Please Contact: Mary Howard
Please email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516047
13 February 2012
A meeting of the North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 22 February 2012 at 6.00 p.m.
There will be an opportunity before the start of the meeting for prayer led by Revd Sharon
Willimott, Minister, Cromer Methodist Church.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: All Members of the Council
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a
different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker and Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
To receive the Chairman’s communications, if any.
2.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Please indicate whether the interest is a personal one only or one which is also
prejudicial. The declaration of a personal interest should indicate the nature of the
interest and the agenda item to which it relates. In the case of a personal interest,
the member may speak and vote. If it is a prejudicial interest, the member should
withdraw from the meeting whilst the matter is discussed.
3.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
4.
MINUTES
(attached – page 1)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 19 December 2011 and
the extraordinary meeting of the Council on 11 January 2012.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B (4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
6.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To consider any questions received from members of the public.
7.
APPOINTMENTS
a) MRS V UPRICHARD TO REPLACE MR S PARTRIDGE ON THE
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
To appoint Mrs V Uprichard to replace Mr S Partridge on the Development
Committee.
b) APPOINTMENT OF MR N SMITH TO REPLACE MR R WRIGHT ON THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
To appoint Mr N Smith to replace Mr R Wright on the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
c) TO APPOINT MRS A CLAUSSEN-REYNOLDS TO REPLACE MR R OLIVER
ON THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
To appoint Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds to replace Mr R Oliver on the Audit
Committee.
d) TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF MRS H EALES TO THE SHADOW
HEALTH AND WELL BEING BOARD
The Health and Social Care Bill, in its final stages in the House of Lords, outlines
a new role for local authorities in the co-ordination, commissioning and oversight
of health and social care and public health and health improvement. There are
new responsibilities for the County Council including the creation of a Health and
Wellbeing Board.
The role of Health and Wellbeing Boards is to provide leadership across health,
social care and public health. They will take on a convening role in health
improvement, tackling the causes of ill-health, improving health and social care
services, and promoting integration of health and social care.
Health and Wellbeing Boards which will be formal sub-committees of upper tier
councils, will be statutorily operational from April 2013. They are expected to work
in ‘shadow’ form from April 2012.
The terms of reference establish the following principal functions for the Board in
Norfolk:
• To lead the development – in partnership – of the Joint Strategic Needs
Assessment and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy.
• To work with commissioners of health and social care, supporting and
enabling them to act in line with shared health and health care priorities for
Norfolk.
• To oversee and lead further integration of health, social care and other public
sector services.
• To work with the NHS Commissioning Board on the authorisation of Clinical
Commissioning Groups and the Annual Assessment of Clinical
Commissioning Groups.
Members are asked to approve the appointment of Mrs H Eales to the Shadow
Health and Well Being Board.
e) APPOINTMENT OF MR K E JOHNSON TO THE PATROL ADJUDICATION
AND BUS LANE ADJUDICATION JOINT COMMITTEE
To appoint Mr K E Johnson to the PATROL Adjudication and Bus Lane
Adjudication Committee.
North Norfolk District Council has recently commenced civil parking enforcement.
There is a statutory requirement for councils undertaking civil parking
enforcement to have access to independent adjudication. This is provided for by
membership of the PATROL Adjudication and Bus Lane Adjudication Committee.
f) TO APPOINT MR N SMITH TO A VACANCY ON THE BROADS INTERNAL
DRAINAGE BOARD
To appoint Mr N Smith to a vacancy on the Broads Internal Drainage Board.
8.
PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE – REVENUES AND BENEFITS SHARED SERVICES
– APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND APPROVAL OF TERMS OF REFERENCE
(attached – p 18)
Summary:
The Revenues and Benefits Joint Committee
Under the terms of the Partnership Agreement entered
into with the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West
Norfolk for shared service delivery of Revenues and
Benefits each Council delegate and empowers the
monitoring of the Revenues and Benefits Service to a
Joint Committee comprising members of both Councils.
Conclusions:
The report concludes the necessity for the appointment
of three members to the Joint Partnership Committee.
That the Joint Partnership Committee will agree draft
terms of reference for the Committee which will be
subject to approval by both Councils.
The Joint Committee will approve the appointment of a
Secretary and Financial Officer to the Joint Committee.
Recommendations:
This report asks that three members be appointed
to the Revenues & Benefits Joint Partnership
Committee
Cabinet Member(s)
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Louise Wolsey. Louise.wolsey@north-norfolk.gov.uk 01263516081
9.
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BIG SOCIETY BOARD
(Please see Agenda Item 14, Recommendations from Cabinet 6 February 2012 (d)
Item 11: North Norfolk Big Society Fund – Proposed Operational Framework)
10.
11.
COMMUNITY COVENANT
(attached – page 21)
Summary:
The report, which went to the Norfolk Leaders Meeting
on 30 January 2012, informs Members of the
development of a Norfolk Armed Forces Community
Covenant and the Signing Event on 7 March 2011.
Recommendations:
Members are asked to endorse the Leader’s signing
of the Covenant on behalf of North Norfolk District
Council at the ceremony on 7th March 2012.
CONSTITUTION ANNUAL REVIEW
Summary:
Conclusions:
(attached – page 24)
The purpose of this report is to advise members of the need
to nominate members to serve on the Constitution Working
Party in order to undertake the annual review of the
Council’s Constitution.
In accordance with paragraph 14.1 in chapter 1 of the
Constitution, the Council needs to undertake a review at
least annually. That review is best undertaken through the
Constitution Working Party. The review should consider the
need to make amendments arising from:
•
new or amending legislation
•
relevant audit recommendations
•
operational experience of applying the
Constitution since April 2011
•
inconsistencies, referencing, formatting etc.
identified within the document
•
Recommendations:
any other relevant review or change of
circumstances.
Nominations have been requested and received from Group
Leaders for 3 Conservative members and 2 Liberal
Democrat members to serve on the Constitution Working
Party, to undertake the annual review of the content and
operation of the Council’s Constitution, and that
recommendations arising from the review are scheduled to
be reported to Full Council on 18 April 2012. It is
recommended that the following members be appointed:
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, Ms V R Gay, Mr K E Johnson, Mrs
A Moore and Mrs H Thompson.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
12.
Ward(s) affected:
All
Tony Ing, Strategic Director – Information
01263 516080, tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL (attached – page 27)
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to recommend to Full Council
the allowances and expenses to be paid to Members to
take effect from May 2012. In accordance with the
requirements of the Local Authorities (Members’
Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003, the Council set
up an Independent Remuneration Panel as agreed at the
December 2011 meeting of Full Council. The membership
and terms of reference for the Panel were also agreed at
the December meeting of Full Council.
Conclusions:
The Council is required to observe as part of the legislation,
the following; ‘before an authority makes or amends a
scheme, it shall have regard to the recommendations made
in relation to it by an independent remuneration panel’. The
findings and recommendations of the Panel are detailed in
this report.
Recommendations:
That Members consider the recommendations of the
Independent Remuneration Panel, adopt a scheme of
allowances and amend the Constitution accordingly.
Specifically, it is recommended that:
a) the Basic Allowance should remain at £4,054.88 pa;
b) the Scheme should remain index linked to officers’
pay awards;
c) the broadband allowance should remain at £180 pa
subject to Members agreeing a reduction to reflect
the change in market prices since 2008;
d) the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the
Leader of the Council should remain calculated by
way of a multiplier of x3 the basic allowance;
e) the SRA for Cabinet Members with Portfolio should
remain calculated by way of a multiplier of x2.33 the
basic allowance;
f)
the SRA for Regulatory Committees of the Council
should remain calculated by way of a multiplier of
x1.67 the basic allowance;
g) until the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011
come into force, the SRA in respect of the Standards
Committee be paid to the non-elected Chairman of
that committee less the basic allowance;
h) the SRA for the Chairman of the Council should
remain calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.33 the
basic allowance;
i)
the SRA for the Leader of the main opposition group
should remain calculated by way of a multiplier of
x1.33 the basic allowance;
j)
payment of £50 per session (0.5 of a day) should
continue to be made to co-opted members of the
Standards Committee;
k) the carers’ allowance should be set at the national
minimum wage for Child Dependants and the
national minimum wage plus £3 for Non-Child
Dependants, with discretion being delegated to the
Chief Executive to increase this amount when
individual circumstances justified a higher payment;
l)
the payment of a carers’ allowance should be
confirmed as being extended to attendance at
outside bodies and that this should be explicitly
stated within the Constitution;
m) the existing travelling and subsistence expenses
scheme should be maintained, and it should be
subject to amendment in accordance with prevailing
national agreements;
n) the changes proposed by the Panel are not
backdated, but should take effect from the beginning
of the municipal year, in May 2012;
o) Members’ Allowances should remain ineligible for
admission to the Norfolk Local Government Scheme;
p) the existing arrangements for temporarily stopping
the payment of allowances to a Member while
suspended from their role are maintained until the
relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011 come
into force removing the power to suspend a Member
from their role.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected:
All
Tony Ing, Strategic Director – Information
01263 516080, tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
13.
BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX SETTING 2012/2013
(attached – page 35, appendix A – page 57, appendix B – page 58, appendix C –
page 59, appendix D – page 62, appendix E – page 66)
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Cabinet member(s):
All
This report presents for approval the budget for 2012/13
and to make statutory calculations in accordance with the
Local Government Finance Act 1992 and to set the Council
Tax for 2012/13. The report also includes the Chief
Financial Officer’s report on the robustness of the estimates
and adequacy of reserves.
It is the opinion of the Council’s Chief Financial Officer that
the budget for 2012/13 has been set within a robust
framework and the impact of this resolution will maintain an
adequate level of financial reserves held by the Council.
That having considered the Chief Financial Officer’s report
on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the
proposed financial reserves, the following be approved:
a)
The General Fund Revenue Budget for 2012/13;
b)
The Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves
and the Optimum Level of the General Reserve
2012/13 to 2015/16 (Appendix D);
c)
The level of the General Reserve maintained at a
minimum of £950,000;
d)
The General and Earmarked Reserves are
employed as shown in the Reserves Statement
(Appendix C);
e)
That members undertake the council tax and
statutory calculations set out at section 4, and set
the Council Tax for 2012/13.
f)
The final demand on the Collection Fund will be;
(i)
£5,789,171 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,538,934 for Parish/Town precepts.
Ward(s) affected:
All
Contact Officer, telephone number, Duncan Ellis, Acting Financial Services
and e-mail:
Manager, 01263 516330, duncan.ellis@northnorfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby, Chief Executive, 01263 516077,
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
14.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 6 FEBRUARY 2012
a) ITEM 8: TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND
INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2012/13 TO 2014/15
(Cabinet Agenda 6 February 2012 – page 23)
Summary:
This report sets out details of the Council’s treasury
management activities along with the Prudential
Indicators, and presents a strategy for the prudent
investment of the Council’s surplus funds for members to
approve.
Conclusions:
The preparation of this Strategy Statement is necessary to
comply with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy’s Code of Practice for Treasury Management
in Public Services. The Code has been revised in
November 2011 and this Strategy Statement incorporates
the changes which have been made.
The Prudential Indicators are required to be set each year
in accordance with the Prudential Code.
Recommendations to
Full Council
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that;
(a) The Treasury Management Strategy Statement
and Investment Strategy and Prudential
Indicators, for 2012/13 to 2014/15, are
approved.
(b) The revised Treasury Management Policy
Statement is approved.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected:
All
Tony Brown 01263 516126
tony.brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk
b) ITEM 9: 2012/13 BASE BUDGET AND PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO
2015/16
(Cabinet Agenda, 6 February 2012, page 40)
Summary:
This report presents for approval the proposed budget for
2012/13 for both revenue and capital and also provides
indicative budgets for the following three financial years
2013/14 to 2015/16.
Conclusions:
The budget is presented for approval each year. This
report presents the budget for 2012/13 along with the
financial projections for the following three years. The
recent update of the Corporate Plan, which was presented
to Members in October, was accompanied by an appendix
entitled ‘Financial Plan Update 2011/12 – 2014/15,
Strategic Context and Organisational Workstreams’. The
budget has been produced based on the assumptions
detailed within this paper (updated where necessary) and
takes account of the final grant settlement announcement
for 2012/13 made on 2 December 2011. The report
outlines the assumptions and documents the financial
risks to the Council in setting the annual budget and
forecasting future spending plans and resources.
Recommendations:
to Full Council
a) The 2012/13 revenue account budget as outlined at
Appendix F and that the surplus of £87,975 be allocated to
the Restructuring Proposals reserve;
b) The demand on the Collection Find will be subject to
any amendments as a result of final precepts;
(i)
£5,789,172 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,561,174 (subject to confirmation of one final
precept) for Parish/Town precepts;
c) The movement on the reserves as detailed at Appendix
I;
d) The updated Capital Programme and it’s financing for
2011/12 to 2014/15 as detailed at Appendix J and as
contained within the report along with the authority to
negotiate for the purchase of a new waste vehicle;
e) The new capital bids as detailed at Appendix K;
f) That Members note the current projections for 2013/14
to 2015/16.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected:
All
Duncan Ellis, Acting Financial Services
Manager, 01263 516330, Duncan.Ellis@northnorfolk.gov.uk
c) ITEM 10: CORPORATE PLAN: ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13 DRAFT FOR
CONSULTATION
Summary:
This report presents the Corporate Plan: Annual Action
Plan 2012/13
Conclusions:
The Annual Action Plan presents the key actions and
objectives of the council to be delivered in 2012/13.
Recommendations to
Full Council
To approve the Corporate Plan: Annual Action Plan
2012/13 DRAFT for consultation.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Helen Eales
All Wards
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Sheila Oxtoby, 01263 516077, Sheila.Oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
d) ITEM 11: NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND – PROPOSED
OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK (Cabinet Agenda 6 February 2012 – page 101)
Summary:
Conclusions:
This report sets out the draft operational framework for the
Big Society Fund and considers how it can be segmented
into a number of complementary funding streams. It looks
at different arrangements for delivering outcomes
involving the Council and partner organisations, and
identifies possible funding criteria as well as the form of
service level agreements that could be adopted as a basis
for procuring support services for capacity building and
community development.
The North Norfolk Big Society Fund is an exciting initiative
which will enable a flexible approach to community
investment in the district. It is designed as a means of
improving social and economic wellbeing and will promote
the principles of self-determination and self-help by
providing local people and organisations with the capacity
and skills to plan and implement projects which they
choose to benefit their own communities.
Recommendations to
Full Council:
1. That Council formally establishes the Fund to be
launched on 2 April 2012 and appoints Members to
sit on a politically balanced Big Society Board to
act as the grant giving panel.
2. To require that the annual report will be produced
bi-annually summarising how resources have been
applied through the Fund and the outcomes
achieved.
3. To agree a three month extension to Voluntary
Norfolk’ existing contract.
Cabinet member(s):
Cllr Trevor Ivory
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
15.
Ward(s) affected:
All
Sheila Oxtoby, Chief Executive
01263 516077
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
PAY POLICY STATEMENT
(attached – page 69)
Summary:
The report is required to enable the Council to satisfy
the requirements of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011
which requires that authorities must prepare a pay
policy statement (“the statement”) for the financial year
2012/13 and for each subsequent financial year.
Conclusions:
The attached statement sets out current remuneration
arrangements and is not a change to existing
policy/practices.
Recommendations:
To approve the pay policy statement for 2012/13 as
required by section 38 the Localism Act 2011.
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Julie Cooke, 01263 516040
Julie.cooke@north-norfolk.gov.uk
16.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
(attached – page 82)
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
17.
Audit Committee – 13 September 2011
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 16 November 2011
Cabinet – 28 November 2011
Development Committee – 8 December 2011
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 13 December 2011
Cabinet – 9 January 2012
Development Committee – 12 January 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
To receive reports from the Cabinet or Members of the Cabinet.
18.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
To receive questions from Members.
19.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
To receive any opposition business.
20.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received
21.
SEALED DOCUMENTS
Recommendation:
(attached – page 140)
That the list of sealed documents is received by Members.
Contact: Tony Ing 01263 516080
Email: tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
22.
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, APPLICATION PF/09/1270
To consider the financial implications of an appeal arising from the decision of the
Development Committee, application PF/09/1270
23.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution – if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public
be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
paragraph(s) _ of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
Agenda Item
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 14 December 2011 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mr M Baker
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mrs V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B Hannah
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
81.
Mr P W High
Mr T Ivory
Mr K E Johnson
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
Mr R Oliver
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 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 J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Deputy 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 Officer (ED)
The press and members of the public (for minutes 81 – 100)
PRESENTATION TO THE NORTH NORFOLK INFORMATION CENTRE, CROMER
The Chairman congratulated the North Norfolk Information Centre in Cromer, which had won
the award for Best Visitor Information at the EDP Tourism Awards. The staff were praised for
their dedication and hard work and presented with their award.
82.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and Mrs J Fisher had been appointed to the Regional Floods and Coastal
Committee. It was hoped that they would be able to make a valuable contribution to the
Committee and make representations on behalf of the coastal wards of the District.
Page 1
Full Council
1
14 December 2011
5
83.
PRAYERS
The Meeting began with prayer led by Father Denys Lloyd, Parish Priest, Our Lady and St
Joseph, Sheringham and Cromer.
83.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Item
Interest
Mrs A Claussen- 88
Reynolds
Appointment to the Board of the
Fakenham Area Partnership
Personal – is the
nominated candidate
Mr B J Hannah
Determination of Council Tax
Personal – are
Members of Norfolk
County Council
Mr G R Jones
Minute
No.
91, 92
95
Mr J H PerryWarnes
84.
Establishment of Big Society
Fund
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr R Price, Mr N Smith, Mrs H Thompson and Mr R
Wright
85.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 19 October 2011 were approved as a
correct record.
86.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There was 1 item of urgent business:
JW Automarine, Factory Extension, Enterprise Way, Fakenham
The appraisal of the tenders for the construction of an extension to the factory owned by
NNDC at Enterprise Way, Fakenham showed that the lowest tender submitted represented
the best value for money. The business was urgent because of the volatile price of steel and
the need to ensure orders were placed prior to Christmas to ensure prices did not increase
further and timescales were delayed.
RESOLVED
That Tender A was accepted for the construction work for the Factory Extension at JW
Automarine, Enterprise Way, Fakenham
87.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mr Brian Ridd of Holt Road Cromer had requested to speak in support of the Motion relating to
road safety on the Holt Road, Cromer. It was agreed that this item would be heard earlier to
accommodate him.
Page 2
Full Council
2
14 December 2011
88.
APPOINTMENTS
a) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds to replace Mr S Ward on the Board of the Fakenham Area
Partnership
RESOLVED
that Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds be appointed to the Board of the Fakenham Area Partnership
b) Mr T FitzPatrick to the Wells Area Harbour Users’ Advisory Committee
RESOLVED
that Mr T FitzPatrick be appointed to the Wells Area Harbour Users’ Advisory Committee
89.
FORMATION OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL TO REVIEW THE
MEMBERS’ SCHEME OF ALLOWANCES
The North Norfolk District Council Members’ Scheme of Allowances was now due for review.
An Independent Remuneration Panel must be convened to undertake the review and report its
findings and recommendations to Full Council. The revised Scheme should be adopted from
May 2012.
RESOLVED
a)
b)
c)
d)
To approve the appointment of representatives to the Independent Remuneration Panel
That those representatives be Paddy Seligman, John Wollacombe and Richard Draper
To approve the Terms of Reference for the Independent Remuneration Panel
That any representations that Members wish the Independent Remuneration Panel to take
into consideration should be made in writing through the Group Leaders to the Chief
Executive, by 6 January 2012.
e) That the Independent Remuneration Panel reports its findings and recommendations for
consideration by Full Council at its meeting in February 2012
90.
DRAFT PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS 2012/2013
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee commented that several of the
meetings scheduled were the day prior to the Full Council meeting. It was intended that he
would meet with the Leader in early 2012 to discuss the scheduling of Cabinet and Overview
and Scrutiny meetings and there may be a request to change the dates of some of the
meetings at a later date.
RESOLVED to
adopt the Programme of Meetings for 2012 – 2013
91.
DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL TAX DISCOUNTS RELATING TO SECOND HOMES AND
LONG TERM EMPTY PROPERTIES FOR 2012/13
RESOLVED that
under section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as enacted by section 75 of the
Local Government Act 2003, and in accordance with the provisions of the Council Tax
(Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 as amended, the Council
determines that:
Page 3
Full Council
3
14 December 2011
DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL TAX DISCOUNTS RELATING TO SECOND HOMES AND
LONG TERM EMPTY PROPERTIES FOR 2012/13
(Continued)
(i) the council tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘A’ under regulation
4 of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003
remains at 50% for the year 2012/13
(ii) the council tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘B’ under regulation
5 of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 be
reduced to 10% for the year 2012/13 with the exceptions of:
92.
a)
those dwellings that are specifically identified under regulation 6 of the Council
Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003, which will
retain the 50% discount; and
b)
those dwellings described or geographically defined at Appendix B, which, in
the reasonable opinion of the Deputy Chief Executive, are judged not
structurally capable of occupation all year round and were built before the
restrictions of seasonal usage were introduced by the Town and Country
Planning Act 1947, which will retain the 50% discount.
(iii)
the council tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘C’ under regulation
7 of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 be
removed for the year 2012/13, thereby making the full council tax charge payable after
the six month exempt period.
(iv)
in accordance with section 11A(6) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as
enacted by section 75 of the Local Government Act 2003, these determinations shall
be published in at least one newspaper circulating in North Norfolk before the end of
the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the determinations.
DETERMINATION OF THE COUNCIL TAX BASE FOR 2012/13 AND THE TREATMENT OF
SPECIAL EXPENSES
RESOLVED that
a) That the calculations set out in this report used to produce the Council’s tax base be
approved, and the tax base for 2012/13 be determined as 41,366.
b) That the tax base for each parish area for the financial year 2012/13 be as set out at
paragraph 3.1.
93.
RECOMMENDATION FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE 19 SEPTEMBER
2011
Minute 19 LICENSING OF SEXUAL ENTERTAINMENT VENUES (SEVs)
RESOLVED
To adopt the relevant new provisions for the regulation of lap dancing and other sexual
entertainment venues
(This to take effect from 1 April 2012)
Page 4
Full Council
4
14 December 2011
94.
RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET 31 OCTOBER 2011
HALF YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12
RESOLVED
To approve the Half Yearly Treasury Management Report for 2011/12
95.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 28 NOVEMBER 2011
Minute 65: 2011/12 REVISED BUDGET
The Acting Financial Services Manager advised Members that there was a minor amendment
to the car parking fees at Holt Country Park. An updated schedule of charges had been
provided.
RESOLVED
To approve:
1. The revised revenue budget for 2011/12;
2. The revised transfers to and from reserves included at Appendix C of the report;
3. The transfer of the forecast surplus of £172,488 to the Organisational Development
reserve;
4. The revised capital programme and associated financing as included at Appendix E;
5. The scale of fees and charges from 1 April 2012 included at Appendix D;
6. Delegated authority for setting the fees and charges for waste be given to the Strategic
Director for Environment, Deputy Chief Executive and relevant Portfolio Members.
Minute 66: PROPOSED SAVINGS REPORT – 2012/13 BASE BUDGET
Several Members raised concerns regarding the proposal to move to a two-tier car park
charging system:
a) Mr P Terrington, a Member for Priory Ward, said that the town did not have a supermarket
or any large chain stores that provided free parking and the independent shopkeepers felt
the increase would be detrimental to their trade.
b) There was deprivation in all areas of the district and to expect just 5 towns to fund the
increase in charges was unfair.
c) The proposal to roll-out the mini-stay option across all the district’s car parks was praised.
d) It was unlikely that £100,000 would be generated through the increased charges. People
would look for alternative places to park.
RESOLVED
1. To agree the savings and additional income as identified within Table 1 of the report
2. To note the updated position in relation to the management structures and prioritisation
workstreams
3. To fund any ‘one-off’ costs in relation to staff restructuring through the use of the
Restructuring and Invest to Save Proposals reserve
4. that a new reserve is established for the ‘New Homes Bonus’ and that the allocation for
2012/13, estimated to be £595,700 is transferred to this reserve.
Members of the Liberal Democrat Group abstained.
Page 5
Full Council
5
14 December 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 28 NOVEMBER 2011
(Continued)
Minute 68: REVENUES AND BENEFITS SHARED SERVICE
a) A Member asked whether the proposed new software system would provide any savings in
relation to dealing with fraudulent claims. The Deputy Chief Executive said that the joint
working arrangement would make processing more efficient and fraudulent claims would
be detected earlier so the delay in clawing back money would be reduced.
b) A concern was raised regarding the lack of information for the cost of the high-speed link
between Cromer and King’s Lynn. The Deputy Chief Executive said that there was
contingency within the capital programme to cover the costs and it was hoped that there
would be a pipe and an internet connection provided.
RESOLVED
1. To agree the revised financial information within the business case as
updated verbally at the meeting regarding an additional £72,000 set up for
back fill.
2. That Council approve the Heads of Terms for the Partnership agreement
and give approval for the Portfolio Holder for Revenues & Benefits and the
Deputy Chief Executive to continue to develop and complete the Partnership
Agreement. To give delegated authority to the Leader of the Council and
Portfolio Holder for Revenues & Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to
develop a shared service model following full consultation and report back to
Cabinet.
3. That Council agrees to entering into a contract with Civica for the provision
of a software system; an outline of the legal obligations to be presented to
Council.
4. To continue to explore the infrastructure requirements with BT and
BCKLWN and recommend to Council the infrastructure requirements and
associated costs.
