COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 21 July 2015 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N Coppack
Mrs H Cox
Mr N Dixon
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr S Hester
Mr M Knowles
Mr N Lloyd
Officers in
Attendance:
Press:
42.
Mr J Lee
Mr W J Northam
Mrs J Oliver
Mr N Pearce
Mrs G Perry-Warnes
Mr R Price
Ms M Prior
Mr J Punchard
Mr J Rest
Mr R Reynolds
Mr P Rice
Mr E Seward
Mr S Shaw
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr D Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr A Wells
Mr G Williams
Mr A Yiasimi
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, The Corporate Directors, the Communications
Manager and the Democratic Services Team Leader
None
PRAYERS
The Chairman invited Reverend Andrew King, Fakenham Methodist Church to lead prayers.
43.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman began by saying that she had represented the Council at various church
services including welcoming the Reverend Dr James Porter at his induction at Cromer Parish
Church by Bishop Graham of Norwich on 17th July.
Other significant occasions included the High Sheriff of Norfolk’s reception and the Orchestra
Live concert at Ludham which was superb due to the excellent acoustics in the church. One of
the highlights – as last year – was the Lord Mayor of Norwich’s procession, which concluded
with an amazing fireworks display.
The Chairman then drew Members’ attention to the new art display in the upper corridor. She
explained that all the work was done by someone who attended the Wensum Centre in
Fakenham, one of her nominated charities for the year.
She concluded by informing Members that the Chairman’s Reception would take place on 4th
September at the Wells Maltings which has had close involvement with the Council for many
years. As there had not been a reception last year, this year’s event had been brought forward
to take advantage of the lighter evenings.
Before moving onto the rest of the agenda, the Chairman clarified voting procedures to ensure
that all Members had an understanding of when abstentions would be noted.
44.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS
None
45.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs S Butikofer, Mrs J English, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett,
Mr V FitzPatrick, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B Hannah, Mrs B McGoun, Miss B Palmer, Mr N
Smith and Mr S Ward.
46.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2015 were approved as a correct record and
signed by the Chairman.
47.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
48.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
49.
APPOINTMENTS
None
50.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 06 JULY 2015
a) AGENDA ITEM 13: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SYSTEM PROCUREMENT
Mr T FitzPatrick introduced this item. He explained that the Environmental Health IT system
contract had expired and that approval was sought to procure a replacement system contract
for a 5 year term with an option to extend for an additional 3 years. It was important that the
procurement process should have regard to the ‘technology baseline plan’ within the Business
Transformation programme to minimise the inclusion of features that would be delivered
corporately through that programme.
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee informed Council that the Committee
had supported the recommendations.
RESOLVED:
To approve a capital budget of £150,000 for system implementation.
51.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CONSTITUTION WORKING PARTY 13 JULY 2015
The Chairman of the Constitution Working Party, Mrs H Cox, said that there had been a full
debate at the meeting. The revised protocol was intended to give local members a broad
understanding of how issues relating to their ward should be communicated and it was hoped
that the changes would improve Members’ awareness of ward issues. She concluded by
saying that the Constitution Working Party felt that it was important that Members should be
included in the formative stages of any process and this should include Cabinet reports, policy
development and consultations.
It was proposed by Mrs H Cox, seconded by Ms V Gay and
RESOLVED
To approve the draft Officer/Member Protocol (as amended)
52.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
The Chairman confirmed that there were no further recommendations from the meeting of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15th July 2015.
53.
TO RECEIVE THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
The minutes of the meetings below were noted as a correct record.
a)
b)
c)
d)
54.
Cabinet – 08 June 2015
Development Committee – 28 May 2015
Licensing & Appeals Committee – 2 March 2015
Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 26 March 2015
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
Mrs S Arnold, Portfolio Holder for Planning said that she was delighted to report that the
Council’s Building Control team had won the regional LABC award and would now be put
forward for the national awards which would take place in London in November.
Mrs Arnold then informed Members that the Council had embarked on the new Local
Development Plan. This was a lengthy and complicated process which now required a ‘duty to
cooperate’ which could lead to the possibility of taking on housing requirements from the
Norwich area. North Norfolk District Council needed to build at least 400 new houses a year to
achieve the housing supply target. She encouraged Members to become involved in the
process over the coming months. Mrs Arnold concluded by saying that the planning service
had undertaken a thorough review of all their processes to see what could be improved and
streamlined. It was anticipated that the review would be completed by the end of September
and an agreed implementation plan prepared. In response to a question from Mr E Seward as
to whether briefings would be arranged for members on the Local Plan, Mrs Arnold confirmed
that they would.
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, commented on the recent problems with the Council’s email
system. He said that it occurred due to a failure during the back-up process and that the IT
service had worked very hard to restore the system as soon as possible.
55.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS
The following question had been received from Mr N Lloyd:
'What plans are there to increase resources for enforcement to deter the small number of
irresponsible dog owners who permit their pets to foul public spaces, beaches and footpaths in
the district?’
Mr T FitzPatrick replied on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services. He
agreed that dog fouling concerned everyone and said that the Council was promoting a
community dog warden scheme. So far 8 volunteers had been trained as dog wardens and it
was anticipated that this would be increased to 16 across North Norfolk. Mr FitzPatrick went
onto say that the flow of information was improving and that officers spoke to dog owners to
remind them of their responsibility to clean up after their pets. Hot-spot locations such as North
Walsham were also being targeted with displays and stickering. In addition, the Environmental
Health Team had also recently met with the Kennel Club with the aim of starting a joint
campaign in the Autumn.
