Agenda Item
5
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 19 October 2011 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Mr T Ivory
Mr B Jarvis
Mr K E Johnson
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
64.
Mr G R Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B A McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Miss B Palmer
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr J D Savory
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mr P Terrington
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr S Ward
Mr G Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Strategic Director – Community, the Strategic
Director – Environment, the Strategic Director – Information, the
Organisational Development Manager, the Acting Financial Services
Manager and the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH).
The press and members of the public (for minutes 64 – 80)
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman paid tribute to Mr G Craske, Member for the Runtons from 1991-1998, who had
recently passed away and whose funeral would take place on 21 October 2011. A minute of
silence was held to remember Mr Craske.
65.
PRAYERS
The Meeting began with prayer led by Revd John Smith, Priest-in-Charge, Roughton, Felbrigg,
Metton, Sustead, Bessingham and Gunton with Hanworth.
65.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
None received.
66.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr M J M Baker, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B J
Hannah, Mr R Oliver, Mr R C Price, Mr J Punchard and Mrs H Thompson.
Full Council
1
19 October 2011
67.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 21 September 2011 were approved as a
correct record.
68.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were 2 items of urgent business:
a) Coastal Pathfinder Programme – diversion of the Marrams footpath, Cromer:
This item was originally the subject of a decision by the Cabinet on 7 June 2010. The business
was urgent because although Cabinet by its decision had approved the diversion of the
Marrams footpath and most of the legal process had now been completed, it had subsequently
been discovered by the Legal and Democratic Services Manager that confirmation of footpath
extingushment under s118 Highways Act 1980 was a matter reserved to Full Council.
RESOLVED
To confirm the extinguishment of the section of the Marrams footpath as agreed by
Cabinet on 7 June 2010 and to authorise the Legal and Democratic Services Manager to
execute the necessary documentation.
b) Pay and Grading: this item was urgent because legal advice had now been received and
the matter needed to be progressed. It was taken under Minute 80.
69.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
A question had been received from Ms Janet Farrow, Partnership Manager, Upcher
Partnership in which she asked if Members had read the report by Mark Patchett.
The Chief Executive explained that the report (on local area partnerships and voluntary
services) had been commissioned by the North Norfolk Community Partnership, not North
Norfolk District Council. It would have been seen by some Members but hadn’t been widely
circulated. The Leader thanked Ms Farrow for her question. She said that the original intention
had been that the local area partnerships should have been self-funding by 2010 and that
funding had been extended twice since then. The Council would be talking to the local area
partnerships in the near future.
70.
REVIEW OF POLLING ARRANGEMENTS IN NORTH NORFOLK 2011
The Returning Officer was required every four years to undertake a review of polling districts
and polling places within the Council’s administrative boundaries and to make any
recommendations for change. Whilst undertaking this statutory review, the Returning Officer
has separately considered the current provision and location of polling stations within the
District and, as a result of the Council’s own internal analysis together with various
suggestions for change submitted by town and parish councils, wished to advise councillors of
a number of revisions which would come into immediate effect and be applied as relevant to
all future elections held in North Norfolk. The revisions were set out in the report and included
the rationalisation of an historical anomaly regarding Gunthorpe and Bale. The local Member
reported that the Parishes accepted this revision.
A thorough review process had been undertaken involving a range of consultees. The
Returning Officer was satisfied that the changes set out in the report would not compromise
electors’ ability to vote and would continue to offer personal choice of voting method.
Full Council
2
19 October 2011
REVIEW OF POLLING ARRANGEMENTS IN NORTH NORFOLK 2011
(Continued)
RESOLVED
1. To approve the following change of Polling District effective from 1 December 2011:
Polling District UM4 Gunthorpe South and Polling District UN4 Gunthorpe North (Bale) to
be merged into a single Polling District UM4 Gunthorpe
2. To NOTE that the Polling Place for Gunthorpe Polling District will be Gunthorpe Village
Institute.
71.
BOUNDARY COMMISSION REVIEW OF ENGLISH PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY
BOUNDARIES, 2013
The purpose of this item was to receive and discuss any views on the proposed changes in
North Norfolk namely that those North Norfolk district wards currently within the Broadland
Constituency be included in the revised North Norfolk Constituency and that the district wards
of Stalham and Sutton, Waxham and Waterside be included in the revised Great Yarmouth
Constituency. The parishes, towns and Members concerned had been consulted. Those who
were now in the Broadland Constituency wanted to return to North Norfolk and those who
were proposed for inclusion in the Great Yarmouth Constituency wanted to remain in North
Norfolk.
It was believed that there was a degree of confusion and that some residents thought that a
change in the administrative boundaries of the District was being proposed. Any change was,
however, purely for Parliamentary purposes. The confusion was probably caused by the
Districts and the Constituencies having the same name. It would perhaps be helpful if the
Constituencies were renamed. However, it would be more consistent if the Parliamentary
Constituency boundaries were the same as those of the District.