5. To approve the proposals for BCKLWN to host the ICT infrastructure and
business system and for NNDC to host any proposed shared management
structure.
6. To delegate authority to the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder for
Revenues and Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to agree proposed
service level agreements with customer services and other support services.
Minute 67: TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY 2011/12 TO 2013/14 – AMENDMENT
Mrs B McGoun expressed a concern about reducing the minimum long-term credit rating for
investment counterparties from A+ to ARESOLVED
That the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy 2011/12 to
2013/14 is amended by reducing the minimum long-term credit rating for investment
counterparties from A+ (or equivalent) to A- (or equivalent)
Page 6
Full Council
6
14 December 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 28 NOVEMBER 2011
(Continued)
Minute 70: THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO LOCALISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A BIG SOCIETY FUND
The Portfolio Holder for Localism introduced this item. He explained that a detailed proposal
outlining the governance and operational processes would be put forward in February 2012,
following consultation with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. There had been several
very productive meetings with the Local Area Partnerships (LAPs) and charitable
organisations to ensure they were aware of the proposals and to reiterate support for the work
they had done to date. He stressed that if the proposed money for the Big Society Fund was
not ring-fenced now then that opportunity would be lost and the funding would be added to
general revenue.
Members discussed the recommendations:
a) The loss of funding to the LAPs could damage the Big Society in action. They should be
supported during the transition period and the principle of their aims and work should be
preserved.
b) There was a concern that the framework for supporting communities to carry out their work
would be removed if the LAPs folded. It would be better to continue to support them as
they were the ideal vehicle for achieving the aims of the Big Society.
c) The Leader said that she was in the process of meeting with all the LAPs to stress that the
Council fully supported what they had been doing. The LAPs were very receptive and were
already preparing to adapt to a change in their funding.
RESOLVED
1. To support the proposal for North Norfolk Community Partnership to be reconfigured from
being a formal committee to become a standing conference with an annual summit for the
strategic partners operating in North Norfolk and a 6 monthly review meeting.
2. To support Holt Town Council in becoming a pilot for a neighbourhood plan, regardless of
whether or not the Town Council is able to secure central Government funding, with any
funding coming from the Council’s resources if necessary.
3. That a Big Society fund is established from the return of the second home council tax
income and any uncommitted funds from this year allocated to this fund through the
establishment of an earmarked reserve.
4. That the principles of the Big Society fund are agreed as outlined within Appendix L and a
policy developed which will provide more detail on the operation of the grant scheme.
5. That the fund is split between revenue and capital based upon an indicative allocation of
£500,000 for revenue and £200,000 for capital projects.
Minute 71: NORTH NORFOLK SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN: KELLING TO
LOWESTOFT NESS
RESOLVED
1. That the provisions in SMP6 relating to North Norfolk District Councils Coast Protection
responsibility (Kelling Hard to Cart Gap) be approved and that delegated authority be given to
the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for the Coast and the Chief Executive to adopt the full SMP6
Page 7
Full Council
7
14 December 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 28 NOVEMBER 2011
(Continued)
following its approval by Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council and the
Environment Agency.
2. That an Integrated Coastal Management Plan process be commenced to be overseen by
the Council’s Coastal Management Board.
Minute 73: REVIEW OF THE DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION POLICY FOR STAFF
UNISON had provided a response to the proposal. They requested that Members’ attention
was drawn to the following points:
a) Is concerned that North Norfolk employees may be put at a disadvantage in the event of
any changes in service delivery arising from joint working with other local authorities (in
essence it would be potentially cheaper to make an employee of this Council redundant
rather than an employee of another authority where the multiplier for discretionary
compensation is higher).
b) Considers the timing of this proposal to be unfortunate (staff will inevitably link the
reduction in the ‘enhanced multiplier’ for compulsory redundancy to the re-structure of
senior management).
RESOLVED
That (subject to consideration of the formal consultation of the formal consultation response
from UNISON) to amend the Discretionary Compensation Policy as outlined within the report.
96.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 13
DECEMBER 2011
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee praised the constructive dialogue on
the Cabinet recommendations for the Council’s approach to Localism and the establishment of
a Big Society Fund. He explained that the recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee reflected their concerns but also looked forward to the future. The Committee
welcomed the proposal from the Portfolio Holder for Localism to work together on the
governance and operational processes and criteria. He added that he could see no reason
why the LAPs could not apply for funding from the Big Society Fund.
RESOLVED
a) That all major policy proposals should be subject to timely consultation and engagement
with key stakeholders before decisions are formulated and taken by Cabinet and Council.
b) To approve the ring-fencing of the money for the Big Society Fund.
c) That a further report should be brought to Cabinet and Full Council in February, and to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee for pre-scrutiny in January
97.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 20 July 2011
b)
Licensing and Appeals Committee – 19 September 2011
c)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 20 September 2011
d)
Cabinet – 3 October 2011
e)
Special Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 4 October 2011
f)
Development Committee – 13 October 2011
g)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 18 October 2011
h)
Cabinet – 31 October 2011
i)
Development Committee – 10 November 2011
Page 8
Full Council
8
14 December 2011
98.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
Mr T FitzPatrick
a) The EDP award for the Tourist Information Centre was well deserved. The staff should be
praised for all their hard work and dedication.
b) The North Norfolk Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG) initiative had been launched on
Tuesday 29 November. The event announced a comprehensive package of projects
around the North Norfolk coast valued at more than £2.4m.
99.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
The following notice of motion was proposed by Mr K Johnson and seconded by Mrs S Arnold:
This Council supports the residents living on the A148 Holt Road between Cromer and
Aylmerton in their calls for improved road safety. In particular, this Council supports
residents’ calls for:
1. A pedestrian footbridge over the railway line.
2. A roundabout at the junction of the A148 and the Felbrigg Road.
3. A review of the speed limit between Cromer and Aylmerton.
At a time of economic difficulty this Council recognises that funding for these measures
is not readily available and commits itself to working with the community and Norfolk
County Council to explore whether funding can be realised through other means,
including the new powers granted to local authorities and communities in the Localism
Act.
The motion was debated:
a) Mr K Johnson said that Cromer town had struggled for several years with the increased
volume of traffic coming via the A148. He suggested that a Local Plan could be produced
which could attract Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding. He added that on-street
parking income was ring-fenced for traffic management and this offered further
possibilities for funding any improvements. A competition could be launched to come up
with an iconic design for a footbridge.
b) Mrs S Arnold said that the Development Committee fully supported the Motion. A local
resident had attended a recent committee meeting and made a very impassioned plea on
behalf of campaigners. She added that the mini-roundabouts in Roughton worked very
well.
c) Brian Ridd spoke on behalf of residents along the Holt Road. They fully supported the
Motion.
d) Mrs H Eales spoke on behalf of the residents in her ward who were affected. She fully
supported the Motion.
RESOLVED
To support the Motion
100.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
Page 9
Full Council
9
14 December 2011
101.
NNDC – TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW PART ONE
The Chief Executive requested that the Strategic Directors leave the room before this item
was introduced.
The report presented the case for change to the Council’s top management structures.
Revised arrangements would be financially sustainable, fit for purpose and designed to deliver
the corporate agenda through to 2015. The proposals were part of a package of measures
aimed at bringing greater stability, certainty and confidence to the organisation during a period
of volatility in local government and would be introduced in parallel with the updated
performance framework that was being developed alongside the new corporate plan.
There were two phases to the review:
a) A reduction in the membership of the existing Corporate Management Team (CMT) from 5
to 3, with the new membership comprising the posts of Chief Executive and two Corporate
Directors and the rebranding of the team as the Corporate Leadership team (CLT)
b) A review of the Senior Management Team (SMT) with the intention of reducing the number
of posts, a change in responsibilities and the number of direct responsibilities to CLT.
The Chief Executive said that the revised structure would be more flexible and would provide
the opportunity to review the way in which the Council managed its services. There was a
target saving of £150,000. He suggested that this was a minimum and that there was a
possibility of increasing that saving. This would give the Council more choice. The money
could be set aside to cushion against future cuts or used to fund a shortfall in existing
services. He concluded by saying that he believed that the existing CMT had the competence
and experience to take the proposals forward.
Members discussed the report:
1. There was a concern that the posts of the corporate PAs would be under threat. The Chief
Executive explained that their roles already covered shared support across senior
management and it was likely that the new SMT would continue to need such support.
2. Further clarification was sought regarding the meaning of the term ‘cross-cutting
organisational theme’. The Chief Executive said that it was intended that they would be
quite broad themes and could take on a number of forms. The new CLT would decide on
the format following the selection process.
RESOLVED
a) to approve:
The reformatting of CMT, ensuring that the team has sufficient capacity to deliver the
corporate agenda, set strategic direction and meet our core statutory responsibilities. It is
proposed that CMT be rebranded as the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and that its
membership be revised to comprise the posts of Chief Executive and two Corporate Directors,
each assuming responsibility for a cross-cutting organisational theme to be shaped by the
team following the selection process.
b) To note
that phase two of the review will comprise the following actions to be undertaken by CLT in
consultation with the Cabinet. A report detailing the complete revised top management
structure and associated responsibilities will be brought to Council at the April 2012 meeting.
Page 10
Full Council
10
14 December 2011
NNDC – TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW PART ONE
(Continued)
1. A comprehensive review of service management structures which will reduce the number
of direct reports to CLT through a combination of revised responsibilities, shared or
alternative service solutions and role adjustment. This review will take
place between
early January and the end of March, 2012.
2. A relaunch of SMT and a redefining of its role and purpose to maximise capability and
build capacity
3. The clarification of our stance on corporate and senior management joint-working with
other councils
4. The implementation of a phased delivery plan to achieve the above, linked to the roll out of
the new corporate plan for 2011/12-2015.
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.”
102.
TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW PHASE 1, PART 2 - IMPLEMENTATION
Agreeing the baseline for the selection process
The Chief Executive left the room for this item.
Report of the Leader of the Council:
a) Ring fencing the selection process
The Leader outlined the objectives of the top management review and advised Members
that she was satisfied that the current CMT included individuals with the necessary levels
of competence and experience from whom the new CLT could be selected.
A Member asked whether it was legitimate for the Council to limit appointments to within
the organisation. The Organisational Development Manager said that it was permitted
within the terms of the constitution.
RESOLVED
That the selection process for the CLT be ring fenced to the current members of CMT
b) The Chief Executive
The Leader explained that during the preceding 2 months, a mutual agreement had been
reached with the Chief Executive. It was proposed that he would take early retirement in
exchange for a severance package and a lump sum payment. Members had been
provided with the details of the offer to the Chief Executive. The Leader said that she felt
the proposal represented a sound financial solution for the Council and that an opportunity
Page 11
Full Council
11
14 December 2011
TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW PHASE 1, PART 2 – IMPLEMENTATION (Continued)
now existed to facilitate the transition to the new structure with reduced fallout and
implications for the Team.
RESOLVED
To approve the offer to the Chief Executive of early retirement and a lump sum
payment in the interests of the efficiency of the organisation and subject to the
financial settlement outlined in the business case summary attached to the report
c) Pay scale for the Chief Executive Post
It was proposed to appoint the Chief Executive at the revised grade 1 scale within the
Council’s amended pay scales. The grade currently comprised 4 incremental points but to
reflect the general economic climate and to support the cost saving objective, it was
suggested that the appointment be capped at increment 2 (scale point 1342) but subject to
review through any future market testing exercise.
A Member asked whether it was necessary to keep the remaining 2 incremental points in
place if the appointment was going to be capped at increment 2. The Organisational
Development Manager explained that staff currently moved through the incremental points
on an annual basis but for this post it was proposed that the holder should move to the
second increment after 6 months but at that point their car allowance would be removed.
In response to a further question as to why the two additional increments were not
removed from the post, the Organisational Development Manager said that was a decision
for Members to make.
RESOLVED
1. To approve the salary for the post of Chief Executive within the range of scale
point 1341 - £97, 680.00 to scale point 1342 - £99,781.00, within the revised grade
1 of the Council’s amended pay scales.
2. To delete increments 3 and 4 from the post.
The Chief Executive rejoined the meeting.
d) Selection process to the new Corporate Leadership Team
It was proposed that the selection process would take place in two stages:
i) Recruitment of the Chief Executive on Friday 16 December 2011
ii) Recruitment of the two Corporate Directors on Friday 6 January 2012
It was further proposed that Council delegate the selection process for these appointments
to the Employment Committee who would make their recommendations for approval to an
extraordinary meeting of the Council to be held on Wednesday 11 January 2012.
A Member asked if there were job descriptions available for the Corporate Director posts.
He was concerned that Members were agreeing their appointment without a full
understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The Organisational Development
Manager said that the job description for the post of Chief Executive had been circulated to
the existing Directors. Once appointed, the new Chief Executive would have an input into
the job descriptions for the new Director posts. In response to a further question regarding
Members’ input into the process, the Organisational Development Manager confirmed that
the Leader would be involved.
Page 12
Full Council
12
14 December 2011
TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW PHASE 1, PART 2 – IMPLEMENTATION (Continued)
RESOLVED
To confirm that selection of the candidates to the posts of Chief Executive and
Corporate Directors be undertaken by the Employment Committee and that the
Employment Committee submit their recommendations for approval at an
extraordinary meeting of Council to be held on Wednesday 11 January 2012.
e) Establishing the Employment Committee
The Council’s constitution allowed for the Employment Committee to comprise 3
councillors. However, given the significance of this particular task, it was recommended
that Council vary this provision and appoint 5 councillors to ensure a wider spread of
representation in the selection process. The Committee did not need to be politically
balanced. Council could consider changing the membership of the Employment Committee
for the appointment of the Corporate Directors in January 2012 and if this was agreed then
those members would also need to be appointed at the same time. The proposed
membership of the Employment Committee was:
Councillor Helen Eales (proposed as Chairman)
Councillor Keith Johnson (proposed as Vice-Chairman)
Councillor Sue Arnold
Councillor Glyn Williams
Councillor Mike Baker
Members discussed the proposals:
It was suggested that as the applicants were the same in both cases then the panel should
remain the same. The Chief Executive said that there were benefits in consistency. An
alternative would be for the panel to meet once and select the whole team. However, if
there were two separate meetings of the Employment Committee then the Chief Executive
designate could take part in the send meeting.
The Organisational Development Manager said that the candidates for the post of Chief
Executive could find it difficult to face the same panel a second time. Members agreed that
they were senior posts and it was preferable to keep the same panel for both meetings.
AGREED
That the members of the Employment Committee should remain the same for the meeting
on 16 December 2011 and the meeting on 6 January 2012
RESOLVED
1. To endorse the appointment process for the Chief Executive and Corporate
Directors
2. To agree to vary the size of the Employment Committee from three to five
members
3. To appoint five members to the Employment Committee to undertake the
selection of Chief Executive on Friday 16 December 2011
4. To appoint five members to the Employment Committee to undertake the
selection of the two Corporate Directors on Friday 6 January 2012
5. That those members should be: Councillor Helen Eales (Chairman), Councillor
Keith Johnson (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Sue Arnold, Councillor Glyn Williams
and Councillor Michael Baker
Page 13
Full Council
13
14 December 2011
TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW PHASE 1, PART 2 – IMPLEMENTATION (Continued)
6. To request that the Committee submit their recommendations for each
appointment for approval by Council at an extraordinary meeting to be held on
Wednesday 11 January 2012.
The Chief Executive thanked all the Members for agreeing to the proposals and for
providing the Council with the opportunity to move forward.
The Leader thanked the Chief Executive and the Organisational Development Manager for
their commitment and hard work. She also thanked Councillor Virginia Gay and Councillor
Michael Baker for their input.
The meeting concluded at 8.35pm
____
Chairman
Page 14
Full Council
14
14 December 2011
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of an extraordinary meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 11 January 2012
at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.45 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
Ms V R Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr T Ivory
Mr K E Johnson
Mr G R Jones
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
103.
Mr J H A Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R C Price
Mr J Punchard
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 H Thompson
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr S Ward
Mr G Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive and the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH)
The press and members of the public.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr T FitzPatrick
105
Items of Urgent Business (2)
Personal and nonprejudicial – is a
Director of the North
Norfolk Business
Forum.
Mr T Ivory
105
Items of Urgent Business (2)
Personal and nonprejudicial as a
representative on the
North Norfolk
Business Trust,
though not
representing this
Council
Page 15
Full Council
1
11 January 2012
104.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr M J M Baker, Mr B J Hannah, Mr P W High, Mr
B Jarvis, Mrs B A McGoun, Mr S Partridge and Mrs L Walker.
105.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were 2 items of urgent business:
The Constitution (Chapter 2, Section 4, 4.4e) provided for an extraordinary meeting of the
Council “to consider any matter which, by reason of special circumstances to be specified in
the minutes of the meeting, the Chairman considers should be considered at the meeting as a
matter of urgency”. There were 2 items of urgent business:
1. Ms V R Gay to replace Mr P W High as a substitute on the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and Mr P W High to replace Ms V R Gay as a substitute on the Planning
Policy and Built Heritage Working Party
This matter was urgent because if the changes weren't formalised until the next scheduled
meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2012 it would potentially prevent Ms Gay from
substituting at 3 meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (25 January, 31
January and 15 February 2012) and Mr High from substituting at the Planning Policy and
Built Heritage Working Party on 20 February 2012.
RESOLVED
1. That Ms V R Gay replaces Mr P W High as a substitute on the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
2. That Mr P W High replaces Ms V R Gay as a substitute on the Planning Policy and
Built Heritage Working Party.
2. Recommendation from Cabinet 9 January 2012 - Item 4: Item of Urgent Business:
North Norfolk FLAG Fisheries and Communities Engagement Programme
This matter was urgent so that the loan, which would come out of reserves, could be
advanced. The loan was to provide cash flow support to the North Norfolk Business Forum
in advance of the organisation making retrospective quarterly claims for reimbursement
from the Marine Management Organisation
RESOLVED
To provide an interest free loan for £50,000 to the North Norfolk Business Forum (NNBF)
for a period of 3 ½ years to help the organisations cash-flow while undertaking their
agreed role and responsibilities as FLAG Programme Manager.
106.
TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND TWO CORPORATE
DIRECTORS
At the meeting of Full Council on 14 December 2011 the Employment Committee was
delegated to select the Council’s new Chief Executive at interviews to be held on 16
December 2011, and to select two Corporate Directors at interviews arranged for 6 January
2012. In response to a question from Mr E Seward, the Chief Executive confirmed that due
process had been followed in every aspect of the recruitment.
In response to a question from Mr P W Moore regarding the S151 Officer and the Monitoring
Officer, the Chief Executive said that the current arrangements could continue until a further
Page 16
Full Council
2
11 January 2012
TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND TWO CORPORATE
DIRECTORS
(Continued)
report was produced at the end of March when the Senior Management Review had been
carried out. Legislation did not prohibit the Chief Executive from also being the S151 Officer.
The Council would have to reassign any of the statutory roles as this could not be delegated.
The Leader thanked the Members of the Employment Committee for their hard work and
commitment and commended the Organisational Development Manager for her
professionalism.
It was proposed by Mrs H Eales, seconded by Mr K E Johnson and
RESOLVED
1. To receive the minutes of the meetings of the Employment Committee held on 16
December 2011 and 6 January 2012.
2. To confirm the following appointments, effective from 1 February 2012, and to wish the
new Corporate Leadership Team every success in the future:
ƒ that Sheila Oxtoby be appointed as the Council’s Chief Executive and Head of Paid
Service, and separately as the local Returning Officer and Electoral Registration
Officer; and
ƒ
that Nick Baker and Steve Blatch be appointed as Corporate Directors.
The meeting concluded at 6.55 pm.
____
Chairman
Page 17
Full Council
3
11 January 2012
Agenda Item No______8______
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE JOINT REVENUES & BENEFITS
PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
Summary:
The Revenues and Benefits Joint Committee
Under the terms of the Partnership Agreement entered
into with the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West
Norfolk for shared service delivery of Revenues and
Benefits each Council delegate and empowers the
monitoring of the Revenues and Benefits Service to a
Joint Committee comprising members of both Councils.
Conclusions:
The report concludes the necessity for the appointment
of three members to the Joint Partnership Committee.
That the Joint Partnership Committee will agree draft
terms of reference for the Committee which will be
subject to approval by both Councils.
The Joint Committee will approve the appointment of a
Secretary and Financial Officer to the Joint Committee.
Recommendations:
This report asks that three members be appointed
to the Revenues & Benefits Joint Partnership
Committee
Cabinet Member(s)
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Louise Wolsey. Louise.wolsey@north-norfolk.gov.uk 01263516081
1.
Introduction
Under the terms of the Partnership Agreement entered into with the Borough
Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk for shared service delivery of
Revenues and Benefits each Council delegate and empowers the monitoring
of the Revenues and Benefits Service to a Joint Committee comprising
members of both Councils. The Partnership Agreement also provides that the
Councils are to share the costs of the Joint Committee equally.
Page 18
The Constitution and likely initial decisions for the Joint Committee were
considered by the January 2012 meeting of the Revenues and Benefits
Shared Service Project Board which comprises senior members of each
Council. In this connection the Board concluded that as the formal
Partnership between the two Councils was now in place it would be
appropriate for NNDC to appoint members to the Joint Committee in order
that the Joint Committee could take over the monitoring and overview role
previously exercised by the Shared Service Project Board.
2
Initial Decisions of the Joint Committee
By definition and, subject to its terms of reference, the issues for the Joint
Committee will be a matter for the Committee itself. However, the Revenues
and Benefits Shared Service Project Board considered that there were four
preliminary matters that would require early consideration by the Joint
Committee, these relevant issues are:-
(1)
Approval or change of name of the Shared Service. For convenience the
Partnership was designated in the Partnership Agreement as ‘The North &
West Norfolk Revenues and Benefits Joint Committee’. The Project Board
considered that a more appropriate and strategically beneficial name would
be The Norfolk Revenues and Benefits Partnership.
(2)
Agreeing and preparing draft terms of Reference for the Joint Committee. The
draft terms of reference will be subject to approval and, if necessary,
alteration by both Councils. However as the terms of reference will determine
the decision making and monitoring remit of the Joint Committee and will
arise out of the Revenue and Benefits function, the Project Board considered
that it would be appropriate for the Joint Committee, in consultation with
relevant officers of both Councils, to prepare draft terms of reference for
approval and alteration.
(3)
Approval of the Secretary to the Joint Committee. This Officer is responsible
for committee administration to the Joint Committee. As the Borough Council
of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk is responsible for administrative support to
the Committee the designated Officer will be a King’s Lynn Officer
(4)
Approval of the Finance Officer to the Joint Committee. Financial
Management of the Shared Service is to be provided by NNDC and for this
reason the designated Officer will be an Officer employed by NNDC.
3
Membership and Constitution of the Joint Committee
3.1
Appointment of members to the Joint Committee is possible by virtue of section
102 Local Government Act 1972. Under the Constitution agreed for the Joint
Committee each Council will be required to appoint three members to the
Committee and may appoint designated substitutes. There is no requirement
that the Joint Committee reflects the political balance of either Council
however Members appointed to the Committee are required to comply with
their own Council’s Code of Conduct for the time being in force.
Page 19
3.2
Meetings of the Joint Committee are initially proposed on a two monthly basis
although meetings can be requisitioned by the Secretary of the Joint
Committee or two members of the Joint Committee. The Chairman and ViceChairman of the Joint Committee are to be appointed annually and will
alternate between the two Councils. Due to the important need to ensure joint
input and build trust early in the Partnership the Joint Committee’s quorum
requires attendance by all of each Council’s members or their substitutes.
3.3
Each Council may call in a decision of the Joint Committee under the Scrutiny
provisions set out in that Council’s Constitution.
4.
Conclusion
The report concludes the necessity for the appointment of three members to
the Joint Partnership Committee.
That the Joint Partnership Committee will agree draft terms of reference for
the Committee which will be subject to approval by both Councils.
The Joint Committee will approve the appointment of a Secretary and
Financial Officer to the Joint Committee.
5.
Implications and Risks
The appointment of members as outlined in the report is necessary for the
governance of the shared service arrangement for the Revenues & Benefits
Service.
6.
Financial Implications and Risks
The Partnership agreement provides that the Councils share the costs of the
Joint Committee equally.
7.
Sustainability
There are no direct sustainability issues
8.
Equality and Diversity
There are no direct equality and diversity issues
9.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
There are no direct crime and disorder issues
Page 20
Norfolk Leaders Meeting
30th January 2012
Item No: 5
Development of a Norfolk Armed Forces Community Covenant
1.
Community Covenant – what is it
A Community Covenant is a voluntary statement of mutual support between a
civilian community and its local Armed Forces Community. Its aims are;
• encouraging local communities to support the Armed Forces Community in their
area
• nurturing public understanding and awareness amongst the public issues
affecting the Armed Forces Community
• recognising and remembering the sacrifices faced by the Armed Forces
Community
• encouraging activities which help to integrate the Armed Forces Community into
local life
• encouraging the Armed Forces Community to help and support the wider
community, whether through participation in events and joint projects, or other
forms of engagement.
Local community covenants complement the national Armed Forces Covenant,
which outlines the moral obligation between the Nation, the Government and the
Armed Forces.
The LGA and those involved in the Armed Forces Covenant are encouraging local
areas to establish and improve their relationship between the local Armed Forces
community and the wider community.
During summer 2011, Hampshire, Portsmouth, North Yorkshire and Oxfordshire
were the first local authorities to establish a community covenant. Within our region,
Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire County Councils signed their Covenants in
December 2011.
2.
Developing a Norfolk Community Covenant
Norfolk has a long history of Armed Forces being based within our county e.g.
