) Mr P W Moore said that the recommendations did not reflect discussion of the
importance of taxi services to North Norfolk.
e) The Coast and Community Partnerships Manager said that funding for community
transport groups had been secured for this year. Next year’s funding was conditional
on the findings of the joint review. Feedback was needed if these groups were to plan
ahead.
f) Mr E Seward suggested that employers should make a contribution to community
transport suppliers to enable their employees to get to work.
g) The Chief Executive said that there was £30k in the current budget for community
transport. This was on hold pending the outcome of the joint scrutiny. A task and
finish group should be formed to work with officers on this. Part of the work would be
to consider resources and priority implications. The Leader would be asked to
endorse the joint letter, subject to some amendments as follows: Page 47,
recommendation 4 to be “To continue to support community transport groups”.
RESOLVED
a) To form a Task and Finish Group comprising the same Members who were on the
Joint Time and Task Panel – Mr T FitzPatrick, Ms V R Gay, Mrs B A McGoun and Mr
R Reynolds. Support would be provided by the Coast and Community Partnership
Manager’s team.
b) To request that the Leader endorses the letter to Norfolk County Council attached at
Appendix C to the report including amendments made at the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.05am and reconvened at 11.25am.
82 NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-2015 (SUPPORTING VULNERABLE
PEOPLE TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY)
a) In response to a question from Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Housing Services Manager
acknowledged that there was a wide range of support and agencies available for
vulnerable people. NNDC had a key role in the commissioning of these services.
b) Referring to concerns regarding finance from Norfolk County Council, Mrs P GroveJones asked if the Council might be in a position of being unable to fund support. The
Housing Services Manager said this was one of the reasons for the strategy.
c) In response to a question from Mr N Smith about people slipping through the net, the
Housing Services Manager said that it was important to raise the profile of available
services and for Members to flag them up to those constituents who needed them.
d) In response to a question from Mr P W Moore, the Housing Services Manager said
that she was not aware of any lobbying of central government regarding funds.
However Norfolk County Council was talking to service providers to see how they
would manage the cuts.
e) Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern that cuts in staff dealing with mental health
issues would add to the pressure on support services.
f) Mr G Jones advocated the Personal Budget scheme.
g) RESOLVED
to support the recommendation to Full Council.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
101
23 October 2012
83 HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS UPDATE
Developments since the briefing paper was written:
a) The possibility of renting office space to NHS professionals was being explored.
b) The Personal Budget scheme was being looked at within the Workout Programme
and leisure projects.
c) The Health Trainer Service contract to rent office space had been extended to March
2013.
d) The Warm and Well funding had come to an end but work was being done with town
and parish councils to set up a heater loan scheme for vulnerable residents.
e) A bid had been made for funding for Warm and Well 2. It would be known next week
if it had been successful.
f) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett was now NNDC’s representative on the Health and Wellbeing
Board. She commended the Wellbeing Service and proposed that the Reports
Template should include consideration of Health and Wellbeing issues. Ms V R Gay
proposed this and it was seconded by Mr P W Moore. Health and Wellbeing issues
were taken into account when bids for Big Society grants were considered.
g) The Chairman had attended a meeting for town and parish councillors concerning the
Ambulance Service:
• The Ambulance Service received 800,000 calls per annum of which 80% are 999
calls and only 50% actually need an ambulance. This suggested that people
didn’t know how to access out-of-hours medical help.
• There were still problems at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital because
ambulances had to wait outside for significant periods of time until patients could
be transferred to A & E.
• There seemed to be a lack of clarity regarding funding of the service.
• An ambulance might be based in a North Norfolk town but, once it arrived in
Norwich, could be called elsewhere.
h) In response to a Member’s question, the Health Improvement Officer said that people
had to meet certain criteria to be referred to activity schemes. These could be mental
as well as physical health issues.
i) In response to a question from Mr N Smith regarding duplication of services
provided, the Health Improvement Officer said that this was one of the reasons why
the review was taking place.
j) NNDC had recommended to the Health and Wellbeing Board that Physical Activity
should be a category on its own.
k) At the November meeting of the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
there would be a report on mental health provision. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds would
report this to Overview and Scrutiny.
l) The reason why so many referrals to the Health Trainer Service had come from
Fakenham was because the local surgery had received additional funding to run a
weight management programme. The Health Improvement Officer would ask for a
breakdown of the figures. She would also ask why there had been no referrals from
Wells. Heritage House had been instrumental in distributing Warm Packs to
vulnerable clients.
m) Concern was expressed that there were no facilities for stroke or cardio-vascular
emergencies at Cromer and North Walsham. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett advised that first
responders were fully qualified and equipped to deal with these emergencies. The
Chairman said that the problem was that there was often a delay between the arrival
of the first responder and the ambulance.
n) Obesity and poor eating habits were often denoted by income and background. Such
people needed to be encouraged to use the leisure centres. Work needed to be done
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
102
23 October 2012
regarding the cost of using these facilities, which could be a problem for people on
low incomes.
o) There were defibrillators in shops etc throughout the District. The Health
Improvement Officer would find out where they were located and report to Members.
p) There was no Member representative on the North Norfolk Health Improvement
Forum.
q) RESOLVED to include Health and Wellbeing on the report template and welcome the
fact that the North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group is aware of the priority this
Council places on Health and Wellbeing.
84 REVIEW OF OUTSIDE BODIES
a) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds expressed concern that, apart from NHOSC, none of the
Outside Bodies were reported to Council.
b) The Skills Partnership was an arm of the North Norfolk Business Forum which was
represented by Mr T FitzPatrick and Mr N Smith. However the Skills Forum brought
together employers, schools etc throughout the District and was very important to
North Norfolk which was an area low in skills. It was important that there should be a
Member representative. Ms V R Gay currently attended informally.
c) RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council (December):
• To note that Norfolk Tourism was not a Council appointment and that NNDC is
represented by the Portfolio Holder.
• To continue to be represented on the Norfolk Skills Partnership.
• To remove the North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership, the Norfolk
Playing Fields Association and the Norfolk Rural Community Council from the
official list of Outside Bodies.
85 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader presented the report.
86 MRS M HOWARD, DEMOCRATIC SERVICES TEAM LEADER
This was the last meeting which the Democratic Services Team Leader would attend
before her retirement. The Chairman thanked her for all the work which she had done
at the Council over the years. Mr P Moore thanked her for working right up until her
retirement.
The meeting concluded at 12.40pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
103
23 October 2012
Agenda Item 23
Agenda item 17
Sealed Documents
ORDER
Tree Preservation Order with regard to Rear of Lower Street, Horning.
Amendments to plan. Relates to earlier entry of 103251.
North Norfolk District Council - Tree Preservation Order – The Grove, North Walsham.
AGREEMENT
Loan Agreement between Serena Cain (“The Borrower”) and North Norfolk District Council
(“The Lender”) dated 29.9.2012.
Loan Agreement between Maria Stearman (“The Borrower”) and North Norfolk District
Council (“The Lender”).
Loan Agreement between Melissa Clark and Leonard Clark(1) and North Norfolk District
Council(2).
DEEDS
Deed of Covenant relating to 69 Cromer Road, Mundesley between Roger Charles Hampton
& Jacqueline Carol Hampton (1) and North Norfolk District Council (2).
Full Council
19 December 2012
104