RESOLVED
that a response should be made to the Boundary Commission requesting that the
Parliamentary Constituency boundaries be the same as those of the District.
72.
NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL CORPORATE PLANNING FRAMEWORK:
CORPORATE PLAN 2011-2015; FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 2011/12 – 2014/15
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND ORGANISATIONAL WORKSTREAMS
RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET 3 OCTOBER 2011 (Minute 41)
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 4 OCTOBER 2011 (Minute 52)
These 3 items (numbers 10, 11 and 12 on the Agenda) were taken together. The
recommendations from Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny would be proposed, seconded, but
not spoken to. After debate both recommendations would be voted on.
The recommendation from Cabinet 3 October 2011 was proposed by Mr J H A Lee and
seconded by Mr T Ivory:
To recommend approval of the Corporate Plan by Full Council at its meeting on 19
October 2011 and note the updated financial forecast for 2011/2012-2014/2015
The recommendation from the special meeting of Overview and Scrutiny 4 October 2011 was
proposed by Mr E Seward and seconded by Mr G Williams:
That the decision to approve the Corporate Plan is deferred to allow consultation with
parish and town councils and other key partners on the key priorities and actions.
Full Council
3
19 October 2011
NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL CORPORATE PLANNING FRAMEWORK:
CORPORATE PLAN 2011-2015; FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 2011/12 – 2014/15
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND ORGANISATIONAL WORKSTREAMS
(Continued)
A discussion followed during which the following points were made:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
Full Council
It was important to get the Corporate Plan right. The present version had a long way to
go.
Disappointment was expressed that Cabinet had made no response to the points
raised by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, even though they had 2 weeks to do
this.
Concern was expressed about the lack of detail in the Corporate Plan. However, it
contained some good points and these had been recognised by the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee.
The Cabinet had given assurance that detail would be provided at a later date.
Concern was voiced that the Corporate Plan should not be voted through on that basis
when it could be improved if it was worked on for another few weeks. There was time
to do this work.
The Leader thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for their comments and for
their suggested amendments. She explained that the Corporate Plan was in 2 parts.
The document which had been presented to Members was the first part, the vision,
based on the Conservative Group’s election manifesto. It had taken into consideration
consultations which had been carried out in 2010. The second part, the annual action
plans would be taken to consultation. Work on this had already commenced. An
invitation had gone out to town and parish councils inviting them to a round table event
and a residents’ survey would be conducted via “Outlook”. In the present uncertain
climate the Cabinet could not make long-term promises that they might not be able to
keep.
Cabinet had noted the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
but it was their intention to keep the first version of the Corporate Plan as simple as
possible.
Concern was expressed that, as well as lack of detail, there were no targets in the
Corporate Plan. There was no reference to young people and no specific targets for
coastal issues.
The recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been the result
of a unanimous vote.
Concern was expressed that 25% of residents would not have seen the Conservative
Group manifesto.
The views of the local area partnerships, town and parish councils should be taken into
account.
The document was very generic and didn’t explain how the taxpayer’s money would be
spent.
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny said that the Committee would like to receive a
response to their comments which had been made in a constructive manner. He
welcomed the Round Table meeting and Resident Survey. The Corporate Plan was a
wonderful vision but there was no explanation of how it would be achieved. Some aims
might not be achievable. Members should be sure the Plan was right before they
approved it.
The Corporate Plan was intended to set the Council’s direction of travel between now
and 2015. It set priorities, not targets and would be achieved by action plans. The
action plans would be the subject of consultation. Cabinet Members, and not officers,
should take responsibility for targets.
It was not in the gift of NNDC to decide on the future of the local area partnerships. It
was, however, in the Council’s gift to decide how receipts from second homes council
tax should be allocated.
Housing provision was a priority for the Council and this would be tackled.
4
19 October 2011
NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL CORPORATE PLANNING FRAMEWORK:
CORPORATE PLAN 2011-2015; FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 2011/12 – 2014/15
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND ORGANISATIONAL WORKSTREAMS
(Continued)
After the discussion, a vote was taken on the recommendation from the special meeting of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 4 October 2011. It was lost with 15 Members voting in
favour and 19 against.
A vote was then taken on the substantive motion. It was
RESOLVED by 21 votes in favour, 13 against and 1 abstention
To approve the Corporate Plan by Full Council and note the updated financial forecast for
2011/2012-2014/2015
73.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Licensing and Appeals Committee – 11 July 2011
Cabinet – 5 September 2011
Development Committee – 8 September 2011
Development Committee – 15 September 2011
It was noted that since the publication of the Agenda an amendment had been agreed by the
Development Committee to the minutes of the meeting of 15 September 2011, as follows:
Minute 106 “Councillor B Smith declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was a
member of Mundesley Maritime Museum and knew members of Coastwatch. He vacated the
Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.”