Swanton Morley, RAF Marham and previously RAF Coltishall. Norfolk County
Council and District Councils already have good relationships with these bases and
the charities that support in-service and ex-service personnel and their families.
The Norfolk Covenant will look to build on these relationships and hopefully provide
a more consistent approach.
Each area is encouraged to use the national Community Covenant template. A
Norfolk draft is attached for information.
Page 21
Resources – Planning, Performance and Partnership Service
Norfolk County Council has begun the process of developing a Norfolk Community
Covenant, by meeting representatives of the Armed Forces Community to listen to
their views and areas of support.
2.1
Discussions with the Norfolk Armed Forces Community
A Round Table discussion with the Armed Forces Community took place on 18th
January. This involved representatives from supporting service charities, Royal
Anglian Regiment and RAF Marham. The purpose of the discussion was to seek
support for a Norfolk Community Covenant and identify areas that might be
incorporated in an Action Plan.
The discussion was very productive and it is clear that there are many areas for
improved co-ordination, consistency and support for our Armed Forces Community.
Areas highlighted were:
• GP awareness of combat stress
• School pupil premiums in schools with 90% service children
• Veterans in custody
• Employment support for ex-service personnel
• Support available from Service Charities.
2.2
Developing an Action Plan
Norfolk County Council is looking at the following areas to put forward in the Action
Plan;
• Cluster school holiday activities on bases
• Art and Active Norfolk event on bases during summer holidays
• Dedicated web page on NCC website for Armed Forces Community
• Gressenhall fun day for in-service families
• Adult education event at Robertson Barracks
There were four areas identified by the Armed Forces Community that District
Councils may be able to support, or continue to support;
a) Heroes Welcome
b) Housing
c) Benefit Assessments
d) Armed Forces Day
a) Heroes Welcome is a national initiative, already in place in West Norfolk, Great
Yarmouth and Watton. The aim is to give a warm welcome and a little quiet
acknowledgement to members of the Armed Forces, who are doing a difficult job in
dangerous circumstances. It involves displaying a poster in participating
businesses and venues, that may indicate an Armed Service discount or Upgrade
offer or at the very least a warm welcome. The Heroes Welcome logo is a show of
support and not a guarantee of discount. Councils are asked to support this
initiative in their area.
b) The national Armed Forces Covenant has identified the issues of allocation of
housing to ex-service personnel and their families as an area where they are
disadvantaged, due to their lack of ties to the area. It is noted that the current
consultation by CLG on Housing has 2 statutory instruments on the allocation of
housing, involving armed forces personnel. This will require local authorities not to
apply the residency requirement criteria to armed forces personnel and to give
reasonable preference to persons who formally served in the regular forces.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Full Council\2011-2012\22 February 2012\Draft\Armed Forces Community
Page 22
Convenant Leaders 30112.doc
Resources – Planning, Performance and Partnership Service
Councils are asked to support the changes proposed in these two statutory
instruments.
c) There is a statutory £10 disregard applied to War Pensions, however most local
authorities have agreed to apply a discretionary 100% disregard. Councils are
asked not to include war pensions in the benefit assessments.
d) Armed Forces Day. Councils are asked to continue to support this annual day,
which takes place this year on 30th June.
2.3
Signing Event
The Signing Ceremony for the Norfolk Armed Forces Community Covenant will take
place on Wednesday 7th March, 2pm at County Hall. It will be hosted by the
Chairman of Norfolk County Council. Representatives from the Armed Forces
Community, along with the County and District Councils and partner agencies will
be invited to sign the Covenant.
The Lord Lieutenant for Norfolk will be in attendance. General The Lord Dannatt,
GCB CBE MC, has been invited.
3.
Recommendations
Norfolk Leaders are asked to consider the development of a Norfolk Armed Forces
Community Covenant and to agree to support this Covenant by:
- agreeing to take forward the areas identified, under section 2.2, by the Armed
Forces Community, so that they can be incorporated in the Action Plan.
- attending the signing ceremony on 7th March to sign the Covenant on behalf of
their organisation, outlined in section 2.3.
M:\909\WPDATA\NEW COMMITTEES\Full Council\2011-2012\22 February 2012\Draft\Armed Forces Community
Page 23
Convenant Leaders 30112.doc
Full Council
22 February 2012
Agenda Item No_____11________
CONSTITUTION ANNUAL REVIEW
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
The purpose of this report is to advise members of the need to
nominate members to serve on the Constitution Working Party in
order to undertake the annual review of the Council’s Constitution.
In accordance with paragraph 14.1 in chapter 1 of the Constitution, the
Council needs to undertake a review at least annually. That review is
best undertaken through the Constitution Working Party. The review
should consider the need to make amendments arising from:
• new or amending legislation
•
relevant audit recommendations
•
operational experience of applying the Constitution since
April 2011
•
inconsistencies, referencing, formatting etc. identified within
the document
•
any other relevant review or change of circumstances.
Nominations have been requested and received from Group Leaders
for 3 Conservative members and 2 Liberal Democrat members to
serve on the Constitution Working Party, to undertake the annual
review of the content and operation of the Council’s Constitution, and
that recommendations arising from the review are scheduled to be
reported to Full Council on 18 April 2012. It is recommended that the
following members be appointed:
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, Ms V R Gay, Mr K E Johnson, Mrs A Moore
and Mrs H Thompson.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
Tony Ing, Strategic Director – Information
01263 516080, tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Page 24
Full Council
22 February 2012
1.
Requirement to review the Constitution
1.1
The Council’s Constitution was subject to a full review in 2010/11, with the current
version being formally adopted by the Council in April 2011. In accordance with
paragraph 14.1 in Chapter 1 of the Constitution:
“The Council has responsibility for monitoring and reviewing the operation of the
Constitution to ensure that the aims and principles of the Constitution are given
full effect. Such monitoring and review shall take place at least annually and be
reported to Full Council.”
1.2
The purpose of this review will be to focus on any amendments that are necessary or
desirable arising from:
•
new or amending legislation (e.g. the Localism Act 2011)
•
relevant audit recommendations (e.g. the Corporate Governance audit)
•
operational experience of applying the Constitution since April 2011
•
inconsistencies, referencing, formatting etc. identified within the document
•
any other relevant review or change of circumstances (e.g. agreed recommendations
of the Independent Remuneration Panel).
2.
Convening the Constitution Working Party
2.1
It is proposed that the Council convenes the Constitution Working Party to undertake the
annual review of the Constitution. As a working party, it is subject to the rules of political
balance. Leaders are, therefore, invited to nominate individuals to serve on the
Constitution Working Party to fulfil the purpose set out in paragraph 1.2 above.
2.2
The current composition of the Council will mean Group Leaders have the option to
nominate the following number of member representatives to serve on the working party:
3 Conservatives
2 Liberal Democrats
2.3
It is anticipated the working party will need to meet on two or three occasions, over a
period of about five weeks, with a view to reporting to Full Council on 18 April 2012 with
recommended amendments.
3.
Financial Implications
3.1
There are no direct financial implications associated with the annual review of the
Constitution.
4.
Risks
4.1
In order to mitigate any potential risks associated with the Constitution, it is important
that the document is updated to reflect any new or amended, relevant legislation to
ensure the conduct of business and decision making processes are effective and legally
sound.
Page 25
Full Council
22 February 2012
5.
Sustainability
5.1
There are no direct sustainability implications associated with the annual review of the
Constitution.
6.
Equality and Diversity
6.1
There are no direct equality and diversity implications associated with the annual review
of the Constitution. However, if there are any significant changes arising from the
review, they will be subject to an equality impact assessment before being adopted by
Council.
7.
Crime & Disorder
7.1
There are no direct crime and disorder implications associated with the annual review of
the Constitution.
Page 26
Full Council
22 February 2012
Agenda Item No___12__________
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL ON THE MEMBERS’ SCHEME
OF ALLOWANCES - JANUARY 2012
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to recommend to Full Council the
allowances and expenses to be paid to Members to take effect from
May 2012. In accordance with the requirements of the Local
Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003, the
Council set up an Independent Remuneration Panel as agreed at the
December 2011 meeting of Full Council. The membership and terms
of reference for the Panel were also agreed at the December meeting
of Full Council.
Conclusions:
The Council is required to observe as part of the legislation, the
following; ‘before an authority makes or amends a scheme, it shall
have regard to the recommendations made in relation to it by an
independent remuneration panel’. The findings and recommendations
of the Panel are detailed in this report.
Recommendations:
That Members consider the recommendations of the Independent
Remuneration Panel, adopt a scheme of allowances and amend the
Constitution accordingly. Specifically, it is recommended that:
a) the Basic Allowance should remain at £4,054.88 pa;
b) the Scheme should remain index linked to officers’ pay awards;
c) the broadband allowance should remain at £180 pa subject to
Members agreeing a reduction to reflect the change in market
prices since 2008;
d) the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Leader of
the Council should remain calculated by way of a multiplier of
x3 the basic allowance;
e) the SRA for Cabinet Members with Portfolio should remain
calculated by way of a multiplier of x2.33 the basic allowance;
f)
the SRA for Regulatory Committees of the Council should
remain calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.67 the basic
allowance;
g) until the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011 come into
force, the Page
SRA27in respect of the Standards Committee be paid
Full Council
22 February 2012
to the non-elected Chairman of that committee less the basic
allowance;
h) the SRA for the Chairman of the Council should remain
calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.33 the basic allowance;
i)
the SRA for the Leader of the main opposition group should
remain calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.33 the basic
allowance;
j)
payment of £50 per session (0.5 of a day) should continue to
be made to co-opted members of the Standards Committee;
k) the carers’ allowance should be set at the national minimum
wage for Child Dependants and the national minimum wage
plus £3 for Non-Child Dependants, with discretion being
delegated to the Chief Executive to increase this amount when
individual circumstances justified a higher payment;
l)
the payment of a carers’ allowance should be confirmed as
being extended to attendance at outside bodies and that this
should be explicitly stated within the Constitution;
m) the existing travelling and subsistence expenses scheme
should be maintained, and it should be subject to amendment
in accordance with prevailing national agreements;
n) the changes proposed by the Panel are not backdated, but
should take effect from the beginning of the municipal year, in
May 2012;
o) Members’ Allowances should remain ineligible for admission to
the Norfolk Local Government Scheme;
p) the existing arrangements for temporarily stopping the
payment of allowances to a Member while suspended from
their role are maintained until the relevant provisions of the
Localism Act 2011 come into force removing the power to
suspend a Member from their role.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
Tony Ing, Strategic Director – Information
01263 516080, tony.ing@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Independent Member Remuneration Panel (IRP), which was appointed for a 4 year
term with effect from 14 December 2011 consists of 3 members;
Paddy Seligman, John Wollocombe and Richard Draper.
The Chair of the Panel was selected by its members at the start of the meeting where it
was agreed that John Wollocombe would be the Chairman.
1.2
The IRP met on 13 January 2012 to consider the available evidence before making the
recommendations being put to the Council and was assisted by the Chief Executive,
Corporate Director – Information, and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Page 28
Full Council
22 February 2012
1.3
The Panel agreed the Terms of Reference as outlined below in section 2 of this report
and were appraised of the full range of roles covered by Members in carrying out their
duties as District Councillors in relation to the current Scheme of Members’ Allowances.
1.4
Consideration was given to the Terms of Reference of the Council’s Committees and
the frequency they meet as per the published Programme of Meetings.
1.5
Comparative data on Members’ Allowances Schemes throughout Suffolk and Norfolk
were also studied to help set a contextual benchmark for the North Norfolk Scheme.
2.
Terms of Reference
2.1
The Regulations provide that the IRP can make recommendations to the Council on the
following matters:
i)
The amount of basic allowance which should be payable equally to each elected
Member.
ii)
The roles and responsibilities for which a special responsibility allowance should
be payable and the amount of each such allowance.
iii)
Travelling and subsistence.
iv)
Co-optees’ allowance.
v)
Whether an allowance in respect of expenses of arranging for the care of
children and dependants should be included and, if appropriate, the amount of
allowance and means by which it is determined.
vi)
Backdating of allowances to the beginning of a financial year in which the
scheme is amended.
vii)
Annual adjustments of allowances.
viii)
Which Members are to be eligible for contributory membership of the Local
Government Scheme.
ix)
Whether basic allowance or Special Responsibility Allowance are eligible.
3.
Issues Considered and the Panel’s Conclusions
3.1
The issues under consideration and the Panel’s conclusions were as follows:-
3.2
Basic Allowance
The current scheme provides for a payment of a basic allowance, in the sum of
£4,054.88pa. The Basic Allowance is intended to reflect time commitment for all
councillors for ward work, meetings with Officers and attendance at group meetings.
After receiving evidence in respect of both committee and ward roles and reviewing
comparative schemes across Norfolk and Suffolk, and being mindful of the prevailing
economic circumstances and the fact there had been no significant or material structural
changes, the Panel felt that it was appropriate to maintain the basic allowance at its
Page 29
Full Council
22 February 2012
current value. The Panel also felt that it was appropriate that Members’ allowances
remained index linked to the staff pay award.
While the Panel was comfortable with the allowance for broadband remaining at £180
pa, it was recommended that Members should consider a lower rate of (say) £150 pa,
being mindful of the changes in market prices since the previous review. Such a
reduction would realise a saving of £1,440 pa.
Recommendations
To recommend that the basic allowance should remain at £4,054.88 pa
To recommend that the Scheme should remain index linked to officers’ pay awards
To recommend that the broadband allowance should remain at £180 pa subject to
Members agreeing a reduction to reflect the change in market prices since 2008.
3.3
Special Responsibility Allowance
Special responsibility allowances (SRAs) are calculated as a multiplier of the basic
allowance. The Panel considered this to be an appropriate way to calculate SRAs and
concluded that it should continue.
SRAs can be paid to those members of the Council who have significant additional
responsibilities over and above the generally accepted duties of a councillor.
The Panel considered the full range of responsibilities that could attract the payment of a
SRA under executive arrangements.
3.3.1
Leader of the Council
The Leader currently receives a total allowance of £12,164.62 pa, which is calculated on
a multiplier of x3. The Panel noted the role of the Leader and the importance of the role.
The Panel considered that an increase in the multiplier could be justified to reflect the
significant responsibilities of the position, however, in the current economic
circumstances it was not felt appropriate to make a recommendation to do so at this
time.
Recommendation
To recommend that the SRA for the Leader of the Council should remain calculated by
way of a multiplier of x3 the basic allowance.
3.3.2 Cabinet Members with Portfolio
Currently, Cabinet Portfolio Members receive a total allowance of £9,447.54 pa, which is
calculated on a multiplier of x2.33.
The Panel had regard to the roles and responsibilities of Cabinet Members and was
satisfied the allowance should remain unchanged.
The Panel also agreed that, as currently the case, the role of Deputy Leader should not
attract an allowance over and above that of a Cabinet Member with Portfolio as this was
considered to be a party political/management appointment.
Recommendation
To recommend that the SRA for Cabinet Members with Portfolio should remain
calculated by way of a multiplier of x2.33
the basic allowance.
Page 30
Full Council
3.3.3
22 February 2012
Chairmanship of Regulatory Committees – Overview & Scrutiny, Development,
Licensing, Standards and Audit
Currently, these Members receive a total allowance of £6,771.96, which is calculated on
a multiplier of x1.67. The Panel considered the terms of reference of these committees
and the regulatory responsibility they hold, which was considered to represent a
significant time commitment.
The Panel noted that, in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011, at some
point after March 2012 the arrangements for Standards will change. There will no longer
be a provision for the co-option of independent members to a Standards Committee,
therefore, the role of the chairman would revert to an elected member. However, until
the relevant provisions come into force the current arrangements must continue.
Recommendations
To recommend that the SRA for Regulatory Committees of the Council should remain
calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.67 the basic allowance.
To recommend that, until the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011 come into
force, the SRA in respect of the Standards Committee should continue to be paid to the
non-elected Chairman of that committee less the basic allowance.
3.3.4 Chairman of the Council
The Chairman of the Council currently receives a total allowance of £5,392.66 pa, which
is calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.33. The Panel considered the significance of
the ambassadorial role of the Chairman in the North Norfolk Community. However, it
was felt there was no justification for increasing the multiplier in the current economic
circumstances.
Recommendation
To recommend that the SRA for the Chairman of the Council should remain calculated
by way of a multiplier of x1.33 the basic allowance.
3.3.5
Leader of the main opposition group
The Panel considered the role of the Leader of the main opposition group, which is
currently paid a total allowance of £5,392.66 pa, which is calculated by way of a
multiplier of x1.33 the basic allowance. The Panel considered the role in the context of
the regulations and the requirement that the allowance payment reflected the time
commitment of the role.
Recommendation
To recommend that the SRA for the Leader of the main opposition group should remain
calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.33 the basic allowance.
3.4
Co - opted members
The Council is currently required to appoint co-opted members to the Standards
Committee as independents and parish members to undertake duties relating to the
Code of Conduct. These Members Page
are 31
currently paid an allowance of £50 per session
Full Council
22 February 2012
(0.5 of a day) in the interest of seeking to attract talented independent member
participation and recognition of the role. Co-opted members are also entitled to claim for
reasonable travelling and subsistence expenses. As previously mentioned, the Localism
Act 2011 will remove the requirement to appoint independent members to the Standards
Committee, although provisions will remain for the co-option of parish members.
Recommendation
To recommend that payment of £50 per session (0.5 of a day) should continue to be
made to co-opted members of the Standards Committee.
3.5
Carer’s Allowance
At the time the carers’ allowance was considered by the Panel in 2007, it had seemed
reasonable to link it to the national minimum wage. Having reviewed comparative data
across other Norfolk and Suffolk authorities, it was apparent that carers’ allowance was
paid at different rates for different categories of dependants and that virtually all those
authorities extended the payment of carers’ allowance to attendance at outside bodies.
The Panel was mindful that costs of care could vary significantly depending on the
nature of the care needed. The cost of carer’s allowance was £907.63 in 2010/11 and is
£743.27 in 2011/12, year to date.
Recommendations
To recommend that the carers’ allowance should be set at the national minimum wage
(currently £6.08 per hour) for Child Dependants and the national minimum wage plus £3
for Non-Child Dependants, with discretion being delegated to the Chief Executive to
increase this amount when individual circumstances justified a higher payment.
To recommend that the payment of a carers’ allowance should be confirmed as being
extended to attendance at outside bodies and that this should be explicitly stated within
the Constitution.
3.6
Travelling and Subsistence
The current scheme is based upon nationally set rates that are payable in respect of
meetings and attendance in relation to rightful responsibilities or representation of views,
for example, meetings of the Council, site visits, outside organisations etc. The Panel
could see no justification for moving away from these arrangements.
Recommendation
To recommend that the existing travelling and subsistence expenses scheme should be
maintained, and that it should be subject to amendment in accordance with prevailing
national agreements.
3.7
Backdating of Allowances
The Panel could see no justification for suggesting that allowances should be backdated
to the beginning of the financial year in which the scheme is to be amended.
Recommendation
To recommend that the changes proposed by the Panel are not backdated, but should
take effect from the beginning of the municipal year, in May 2012.
Page 32
Full Council
3.8
22 February 2012
Provision for Pensions
There is no requirement for members to be given a pensionable allowance and none of
the authorities in Norfolk currently offer their members a pensionable scheme on
allowances.
In 2007, the Panel was satisfied that Members should not be offered access to a
pensionable scheme and the current Panel was of the opinion that this position should
be maintained having considered (i) levels of Councillor turnover at elections, (ii) the
variable value of benefits to Councillors and (iii) the additional costs of admission and
ongoing contributions.
Recommendation
To recommend that Members’ Allowances should remain ineligible for admission to the
Norfolk Local Government Scheme.
3.9
Suspension
The scheme currently provides for the payment of allowances to be temporarily stopped
when a member is suspended from duty. Under the provisions of the Localism Act
2011, the power to suspend a member from their role will no longer be available as a
sanction for breaching the authority’s Code of Conduct. However, until the relevant
provisions come into force the existing arrangements must continue.
Recommendation
To recommend that the existing arrangements for temporarily stopping the payment of
allowances to a Member while suspended from their role are maintained until the
relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011 come into force removing the power to
suspend a Member from their role.
4.
Financial Implications
4.1
The financial implications of the recommendations arising from the review of the
Members’ Scheme of Allowances are relatively limited. It will be a matter for the Council
to determine any additional costs or savings in relation to the Scheme when considering
and deciding on the adoption of recommended changes.
4.2
There would be a small saving if Members decided to reduce the value of the broadband
allowance and a small additional cost associated with the recommended changes to the
carers’ allowance. Other changes in costs would primarily arise from national pay, travel
and subsistence agreements.
5.
Risks
5.1
The main risk associated with the review of the Members’ Scheme of Allowances is
reputational in nature. When considering the findings and recommendations of the
Independent Remuneration Panel, Members should evaluate them in the spirit intended
and the context of the prevailing circumstances. While Members are required to have
due regard to the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel, it is still a matter for
the Council to decide whether it adopts the associated recommendations in full or part.
Page 33
Full Council
22 February 2012
6.
Sustainability
6.1
There are no direct sustainability implications associated with the review of the
Members’ Scheme of Allowances.
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1
The principal issue arising from the review that has equality and diversity implications
concerns the recommendation in relation to the carers’ allowance. The Panel was of the
opinion that the proposed uplift in this allowance and the associated discretion would
have marginal financial implications and would help to reduce potential barriers to
existing Members’ full participation and may encourage future prospective candidates to
come forward, where they have caring responsibilities.
8.
Crime & Disorder
8.1
There are no direct crime and disorder implications associated with the review of the
Members’ Scheme of Allowances.
Page 34
Full Council
22 February 2012
Agenda Item No_______13______
COUNCIL TAX 2012/13
Summary:
This report presents for approval the budget for 2012/13 and to make
statutory calculations in accordance with the Local Government
Finance Act 1992 and to set the Council Tax for 2012/13. The report
also includes the Chief Financial Officer’s report on the robustness of
the estimates and adequacy of reserves.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of the Council’s Chief Financial Officer that the budget
for 2012/13 has been set within a robust framework and the impact of
this resolution will maintain an adequate level of financial reserves
held by the Council.
Recommendations:
That having considered the Chief Financial Officer’s report on the
robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the proposed
financial reserves, the following be approved:
Cabinet member(s):
a)
The General Fund Revenue Budget for 2012/13;
b)
The Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves and the
Optimum Level of the General Reserve 2012/13 to 2015/16
(Appendix D);
c)
The level of the General Reserve maintained at a minimum of
£950,000;
d)
The General and Earmarked Reserves are employed as
shown in the Reserves Statement (Appendix C);
e)
That members undertake the council tax and statutory
calculations set out at section 4, and set the Council Tax for
2012/13.
f)
The final demand on the Collection Fund will be;
(i)
£5,789,171 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,538,934 for Parish/Town precepts.
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
Duncan Ellis, Acting Financial Services Manager, 01263
Contact Officer, telephone number,
516330, duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
and e-mail:
Sheila Oxtoby, Chief Executive, 01263 516077,
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Page 35
Full Council
22 February 2012
1.
Introduction
1.1
This report presents for approval the 2012/13 General Fund revenue and capital budgets
along with the Council Tax for 2012/13. It also presents for information only the current
budget projections for 2013/14 to 2015/16.
2.
2012/13 General Fund Budget
2.1
The budget for 2012/13, along with detailed projections for the following three financial
years, was considered in detail by Cabinet on 6 February 2012 and then by Overview
and Scrutiny Committee on 15 February 2012.
2.2
The Comprehensive Spending Review 2010 (CSR 2010) covering the period 2011/12 to
2014/15 was announced in October 2010. In relation to Local Government the statement
provided some headline announcements including the following:
• Reform of the planning system and introduction of a New Homes Bonus;
• Reduction in the size of the Department for Communities and Local Government
budget by 33 per cent in real terms by 2014/15;
• Funding to enable Local Authorities to freeze their Council Tax in 2011/12.
2.3
Confirmation of the Councils final allocation for 2012/13 was issued on 2 December
2011, this confirmed the amounts that had been provisionally announced back in
January 2011.The headline cash reduction in government grant for the Council for
2012/13 was originally estimated to be £833,835, which equated to a further reduction of
11.8%. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in early October that a
further grant would be offered to those Authorities which freeze the Council Tax for
2012/13 at 2011/12 levels, but this grant was to be a ‘one-off grant’. This means the
grant will not be paid in future years and therefore it effectively becomes a further cut in
2013/14. Taking account of this £145,000 freeze grant the actual reduction in 2012/13 is
£688,835, representing a 10% reduction in cash terms. The reduction for 2013/14 is
£467,471 representing a further reduction of 7%.
2.4
2012/13 is the second year of the four year comprehensive spending review and
projections have been made covering the three subsequent years. These figures are
shown within the updated General Fund Summary at Appendix A.
2.5
In addition since reporting the budget to Cabinet the Council has received notification of
the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) Levies for the forthcoming year. This has resulted in a
small amendment to the figures previously reported and have been updated in Appendix
A.
2.6
Since producing the budget report as reported to Cabinet on 6 February 2012, the final
parish precepts have now been confirmed, the final figures are included in the Council
Tax Summary at Appendix B which shows the total value of parish and town council
precepts as £1,538,934. This means the total District amount billed for an average Band
D for 2012/13 will be £176.07, comprising District element £138.87 and parish element
£37.20.
Page 36
Full Council
22 February 2012
2.7
In making decisions in relation to setting the Council Tax, section 25 of the Local
Government Act 2003 requires the Chief Financial Officer of the Council to report to it on
the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves.