Mrs H Cox commented that this was not a new issue. She said that she had been out on patrol
with the dog wardens early in the morning and encouraged other Members to do the same.
The Chairman invited Mr N Lloyd to respond. He said that it was reassuring to hear of the
efforts being made to address dog fouling but it was disappointing that less than 1 full time
post was dedicated to dealing with it and that there had not been any prosecutions to date. He
added that the Council must ensure that efforts to address the problem were sustained.
Mr W Northam commented that on a recent holiday to Guernsey he had seen lots of signs
warning of a £1000 fine for dog fouling and this seemed to be an excellent deterrent.
Mrs G Perry-Warnes asked whether it was necessary to increase the number of dog bins to
ensure that all of the dog waste could be collected. Mr FitzPatrick replied that any town or
parish council could put forward a request for bins. However, a common problem seemed to
be that people bagged up dog waste but did not put it into the bins. He said that high profile
campaigns were very effective at changing behaviour.
Mr B Smith said that Bacton was fortunate to have two dog wardens and that more people
should be encouraged to volunteer.
56.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
The following motion had been proposed by Councillor Andrew Wells and seconded by
Councillor Eric Seward:
‘This Council:
Notes that after five years of careful fiscal management by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat
Coalition, National Debt is projected to fall as a proportion of GDP from the next financial year;
Welcomes the Chancellor’s announcement of a minimum wage of £9.00 an hour for those
over 25 by 2020 and an increase in the Personal Allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17;
Recognises the impact on the poorest working families of the proposed changes to Working
Tax Credit in the Chancellor’s 2015 Summer Budget;
Notes that many of the poorest working families in North Norfolk will lose net income as a
result of these changes;
Resolves to:
- explore the financial impact for the Council of implementing a £9.00 minimum wage for all
NNDC employees ahead of the Chancellor’s proposed timescale;
- write to the Council’s commercial contractors encouraging them to explore implementing a
£9.00 minimum wage for their employees ahead of the Chancellor’s proposed timescale.’
The Chairman asked Mr Wells if he wished to add anything further. Mr Wells said that
nationally the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had worked together to take difficult
decisions. They had not always agreed but at local level, one thing both parties agreed on was
that Council officers worked very hard. He went onto say that the Council had a long history of
concern for the lowest paid staff and it was therefore hoped that members would be supportive
of giving NNDC employees a minimum of £9.00 an hour ahead of the proposed
implementation date of 2020. Contractors should also be urged to demonstrate compassion
and do the same.
The Chairman invited the Leader of the Council, Mr T FitzPatrick, to respond. Mr FitzPatrick
said that the Council already paid the current national living wage to all employees. He said
that he wished to propose the following amended motion (the amendment was circulated to all
members at this point).
‘This Council:
Welcomes the positive update on the state of the economy provided by the Summer
Budget from the Chancellor at the outset of the new Conservative Government following
the election in May 2015. It notes the wo rk done by the previous Coalition Government of
2010-2015 and welcomes the fact that the Government can build on this free from
previous constraints.
We welcome the proposal for a National Living Wage for those over 25 by 2020. However
this Council notes that proposed National Living Wage will have a potential upward
pressure on council budgets and contract costs and we ask that any resultant arising new
burdens will be fully funded as requested in the Local Government Association Budget
briefing.
We note the increase in the Personal Allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17 and the proposed
changes to Working Tax Credit. This Council further notes the work being done by the
Local Government Association in conducting detailed analysis and evaluation on the likely
impact of this change and will await the result of this work to assess the impact on the
residents of North Norfolk.
This Council currently pays the existing National Minimum Wage as a minimum to all our
employees.
Resolves to
Awa it the detailed analysis and evaluation on what the change to the minimum wage is
likely to mean and will await the results of this work.
Mr J Rest seconded the amendment, saying that the original motion was uncosted.
The Chairman invited Members to speak on the amendment:
a. Mrs L Walker said that she was very disappointed that members of the opposition group
had only just seen the amendment. It would have been helpful to have seen it earlier.
b. Mr E Seward said that the key to the original motion was that it proposed that the Council
simply explored the financial impact on NNDC and its contractors. There was no reason to
wait for the LGA to undertake an analysis as this could be done by the Council. If a proactive approach was taken with the Council’s commercial contractors then they could be
encouraged to adopt good working practices. The amendment did not recognise this.
Also, by raising the level of the Living Wage, it was the Government’s intention to
encourage employers to pay more and thus reduce the benefits bill. For these reasons Mr
Seward said he would not accept the amendment to the Motion.
c. Mr R Reynolds said that the original motion was a proposal to increase the level of the
living wage paid to employees and as this was un-costed he could not support it. Mr A
Wells replied that this was not the case – it was just a proposal to assess the financial
impact of introducing an increased living wage at an earlier stage than that proposed by
the Government.
The Chairman asked Members to vote on the amendment to the motion. Mr T FitzPatrick
requested a recorded vote (attached at Minutes Appendix A). 25 Members voted in support
of the amendment and 10 against. The amendment therefore became the substantive motion
and the following resolution was agreed:
RESOLVED:
To await the detailed analysis and evaluation on what the change to the minimum wage is
likely to mean and will await the results of this work
57.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None
58.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
None
The meeting concluded at 6.45pm.
_________________________
Chairman