It was RESOLVED that the above-mentioned minutes be noted.
74.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
The Deputy Leader
The Environmental Services Manager was thanked for the excellent presentation on the waste
contract which he had made to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 18 October 2011.
The round changes had been managed well, despite a few teething problems.
Mr K E Johnson
a) Work on the Community Infrastructure Levy had been approved by the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee on 18 October 2011. It would be carried forward by the Planning
Policy and Built Heritage Working Party.
b) On 13 October 2011 the Development Committee had approved applications for 120 new
homes in Hoveton and 60 in North Walsham. Both schemes included a proportion of
affordable housing.
c) Further initiatives to increase the number of homes in North Norfolk included a scheme to
bring empty properties back into use.
d) The panel of judges and officers were thanked for their work on the Graham Allen Awards.
It was the 30th anniversary of the Awards which continued, and would continue to
recognise the importance of built heritage.
e) In response to a question from Mr G R Jones, Mr Johnson said that there were 90
affordable homes in progress.
Full Council
5
19 October 2011
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
(Continued)
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
The coast was important for employment, tourism and well-being. Cabinet would be working
towards integrated coastal zone management – helping coastal communities to prepare
sustainable local plans. The Coastal Business strand of the Pathfinder Project would continue
to be rolled out.
75.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
The following question had been received from Mrs B A McGoun:
“It is my understanding that the Rt Hon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government, has recently found some £250 million to be spent on
reinstating weekly rubbish collections. Can the Cabinet Portfolio member for the
Environment confirm that despite the fact that North Norfolk District Council,
historically, has a fine record financially and environmentally, with regard to refuse
collection, he will be asking Mr Pickles whether North Norfolk District Council will be
benefitting from this largesse. If not, can he comment on the fairness or otherwise of
such an inequality and Mr Pickles' apparent desire to reward financially those councils
that are evidently under performing.”
The Portfolio Holder, Mr J H A Lee, replied that it would not be possible to apply for this
funding because the Council had recently entered into a new refuse contract. The collection
system was working very well and any financial reward from central government would have to
be very substantial for the Council to consider change.
76.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
This item had been withdrawn with the permission of the Leader of the Opposition.
77.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
The following notice of motion was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick and seconded by Mr J H A
Lee:
“This Council recognises the important role that the Cromer Crab Company plays in the
District as both a major employer and an iconic brand name. This Council therefore
notes with dismay the risk to the future of the factory as a result of the decision to
begin a 90 day consultation process about the future of the facility which could lead to
a decision to relocate the business away from Norfolk.
This Council’s first priority is to seek to retain the business within Cromer and to
safeguard the jobs of the 230 staff employed there. To this end, this Council is already
working closely with the owners of the business, the staff and other stakeholders to
secure this objective and fully supports the campaign being run by the North Norfolk
News.
Furthermore, this Council is already working closely with the Marine Management
Organisation under the FLAG project to look to the future and to ensure that, if the
owners of the Cromer Crab Company do decide to relocate the business away from the
area, all possible steps are taken to protect the iconic status of the name Cromer Crab.
This Council is pleased to have already secured funding, in partnership with the MMO,
for a sustainability study, which is the required first step in this process of securing
such protection.”
Full Council
6
19 October 2011
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
The motion was debated:
a) Mr T FitzPatrick encouraged Members to give cross-party support to the Motion. The
Council appreciated the way the owners of the business had worked with them. The
Portfolio Holder had met with them twice and was due to have another meeting in the
following week. The Council was working to avoid the loss of 230 jobs and to protect the
name of Cromer Crab.
b) Mr R Smith proposed an amendment to the motion. He suggested that the last sentence
in the 2nd paragraph should read: “To this end, this Council is already working closely with
the owners of the business, the staff and other stakeholders, including Members of
Parliament and relevant government ministers to secure this objective and fully
supports the campaign being run by the North Norfolk News.”
RESOLVED
To support the Motion, including the amendment.
78.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
79.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 4 of Part 1 of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
80.
PAY AND GRADING
a) The Portfolio Holder, Mr K E Johnson, thanked the Members of the Pay and Grading
Board for their work.
b) Background papers were available if Members wished to see them. The process had
taken 3 years and had been managed with fairness at every stage. The Organisational
Development Manager had worked really hard on this.
c) It was unfortunate and disappointing that national UNISON had not agreed to ballot their
membership. However they would not change their position and staff wanted this matter
brought to a conclusion.
d) Staff still had the right to appeal.
e) The report recommended that a 90 day consultation period should be commenced. During
this time talks would be held with UNISON. Then the matter would come back to
Members.
RESOLVED
That the revised process for implementation of the pay and grading review as detailed in the
report be approved.
Mr P W Moore abstained.
The meeting concluded at 7.20 pm.
____
Chairman
Full Council
7
19 October 2011