This is presented in the section 3 of this report.
3.
Chief Financial Officer’s Report
Robustness of the Estimates
3.1
This part of the report comments on the robustness of the estimates now presented and
provides an analysis of the risks facing the Council of not being able to control
expenditure or influence the amount of income received as included in the budget being
recommended for 2012/13.
3.2
A similar process to that followed in previous years has been adopted for producing the
2012/13 budget. The process is aimed at ensuring all risks are mitigated when approving
the budget for the following year.
The framework within which the budget for 2012/13 is put together takes account of the
following:
3.3
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Previous financial year out-turn position (2010/11)
Financial Plan Update 2011/12 to 2014/15
Regular budget monitoring and associated reports
Current year revised budgets
Cash flow monitoring
a)
Previous Year Out-turn Position – The out-turn position at the 31 March 2011 as
reported to Members provisionally in June and the final audited position in September
2011 provides certainty about the financial position of the Council. Both the Financial
Plan Update produced in the year and the estimates for the following financial year take
into account the actual final position for the previous financial year, reflecting any
significant movements which will have an ongoing impact to the overall finances of the
Council.
b)
Financial Plan Update - The Council has an established system of Financial Planning
that begins each year with the preparation and production of the four year Financial
Plan, including a financial forecast for the same period. During August to November
each year the Council critically examines the proposed expenditure and income on
existing services and seeks to identify changed priorities in service delivery and planned
future developments in response to both local and national pressures. It also identifies
changes to spending plans and income projections. These are informed by the previous
years out-turn position and the current year’s budget monitoring projections. The
financial forecast does aim to highlight the more significant budget movements as a
precursor to producing the full detailed budget for the forthcoming year. At the same time
the anticipated level of future external Government funding is reviewed along with
estimated increases in Council Tax for the same period. When the financial plan was
produced in October 2011, there were a significant number of unknowns in terms of the
severity of future government grant reductions for future years and also the impact of a
number of new initiatives from central government such as the localisation of business
rates and council tax benefit which are due to be implemented in 2013/14. By pulling
together the financial forecasts, the Financial Plan seeks to identify future estimated
budget requirements and financing shortfalls at an early stage of the annual budget
process.
c)
Regular Budget Monitoring – The regular budget monitoring process is carried out
throughout the year with all expenditure
Page 37 and income being monitored on a monthly
Full Council
22 February 2012
basis. Not only does it provide an essential tool for ensuring that the current years
budget is achievable, but it is also fundamental in ensuring that the most up to date
information is incorporated into the future budget and projections taking into account
where budget pressures are highlighted during the year. The regular budget monitoring
is used to inform the annual financial planning and budget process of changes that will
have an ongoing financial impact in future years, as opposed to having only a one-off
implication in the current financial year.
As part of the budget monitoring process, monthly variance reports are provided to
budget managers and regular reports presented to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee. Regular reviews of expenditure and commitments to date, along with income
streams, are carried out to ensure that overspends or shortfalls in income are identified
at the earliest opportunity and reported to Corporate Leadership Team and Members
along with recommended action plans where appropriate to ensure that the Councils
overall budget can be met.
d)
Current Year Revised Budgets – The revised budget for the current year is approved in
December each year and is informed by the budget monitoring reports throughout the
year. It incorporates a detailed review of the current budget whilst highlighting future
spending pressures and income streams.
e)
Cash Flow Monitoring – Throughout the four year period the Council has no cash flow
issues given the level of its investments and no long term borrowing. Sufficient liquidity is
maintained to cover day to day cash requirements with only limited (if at all) short term
borrowing for daily cash flow purposes. The Council’s cash flow position is monitored on
a daily basis and managed within the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy which is
approved alongside the budget each year.
3.4
Some aspects of the Council’s future spend can be forecast with a reasonable amount of
certainty. Other budgets are prepared on the best information available at the time for
which the Council has no control over. For example, for employee related expenditure,
NNDC is part of a national agreement therefore employee pay increases are set after
the budget is approved. There are also other budgets that are less certain, particularly
where the service is demand-led. As in previous years, the Council’s budget relies on a
number of major income streams, but economic, social and sometimes environmental
factors outside of the control of the Council can significantly influence the levels of
income actually achieved. This has been particularly evident over the past few years as
the economic downturn continues to have a significant reduction in the level of
investment income anticipated in 2012/13 and future years compared to previous years.
There has also been an impact in a number of demand-led property related budgets for
example planning and land charges income for which the actual levels of income
generation are dependant upon market conditions. Should these income streams fall
short of anticipated levels, then the Council requires sufficient reserves to mitigate
losses in current and future years, particularly where the impact may be over the
medium-term.
3.5
Income from the Council’s investments is assumed to be £269,900 for 2012/13 and is
based upon the Treasury Management Strategy’s view on interest rates as presented to
Cabinet on 6 February 2012, for approval by Full Council. A reduction in the Council’s
average investment rate of 0.25% potentially reduces future income streams by
approximately £60,000 per annum.
3.6
In addition to investment income there are a number of other income streams that have
been highlighted as posing significant potential risks for the 2012/13 budget, these
include:
Page 38
Full Council
22 February 2012
ƒ
Car Parking – The anticipated levels of gross car park income for 2012/13 are in
excess of £1,921,175. This includes all car parking related income, i.e. pay and
display, season tickets and excess parking charges;
ƒ
Planning Fee - Budgeted income from planning fees of £525,000;
ƒ
Building Control - Budgeted income from building control fees is £413,650
ƒ
Land Charges - Budgeted income for land charges is £198,000
ƒ
Waste and recycling – Budgeted income from waste and recycling credits of
£890,818
3.7
Income from the demand led services of car parking and property related areas, i.e.
planning, land charges and building control fees will continue to be closely monitored
throughout the year to ensure that where shortfalls are projected, appropriate actions
can be taken to ensure the budget remains achievable.
3.8
The budget also includes benefit payments of approximately £34.4 million in respect of
payments of rent allowances and council tax benefits. It is assumed that these will be
100% recoverable through subsidy; however, this is closely linked to performance, and
again requires close monitoring and an integrated approach to financial and
performance management.
3.9
The 2012/13 budget presented for approval does make use of one-off funding from
reserves of £200,000 to help cushion the impact of the grant cuts faced by the authority
in the year. Use of reserves in this way represents one-off funding and once used the
reserves are not available for use in future years, or to earn investment income.
3.10
The budget report to Cabinet on 6 February also outlined financial projections for the
following three financial years to 2015/16. Based on the current level of service delivery
assumed within the 2012/13 budget, additional resources from savings or additional
income will need to be identified and achieved of £266,508 in 2013/14 increasing to
£1,072,432 in 2014/15 and finally to £1,232,022 in 2015/16.
3.11
The funding for the future capital programme is reliant on new capital receipts from
preserved right to buy disposals and the VAT shelter arrangements for the housing
capital programme and other non housing capital receipts from general fund asset
disposals for other capital schemes. Prudent estimates have been made and the level
and timing of these is monitored as part of the budget monitoring process.
3.12
The ongoing budget monitoring process throughout the year is critical to ensuring the
robustness of the estimates. It is through our ability to manage and control the spending
within the approved budgets and where appropriate identifying and recommending
appropriate actions, which mitigates the Council’s level of financial risk.
3.13
In preparing the budgets detailed information is used to support the figures. The
estimates make prudent assumptions about inflation and activity levels on contracts,
other fees and charges and future levels of income. Throughout the process of preparing
the Council’s budget there is involvement of the Elected Members through
Officer/Member meetings and reports to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
3.14
The Council also takes advice from third party organisations concerning a number of
more technical factors that impact on the budget process, for example external advice in
relation to treasury management, VAT and Insurance. In this way, trends in interest
Page 39
Full Council
22 February 2012
rates, inflation and employment can be monitored and actions taken to mitigate the level
of financial risk faced by the Council.
3.15
The external pressures on public finance have created an environment of budget
reductions. In response to this the Council must deliver cashable savings or identify
additional income sources. This is a very challenging agenda and there are some risks
that the level of savings or additional income may not be achieved or delivered within the
timescales anticipated within the budget. The level of risk is considered as part of the
commentary on reserves.
Commentary on the Planned Use of the General and Earmarked Reserves
3.16
The uncertainty of future grant cuts has had a significant impact on the Council’s overall
financial position. The 2012/13 budget assumes a one off use of the general reserve of
£200,000 and has been necessary in the year to ensure that a balanced budget position
can be achieved. In terms of the medium to long term financial forecast for the Authority
further work will need to be carried out at an early stage to ensure that a sustainable
budget position can be supported for future years.
Adequacy of Reserves
3.17
Reserves are normally held for three main purposes:
ƒ
A contingency to cushion the impact of unexpected events or emergencies.
ƒ
A cushion against the impact of uneven cash flows and to avoid temporary
borrowing.
ƒ
As a means of building up funds to meet known or predicted liabilities (earmarked
reserves).
3.18
An updated Reserve Statement for the Council is included at Appendix C. In setting the
2012/13 budget all reserves have been reviewed taking into account current and
planned commitments against them.
3.19
The adequacy of the unallocated general reserve of the Council has been reviewed in
the light of planned service delivery costs contained within the budget and also
considers the level of financial risks that the Council is likely to face. The policy
framework for assessing the level of general and earmarked reserves has been
reviewed alongside setting the budget for 2012/13 and details the Council’s approach to
reserves over the period 2012/13 to 2015/16 is included at Appendix D.
3.20
A number of income streams were highlighted above at 3.5 and 3.6 as being potential
risk areas should income levels not be achieved as planned. There is also a risk that
budgets are overspent, although this is mitigated somewhat by the regular budget
monitoring reports and budgetary control procedures that ensure budget ownership and
accountability by Managers. The Councils policy on general and earmarked reserves
does take into account a number of risk items for example shortfall in demand led
services, underachievement of planned savings and sensitivity of inflationary increases
above the level assumed within the budget.
3.21
The assessment of the General Fund Reserve included in Appendix D provides a
detailed analysis of the individual items that have been taken into account when
recommending the minimum balance to be held by the Council in the general reserve.
For 2012/13 the indicated level is £899,700 and represents 8.06% of the net budgeted
operating expenditure, although thisPage
requirement
increases to around £950,000 in future
40
Full Council
22 February 2012
years. The actual balance forecast to be held at 31 March 2013 (after taking into account
the planned use of the general reserve over the following three years) is £1,028,947 and
represents 9.22% of the net budgeted operating expenditure. Therefore at the current
time the balance in the general reserve is considered to be satisfactory.
3.22
However the budget for 2012/13 requires savings of £581,258 and additional
income/grant of £315,838, totaling £897,096, to be delivered in the year with further
savings required in future years in order to produce a balanced position that does not
rely on the use of general or earmarked reserves to fund ongoing expenditure.
3.23
The Council holds an earmarked reserve for restructuring proposals to fund initial one-off
costs of organisational restructures. Further work on a number of the savings proposals
put forward as part of approving the 2012/13 budget will require some one-off costs to
be funded from this reserve and are yet to be quantified. The forecast balance at 1 April
2013 is currently £198,749, this is after allowing for the transfer in of the estimated
surplus in 2012/13. However there will be further calls on this reserve during 2012/13
although this will be subject to business cases being approved and signed off by
Corporate Leadership Team, the Leader and the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for
Organisational Development.
3.24
The Council continues to hold an earmarked reserve of £435,000 in respect of Large
Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT). Following the housing stock transfer in 2006 the
Council gave a number of warranties and indemnities to the Housing Trust and its
lender, for example risks associated with the level of arrears, pension scheme,
disclosures relating to property including environmental issues. The potential financial
impact of any claim against the Council has in some of these cases been reduced by
bonds and insurance. However, claims could still be made against the Council that
would not be covered by these measures of mitigation. No amendment to this
earmarked reserve has therefore been recommended for 2012/13, however this will be
reviewed further as part of the financial planning process for future years.
3.25
The reserves policy framework as attached at Appendix D is set out for both the
earmarked reserves and the general reserve and concludes with the Chief Financial
Officer’s opinion of the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed reserves.
Summary of Chief Financial Officer’s Report
3.26
Achievement of the 2012/13 budget is subject to the successful delivery of a number of
savings along with additional income and grants across various service headings.
Delivery of the savings and income within the timescales assumed in the 2012/13
budget will be closely monitored during the year. Regular reports will be made to the
Corporate Leadership Team, Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny to monitor progress
and where applicable recommend action plans to be implemented to ensure the budget
remains achievable. Some risk still does remain that savings and additional income are
not delivered either within the timeframe or to the level assumed. This risk is reflected in
the policy framework for the reserves as detailed at Appendix D. If there is an unplanned
use of the General Reserve in the year the Financial Strategy will need to be updated to
reflect a revised strategy which re-establishes the recommended level of General
Reserve.
3.27
In support of the medium term financial plan projections for the three financial years
2013/14 to 2015/16 are also presented for information. This assumes the current level of
service, predictions of future expenditure and income based on information currently
available, along with forecast government grant allocations. In order to produce a
balanced budget for 2013/14 savings and/or additional income of £266,508 is required,
increasing to £1,072,432 in 2014/15Page
and41to £1,232,022 in 2015/16.
Full Council
22 February 2012
3.28
Taking all of the above factors into consideration, it is my considered opinion as the
Council’s Chief Financial Officer, that the budget for 2012/13 has been set within a
robust framework with an adequate level of financial reserves held by the Council.
Workstreams already identified that will deliver future savings will continue to be
progressed over the next nine months in preparation of the 2013/14 budget.
3.29
Appendix A provides an updated general fund revenue budget summary for 2012/13.
Appendix B shows the effect of this recommended budget on the District’s Council Tax
for 2012/13. Appendix E shows the full information regarding the individual Parish and
Town Council areas together with a summary of the County, Police and Parish/Town
Councils elements.
4.
COUNCIL TAX SETTING FOR 2012/13
4.1
The following pages represent the information required for Members to set the Council
Tax for the year commencing 1 April 2012.
4.2
Norfolk County Council is scheduled to meet on the 13 February 2012 to set its Council
Tax. Norfolk Police Authority’s meeting for the same purpose is scheduled for the 21
February 2012. The County Council is recommending freezing the council tax at the
same level as last year, and the Police Authority is considering 3 options - no increase, a
3.0% increase and a 3.75% increase. The figures used in this report are based on the
assumption that there will be no increase for North Norfolk District Council (excluding
town and parish council precepts) and Norfolk County Council, and a 3.0% increase for
Norfolk Police Authority, which is considered the most likely option. If the Police
Authority agrees a different figure, replacement tables will be made available at the
meeting for consideration.
4.3
The Localism Act 2011 makes provision for council tax referendums to be held if an
authority increases its basic amount of council tax in excess of principles determined by
the Secretary of State. These excessiveness principles are set each year and the
Secretary of State has proposed that for 2012/13 a referendum will be triggered if North
Norfolk District Council or Norfolk County Council set a council tax increase which
exceeds 3.5% compared to 2011/12, or a 4.0% increase in the case of the Police
Authority. Town and parish councils and their precepts are excluded from the
excessiveness calculations for 2012/13.
4.4
Local precepting authorities are not subject to council tax referendums in 2012/13 (but
could be in future years depending on the excessiveness principles which may apply in
those years).
4.5
That it be NOTED that at its meeting on 14 December 2011, Full Council calculated the
following Council Tax bases for the year 2012/13 in accordance with regulations made
under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992: a) 41,366 being calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local
Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as its Council Tax
base for the year;
b)
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
101.59 Little Barningham
Page 239.73
42
Little Snoring
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
41.70
229.47
Full Council
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
22 February 2012
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
129.06 Ludham
70.55 Matlaske
197.53 Melton Constable
90.67 Morston
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
530.95
64.05
199.08
58.30
Bacton
516.06 Mundesley
1198.52
Barsham
105.49 Neatishead
244.88
Barton Turf
241.32 North Walsham
Beckham East/West
122.08 Northrepps
333.34
Beeston Regis
416.00 Overstrand
459.84
Binham
180.36 Paston
88.85
Blakeney
540.22 Plumstead
53.21
Bodham
176.83 Potter Heigham
435.03
65.81 Pudding Norton
83.31
Briningham
4270.63
Brinton
122.56 Raynham
134.66
Briston
889.03 Roughton
352.39
Brumstead
26.10 Runton
760.81
Catfield
354.27 Ryburgh
243.12
Cley
319.93 Salthouse
123.39
Colby
195.18 Scottow
303.76
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
277.85 Sculthorpe
293.21
3127.55 Sea Palling
224.92
Cromer
Dilham
143.47 Sheringham
Dunton
51.95 Sidestrand
3252.42
49.36
East Ruston
189.82 Skeyton
88.55
Edgefield
185.87 Sloley
91.96
Erpingham
250.61 Smallburgh
193.75
Fakenham
2674.71 Southrepps
324.74
79.03 Stalham
1142.23
Felmingham
196.07 Stibbard
138.94
Field Dalling
136.83 Stiffkey
128.17
Fulmodestone
180.52 Stody
94.47
Gimingham
163.84 Suffield
58.20
Felbrigg
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
84.11 Sustead
171.85 Sutton
Page 139.40
43
Swafield
91.93
413.02
116.89
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Hanworth
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
97.67 Swanton Abbott
151.76
Happisburgh
314.97 Swanton Novers
87.74
Helhoughton
135.17 Tattersett
287.66
78.41 Thornage
96.37
Hempstead
Hempton
192.34 Thorpe Market
Hickling
425.79 Thurning
30.21
High Kelling
287.57 Thursford
108.66
Hindolveston
207.97 Trimingham
151.60
Hindringham
236.45 Trunch
371.43
Holkham
Holt
94.49 Tunstead
1697.13 Upper Sheringham
113.42
274.09
95.81
Honing
126.48 Walcott
243.46
Horning
618.98 Walsingham
379.52
Horsey
39.15 Warham
Hoveton
808.98 Wells-next-the-Sea
Ingham
151.75 Westwick
82.46
1107.11
31.81
Ingworth
44.83 Weybourne
Itteringham
62.93 Wickmere
Kelling
91.26 Wighton
111.39
Kettlestone
93.58 Witton
132.23
Knapton
156.49 Wiveton
88.59
Langham
196.76 Wood Norton
101.01
Lessingham
246.91 Worstead
329.24
Letheringsett with
Glandford
123.95
332.96
61.56
being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of the
Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as the amounts of
its Council Tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which special
items may relate (parish precepts).
4.6
That the following amounts be now CALCULATED by the Council for the year 2012/13
in accordance with Sections 31A to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and
the relevant regulations and directions as follows:-
a)
£63,840,201 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the expenditure items set out in Section
31A(2) (a) to (f) of the Act.
b)
Page 44
£56,556,771 being the
aggregate of the amounts which the Council
Full Council
22 February 2012
estimates for the income items set out in Section
31A(3) (a) to (d) of the Act. This includes the amount
the Council estimates will be transferred in the year
from its collection fund to its general fund in
accordance with Section 97 (3) of the Local
Government Finance Act 1988 (council tax surplus of
£44,675).
c)
£7,283,430 being the amount by which the aggregate at (a) above
exceeds the aggregate at (b) above, calculated by the
Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act,
to be its council tax requirement for the year.
d)
£176.0729 being the amount at (c) above divided by the amount
at 4.5(a) above, calculated by the Council, in
accordance with Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the
basic amount of its Council Tax for the year.
e)
£1,538,934 being the aggregate amount of all special items
referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act.
f)
£138.8700 being the amount at (d) above less the result given by
dividing the amount at (e) above by the amount at 4.5
(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance
with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of
its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts
of its area to which no special item relates.
g)
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
BASIC
AMOUNT
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AREA
£
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
Alby with Thwaite
162.4943 Little Barningham
148.4623
Aldborough
159.7267 Little Snoring
167.1961
Antingham
156.3037 Ludham
155.4534
Ashmanhaugh
179.9755 Matlaske
143.5538
Aylmerton
171.6498 Melton Constable
189.1010
Baconsthorpe
155.4135 Morston
156.0226
Bacton
167.9363 Mundesley
180.6323
Barsham
156.8811 Neatishead
162.6244
Barton Turf
157.5174 North Walsham
174.5204
Beckham East/West
158.5292 Northrepps
182.2311
Beeston Regis
170.1200 Overstrand
171.8597
Binham
163.8200 Paston
188.3916
Blakeney
181.4452 Plumstead
169.8792
174.2146 Potter Heigham
166.2244
Bodham
Page 45
Full Council
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
22 February 2012
BASIC
AMOUNT
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AREA
£
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
Brinton
157.2283 Pudding Norton
160.4760
Briston
170.6180 Raynham
180.4562
Catfield
165.6857 Roughton
167.2476
Cley
160.7497 Runton
149.3851
Colby
215.7221 Ryburgh
171.7755
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
172.5572 Salthouse
165.2092
Cromer
198.2995 Scottow
161.9145
Dilham
168.7299 Sculthorpe
155.9226
East Ruston
154.6744 Sea Palling
185.1620
Edgefield
168.4605 Sheringham
187.7161
Erpingham
164.8067 Sidestrand
163.1811
Fakenham
191.3654 Skeyton
151.2923
Felbrigg
164.1768 Sloley
166.8713
Felmingham
146.5203 Smallburgh
170.8700
Field Dalling
160.7950 Southrepps
174.1289
Fulmodestone
161.0282 Stalham
182.6440
Gimingham
167.8616 Stibbard
176.2962
Great Snoring
180.4821 Stiffkey
177.8806
Gresham
165.0556 Stody
164.2748
Gunthorpe
151.7824 Suffield
164.6431
Hanworth
159.3471 Sustead
155.1867
Happisburgh
161.6499 Sutton
155.4309
Helhoughton
168.4623 Swafield
167.9571
Hempstead
159.9132 Swanton Abbott
169.1810
Hempton
171.1045 Swanton Novers
170.2126
Hickling
158.5416 Tattersett
149.2989
High Kelling
168.4280 Thornage
154.4350
Hindolveston
167.2394 Thorpe Market
174.1371
Hindringham
162.1307 Thursford
166.4790
Holkham
165.3278 Trimingham
180.6905
Holt
184.9525 Trunch
182.6198
Honing
154.6827 Tunstead
162.9496
Horning
162.2956 Upper Sheringham
191.0983
Horsey
Page
46
158.0270
171.7296
Walcott
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
BASIC
AMOUNT
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AREA
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
£
Hoveton
191.4003 Walsingham
181.0285
Ingham
147.4367 Warham
199.5054
Ingworth
187.7212 Wells-next-the-Sea
200.2911
Itteringham
168.2677 Weybourne
186.9238
Kelling
171.7431 Wickmere
195.7251
Kettlestone
174.1339 Wighton
170.2911
Knapton
166.0282 Witton
146.4325
Langham
169.9738 Wiveton
189.1014
Lessingham
153.0452 Wood Norton
160.2342
Letheringsett with Glandford
155.0055 Worstead
166.2056
being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4.6(f) above to the amounts of the
special item or items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned
above divided in each case by the amount at 4.5(b) above, calculated by the Council, in
accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act, as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the
year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.
h)
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Alby with Thwaite
108.32 126.38 144.43 162.49 198.60 234.71 270.82 324.98
Aldborough
106.48 124.23 141.97 159.72 195.22 230.71 266.21 319.45
Antingham
104.20 121.56 138.93 156.30 191.03 225.77 260.50 312.60
Ashmanhaugh
119.98 139.98 159.97 179.97 219.97 259.96 299.95 359.95
Aylmerton
114.43 133.50 152.57 171.64 209.79 247.93 286.08 343.29
Baconsthorpe
103.60 120.87 138.14 155.41 189.94 224.48 259.02 310.82
Bacton
111.95 130.61 149.27 167.93 205.25 242.57 279.89 335.87
Barsham
104.58 122.01 139.44 156.88 191.74 226.60 261.46 313.76
Barton Turf
105.01 122.51 140.01 157.51 192.52 227.52 262.52 315.03
Beckham East/West
105.68 123.30 140.91 158.52 193.75 228.98 264.21 317.05
Beeston Regis
113.41 132.31 151.21 170.12 207.92 245.72 283.53 340.24
Binham
109.21 127.41 145.61 163.82 200.22 236.62 273.03 327.64
Blakeney
120.96 141.12 Page
161.28
181.44 221.76 262.08 302.40 362.89
47
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Bodham
116.14 135.50 154.85 174.21 212.92 251.64 290.35 348.42
Brinton
104.81 122.28 139.75 157.22 192.16 227.10 262.04 314.45
Briston
113.74 132.70 151.66 170.61 208.53 246.44 284.36 341.23
Catfield
110.45 128.86 147.27 165.68 202.50 239.32 276.14 331.37
Cley
107.16 125.02 142.88 160.74 196.47 232.19 267.91 321.49
Colby
143.81 167.78 191.75 215.72 263.66 311.59 359.53 431.44
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
115.03 134.21 153.38 172.55 210.90 249.24 287.59 345.11
Cromer
132.19 154.23 176.26 198.29 242.36 286.43 330.49 396.59
Dilham
112.48 131.23 149.98 168.72 206.22 243.72 281.21 337.45
East Ruston
103.11 120.30 137.48 154.67 189.04 223.41 257.79 309.34
Edgefield
112.30 131.02 149.74 168.46 205.89 243.33 280.76 336.92
Erpingham
109.87 128.18 146.49 164.80 201.43 238.05 274.67 329.61
Fakenham
127.57 148.83 170.10 191.36 233.89 276.41 318.94 382.73
Felbrigg
109.45 127.69 145.93 164.17 200.66 237.14 273.62 328.35
Felmingham
97.68 113.96 130.24 146.52 179.08 211.64 244.20 293.04
Field Dalling
107.19 125.06 142.92 160.79 196.52 232.25 267.99 321.59
Fulmodestone
107.35 125.24 143.13 161.02 196.81 232.59 268.38 322.05
Gimingham
111.90 130.55 149.21 167.86 205.16 242.46 279.76 335.72
Great Snoring
120.32 140.37 160.42 180.48 220.58 260.69 300.80 360.96
Gresham
110.03 128.37 146.71 165.05 201.73 238.41 275.09 330.11
Gunthorpe
101.18 118.05 134.91 151.78 185.51 219.24 252.97 303.56
Hanworth
106.23 123.93 141.64 159.34 194.75 230.16 265.57 318.69
Happisburgh
107.76 125.72 143.68 161.64 197.57 233.49 269.41 323.29
Helhoughton
112.30 131.02 149.74 168.46 205.89 243.33 280.77 336.92
Hempstead
106.60 124.37 142.14 159.91 195.44 230.98 266.52 319.82
Hempton
114.06 133.08 152.09 171.10 209.12 247.15 285.17 342.20
Hickling
105.69 123.31 140.92 158.54 193.77 229.00 264.23 317.08
High Kelling
112.28 130.99 149.71 168.42 205.85 243.28 280.71 336.85
Hindolveston
111.49 130.07 148.65 167.23 204.40 241.56 278.73 334.47
Hindringham
108.08 126.10 144.11 162.13 198.15 234.18 270.21 324.26
Holkham
110.21 128.58 146.95 165.32 202.06 238.80 275.54 330.65
Page 48
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Holt
123.30 143.85 164.40 184.95 226.05 267.15 308.25 369.90
Honing
103.12 120.30 137.49 154.68 189.05 223.43 257.80 309.36
Horning
108.19 126.22 144.26 162.29 198.36 234.42 270.49 324.59
Horsey
105.35 122.90 140.46 158.02 193.14 228.26 263.37 316.05
Hoveton
127.60 148.86 170.13 191.40 233.93 276.46 319.00 382.80
Ingham
98.29 114.67 131.05 147.43 180.20 212.96 245.72 294.87
Ingworth
125.14 146.00 166.86 187.72 229.43 271.15 312.86 375.44
Itteringham
112.17 130.87 149.57 168.26 205.66 243.05 280.44 336.53
Kelling
114.49 133.57 152.66 171.74 209.90 248.07 286.23 343.48
Kettlestone
116.08 135.43 154.78 174.13 212.83 251.52 290.22 348.26
Knapton
110.68 129.13 147.58 166.02 202.92 239.81 276.71 332.05
Langham
113.31 132.20 151.08 169.97 207.74 245.51 283.28 339.94
Lessingham
102.03 119.03 136.04 153.04 187.05 221.06 255.07 306.09
Letheringsett with
Glandford
103.33 120.55 137.78 155.00 189.45 223.89 258.34 310.01
Little Barningham
98.97 115.47 131.96 148.46 181.45 214.44 247.43 296.92
Little Snoring
111.46 130.04 148.61 167.19 204.35 241.50 278.66 334.39
Ludham
103.63 120.90 138.18 155.45 189.99 224.54 259.08 310.90
Matlaske
95.70 111.65 127.60 143.55 175.45 207.35 239.25 287.10
Melton Constable
126.06 147.07 168.08 189.10 231.12 273.14 315.16 378.20
Morston
104.01 121.35 138.68 156.02 190.69 225.36 260.03 312.04
Mundesley
120.42 140.49 160.56 180.63 220.77 260.91 301.05 361.26
Neatishead
108.41 126.48 144.55 162.62 198.76 234.90 271.04 325.24
North Walsham
116.34 135.73 155.12 174.52 213.30 252.08 290.86 349.04
Northrepps
121.48 141.73 161.98 182.23 222.72 263.22 303.71 364.46
Overstrand
114.57 133.66 152.76 171.85 210.05 248.24 286.43 343.71
Paston
125.59 146.52 167.45 188.39 230.25 272.12 313.98 376.78
Plumstead
113.25 132.12 151.00 169.87 207.63 245.38 283.13 339.75
Potter Heigham
110.81 129.28 147.75 166.22 203.16 240.10 277.04 332.44
Pudding Norton
106.98 124.81 142.64 160.47 196.13 231.79 267.46 320.95
Raynham
120.30 140.35 160.40 180.45 220.55 260.65 300.76 360.91
Roughton
111.49 130.08 148.66 167.24 204.41 241.57 278.74 334.49
Page 49
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Runton
99.59 116.18 132.78 149.38 182.58 215.77 248.97 298.77
Ryburgh
114.51 133.60 152.68 171.77 209.94 248.12 286.29 343.55
Salthouse
110.13 128.49 146.85 165.20 201.92 238.63 275.34 330.41
Scottow
107.94 125.93 143.92 161.91 197.89 233.87 269.85 323.82
Sculthorpe
103.94 121.27 138.59 155.92 190.57 225.22 259.87 311.84
Sea Palling
123.44 144.01 164.58 185.16 226.30 267.45 308.60 370.32
Sheringham
125.14 146.00 166.85 187.71 229.43 271.14 312.86 375.43
Sidestrand
108.78 126.91 145.04 163.18 199.44 235.70 271.96 326.36
Skeyton
100.86 117.67 134.48 151.29 184.91 218.53 252.15 302.58
Sloley
111.24 129.78 148.33 166.87 203.95 241.03 278.11 333.74
Smallburgh
113.91 132.89 151.88 170.87 208.84 246.81 284.78 341.74
Southrepps
116.08 135.43 154.78 174.12 212.82 251.51 290.21 348.25
Stalham
121.76 142.05 162.35 182.64 223.23 263.81 304.40 365.28
Stibbard
117.53 137.11 156.70 176.29 215.47 254.65 293.82 352.59
Stiffkey
118.58 138.35 158.11 177.88 217.40 256.93 296.46 355.76
Stody
109.51 127.76 146.02 164.27 200.78 237.28 273.79 328.54
Suffield
109.76 128.05 146.34 164.64 201.23 237.81 274.40 329.28
Sustead
103.45 120.70 137.94 155.18 189.67 224.15 258.64 310.37
Sutton
103.62 120.89 138.16 155.43 189.97 224.51 259.05 310.86
Swafield
111.97 130.63 149.29 167.95 205.28 242.60 279.92 335.91
Swanton Abbott
112.78 131.58 150.38 169.18 206.77 244.37 281.96 338.36
Swanton Novers
113.47 132.38 151.30 170.21 208.03 245.86 283.68 340.42
Tattersett
99.53 116.12 132.71 149.29 182.47 215.65 248.83 298.59
Thornage
102.95 120.11 137.27 154.43 188.75 223.07 257.39 308.87
Thorpe Market
116.09 135.43 154.78 174.13 212.83 251.53 290.22 348.27
Thursford
110.98 129.48 147.98 166.47 203.47 240.46 277.46 332.95
Trimingham
120.46 140.53 160.61 180.69 220.84 260.99 301.15 361.38
Trunch
121.74 142.03 162.32 182.61 223.20 263.78 304.36 365.23
Tunstead
108.63 126.73 144.84 162.94 199.16 235.37 271.58 325.89
Upper Sheringham
127.39 148.63 169.86 191.09 233.56 276.03 318.49 382.19
Walcott
114.48 133.56 152.64 171.72 209.89 248.05 286.21 343.45
Walsingham
120.68 140.79 Page
160.91
181.02 221.25 261.48 301.71 362.05
50
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Warham
133.00 155.17 177.33 199.50 243.83 288.17 332.50 399.01
Wells-next-the-Sea
133.52 155.78 178.03 200.29 244.80 289.30 333.81 400.58
Weybourne
124.61 145.38 166.15 186.92 228.46 270.00 311.53 373.84
Wickmere
130.48 152.23 173.97 195.72 239.21 282.71 326.20 391.45
Wighton
113.52 132.44 151.36 170.29 208.13 245.97 283.81 340.58
Witton
97.62 113.89 130.16 146.43 178.97 211.51 244.05 292.86
Wiveton
126.06 147.07 168.09 189.10 231.12 273.14 315.16 378.20
Wood Norton
106.82 124.62 142.43 160.23 195.84 231.44 267.05 320.46
Worstead
110.80 129.27 147.73 166.20 203.14 240.07 277.00 332.41
All Other Parts of the
Council’s Area
92.58 108.01 123.44 138.87 169.73 200.59 231.45 277.74
being the amounts given by multiplying (as appropriate) the amounts at 4.6(f) or 4.6(g)
above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is
applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which
in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation Band D, calculated by the
Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into
account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation
bands.
4.7
That it be NOTED that for the year 2012/13 the Norfolk County Council and Norfolk
Police Authority have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in
accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the
categories of dwellings shown below:-
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Norfolk County
Council
763.38
890.61
1,017.84
1,145.07
1,399.53
1,653.99
1,908.45
2,290.14
Norfolk Police
Authority
131.28
153.16
175.04
196.92
240.68
284.44
328.20
393.84
4.8
That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 4.6(h) and 4.7
above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance
Act 1992, HEREBY SETS the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the
year 2012/13 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:Page 51
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Alby with Thwaite
1,002.98 1,170.15 1,337.31 1,504.48 1,838.81 2,173.14 2,507.47 3,008.96
Aldborough
1,001.14 1,168.00 1,334.85 1,501.71 1,835.43 2,169.14 2,502.86 3,003.43
Antingham
998.86 1,165.33 1,331.81 1,498.29 1,831.24 2,164.20 2,497.15 2,996.58
Ashmanhaugh
1,014.64 1,183.75 1,352.85 1,521.96 1,860.18 2,198.39 2,536.60 3,043.93
Aylmerton
1,009.09 1,177.27 1,345.45 1,513.63 1,850.00 2,186.36 2,522.73 3,027.27
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
998.26 1,164.64 1,331.02 1,497.40 1,830.15 2,162.91 2,495.67 2,994.80
1,006.61 1,174.38 1,342.15 1,509.92 1,845.46 2,181.00 2,516.54 3,019.85
Barsham
999.24 1,165.78 1,332.32 1,498.87 1,831.95 2,165.03 2,498.11 2,997.74
Barton Turf
999.67 1,166.28 1,332.89 1,499.50 1,832.73 2,165.95 2,499.17 2,999.01
Beckham
East/West
1,000.34 1,167.07 1,333.79 1,500.51 1,833.96 2,167.41 2,500.86 3,001.03
Beeston Regis
1,008.07 1,176.08 1,344.09 1,512.11 1,848.13 2,184.15 2,520.18 3,024.22
Binham
1,003.87 1,171.18 1,338.49 1,505.81 1,840.43 2,175.05 2,509.68 3,011.62
Blakeney
1,015.62 1,184.89 1,354.16 1,523.43 1,861.97 2,200.51 2,539.05 3,046.87
Bodham
1,010.80 1,179.27 1,347.73 1,516.20 1,853.13 2,190.07 2,527.00 3,032.40
Brinton
999.47 1,166.05 1,332.63 1,499.21 1,832.37 2,165.53 2,498.69 2,998.43
Briston
1,008.40 1,176.47 1,344.54 1,512.60 1,848.74 2,184.87 2,521.01 3,025.21
Catfield
1,005.11 1,172.63 1,340.15 1,507.67 1,842.71 2,177.75 2,512.79 3,015.35
Cley
1,001.82 1,168.79 1,335.76 1,502.73 1,836.68 2,170.62 2,504.56 3,005.47
Colby
1,038.47 1,211.55 1,384.63 1,557.71 1,903.87 2,250.02 2,596.18 3,115.42
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
1,009.69 1,177.98 1,346.26 1,514.54 1,851.11 2,187.67 2,524.24 3,029.09
Cromer
1,026.85 1,198.00 1,369.14 1,540.28 1,882.57 2,224.86 2,567.14 3,080.57
Dilham
1,007.14 1,175.00 1,342.86 1,510.71 1,846.43 2,182.15 2,517.86 3,021.43
East Ruston
997.77 1,164.07 1,330.36 1,496.66 1,829.25 2,161.84 2,494.44 2,993.32
Edgefield
1,006.96 1,174.79 1,342.62 1,510.45 1,846.10 2,181.76 2,517.41 3,020.90
Erpingham
1,004.53 1,171.95 1,339.37 1,506.79 1,841.64 2,176.48 2,511.32 3,013.59
Fakenham
1,022.23 1,192.60 1,362.98 1,533.35 1,874.10 2,214.84 2,555.59 3,066.71
Felbrigg
1,004.11 1,171.46 1,338.81 1,506.16 1,840.87 2,175.57 2,510.27 3,012.33
Felmingham
992.34 1,157.73 1,323.12 1,488.51 1,819.29 2,150.07 2,480.85 2,977.02
Field Dalling
1,001.85 1,168.83 1,335.80 1,502.78 1,836.73 2,170.68 2,504.64 3,005.57
Fulmodestone
1,002.01 1,169.01 1,336.01 1,503.01 1,837.02 2,171.02 2,505.03 3,006.03
Gimingham
1,006.56 1,174.32 1,342.09 1,509.85 1,845.37 2,180.89 2,516.41 3,019.70
Great Snoring
1,014.98 1,184.14 1,353.30 1,522.47 1,860.79 2,199.12 2,537.45 3,044.94
Gresham
Page 52
1,004.69 1,172.14 1,339.59
1,507.04 1,841.94 2,176.84 2,511.74 3,014.09
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
Gunthorpe
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
995.84 1,161.82 1,327.79 1,493.77 1,825.72 2,157.67 2,489.62 2,987.54
Hanworth
1,000.89 1,167.70 1,334.52 1,501.33 1,834.96 2,168.59 2,502.22 3,002.67
Happisburgh
1,002.42 1,169.49 1,336.56 1,503.63 1,837.78 2,171.92 2,506.06 3,007.27
Helhoughton
1,006.96 1,174.79 1,342.62 1,510.45 1,846.10 2,181.76 2,517.42 3,020.90
Hempstead
1,001.26 1,168.14 1,335.02 1,501.90 1,835.65 2,169.41 2,503.17 3,003.80
Hempton
1,008.72 1,176.85 1,344.97 1,513.09 1,849.33 2,185.58 2,521.82 3,026.18
Hickling
1,000.35 1,167.08 1,333.80 1,500.53 1,833.98 2,167.43 2,500.88 3,001.06
High Kelling
1,006.94 1,174.76 1,342.59 1,510.41 1,846.06 2,181.71 2,517.36 3,020.83
Hindolveston
1,006.15 1,173.84 1,341.53 1,509.22 1,844.61 2,179.99 2,515.38 3,018.45
Hindringham
1,002.74 1,169.87 1,336.99 1,504.12 1,838.36 2,172.61 2,506.86 3,008.24
Holkham
1,004.87 1,172.35 1,339.83 1,507.31 1,842.27 2,177.23 2,512.19 3,014.63
Holt
1,017.96 1,187.62 1,357.28 1,526.94 1,866.26 2,205.58 2,544.90 3,053.88
Honing
997.78 1,164.07 1,330.37 1,496.67 1,829.26 2,161.86 2,494.45 2,993.34
Horning
1,002.85 1,169.99 1,337.14 1,504.28 1,838.57 2,172.85 2,507.14 3,008.57
Horsey
1,000.01 1,166.67 1,333.34 1,500.01 1,833.35 2,166.69 2,500.02 3,000.03
Hoveton
1,022.26 1,192.63 1,363.01 1,533.39 1,874.14 2,214.89 2,555.65 3,066.78
Ingham
992.95 1,158.44 1,323.93 1,489.42 1,820.41 2,151.39 2,482.37 2,978.85
Ingworth
1,019.80 1,189.77 1,359.74 1,529.71 1,869.64 2,209.58 2,549.51 3,059.42
Itteringham
1,006.83 1,174.64 1,342.45 1,510.25 1,845.87 2,181.48 2,517.09 3,020.51
Kelling
1,009.15 1,177.34 1,345.54 1,513.73 1,850.11 2,186.50 2,522.88 3,027.46
Kettlestone
1,010.74 1,179.20 1,347.66 1,516.12 1,853.04 2,189.95 2,526.87 3,032.24
Knapton
1,005.34 1,172.90 1,340.46 1,508.01 1,843.13 2,178.24 2,513.36 3,016.03
Langham
1,007.97 1,175.97 1,343.96 1,511.96 1,847.95 2,183.94 2,519.93 3,023.92
Lessingham
996.69 1,162.80 1,328.92 1,495.03 1,827.26 2,159.49 2,491.72 2,990.07
Letheringsett with
Glandford
997.99 1,164.32 1,330.66 1,496.99 1,829.66 2,162.32 2,494.99 2,993.99
Little Barningham
993.63 1,159.24 1,324.84 1,490.45 1,821.66 2,152.87 2,484.08 2,980.90
Little Snoring
1,006.12 1,173.81 1,341.49 1,509.18 1,844.56 2,179.93 2,515.31 3,018.37
Ludham
998.29 1,164.67 1,331.06 1,497.44 1,830.20 2,162.97 2,495.73 2,994.88
Matlaske
990.36 1,155.42 1,320.48 1,485.54 1,815.66 2,145.78 2,475.90 2,971.08
Melton Constable
Morston
1,020.72 1,190.84 1,360.96 1,531.09 1,871.33 2,211.57 2,551.81 3,062.18
998.67 1,165.12 1,331.56 1,498.01 1,830.90 2,163.79 2,496.68 2,996.02
Mundesley
1,015.08 1,184.26 1,353.44 1,522.62 1,860.98 2,199.34 2,537.70 3,045.24
Neatishead
1,003.07 1,170.25 1,337.43 1,504.61 1,838.97 2,173.33 2,507.69 3,009.22
Page 53
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
North Walsham
1,011.00 1,179.50 1,348.00 1,516.51 1,853.51 2,190.51 2,527.51 3,033.02
Northrepps
1,016.14 1,185.50 1,354.86 1,524.22 1,862.93 2,201.65 2,540.36 3,048.44
Overstrand
1,009.23 1,177.43 1,345.64 1,513.84 1,850.26 2,186.67 2,523.08 3,027.69
Paston
1,020.25 1,190.29 1,360.33 1,530.38 1,870.46 2,210.55 2,550.63 3,060.76
Plumstead
1,007.91 1,175.89 1,343.88 1,511.86 1,847.84 2,183.81 2,519.78 3,023.73
Potter Heigham
1,005.47 1,173.05 1,340.63 1,508.21 1,843.37 2,178.53 2,513.69 3,016.42
Pudding Norton
1,001.64 1,168.58 1,335.52 1,502.46 1,836.34 2,170.22 2,504.11 3,004.93
Raynham
1,014.96 1,184.12 1,353.28 1,522.44 1,860.76 2,199.08 2,537.41 3,044.89
Roughton
1,006.15 1,173.85 1,341.54 1,509.23 1,844.62 2,180.00 2,515.39 3,018.47
Runton
994.25 1,159.95 1,325.66 1,491.37 1,822.79 2,154.20 2,485.62 2,982.75
Ryburgh
1,009.17 1,177.37 1,345.56 1,513.76 1,850.15 2,186.55 2,522.94 3,027.53
Salthouse
1,004.79 1,172.26 1,339.73 1,507.19 1,842.13 2,177.06 2,511.99 3,014.39
Scottow
1,002.60 1,169.70 1,336.80 1,503.90 1,838.10 2,172.30 2,506.50 3,007.80
Sculthorpe
998.60 1,165.04 1,331.47 1,497.91 1,830.78 2,163.65 2,496.52 2,995.82
Sea Palling
1,018.10 1,187.78 1,357.46 1,527.15 1,866.51 2,205.88 2,545.25 3,054.30
Sheringham
1,019.80 1,189.77 1,359.73 1,529.70 1,869.64 2,209.57 2,549.51 3,059.41
Sidestrand
1,003.44 1,170.68 1,337.92 1,505.17 1,839.65 2,174.13 2,508.61 3,010.34
Skeyton
995.52 1,161.44 1,327.36 1,493.28 1,825.12 2,156.96 2,488.80 2,986.56
Sloley
1,005.90 1,173.55 1,341.21 1,508.86 1,844.16 2,179.46 2,514.76 3,017.72
Smallburgh
1,008.57 1,176.66 1,344.76 1,512.86 1,849.05 2,185.24 2,521.43 3,025.72
Southrepps
1,010.74 1,179.20 1,347.66 1,516.11 1,853.03 2,189.94 2,526.86 3,032.23
Stalham
1,016.42 1,185.82 1,355.23 1,524.63 1,863.44 2,202.24 2,541.05 3,049.26
Stibbard
1,012.19 1,180.88 1,349.58 1,518.28 1,855.68 2,193.08 2,530.47 3,036.57
Stiffkey
1,013.24 1,182.12 1,350.99 1,519.87 1,857.61 2,195.36 2,533.11 3,039.74
Stody
1,004.17 1,171.53 1,338.90 1,506.26 1,840.99 2,175.71 2,510.44 3,012.52
Suffield
1,004.42 1,171.82 1,339.22 1,506.63 1,841.44 2,176.24 2,511.05 3,013.26
Sustead
998.11 1,164.47 1,330.82 1,497.17 1,829.88 2,162.58 2,495.29 2,994.35
Sutton
998.28 1,164.66 1,331.04 1,497.42 1,830.18 2,162.94 2,495.70 2,994.84
Swafield
1,006.63 1,174.40 1,342.17 1,509.94 1,845.49 2,181.03 2,516.57 3,019.89
Swanton Abbott
1,007.44 1,175.35 1,343.26 1,511.17 1,846.98 2,182.80 2,518.61 3,022.34
Swanton Novers
1,008.13 1,176.15 1,344.18 1,512.20 1,848.24 2,184.29 2,520.33 3,024.40
Tattersett
994.19 1,159.89 1,325.59 1,491.28 1,822.68 2,154.08 2,485.48 2,982.57
Thornage
997.61 1,163.88 1,330.15 1,496.42 1,828.96 2,161.50 2,494.04 2,992.85
Thorpe Market
1,010.75 1,179.20 1,347.66
1,516.12 1,853.04 2,189.96 2,526.87 3,032.25
Page 54
Full Council
22 February 2012
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Thursford
1,005.64 1,173.25 1,340.86 1,508.46 1,843.68 2,178.89 2,514.11 3,016.93
Trimingham
1,015.12 1,184.30 1,353.49 1,522.68 1,861.05 2,199.42 2,537.80 3,045.36
Trunch
1,016.40 1,185.80 1,355.20 1,524.60 1,863.41 2,202.21 2,541.01 3,049.21
Tunstead
1,003.29 1,170.50 1,337.72 1,504.93 1,839.37 2,173.80 2,508.23 3,009.87
Upper Sheringham
1,022.05 1,192.40 1,362.74 1,533.08 1,873.77 2,214.46 2,555.14 3,066.17
Walcott
1,009.14 1,177.33 1,345.52 1,513.71 1,850.10 2,186.48 2,522.86 3,027.43
Walsingham
1,015.34 1,184.56 1,353.79 1,523.01 1,861.46 2,199.91 2,538.36 3,046.03
Warham
1,027.66 1,198.94 1,370.21 1,541.49 1,884.04 2,226.60 2,569.15 3,082.99
Wells-next-the-Sea
1,028.18 1,199.55 1,370.91 1,542.28 1,885.01 2,227.73 2,570.46 3,084.56
Weybourne
1,019.27 1,189.15 1,359.03 1,528.91 1,868.67 2,208.43 2,548.18 3,057.82
Wickmere
1,025.14 1,196.00 1,366.85 1,537.71 1,879.42 2,221.14 2,562.85 3,075.43
Wighton
1,008.18 1,176.21 1,344.24 1,512.28 1,848.34 2,184.40 2,520.46 3,024.56
Witton
992.28 1,157.66 1,323.04 1,488.42 1,819.18 2,149.94 2,480.70 2,976.84
Wiveton
1,020.72 1,190.84 1,360.97 1,531.09 1,871.33 2,211.57 2,551.81 3,062.18
Wood Norton
1,001.48 1,168.39 1,335.31 1,502.22 1,836.05 2,169.87 2,503.70 3,004.44
Worstead
1,005.46 1,173.04 1,340.61 1,508.19 1,843.35 2,178.50 2,513.65 3,016.39
All Other Parts of
the Council’s Area
987.24 1,151.78 1,316.32 1,480.86 1,809.94 2,139.02 2,468.10 2,961.72
4.9
Excessiveness Determination
4.9.1
The Council’s basic amount of council tax as calculated in paragraph 4.6 (f) above is the
same as that calculated for 2011/12, and therefore within the 3.5% increase limit above
which a referendum would be required.
4.9.2
Accordingly, it be DETERMINED that the Council’s basic amount of Council Tax is not
excessive for 2012/13 in accordance with the principles approved under Section 52ZB of
the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
5.
Implications and Risks to the Council
5.1
Financial implications - The Council is required to set the Council Tax each year in
accordance with the legislation set out above in this report. If this is not done, there is a
risk that the council will be unable to bill in a timely manner with a consequential loss of
revenue, and this may prevent the prudent management of the Council’s financial affairs.
By maintaining the council tax at the same level as 2011/12, the Council will receive a
council tax freeze grant of £145,000. This will not be payable if members decide to set a
higher level of council tax. The Council will be required to hold a referendum if it decides
to increase its council tax by more than 3.5%.
Page 55
Full Council
5.2
22 February 2012
Equality and diversity implications - The Council is legally required to consider the
equality duty in its decision-making and this includes the budget process. As part of any
savings or investments the Council must consider how it can:
1.
2.
3.
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation;
Advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and
Foster good relations between different groups by tackling prejudice and
promoting understanding.
5.3
As part of the 2012/13 budget process papers were issued during August and senior
managers were asked to explore service savings and options for additional income. Part
of the pack of information received by managers included a ‘Budget Equality Form’
which provided the framework to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA),
which managers were required to complete. This form requested details of the bid, and
whether it had any affect on a number of protected groups, and where any negative
affect was identified, how this could be minimised or removed.
5.4
The completed forms can be found on the Council’s website on the Finance page under
the
section
which
covers
the
Council
Budget
(http://www.northnorfolk.org/council/9208.asp). A cumulative assessment has been
undertaken in relation to the equality forms and the savings proposals and no negative
impact has been highlighted as a result of this exercise.
6.
Recommendations
It is recommended that having considered the Chief Financial Officer’s report on the
robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves, the
following be approved:
a)
The General Fund Revenue Budget for 2012/13;
b)
The Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves and the Optimum Level of
the General Reserve 2012/13 to 2015/16 (Appendix D);
c)
The level of the General Reserve maintained at a minimum of £950,000;
d)
The General and Earmarked Reserves are employed as shown in the Reserves
Statement (Appendix C);
e)
That members undertake the council tax and statutory calculations set out at
section 4, and set the Council Tax for 2012/13;
g)
The final demand on the Collection Fund will be;
(i)
£5,789,171 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,538,934 for Parish/Town precepts
Page 56
Appendix A
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY - 2012/13 BASE BUDGET
Service Area
2012/13
Base Budget
2013/14
Projection
2014/15
Projection
2015/16
Projection
£
3,848,749
7,596,644
1,183,183
2,889,704
£
2,684,976
7,607,611
1,183,709
3,093,960
£
2,962,711
7,770,318
1,184,159
3,327,631
£
3,027,748
7,722,297
1,183,698
3,275,071
(225,446)
(150,000)
(199,446)
(245,000)
(150,000)
(195,446)
(245,000)
(150,000)
(195,446)
(245,000)
(150,000)
Net Cost of Services
15,142,834
13,975,810
14,654,373
14,618,368
Parish Precepts
Capital Charges
Reffcus
Interest Receivable
Revenue Financing for Capital
IAS19 Pension Adjustment
1,538,934
(1,814,493)
(2,552,661)
(269,900)
400,000
256,842
1,577,407
(2,022,817)
(1,310,000)
(235,200)
400,000
264,559
1,616,843
(2,175,695)
(1,310,000)
(225,200)
400,000
272,509
1,657,263
(1,881,837)
(1,310,000)
(218,100)
0
280,697
Net Operating Expenditure
12,701,556
12,649,759
13,232,830
13,146,391
(400,000)
429,180
611,678
1,151,625
(494,813)
30,000
(84,494)
96,810
(200,000)
(400,000)
413,340
611,678
674,275
0
30,000
0
0
(300,000)
(400,000)
124,063
611,678
674,275
0
30,000
0
0
(200,000)
0
0
611,678
674,275
0
0
0
0
(100,000)
13,841,542
13,679,052
14,072,846
14,332,344
(1,538,934)
(5,789,171)
(1,577,407)
(5,789,171)
(1,616,843)
(5,789,171)
(1,657,263)
(5,991,793)
(6,225,303)
(5,902,832)
(5,451,266)
(5,451,266)
(145,000)
(143,134)
0
(143,134)
0
(143,134)
0
0
(13,841,542)
(13,412,544)
(13,000,414)
(13,100,322)
0
266,508
1,072,432
1,232,022
Community
Environment
Information
Resources
Pay & Grading
Car Allowances
Management Structures
Contributions to/(from) Earmarked Reserves:
Contribution from Capital Projects Reserve
Contribution to Capital Projects Reserve
New Homes Bonus
Big Society Fund
Local Strategic Partnership
Elections
EIB Premium
Restructuring
Use of General Reserve
Amount to be met from Government Grant
and Local Taxpayers
Collection Fund – Parishes
Collection Fund – District
Revenue Support Grant and Redistributed
Business Rates
Council Tax Freeze Funding 12/13 one off
Council Tax Freeze Funding 11/12 onwards
Income from Government Grant and
Taxpayers
(Surplus)/Deficit
Page 57
Appendix B
North Norfolk District Council
Council Tax Summary 2012/13
2011/12
Actual
Proposed 2012/13
0% Council Tax Increase
Variance
£
Demand on Collection Fund
(excluding Parish/Town Precepts)
£ 5,736,464
£ 5,789,171
District Council Tax Level at Band D
£
£
0.27 -£
Less Estimated Collection Fund Surplus
at 31st March
Net District Council Tax at Band D
-£
£
Value of Precepts
Effect of Parish/Town Precepts
Billed District Council Tax at Band D
Note:
£
139.14
138.87
£
Variance
%
£52,707
0.9%
139.95
£0.81
0.6%
1.08
-£0.81
300.0%
-
0.00%
138.87
£
£1,450,222
£1,538,934
£88,712
6.1%
35.18
37.20
£2.02
5.7%
£2.02
1.2%
174.05
£
176.07
The Tax Base for 2012/13 is 41,366 so each £41,366 change in net expenditure has
a £1.00 effect on Council Tax at Band D.
Page 58
Appendix C
Reserves Statement - 2012/13 Base Budget
Reserve
Purpose and Use of
Reserve
General Fund - General
Reserve
A working balance and contingency,
current recommended balance is
£950,000. This also includes the
reallocation of a number of previously
earmarked reserves to be used over the
next four years.
Balance at
1/4/2012
Budgeted
2012/13
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2013
Budgeted
2013/14
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2014
Budgeted
2014/15
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2015
Budgeted
2015/16
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2016
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
1,828,947 (200,000) 1,628,947
(300,000) 1,328,947
(200,000) 1,128,947
(100,000)
1,028,947
611,678
611,678 1,223,356
611,678 1,835,034
611,678
2,446,712
0 1,151,625 1,151,625
674,275 1,825,900
674,275 2,500,175
674,275
3,174,450
13,340 1,483,035
(275,937) 1,207,098
0
1,207,098
Earmarked Reserves:
New Homes Bonus
Big Society Fund
Capital Projects
Established for supporting communities
with future growth and development.
To support projects that communities
want, where they will make a difference
to the economic and social wellbeing of
the area.
To provide funding for capital
developments and purchase of major
assets. This includes the VAT Shelter
Receipt.
Organisational Development
To provide funding for organisation
development to create capacity within the
organisation and address anomalies
within the pay structure.
Coast Protection
To support the ongoing coast protection
maintenance programme.
Pathfinder
Asset Management*
To help Coastal Communities adapt to
coastal changes.
To support improvements to our existing
assets as identified through the Asset
Management Plan.
Sheringham Splash
Earmarked for repairs and renewals for
the Splash facility, from repair budget
under spends in the year.
Sports Hall Equipment
To support renewals for sports hall
equipment. Amount transferred in the
year represents over or under
achievement of income target.
0
1,440,515
611,678
29,180 1,469,695
358,488
0
358,488
0
358,488
0
358,488
0
358,488
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10,952
0
10,952
0
10,952
0
10,952
0
10,952
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,232
0
15,232
0
15,232
0
15,232
0
15,232
Page 59
Appendix C
Reserves Statement - 2012/13 Base Budget
Purpose and Use of
Reserve
Reserve
Common Training
To deliver the corporate training
programme. Training and development
programmes are sometimes not
completed in the year but are committed
and therefore funding is carried forward
in an earmarked reserve.
Local Strategic Partnership
To ring fence underspends on the LSP
for future liabilities and service delivery.
Environmental Health
Environmental Policy
Earmarking of underspends for future
liabilities associated with expansion of
the waste service.
Earmarking of a previous underspend to
meet future costs of environmental policy
initiatives.
Balance at
1/4/2012
Budgeted
2012/13
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2013
Budgeted
2013/14
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2014
Budgeted
2014/15
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2015
Budgeted
2015/16
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2016
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
17,000
0
17,000
0
17,000
0
17,000
0
17,000
643,813 (494,813)
149,000
0
149,000
0
149,000
0
149,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,090
0
20,090
0
20,090
0
20,090
0
20,090
30,000
60,000
30,000
90,000
0
90,000
50,356
0
50,356
Election Reserve
Established to meet costs associated
with district council elections, to smooth
the impact between financial years.
0
30,000
30,000
Land Charges
This reserve has been set up to enable
the repayment of Personal searches
following a change in legislation.
50,356
0
50,356
LSVT Reserve
To meet the cost of successful warranty
claims not covered by bonds and
insurance following the housing stock
transfer.
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
Regeneration Projects
Earmarked from previous underspends
for regeneration projects.
27,316
0
27,316
0
27,316
0
27,316
0
27,316
70,835
0
70,835
0
70,835
0
70,835
0
70,835
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
247,051
0
247,051
0
247,051
0
247,051
0
247,051
50,356
Housing and Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG):
HPDG - Revenue
Carry forward of any unspent HPDG for
use on related revenue/capital projects.
HPDG - Capital
Housing
Previously earmarked for stock condition
survey and housing needs assessment.
Page 60
Appendix C
Reserves Statement - 2012/13 Base Budget
Reserve
Purpose and Use of
Reserve
Concessionary Fares
To underwrite the potential increased
costs resulting from ongoing claims by
the bus operators.
Benefits
To be used to mitigate any claw back by
the Department of Works and Pensions
following final subsidy determination.
Balance at
1/4/2012
Budgeted
2012/13
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2013
Budgeted
2013/14
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2014
Budgeted
2014/15
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2015
Budgeted
2015/16
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2016
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
640,242
0
640,242
0
640,242
0
640,242
0
640,242
Investment income : European
Investment Bank (EIB) Premium
The Council disposed of its EIB bonds for
a gain in 2011/12. This reserve is
required for accounting purposes to
transfer the part of the gain that relates to
2012/13.
84,494
(84,494)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Restructuring Proposals
To be used for restructuring costs
including one-off redundancy and
pension strain costs. Amount to be used
from 1 April 2011 to be allocated against
savings proposals as business cases are
approved.
198,749
0
198,749
0
198,749
0
198,749
0
198,749
Arts and Community Projects
To fund arts and community projects.
13,867
0
13,867
13,867
0
13,867
Carbon Management
To fund revenue invest to save initiatives.
15,880
0
15,880
0
15,880
0
15,880
0
15,880
Whistle blowing
Commissioning investigation activity.
10,000
0
10,000
0
10,000
0
10,000
0
10,000
Legal & Democratic Services
One off funding for Compulsory Purchase
Order (CPO) work and to undertake a
review of the Constitution.
46,599
0
46,599
0
46,599
0
46,599
0
46,599
The pier
To be used to support the cost of works
to Cromer pier.
15,000
0
15,000
0
15,000
0
15,000
0
15,000
Total Reserves
6,190,426 1,043,176 7,233,602
13,867
1,029,293 8,262,895
Page 61
840,016 9,102,911
1,185,953 10,288,864
Appendix D
Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves and Assessing the Optimum Level of
the General Reserve for the period 2012/13 to 2015/16
1
Background
1.1
In accordance with statute (principally the Local Government Finance Act 2002) and
following the Guidance Note on Local Authority Reserves and Balances (LAAP
Bulletin No. 77 – November 2008), North Norfolk District Council maintains a range of
reserves.
1.2
Two types of reserves are discussed in this policy framework:
 Earmarked Reserves
 The General Reserve
1.3
There are also a number of other reserves which local authorities hold in relation to
legislation and proper accounting practices, these are not resource-backed reserves
and therefore are not considered as part of this policy framework.
1.4
Sections 31 (a) and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 require billing and
precepting authorities to have regard to the level of reserves needed for meeting
estimated future expenditure when calculating the council tax requirement.
2
Earmarked Reserves
2.1
Purpose
2.1.1
Earmarked reserves are a means of building up funds to meet known or predicted
liabilities.
2.1.2
Typically earmarked reserves are used to set aside sums for major schemes, such as
capital developments or asset purchases, or to fund major reorganisations. Reserves
can also be held for trading and business units built up from surpluses to cover
potential losses in future years, or to finance capital expenditure. In certain
circumstances, if expenditure is delayed on specific budgets, it may be agreed that
the underspending at a year end is carried forward for future use in an earmarked
reserve.
2.2
Earmarked Reserves Protocol
2.2.1
For each reserve the following arrangements should be established:
 the reasons for / purpose of the reserve
 how and when the reserve can be used
 procedures for the reserve’s management and control
 a process and timetable for review of the reserve to ensure continuing relevance
and adequacy.
2.2.2
In North Norfolk, the establishment and use of earmarked reserves is reviewed at the
time of budget setting and then controlled through the year as part of the regular
budget monitoring processes.
2.3
Review of Earmarked Reserves
2.3.1
The Reserves Statement in Appendix C gives full details of the earmarked reserves.
Each earmarked reserve has been assessed by the Chief Financial Officer whose
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2011
Page 62
Appendix D
judgement is that they are properly established in accordance with the protocol and
that their level and proposed use is appropriate.
2.3.2
It is considered that sufficient provision for the Council’s capital programme has been
included in the capital estimates and capital reserves and that nothing further is
required.
3
The General Reserve
3.1
Purpose
3.1.1
The general reserve is held for two main purposes:
 a working balance to help cushion the impact of uneven cashflows and avoid
temporary borrowing;
 a contingency to help cushion the impact of unexpected events or emergencies
3.2
The Optimum Level of the General Reserve
3.2.1
There are two recommended approaches for deciding the optimum level of the
general reserve:
a)
A risk assessment of the budget which takes full account of the context within
which the budget has been prepared. The budget report itself provides this
contextual information.
b)
To set the reserve at a percentage of expenditure. Typically, a level of
between 5% and 10% of net expenditure is considered prudent. Too low a
level puts the council at unacceptable risk of failing to meet its obligations, too
high a level unnecessarily ties up resources.
3.2.2
This appendix sets out the framework for considering a risk assessment approach
and validating the result against a percentage calculation. At the end of the day, the
level of reserves is a matter of opinion informed by the judgement of the Council’s
Chief Financial Officer.
3.3
Assessment Framework
3.3.1
The issues to be considered include the following:








The Council continues to operate on an ongoing basis through to March 2016.
The robustness of the budget process including recognition of the linkages with
the corporate plan, the strategic risk register and the financial plan update.
The adequacy of the earmarked reserves and the movements on the general
reserves both in the past and planned.
The extent to which efficiency savings and planned service reductions are
required and can be relied upon to support corporate plan targets.
The risk of major litigation and legal claims, both currently and in the future.
The impact of future Government funding reductions. The 2012/13 financial year
is the second year of a four-year comprehensive spending review settlement. The
grant allocation has been confirmed for 2012/13 but there is still uncertainty
around future grant reductions for the final two years of 2013/14 and 2014/15.
Uncertainty around some income streams and grants, for example planning and
building control fee income, land charges, car parking and investment income.
Unplanned volume increases in major demand led budgets, particularly in the
context of the current economic climate for example benefits and homelessness.
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2011
Page 63
Appendix D





Likewise volume decreases in major income streams such as car parking charges
and planning related services.
The need to retain a general contingency to provide for any unforeseen
circumstances that may arise including inadequately funded Government
initiatives.
The Government’s Bellwin scheme does provide financial assistance to local
authorities in the event of an emergency. However, assistance is only provided
above a threshold, is normally limited to 85% of eligible costs and relates to
events that are exceptional resulting in damage to local authority infrastructure or
local communities. In the short term all costs have to be met pending
Government reimbursement.
The potential implications from the recently published Local Government Finance
Bill in relation to the implementation of the new business rates retention system
and the localisation of council tax support, although it should be noted that these
will be implemented from 2013/14.
The move in local authorities to do less by direct service provision (either through
the Localism Agenda or through third parties, including outsourcing) is increasing
the risks borne by authorities as there is a risk that these arrangements fail and
there are many circumstances when a statutory liability remains with the local
authority. Such risks may not be insurable at an economic level and demand
rigorous risk minimisation strategies and this is an area that will be considered in
more detail if the Council pursues these arrangements in future years.
The need to retain reserves for general day to day cash flow needs.
3.3.2
All these issues interlink and any one incident is likely to span across many of the
issues. Risks change over time and the general reserve needs to be considered
across the three budget years. What might be an adequate level of reserves in year
one could be inadequate in years two and three.
3.4
The Assessment of the General Fund Reserve
3.4.1
When undertaking the assessment it must be remembered that the items considered
are merely guides to assessing the overall level of the reserve. In no way is it a
budget for any of the items being created since by its nature a general reserve is
designed to protect against the unexpected and unquantifiable for whatever reason.
3.4.2
Having considered the relevant risks and the mitigation measures already in place, it
is felt that the following indicative items should be taken into account in the budget
risk assessment:
Item
1 Pay and Price Inflation
(0.5% above budget assumption)
2 Interest Rates
(0.25% below budget prediction
on non-fixed investments)
3 Failure to Achieve Planned
Savings and Cost Pressures
from Corporate Plan Targets
(to ensure core services are
maintained)
4 Major Litigation and Legal
Claims
(to provide additional comfort
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2011
2012/13
52,500
2013/14
52,500
2014/15
52,500
2015/16
52,500
58,000
60,000
60,000
58,000
39,200
42,000
42,400
42,400
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
Page 64
Appendix D
Item
above earmarked reserves)
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
5 Emergencies and Other
Unknowns
(to recognise the risks
associated with unpredictable
events)
300,000
350,000
350,000
350,000
6 Treatment of Demand Led
Pressures
(recognising the impact of
increase or reduction in demand
and compensating increase or
reduction in expenditure or
income)
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
7 Cash Flow
(it is felt that short term cash flow
needs are adequately covered
without the inclusion of further
amounts)
0
0
0
0
Total Indicated General Fund
Reserve
% of Net Budgeted Operating
Expenditure (excluding parish
precepts)
899,700
954,500
954,500
952,900
8.06%
8.62%
8.22%
8.29%
1,028,947
1,028,947
1,028,947
1,028,947
9.22%
9.29%
8.86%
8.96%
Budgeted General Fund
Reserve (at year-end, after
taking account of planned use)
% of Net Budgeted Operating
Expenditure (excluding parish
precepts)
4
Chief Financial Officer’s Opinion
4.1
The Earmarked Reserves detailed in Appendix C are proper and appropriate with
regard to purpose, level and proposed use.
4.2
The budgeted General Fund Reserve shown in Appendix C is considered adequate
for the period 2012/13 to 2015/16; however the level of the general reserve should be
reviewed during the year as part of the financial planning process taking into account
where applicable items identified within the assessment at 3.3.
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2011
Page 65
Appendix E
COUNCIL TAX BY PARISH 2012/2013
PARISH
TAXBASE
PARISH
PRECEPT
£.p
COUNCIL TAX PER BAND D DWELLING
PARISH
OTHER *
TOTAL
£.p
£.p
£.p
ALBY WITH THWAITE
ALDBOROUGH
ANTINGHAM
ASHMANHAUGH
AYLMERTON
101.59
239.73
129.06
70.55
197.53
2,400.00
5,000.00
2,250.00
2,900.00
6,475.00
23.62
20.85
17.43
41.10
32.77
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,504.48
1,501.71
1,498.29
1,521.96
1,513.63
BACONSTHORPE
BACTON
BARSHAM
BARTON TURF
BECKHAM EAST/WEST
90.67
516.06
105.49
241.32
122.08
1,500.00
15,000.00
1,900.00
4,500.00
2,400.00
16.54
29.06
18.01
18.64
19.65
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,497.40
1,509.92
1,498.87
1,499.50
1,500.51
BEESTON REGIS
BINHAM
BLAKENEY
BODHAM
BRININGHAM
416.00
180.36
540.22
176.83
65.81
13,000.00
4,500.00
23,000.00
6,250.00
0.00
31.25
24.95
42.57
35.34
0.00
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,512.11
1,505.81
1,523.43
1,516.20
1,480.86
BRINTON
BRISTON
BRUMSTEAD
CATFIELD
CLEY
122.56
889.03
26.10
354.27
319.93
2,250.00
28,225.00
0.00
9,500.00
7,000.00
18.35
31.74
0.00
26.81
21.87
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,499.21
1,512.60
1,480.86
1,507.67
1,502.73
COLBY
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE
CROMER
DILHAM
DUNTON
195.18
277.85
3,127.55
143.47
51.95
15,000.00
9,360.00
185,869.00
4,284.00
0.00
76.85
33.68
59.42
29.85
0.00
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,557.71
1,514.54
1,540.28
1,510.71
1,480.86
EAST RUSTON
EDGEFIELD
ERPINGHAM
FAKENHAM
FELBRIGG
189.82
185.87
250.61
2,674.71
79.03
3,000.00
5,500.00
6,500.00
140,410.00
2,000.00
15.80
29.59
25.93
52.49
25.30
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,496.66
1,510.45
1,506.79
1,533.35
1,506.16
FELMINGHAM
FIELD DALLING
FULMODESTONE
GIMINGHAM
GREAT SNORING
196.07
136.83
180.52
163.84
84.11
1,500.00
3,000.00
4,000.00
4,750.00
3,500.00
7.65
21.92
22.15
28.99
41.61
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,488.51
1,502.78
1,503.01
1,509.85
1,522.47
GRESHAM
GUNTHORPE
HANWORTH
HAPPISBURGH
HELHOUGHTON
171.85
139.40
97.67
314.97
135.17
4,500.00
1,800.00
2,000.00
7,175.00
4,000.00
26.18
12.91
20.47
22.77
29.59
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,507.04
1,493.77
1,501.33
1,503.63
1,510.45
HEMPSTEAD
HEMPTON
HICKLING
HIGH KELLING
HINDOLVESTON
78.41
192.34
425.79
287.57
207.97
1,650.00
6,200.00
8,376.00
8,500.00
5,900.00
21.04
32.23
19.67
29.55
28.36
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,501.90
1,513.09
1,500.53
1,510.41
1,509.22
Page 66
Appendix E
COUNCIL TAX BY PARISH 2012/2013
PARISH
TAXBASE
PARISH
PRECEPT
£.p
COUNCIL TAX PER BAND D DWELLING
PARISH
OTHER *
TOTAL
£.p
£.p
£.p
HINDRINGHAM
HOLKHAM
HOLT
HONING
HORNING
236.45
94.49
1,697.13
126.48
618.98
5,500.00
2,500.00
78,208.00
2,000.00
14,500.00
23.26
26.45
46.08
15.81
23.42
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,504.12
1,507.31
1,526.94
1,496.67
1,504.28
HORSEY
HOVETON
INGHAM
INGWORTH
ITTERINGHAM
39.15
808.98
151.75
44.83
62.93
750.00
42,496.00
1,300.00
2,190.00
1,850.00
19.15
52.53
8.56
48.85
29.39
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,500.01
1,533.39
1,489.42
1,529.71
1,510.25
KELLING
KETTLESTONE
KNAPTON
LANGHAM
LESSINGHAM
91.26
93.58
156.49
196.76
246.91
3,000.00
3,300.00
4,250.00
6,120.00
3,500.00
32.87
35.26
27.15
31.10
14.17
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,513.73
1,516.12
1,508.01
1,511.96
1,495.03
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD
LITTLE BARNINGHAM
LITTLE SNORING
LUDHAM
MATLASKE
123.95
41.70
229.47
530.95
64.05
2,000.00
400.00
6,500.00
8,805.00
300.00
16.13
9.59
28.32
16.58
4.68
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,496.99
1,490.45
1,509.18
1,497.44
1,485.54
199.08
58.30
1,198.52
244.88
4,270.63
10,000.00
1,000.00
50,053.00
5,817.00
152,250.00
50.23
17.15
41.76
23.75
35.65
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,531.09
1,498.01
1,522.62
1,504.61
1,516.51
NORTHREPPS
OVERSTRAND
PASTON
PLUMSTEAD
POTTER HEIGHAM
333.34
459.84
88.85
53.21
435.03
14,454.00
15,170.00
4,400.00
1,650.00
11,900.00
43.36
32.98
49.52
31.00
27.35
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,524.22
1,513.84
1,530.38
1,511.86
1,508.21
PUDDING NORTON
RAYNHAM
ROUGHTON
RUNTON
RYBURGH
83.31
134.66
352.39
760.81
243.12
1,800.00
5,600.00
10,000.00
8,000.00
8,000.00
21.60
41.58
28.37
10.51
32.90
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,502.46
1,522.44
1,509.23
1,491.37
1,513.76
SALTHOUSE
SCOTTOW
SCULTHORPE
SEA PALLING
SHERINGHAM
123.39
303.76
293.21
224.92
3,252.42
3,250.00
7,000.00
5,000.00
10,412.00
158,868.22
26.33
23.04
17.05
46.29
48.84
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,507.19
1,503.90
1,497.91
1,527.15
1,529.70
SIDESTRAND
SKEYTON
SLOLEY
SMALLBURGH
SOUTHREPPS
49.36
88.55
91.96
193.75
324.74
1,200.00
1,100.00
2,575.00
6,200.00
11,450.00
24.31
12.42
28.00
32.00
35.25
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,505.17
1,493.28
1,508.86
1,512.86
1,516.11
MELTON CONSTABLE
MORSTON
MUNDESLEY
NEATISHEAD
NORTH WALSHAM
Page 67
Appendix E
COUNCIL TAX BY PARISH 2012/2013
PARISH
TAXBASE
PARISH
PRECEPT
£.p
STALHAM
STIBBARD
STIFFKEY
STODY
SUFFIELD
COUNCIL TAX PER BAND D DWELLING
PARISH
OTHER *
TOTAL
£.p
£.p
£.p
1,142.23
138.94
128.17
94.47
58.20
50,000.00
5,200.00
5,000.00
2,400.00
1,500.00
43.77
37.42
39.01
25.40
25.77
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,524.63
1,518.28
1,519.87
1,506.26
1,506.63
SUSTEAD
SUTTON
SWAFIELD
SWANTON ABBOTT
SWANTON NOVERS
91.93
413.02
116.89
151.76
87.74
1,500.00
6,840.00
3,400.00
4,600.00
2,750.00
16.31
16.56
29.08
30.31
31.34
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,497.17
1,497.42
1,509.94
1,511.17
1,512.20
TATTERSETT
THORNAGE
THORPE MARKET
THURNING
THURSFORD
287.66
96.37
113.42
30.21
108.66
3,000.00
1,500.00
4,000.00
0.00
3,000.00
10.42
15.56
35.26
0.00
27.60
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,491.28
1,496.42
1,516.12
1,480.86
1,508.46
TRIMINGHAM
TRUNCH
TUNSTEAD
UPPER SHERINGHAM
WALCOTT
WALSINGHAM
151.60
371.43
274.09
95.81
243.46
379.52
6,340.00
16,250.00
6,600.00
5,004.00
8,000.00
16,000.00
41.82
43.74
24.07
52.22
32.85
42.15
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,522.68
1,524.60
1,504.93
1,533.08
1,513.71
1,523.01
82.46
1,107.11
31.81
332.96
61.56
5,000.00
68,000.00
0.00
16,000.00
3,500.00
60.63
61.42
0.00
48.05
56.85
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,541.49
1,542.28
1,480.86
1,528.91
1,537.71
111.39
132.23
88.59
101.01
329.24
3,500.00
1,000.00
4,450.00
2,158.00
9,000.00
31.42
7.56
50.23
21.36
27.33
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,480.86
1,512.28
1,488.42
1,531.09
1,502.22
1,508.19
41,366.00
1,538,934.22
37.20
1,480.86
1,518.06
WARHAM
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA
WESTWICK
WEYBOURNE
WICKMERE
WIGHTON
WITTON
WIVETON
WOOD NORTON
WORSTEAD
TOTALS / AVERAGES
OTHER *
£
Norfolk County Council
Norfolk Police Authority
North Norfolk District Council
Parish Average
Total Average Band D Amount
% of total
p
1,145.07
196.92
138.87
1,480.86
37.20
1,518.06
Change on 2011/12
%
75.43%
12.97%
9.15%
97.55%
2.45%
100.00%
Page 68
0.00%
3.00%
0.00%
0.40%
5.70%
0.50%
Agenda Item No_____15_______
Pay Policy Statement
Summary:
The report is required to enable the Council to satisfy
the requirements of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011
which requires that authorities must prepare a pay
policy statement (“the statement”) for the financial year
2012/13 and for each subsequent financial year.
Conclusions:
The attached statement sets out current remuneration
arrangements and is not a change to existing
policy/practices.
Recommendations:
To approve the pay policy statement for 2012/13 as
required by section 38 the Localism Act 2011.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Julie Cooke, 01263 516040
Julie.cooke@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
Section 38 (1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) requires English and
Welsh local authorities to produce a pay policy statement (the ‘statement’) for
2012/13 and for each financial year after that.
1.2
On 17 November 2011, the Department of Communities and Local
Government (DCLG) published draft guidance on pay policy statements
setting out the key policy principles that underpin the pay accountability
provisions in the Act. Authorities must have regard to the guidance in
performing their functions in preparing and approving pay statements. The
guidance may be subject to change as it was issued in draft with a deadline
for comments of 16 December 2011. At the point of writing this report, final
guidance had not been published, therefore, changes to the guidance will be
addressed when the policy is next updated/reviewed.
Page 69
1.3
Each local authority is an individual employer in its own right and has the
autonomy to make decisions on pay that are appropriate to local
circumstances and which deliver value for money for local taxpayers. As
reported to Full Council in October 2011, this Council has been undertaking a
review of the pay and grading model for employees to ensure it is fit for
purpose. The requirements of the Act provide further transparency to the
remuneration practices of the Council.
2.
The Statement
2.1
The statement must set out:
•
•
•
•
2.2
With regard to the process for approving the statement, it must:•
•
•
•
2.3
A local authority’s policy on the level and elements of remuneration for
each chief officer
A local authority’s policy on the remuneration of its lowest-paid
employees (together with its definition of “lowest-paid employees” and
its reasons for adopting that definition)
A local authority’s policy on the relationship between the remuneration
of its chief officers and other officers
A local authority’s policy on other specific aspects of chief officers’
remuneration: remuneration on recruitment, increases and additions to
remuneration, use of performance related pay and bonuses,
termination payments, and transparency.
Be approved formally by Full Council and cannot be delegated to any
sub committee. This includes any amendments in each financial year
Be approved by the end of March each year
Be published on the authority’s website and in any other manner that
the Council thinks appropriate as soon as it is reasonably practicable
after it is approved or amended
Be complied with when the authority sets the terms and conditions for
a Chief Officer
For the purpose of the statement the term ‘Chief Officer’ in a local authority
context is defined as set out in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989
as:
•
•
•
•
The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive)
The Monitoring Officer
A statutory Chief Officer and non statutory Chief Officer (section 2 of
that Act)
A deputy Chief Officer (section 2 of that Act)
2.4
This definition of Chief Officer is wider than that contained within the
Constitution where the term ‘chief officer’ indicates the senior posts which sat
on the Corporate Management Team i.e. the Chief Executive and Directors.
3.
Anticipated Amendments to the Statement
3.1
The following activities may require the statement to be reviewed and where
appropriate amended within the next 12 months:
Page 70
•
•
•
Implementation of the new pay and grading model
Implementation of a new management structure below Corporate
Leadership Team
Any changes to the guidance issued by DCLG
4.
Conclusions
4.1
The statement meets the statutory requirements of the Localism Act and it is
therefore recommended that the statement be approved.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
There are no increased risks or resource implications as a result of setting
and publishing this statement as it is setting out what is currently in place. It
is a positive step towards openness and transparency of public spend on
senior management remuneration. This builds on the publication of senior
officer salary information which is already available on the internet at
http://www.northnorfolk.org/council/8105.asp
5.2
All the information contained within the statement would be made available
through a Freedom of Information request so publication could reduce the
requests for information in this area.
6.
Equality and Diversity
6.1
The Equality Act 2010 places requirements upon all public sector bodies to
ensure that its policies and procedures are promoting equality, this document
supports that requirement.
7.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
Not applicable.
Page 71
PAY POLICY STATEMENT 2012/13
Context
Section 38 (1) of the Localism Act 2011 requires English and Welsh local authorities
to produce a pay policy statement for 2012/13 and for each financial year thereafter.
The Act also requires an authority to have regard to any statutory guidance on the
subject issued or approved by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers.
This policy statement was considered and approved by Full Council on 22 February
2012. It is available on the Council’s website. The Council’s website also includes
separately published data on salary information relating to Senior Officers and this
can be viewed here
For the purpose of the pay policy statement the term ‘Chief Officer’ in a local
authority context is defined as set out in the Local Government and Housing Act
1989:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The Head of Paid Service (i.e. the Chief Executive) as designated under
section 4 of that Act;
The Monitoring Officer designated under section 5(1) of that Act;
A statutory Chief Officer and non statutory Chief Officer under section 2 of
that Act;
A deputy Chief Officer mentioned in section 2 of that Act.
Remunerating Chief Officers/Senior Management
The remuneration for Chief Officers/Senior Management within the Council can be
found at Appendix A.
Remunerating the Lowest Paid in the Workforce
The Council applies terms and conditions of employment that have been negotiated
and agreed through appropriate collective bargaining mechanisms (national or local)
or as a consequence of Council decisions, these are then incorporated into contracts
of employment. The lowest pay point in use by the Council for employees is spinal
column point (SCP) 4. This relates to an annual salary of £12,145 and can be
expressed as an hourly rate of pay of £6.2951 as at 31 March 2012. This pay point
and salary was determined by the National Joint Council (NJC) on 1 April 2009 and
has been applied since that time.
The Relationship between Chief Officer Remuneration and that of other
employees
The highest paid salary in the Council is that of the Chief Executive at £97,680 as at
31 March 2012. The median for Chief Officers is £44092.34 and for non-Chief
Officers is £17842.00. This gives a ratio of 1:2.47. The Council does not have a
policy on maintaining, reaching or applying a specific pay multiple. However the
Council is conscious that remuneration at all levels needs to be adequate to secure
and retain high-quality employees but not be seen as excessive.
Page 72
Other Aspects of Chief Officer Remuneration
Other aspects of Chief Officer remuneration are appropriate to be covered by this
policy statement, these other aspects are defined as remuneration on recruitment,
pay increases, additions to pay, performance related pay, earn back, enhancements
of pension entitlements and termination payments. These elements are shown in
Appendix A and B.
Review
The Localism Act 2011 requires relevant authorities to prepare a Pay Policy
Statement for each subsequent financial year. The next statement will be due to be
submitted to Full Council for approval by 31 March 2013.
As necessary, the Council may by resolution amend the pay policy statement at
times other than that of the prescribed annual statement.
Page 73
Post
Chief Executive
Basic Salary
Range (as @ 31
March 2012)
£97,680
£99,771
Expenses / car
allowances
Bonuses / PRP /
Earn Back
Honoraria
Acting Up
Travel and other
expenses are
reimbursed through
normal Council
procedures.
The current
terms and
conditions of
employment
does not provide
for any of the
above elements.
Honoraria and
acting up
payments for any
increased duties
and
responsibilities
do not apply.
Car allowances are
paid in accordance
with the Council’s
Travel Policy (see
Appendix C)
Corporate Directors
x2
Strategic Director x
1
(This post has been
removed from the
establishment as a
£73,311
£79,407
£73,311
£79,407
/
Market
Supplements
Election Fees
A market
supplement has not
been applied to this
post.
As the (Deputy) Returning
Officer, the Chief Executive
will receive a fee, locally in
respect of County, District
and Parish Elections. The
fee for undertaking this role
in Norfolk is calculated in
accordance with a formula
approved annually by the
Norfolk Chief Executives
Group based on a
recommendation by the
County Electoral Officers
Group. Fees for conducting
Parliamentary and European
Parliamentary Elections,
National Referendums and
other Elections such as for
the Police and Crime
Commissioner. etc. are
determined by Government.
The Returning Officer is a
separate appointment and
therefore not factored into
the salary range shown.
-
As above
As above
As above
As above
-
As above
As above
As above
As above
Page 74
The fees will be published
on the Council’s website.
As above (where
applicable).
As above (where
applicable).
Appendix A
Severance
Arrangements
The Council’s
normal policies
regarding
redundancy and
early/flexible
retirement apply
to the postholder.
As above.
As above.
result of
restructuring)
Head of
Service/Service
Managers x 13
£35,430
£57,270
-
As above
As above
Could be applied
where
appropriate on
authorisation of
Corporate
Leadership
Team.
Page 75
Could be applied
where appropriate
on authorisation of
Corporate
Leadership Team
subject to signed
business case.
As above (where applicable)
As above
Appendix B
Aspect of Chief
Officer Remuneration
Recruitment
Council Policy
The post will be advertised and appointed to at the appropriate approved
salary for the post in question and individuals will be placed on the
appropriate SCP within the pay grade for the post that they are appointed
to.
Employees will receive an annual increment (and in some cases, 6 months
after starting work with the Council), subject to the top of their grade not
being exceeded.
Where the Council is unable to recruit to a post at its designated grade, it
will consider the use of temporary market supplements.
Access to appropriate elements of the Council’s relocation Scheme may
also be granted in certain circumstances, when new starters move to the
area.
Pay Increases
Additions to Pay
Professional
Subscriptions
Employee Assistance
Programme (EAP)
(includes access to
advice and
counselling)
Contract for Services
Redundancy and
payments on
termination
The above applies to all employees.
The Council will apply any pay increases that are agreed by the relevant
national negotiating bodies. The Council will also apply any pay increases
that are as a result of Council decisions to significantly increase the duties
and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of
duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.
This applies to all employees.
The Council would not make additional payments beyond those specified
in the terms and conditions of employment.
This applies to all employees.
These are payable where they are required for the post and should be
limited to one subscription per Officer.
This applies to all employees.
Access to the EAP scheme is available to all employees and Elected
Members.
Where the Council remains unable to appoint chief officers on recruitment,
or there is a need to provide interim support to cover for a vacant
substantive chief officer post, the Council will, where necessary, consider
engaging individuals under ‘contracts for service’. These will be sourced
through a relevant procurement process ensuring the Council is able to
demonstrate value for money from competition in securing the relevant
service.
The Council has a single policy which applies to all employees.
Where termination of employment is subject to a compromise agreement
that agreement may include a negotiated payment in exchange for which
the employee undertakes not to pursue claims against the Council. This is
always subject to the completion of a business case and appropriate
authorisation as laid out in the above policy.
Page 76
Appendix C
TRAVEL POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this policy is to set out North Norfolk District Council’s policy on travel
arrangements that employees are eligible to claim in reimbursement for journeys
made in carrying out their duties.
GENERAL TRAVEL PRINCIPLES
Employees will be required to ensure that:-
the use of public transport is prioritised above a car where the journey
time is comparable to that of a car
-
the choice of travel mode should always be the most cost effective to the
Authority, taking into account both claim costs and staff time
-
they ensure that journeys are planned to do the least number of miles
possible, through good route planning and car sharing
-
a full record of their journey is kept including the reason for travelling and
the names of official passengers carried
-
they do not use their own vehicle on journeys where there is room in the
car of another officer making the same journey on the same business. In
this situation, an essential car user should drive in preference to a casual
user, if possible
-
they have included and maintain in their policy of insurance a clause
indemnifying the Authority against all third party claims (including those
concerning passengers) arising out of the use of the vehicle on official
business
-
all claims exclude home to work mileage (and vice versa) if the journey
starts or ends from the officers home i.e. they should only claim for excess
business mileage over and above their normal daily commute mileage
-
all claims must be made using the appropriate claim form (these can be
obtained from the intranet or HR)
-
VAT receipts are obtained and attached to the travel claim form to enable
the Authority to reclaim VAT
-
they are familiar with and comply with the Driver Policy and Handbook
CAR ALLOWANCES
North Norfolk District Council recognises that employees will be required to use their
own motor vehicle for the efficient performance of their duties and that it is
appropriate to reimburse for additional authorised expenditure.
All employees are designated as casual users unless their post attracts an essential
car user allowance or they are currently in receipt of either a lease car or cash
equivalent payment.
Page 77
ESSENTIAL USER ALLOWANCES
Essential users are those whose duties are of such a nature that it is essential for
them to have a motor car at their disposal whenever required. If the employee uses a
private car in carrying out those official duties then they shall be entitled to receive
the lump sum allowance and mileage rates set out in this policy.
To determine eligibility to an essential car user allowance, the Essential Car User
Assessment Form (obtained from HR) must be completed by either the line manager
(for vacant posts) or the postholder. The assessment form will be scored by HR and
eligibility will be confirmed or declined based on that assessment. If the postholder is
not satisfied with the outcome, they can request an assessment by their Strategic
Director in consultation with UNISON. A record of the request and scoring will be
kept on the post file and where appropriate, the personnel file.
The essential car user allowance will be paid to all employees whose eligibility is
confirmed and they will receive a lump sum in accordance with their terms and
conditions of employment along with the approved mileage rate for claimed business
miles undertaken.
Eligibility for essential car user status will be checked annually via completion of the
car allowance scheme assessment form and if the post does not meet the criteria for
this allowance, it will be removed immediately and the employee will be redesignated as a casual user. Transitional arrangements apply for the period of April
2011 to March 2012. Where staff are assessed as no longer being eligible to receive
an essential car user allowance in March 2011 (and they currently receive this
allowance) they will be protected as an essential car user until 31 March 2012
provided they remain in their current post. The employee will be entitled to appeal
this decision and eligibility will be rechecked and the decision confirmed by the
Strategic Director in consultation with UNISON.
CASUAL USER ALLOWANCES
Casual users are those for whom it is desirable that a car should be made available
when required and as such are eligible to receive the appropriate mileage rate set
out in this policy.
TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING STAFF
See above and Appendix A.
ALLOWANCES AND MILEAGE RATES
See Appendix A – please note these rates are reviewed and where appropriate,
updated and published annually.
CAR LOAN SCHEME
Employees may apply to the Authority for a loan to purchase a vehicle if it is deemed
necessary by their Strategic Director for them to use a vehicle for work purposes.
Details of the scheme can be obtained from the Payroll Officer.
LEASE CAR SCHEME/CASH EQUIVALENT LUMP SUM
Lease cars and cash equivalent lump sums will be phased out for individual
employees who currently have a lease car or receive a cash equivalent payment.
Protection periods set out in Appendix A apply.
Page 78
OTHER MILEAGE RATES
Lease car scheme
Training1
Motorcycle
Cycle
Car sharing-
-
15.47 pence per mile
15.47 pence per mile
24 pence per mile
20 pence per mile
5 pence per mile (not per person(s) carried)
MILEAGE CLAIMS
All claims must be submitted on the appropriate claim form and passed to Payroll for
payment within 3 months of undertaking the journey/expenditure. All claim forms are
to be authorised by the appropriate authorised line manager according to the
‘authorised signatories list’. See Appendix B for details of what can be included in a
mileage claim.
Failure to submit a claim within 3 months of undertaking the journey would
mean that, except under exceptional circumstances, the claim would not be
met.
OTHER ALLOWANCES
SUBSISTENCE2
Subsistence will be paid to employees who necessarily incur additional expense in
the course of their work. Reimbursement will be on the actual cost incurred up to the
maximum amount shown below. This is subject to producing a receipt which shows
the actual cost of the meal. Maximums are:Breakfast
Lunch
Tea
Evening meal
-
£6.88 (Where work/travel commences before 7.30 am)
£9.50 (When away for entire lunch period 12.00 – 14.00)
£3.76
£11.77 (When work/absence extends beyond 7.30 pm)
OVERNIGHT ALLOWANCES
Overnight
£3.63
Max per week
£14.55
Any exceptions to the above (subsistence and overnight allowances) would need to
be agreed in advance with the relevant Strategic Director.
LINK TO OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES
1.
Driver Policy and Handbook – employees are required to comply with the
requirements of this policy.
2.
Environmental Policy – found within the Environmental Sustainability
Strategy and Implementation Plan.
3.
Green travel Plan.
MONITORING
This policy will be reviewed, updated and published on an annual basis by the
Organisational Development Manager in line with the national agreement or as
required by the Authority.
1
2
There is a specific claim form for qualification based training – speak to HR for details
Rates are updated annually and are correct with effect from April 2010
Page 79
APPENDIX A
TRAVEL RATES3
Casual User Rate
Mileage:Per mile first 8,500
Per mile after 8,500
52.2p
14.4p
New staff or those with new contracts
Essential User (based on NJC rates for 1000-1199cc band)
Lump sum
£963 per annum (paid pro-rata on a monthly basis)
Mileage:Per mile first 8,500
Per mile after 8,500
40.9p
14.4p
Existing staff (with confirmed protection until 31 March 2013)
Essential User
Lump sum
£1239.00
*The lump sum for this level of cc will stay fixed at this amount until the end of the pay protection period
unless the NJC rate for 1000-1199cc exceeds this within the period set out above.
Mileage:Per mile first 8,500
Per mile after 8,500
40.9p
14.4p
Lease car users and cash equivalent lump sums (Existing staff with confirmed
protection until 31 March 2013)
Individual lease cars and cash equivalent payments will be phased out. Employees
who are currently in receipt of either an individual lease car or cash equivalent
payment will be protected until 31 March 2013 as long as they remain in their current
post. The lump sum will be protected at the current rate (2009/10).
If a lease car agreement is due to expire before the above date, employees will be
given the option to either extend the current lease agreement (where this is possible)
or revert to the cash equivalent lump sum until 31 March 2013.
3
Rates are updated annually and are correct with effect from April 2010
Page 80
APPENDIX B
MILEAGE CLAIMS
Mileage claims can be made as follows:1.
Journeys from home to first visit:
a) If the mileage is less than that from home to work base then no claim
is made
b) If the mileage is more than that from home to work base then excess
mileage can be claimed
2.
Journeys from last visit to home:
a) If the mileage is less than work base to home then no claim is made
b) If the mileage is more than that from work base to home then the
excess mileage can be claimed
3.
Extra journeys out of hours:
When work is undertaken that results in additional journeys out of normal
hours then the extra mileage may be claimed
Page 81
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 13 September 2011 in the
Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N D Dixon (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Moore
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive, the Acting Financial Services Manager, the
Deputy Audit Manager, the ICT Manager (for minute 30), the
Environmental Health Manager (for minute 31) and the Democratic
Services Team Leader.
Also in
Attendance
Julian Rickett, Sarah Brown (PriceWaterhouseCoopers), David Ablett
19 APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Mr R Oliver and Mr J Punchard.
20 SUBSTITUTES
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds was substitute for Mr J Punchard.
21 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
22 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
23 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
24 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 7 June 2011 were approved
as a correct record.
Audit Committee
Page
1 82
13 September 2011
25 AUDIT UPDATE AND ACTION LIST
Members were updated on progress on actions arising from the minutes of the meeting
of 7 June 2011.
a) The Chairman had met with David Ablett to move forward on the Corporate Risk
Register. A review of low and medium risks was on the agenda for the current
meeting.
b) Use of natural resources: as requested by the Committee the Deputy Chief Executive
had contacted PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) about any work that they had
completed. She was advised that the Key Line of Enquiry was in 2 parts and that the
following considerations had been conducted:
•
•
Understanding and quantifying the use of natural resources: whether the
Council had a strategy that showed how it will reduce its own use of natural
resources and its impact on the environment. A strategy that is supported by
delivery plans, for example to address climate change mitigation and
adaptation, to achieve energy and water efficiency, and optimise the use of
renewable resources.
Managing performance to reduce impact on the environment and
managing environmental risks: whether the Council is establishing systems
and processes to manage its own performance to reduce its use of energy,
fuel, water and raw materials etc. Whether the Council is incorporating targets
into its arrangements and establishing the systems it needs to monitor
progress in achieving these targets, i.e. biodiversity, reduced usage etc
and/or the Council has reliable information which it uses to monitor its
performance and manage progress in achieving its strategy. It is
communicating its performance against its strategy to the public, stakeholders
and staff and it is reducing its environmental impacts and consumption of
natural resources.
The conclusion reached by PwC at the time of the work was that there was evidence
to indicate that the Council had in place key policies and strategies and was
developing an understanding of its impact, but that further work was required to fully
report on the outcomes arising from its actions.
The Use of Resources was part of a performance regime that was no longer in
existence. Members therefore
RESOLVED
to close the matter.
c) The Future of Local Public Audit: the final version of the Council’s response had been
provided to Members. A system needed to be in place that enabled any consultations
to be notified to the relevant Members with sufficient time for response. The Deputy
Chief Executive explained that all consultations were now entered on the Council’s
Performance System, TEN.
26 REVIEW OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS APPROVAL PROCESS
This item had arisen from a perceived need to move the date of future September Audit
Committees to later in the month, in order to accommodate the ISA 260 report from
PWC. The ISA 260 Report had been “To follow” for 2 consecutive years because the
Audit Committee
Page
2 83
13 September 2011
REVIEW OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS APPROVAL PROCESS
(Continued)
Audit Committee was held too early to be in line with PWC’s timetable. September was
also the month in which the Final Accounts needed to be approved, so the timing was
crucial if the Audit Committee was to make a recommendation to Full Council.
The Council’s Constitution was ambiguous about the approval of the Final Accounts,
giving the remit to the Audit Committee in one section and Full Council in another.
Clarification had been sought from the Monitoring Officer who agreed there was an
ambiguity and had advised that the formal approval of the Final Accounts should be a
matter for Full Council although the Audit Committee would approve the accounts from
an audit perspective. He suggested that, when the Constitution was reviewed and
updated later in the autumn the Audit Committee Terms of Reference should be changed
from “approve” to “review” to avoid any future confusion.
RESOLVED
1. That the Audit Committee Terms of Reference should be changed from “approve
the Final Accounts” to “review the Final Accounts”
2. That the September meeting of the Audit Committee should be scheduled one
week later than previously to accommodate timely receipt of the ISA 260 report.
27 ISA 260 REPORT
The purpose of the ISA 260 was to report significant findings from the Audit Report
before recommendations were made on the Final Accounts.
a) The most significant matters were additional disclosures required in order for the
financial statements to be compliant with International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS) and the timeliness and quality of some of the working papers.
b) The following had been highlighted as significant risks in the audit plan:
• The first year of reporting under IFRS
• Income and Expenditure Recognition
• Management Override of Controls
c) The report listed some outstanding matters in respect of the accounts. Some of these
matters had since been completed and a subsequent events review was due to take
place on 29 September 2011.
d) Accounting issues:
• Housing Subsidy Liability: the auditors preferred to see this treated as an
earmarked reserve. Members agreed the de-recognition and transfer to
earmarked reserves of the Housing Subsidy Liability.
• Suspense Accounts: the auditors had discussed with the Accountancy Team the
need to end the use of suspense accounts.
• No uncorrected misstatements which would have a material effect on the
financial statements had been identified. The misstatements were included in
Appendix 1 to the report. Members agreed that the summary of uncorrected
misstatements should be accepted without amendment to the accounts.
• Judgments and accounting estimates had been included in the report for the first
time this year.
Audit Committee
Page
3 84
13 September 2011
ISA 260 REPORT
(Continued)
e) Subject to the completion of outstanding matters it was expected that the auditors
would issue an unqualified value for money conclusion.
f)
Fees: PWC had spent longer on the audit than they had estimated. The overall audit
fee was therefore, after a rebate from the Audit Commission, £1600 more than had
been quoted. In response to a question from the Chairman, Julian Rickett said that
extra time had been spent on the audit because of a number of reasons: some of the
working papers weren’t ready or weren’t what was needed; more work was needed
on valuations; work on journals, which required internal data specialists and which
hadn’t been planned.
g) Julian Rickett was asked how extra work on the audit and the resultant increase in
fee could be avoided in future. He said that a detailed debrief would be held to
explain exactly what PWC needed for each area of disclosure. The Acting Financial
Services Manager told the Committee that valid issues had been raised by PWC that
the Accountancy Team could learn from for next year. He planned to meet with the
relevant officers to discuss how best to arrange the working papers for the audit. The
volume of work this year had been significant. The introduction of IFRS had entailed
going back 2 years to re-state figures for comparison purposes.
h) Concerns were expressed about the use of data analysts. The existing system had
been in place for some time and the use of data analysts had never previously been
necessary. It was believed that the existing system was capable of delivering what
was needed by the auditors, rather than buying in expertise from elsewhere.
i)
The Deputy Chief Executive, although considering that the extra work caused by
IFRS should have been foreseen when the audit fee was set, said that it was a good
report with few issues raised despite the volume of work undertaken. She
congratulated the Acting Financial Services Manager and his team.
j)
Discussions would be held with PWC to ensure that a robust arrangement was in
place to complete the audit work for 2011/12 within the budgeted figure.
RESOLVED
1. To receive the Report to those charged with governance (ISA 260 [UK&I])
2. To hold discussions with PWC to ensure that a robust arrangement is in
place to complete the audit work for 2011/12 within the budgeted figure.
3. To delegate to the Deputy Chief Executive the work required on 2nd Homes
Council Tax receipts.
4. To accept the summary of uncorrected misstatements.
5. To agree the de-recognition and transfer to earmarked reserves of the
Housing Benefit Subsidy Liability.
28 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2010/2011
The Audit Committee had received a briefing, during which they had examined and
discussed the Final Accounts, on 7 September 2011. Since then some minor
amendments had been made, as explained to Members in the previous minute. These
amendments would be included in the final version that would go to Full Council on 21
September 2011.
RESOLVED to RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL
1
2
To receive the Financial Statements 2010/2011
To hold discussions with the External Auditor (PricewaterhouseCoopers) to
ensure a robust arrangement is in place to complete the audit work for 2011/12
within the budgeted figure.
Audit Committee
Page
4 85
13 September 2011
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2010/2011
3
4
5
6
(Continued)
To delegate to the Deputy Chief Executive approval of the changes required to
the note to the accounts (number 39) in respect of the LSP
To accept the summary of uncorrected misstatements.
To agree that the Authority has undertaken the work necessary to ensure that
property valuations included in the financial statements are free from material
misstatement
To agree the correction of the transactions relating to Housing Subsidy liability
and reclassification of Assets Held for Sale as identified in the summary of
misstatements.
29 SUMMARY OF INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRESS, APRIL – AUGUST 2011
The report highlighted the progress made in delivering the Annual Audit Plan, and
included abbreviated management summaries in respect of the two audit assignments
completed at this stage. The full reports were available from the Democratic Services
Team Leader.
Internal Audit had been able to award a “good” assurance level in respect of the two
completed audits. Although changes had been made to the audit plan, it was not
expected these should have a impact on the authority itself, or the ability to deliver the
Internal Audit Annual Report and Opinion.
The Annual Internal Audit Plan had been approved by the Audit Committee on 8 March
2011. This was the first report outlining the progress made in delivering the plan. In
producing the plan it had been recognised that there would be a significant proportion of
work delivered during Quarters 3 and 4, and, as expected, there was limited progress to
report at present. Appendix A demonstrated that of the (revised) 216 days within the
2011/12 Annual Plan, 27 days had now been delivered.
Several changes to the Annual Audit Plan had previously been agreed by the
Committee:
•
Arising from ongoing developments (including the change in political
administration at the Council, and changes in the national framework) the
audit of Corporate Policy and Performance Management had been deferred
to early in the 2012/13 Audit Plan.
•
The Business Continuity audit has been deferred to December due to service
management reviewing the resources required to deliver this function (as
noted to the Audit Committee in June 2011)
•
Some minor changes had been made to the scheduling of IT audits across
the Audit Consortium to accommodate requests for deferrals (such as the
Business Continuity audit). These were highlighted at Appendix A.
The Chairman congratulated the departments that had achieved such good audit
assurances. He asked the Deputy Audit Manager if the remaining work would be
manageable within the timeframe of the plan. She explained that the work was on
schedule but that any changes would be reported to the Committee.
RESOLVED
to note the outcomes of the audit work completed at this stage, and the
amendments made to the Annual Audit Plan.
Audit Committee
Page
5 86
13 September 2011
30 NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE, SECURITY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUDIT
The report was an update, requested by the Committee, on progress with the
recommendations of the Audit report on Network Infrastructure, Security and
Telecommunications. Good progress had been made in implementing the outstanding
actions identified as a result of the audit with 6 out of 7 actions being implemented since
the last report to the Committee, in June 2011. The 7th action was being implemented by
a manual review until the process could be automated. The Chairman said that the
progress that had been made was encouraging.
Replying to a Member’s question, the ICT Manager said that the ICT Strategy was
dependent on the Corporate Plan but would be produced within the next couple of
months. Members requested that confirmation that all recommendations had been
implemented should be received by the Committee on 6 December 2011.
RESOLVED
to note the progress made.
31 BUSINESS CONTINUITY
The Environmental Health Manager introduced Richard Cook who had been newly
appointed as Civil Contingencies Manager and would take up post on 26 September
2011. His was an internal appointment and he was, therefore, aware of business
continuity.
Since the previous update no progress had been made and there had been no
significant events. Member representation on the Business Continuity Working Group
was still to be decided.
RESOLVED
to receive a brief oral update in December and a report in March.
32 PARTNERSHIPS AND THE PARTNERSHIP RISK REGISTER
The report reviewed the current partnership framework and its applicability in the
financial and organisational environment and outlined the further work that was to be
undertaken.
a) Two partnerships (NORSE and Concessionary Fares) had ended.
b) With the introduction of Big Society it was expected that a number of organisations
would come together to share and deliver services. In light of this more work was
needed on the partnership framework.
c) It was important to distinguish between partnerships and other arrangements, e.g.
contracts.
d) Partnerships carried financial and reputational risks for the Council.
e) It was hoped that the work on partnerships would be more advanced and would
come back to the Audit Committee in December 2011. The work included
assessment of partnerships and governance arrangements.
RESOLVED
1.
2.
That the actions outlined in the report be developed to provide a revised
partnership framework for the Council that recognises the range of partners
and provides a sound basis for assessing and reporting on partnership
risk.
To receive an oral or written update report in December.
Audit Committee
Page
6 87
13 September 2011
33 AUDIT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
The following updates were made to the Audit Committee Work Programme:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The Audit Plan and Audit Letter would be received in March.
There would be no separate paper on the consideration of fraud risk.
The Final Accounts audit would be received in December.
A briefing on developments in public audit would be presented in December.
34 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
35 EXTENSION TO THE INTERNAL AUDIT CONTRACT
The opportunity had arisen to make an option under the existing contract for Internal
Audit services to extend it beyond 30th September 2012. The report set out the options
for extending the contract beyond 30th September 2012.
Members discussed the report and considered the risks, which were minimal, and the
benefits. It was agreed that service continuity outweighed risk. It was also agreed that
any financial support to South Norfolk in respect of a challenge to this decision should be
limited to the value of the savings achieved as a result of the contract extension.
RESOLVED
to recommend to Cabinet the proposal to extend the Internal Audit contract by two
years in line with the details contained in the report.
The Committee also recommends to Cabinet that any financial support to South
Norfolk in respect of a challenge to this decision should be limited to the value of
the savings achieved as a result of the contract extension.
The meeting ended at 4.10 pm.
______________________
Chairman
Audit Committee
Page
7 88
13 September 2011
Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 16 November
2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr P Moore
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive (for Item 77), the Environmental Health Manager (for
item 77) the Head of Planning and Building Control (for item 78), the
Strategic Director - Community (for item 78) the Policy and Performance
Management Officer (for item 79), the Deputy Chief Executive (for items 80
- 82) and the Democratic Services Team Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs S Arnold, Mrs H Eales, Ms V Gay, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P High, Mr
K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mrs A Moore, Mr W J Northam, Ms B Palmer, Mr R
Shepherd
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
67 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr B Jarvis and Mr R Wright
68 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright
69 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Lara Williamson, of the Holt Local Area Partnership asked the following question:
A recent newspaper article had outlined planned changes to the funding of the Local
Area Partnerships (LAPs). Were the Committee aware of the situation and could they
explain why the partnerships had not been kept up to date with the changes to their
funding arrangements?
The Chief Executive said that a letter sent to the LAPs in July 2011 outlining possible
changes to their funding had come from the North Norfolk Community Partnership
(NNCP) not the District Council. The NNCP was the funding agent and it was meeting
shortly to discuss its own future and that of the area partnerships across the District.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
1 89
16 November 2011
There would be a round-table meeting with all the LAPs as soon as possible to clarify
the situation. He emphasised that the proposal to establish a Big Society Fund was still
in progress.
70 MINUTES
The Minutes of the special meeting held on 04 October 2011 and the meeting held on 18
October 2011 were signed as a correct record.
71 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
72 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
73 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting. Two of the petitions had expired with neither reaching the
required threshold. A Member asked what happened to expired petitions. The
Democratic Services Team Leader said that they were still available to view on the
Council’s website but would be listed as ‘past petitions’.
74 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
75 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet’s response to the comments made by the Committee on the corporate plan had
been circulated.
76 THE FORWARD PLAN
Members had no comments on the Forward Plan.
77 COMMUNITY SAFETY UPDATE
Chief Inspector Neil Baily, District Commander for North Norfolk and Broadland gave a
presentation on policing arrangements in North Norfolk and provided a summary of
district crime statistics. He explained that crime reduction within the District was 6%
during 2010/11. The police had placed more emphasis on focussing on crimes that
profoundly affect the victims – such as dwelling burglary and as a consequence they
were expanding their victim-centred approach, particularly for the most vulnerable
victims of crime. There had been a noticeable rise in theft and non-dwelling burglary in
rural areas. The increase was believed to be linked to the growing value of scrap metal
and several current policing operations were being directed at addressing the problem.
Anti-social behaviour issues were now being dealt with by the joint-agency team based
at Cromer Police Station. The District Council, Norfolk Constabulary and Victory
Housing were working closely together to provide expertise to tackle the more complex
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
2 90
16 November 2011
cases. During 2011 there had been a 29% reduction in the number of calls to the Police
reporting anti-social behaviour. He concluded by outlining a number of changes to the
policing model in Norfolk from January 2012. Three Police Deployment Bases would be
created, providing 24 hour policing cover for the District. They would be situated at
Cromer, North Walsham and Fakenham. Each base would be managed by an Inspector
with 5 Sergeant led teams. It was intended that this model would greatly enhance the
capacity of the local police to respond to calls from the public. The Environmental Health
Manager informed the Committee that Hannah Harvey had been appointed as the new
Joint ASB Co-ordinator. She would ensure that all ASB cases were identified and then
allocated to the relevant partnership agencies. It would be a victim-focussed approach
and it was intended that other options such as restorative justice would be considered in
the future. A Member requested that details on how to contact the ASB Co-ordinator
were published in the Member’s Bulletin.
Members discussed the report:
a) The establishment of the new Police Deployment Bases was praised. A Member
asked whether there would be someone on duty at each police station 24 hours a
day. Chief Inspector Baily said that the front counter would not be open 24 hours a
day but there would be a member of staff on site. The rest of the team would be on
patrol to increase coverage of the District.
b) The issue of the social background of criminals was raised and whether they were
questioned about this when in police custody. Chief Inspector Baily said that they
were not and that the Police were already broadly aware of their backgrounds.
c) A concern was raised regarding speeding through villages and whether it could be
addressed. Chief Inspector Baily said that it was a matter of prioritisation. The Police
did not have the capacity to patrol all the villages affected. They dealt with the
problem on a needs basis – if there was an increased number of complaints in a
particular village then they would enforce it but only for a limited period.
d) The Local Member for Wells commented on the increase in the number of outboard
motor thefts from boats in the town and asked whether Neighbourhood Watch
schemes were still being supported by the Police. Chief Inspector Baily said that the
Neighbourhood Watch schemes were still in operation but due to financial
constraints the Police had reduced their support. He acknowledged that outboard
motor thefts were a significant problem in Wells. Intelligence suggested that they
were not committed by local people but by people travelling into the area. It was a
problem that the Police were addressing.
e) The 15% reduction in dwelling burglaries was praised. A Member asked why there
had been such a significant fall. Chief Inspector Baily replied that it was a very high
risk crime with relatively low gain. In response to a further question regarding the
reduction in anti-social behaviour cases, he confirmed that it was an actual reduction
but that anti-social behaviour was very low in Norfolk. The Environmental Health
Manager added that interventions were taking place much earlier now, limiting a
recurrence in such crimes.
f) The issue of metal theft was highlighted and the ability of the Police to deal with it
was questioned. Chief Inspector Baily said that as scrap metal yards were the sole
outlet for metal there was an opportunity to address the problem. Operation Radar
was engaging regularly with local yards and examining their scrap. The government
was considering how to tackle the issue and there was a proposal that all payments
to those providing metal to scrap yards should be paid into a bank account. This
would make it easier to trace them.
g) A Member asked whether the Police had seen an increase in anti-social behaviour
following changes to the provision of youth services in the District. Chief Inspector
Baily said that there had not been any significant increase yet but that the Police
were aware that problems could occur in the future. They were working hard to
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
3 91
16 November 2011
support projects such as Kickz in North Walsham as it had helped reduce anti-social
behaviour considerably.
h) The role of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and how they would fit into
the new team structures was raised. Chief Inspector Baily said that he felt that the
role of PCSOs was often misunderstood. They knew the local picture better than
Police officers and they were freed up from legislative responsibilities so they could
engage with communities. He added that they were additional to the Police not a
replacement for them and that they would continue to have a role within the new
structure. In response to a further question regarding drug-related crime within the
District, he said that it had previously been a significant problem in Cromer but that it
had reduced considerably.
The Chief Executive referred the Committee to the attached report outlining the main
responsibilities of the new police and crime commissioners (PCCs). There would be
significant upheaval in the governance arrangements and a fundamental change for
community safety partnerships. As far as the scrutiny of PCCs was concerned, a police
and crime panel (PCP) would have to be established for every police force area to
scrutinise them and support them in the effective exercise of their functions. Each
council in the force area would appoint a councillor on to the panel, with a minimum of
10 councillors and two co-opted members. In Norfolk a Task and Finish group had been
set up to consider how many representatives should sit on the PCP and whether it
should be Norfolk-wide. It was still not clear whether the District Council needed to
scrutinise crime and disorder at a local level. The Chairman said that it would be
unfortunate for the Committee to lose that responsibility and he requested that the issue
came back before the Committee when more detail was available.
AGREED
1. That contact details for the Joint ASB Co-ordinator would be circulated to Members
via the Member’s Bulletin.
2. That the Committee would receive an update at a future meeting on the situation
regarding the scrutiny of crime and disorder at local level.
78 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE UPDATE
The report provided information on planning applications and appeals for the period
from July to September 2011 and covered the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes. The Head of Planning and Building Control outlined the background
to the figures. He explained that during 2010/11 his team had delivered efficiency
savings of almost £250,000, removing the equivalent of 5.5 full time posts. When the
initial restructuring was considered during 2009/10, the number of planning applications
had dropped considerably reflecting the wider economic situation. The following year the
number of applications rose significantly, impacting on the time taken to process them
and accruing a backlog. During the current year performance had dropped again. It had
been recognised that there was now a significant problem and a temporary post had
been recruited for 1 year. The backlog was now easing and the Head of Planning and
Building Control was confident that if the level of work remained the same the team
would soon catch up. He warned that there were issues that could hinder their progress
– there were several complex cases in progress which were labour intensive. In addition
there were 2 judicial review cases pending and 5 ombudsman cases had been
submitted during the current financial year.
He concluded by saying that the delegation system seemed to be working well with
approximately 92% of planning applications dealt with this way. The Portfolio Holder –
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
4 92
16 November 2011
Planning added that the service was under considerable pressure, particularly as more
decisions were being challenged. He said that several local authorities charged for
planning advice and this was a possibility for the future but that the provision of free
advice ensured that the applications received tended to be of a higher quality. The
Chairman of the Development Committee agreed and said that the number of
retrospective applications would increase if advice was not provided free of charge.
The Chairman requested a brief update on planning enforcement. The Head of Planning
and Building Control said that there was a backlog of work in this area and this was
being addressed. All cases were reported to the Development Committee on a quarterly
basis.
Members discussed the report:
1. A concern was raised regarding delays in the issuing of decision notices. Planning
was a vital part of the local economy and the speed of decisions was important.
Perhaps there was a justification for considering recruiting again to address such
issues. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that he was not aware of
any specific problems regarding the issuing of decisions. He was confident that they
did not need additional staff to handle applications at the moment but acknowledged
that the level of future work was hard to predict and that flexibility to recruit on a
short-term basis would be helpful. He added that a Government proposal to allow
local planning authorities to set their own fees had never materialised. This meant
that they had no additional income source. The Chairman asked if the Council had
sent a letter to the government requesting clarification on this issue. The Strategic
Director – Community said that he was not aware of any correspondence. In
response to the question regarding delays in the issuing of decisions he said that
applications with s106 obligations could be held up as other parties were involved.
The Chairman suggested that the Head of Planning and Building Control could look
into this issue and report back to the Committee at a future date.
2. A Member suggested that more information could be provided to the public on
delegated powers and how they were applied. He felt that if they were fully informed
about why some applications were dealt with under delegation then there would be
reduced pressure on Members to take cases to the Development Committee. The
Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that an article could be placed in
Outlook magazine. He said that Members agreed to particular cases being
delegated and therefore they were often in the best position to explain the reasons
to people.
3. There was a concern that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was
being used before it had received assent and that the Localism Act would be in
direct conflict with the aims of the NPPF. The Head of Planning and Building Control
said that it stated clearly in the Development Committee reports that the NNPF was
a material consideration but that it should be given low weight at this stage. The
Localism Act had only just been enacted and had not impacted on the planning
process yet.
4. A Member said that he had not received notification of a planning application
adjacent to his ward. He felt that all Members in the vicinity of a planning application
should be notified. The Strategic Director – Community said that the ward member
was notified and that all Members had access to the Weekly Planning List via the
Members Bulletin and the Council website.
5. A query was made regarding planning appeals and whether more were generated
by delegated decisions than Committee decisions. The Head of Planning and
Building Control said that there was no discernible difference between the two but
that decisions made by the Committee could sometimes be harder to defend.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
5 93
16 November 2011
AGREED
To receive an update at a future meeting on the issuing of planning decision notices.
RESOLVED
1. To recommend that the Portfolio Holder for Planning writes to the Government on
behalf of the Council urging a quick decision on the proposal to permit local planning
authorities to set their own fee levels, as envisaged in the 2010 consultation
exercise by the DCLG
2. To write to Norman Lamb MP and Keith Simpson MP informing them of this
recommendation
79 ANNUAL REPORT 2010/2011
The Chairman explained that the original intention had been for the Annual Equalities
report to be presented to the Committee. The Annual Report was an historical document
and it was felt that it was there would be little benefit in considering it at this stage. It
was suggested that the Community Liaison Officer could give a brief presentation on the
Council’s equality duties at the next meeting of the Committee.
The Policy and Performance Management Officer said that in 2012 the Annual Report
would follow the usual cycle of being presented to Cabinet first then the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee.
80 HALF YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12
The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services and Corporate Assets presented the report.
He explained that it was a progress report setting out the Treasury Management
activities undertaken in the first six months of 2011/12. Since the publication of the
report, Spanish banks had been suspended from the Council’s lending list. The Council
was also considering increasing the lending list to spread the risk and maximise the
level of interest received. He thanked the Technical Accountant and the Council’s
financial advisors, Arlingclose, for their hard work. He also commended them for the
recent presentation for Members on Treasury Management. A Member asked whether
the slides from the presentation could be reproduced in the Member’s Bulletin. The
Chairman requested that the slides from the recent presentation on the Norfolk Pension
Fund were also circulated.
AGREED
1. To recommend that Full Council approve the Half Yearly Treasury Management
Report 2011/12
2. That copies of the presentations on Treasury Management and the Norfolk Pensions
Fund be circulated to all members via the Member’s Bulletin
81 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 6
The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services and Corporate Assets presented the report. It
outlined the budget monitoring position for the revenue account and capital programme
to the end of period 6 (30 September 2011) and included a review of the current capital
programme. It was hoped that any projected overspend would be offset by savings. A
revised budget report would be presented to Cabinet on 28 November 2011.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
6 94
16 November 2011
Members discussed the report:
1. There was a concern about the funding for the provision of electricity at Holt Country
Park. The report suggested that some funding came from the mobile gym budget
and this implied that the mobile gym was being under-used. The Deputy Leader said
that this was not the case and that the mobile gym remained popular. The Leader
added that the additional money was likely to have come from the proposed sale of
the larger mobile gym vehicle.
2. The Chairman commented that despite an increase in the number of people using
the Districts sports centres there seemed to be an overspend of £34,000 in this
sector. The Deputy Leader said that the deficit arose from the school leisure centres
where activities were not as well supported as those at the main sports venues. The
Local Member for Stalham and Sutton said that the sports hall at the local school
was underused and more could be done to encourage local people to use it. The
Deputy Leader replied that it was hoped that the new multi-use sports area would
increase attendance and revenue in Stalham.
3. The Chairman asked whether the receipts from the new Tesco supermarket in
Sheringham had been allocated yet. The Deputy Chief Executive said that it had not
yet been received. It would be a capital receipt and Cabinet would decide how it was
budgeted for.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
82 FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 2011/12 – 2014/15, STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND
ORGANISATIONAL WORKSTREAMS
The report had been presented to the Special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 04 October 2011. Due to time constraints it had been agreed that
members would consider the report at the November meeting of the Committee.
1. Mr G Williams proposed that the Committee worked with Cabinet to ensure that
there was an effective review of the Local Area Partnerships. He said that the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee could add value if they were involved at an early
stage in the process. The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services said that the current
procedure for the Committee to consider any decisions made by Cabinet worked
well. The Deputy Chief Executive added that a report on Localism was being
presented to Cabinet on 28 November. This would clarify the some of the issues
relating to the LAPs and explain the Council’s approach to Localism. The Leader
said that that partnership working would continue and several meetings were
scheduled to address any concerns. In response to this additional information, Mr G
Williams agreed to withdraw his proposal.
2. Clarification was sought on possible changes to the Council’s senior management
structure. The Leader explained that a restructuring of senior management was in
progress. It was intended that a report would go to the Full Council meeting on 14
December 2011. There would be an initial restructuring of the Corporate
Management team, to be in place for January 2012 and they would then work on the
senior management restructure for April 2012.
3. A Member commented that the funding situation for the LAPs was very difficult and it
would be useful if the Council could work with them to advise them on how to access
alternative streams of income. The Deputy Chief Executive acknowledged that this
was something that the Council were considering. She added that a meeting with
the LAPs to discuss the way forward was imminent. The Leader said that she was
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
7 95
16 November 2011
willing to meet with the Co-ordinators of the LAPs on an individual basis to offer
advice on how to access additional revenue and reduce their costs.
AGREED
To recommend that all members should receive training on Localism and the
implications for the Council.
83 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme
1. The Housing Services Manager had provided the information on SAP ratings
requested at the last meeting. It had been published in the Member’s Bulletin.
2. The Joint Scrutiny Task Group for transport had met once and the minutes were
available. The Democratic Services Team Leader was attending the next meeting on
21 November and would report back to the December meeting of the Committee.
3. Concerns about the sequencing of reports as highlighted by the presentation of the
Annual Report at this meeting could be addressed by a Task and Finish Group. The
Democratic Services Team Leader suggested that such a group was established to
review the work programme template and witness protocol.
4. The minutes of the last meeting of the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny
Committee (NHOSC) were available. The Committee’s representative, Mrs A
Claussen-Reynolds said that she was happy to take any comments back to the next
meeting. A Member said that he had concerns about the length of time it took
ambulances to arrive in rural areas. There was also a query about the number of
ambulances serving the District.
AGREED
To raise the following with the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee:
a) Concerns about the length of time ambulances were taking to respond to emergency
calls
b) Clarification of the number of ambulances and paramedic vehicles within the District.
RESOLVED
1. To establish a Task and Finish Group to review the work programme template and
the witness protocol and to appoint 4 Members.
2. That those Members be Mr P Moore, Mr R Reynolds, Mr B Smith and Mr G Williams
The meeting concluded at 12.40 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
8 96
16 November 2011
Agenda Item no _________2________
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 28 November 2011 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members present:
Mrs H Eales (Chairman)
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mr P High
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr G Williams
Officers in attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive, the
Strategic Director – Information, the Strategic Director –
Community, the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager,
the Acting Financial Services Manager, the Technical
Accountant and the Democratic Services Officer (AA).
57
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman expressed sympathy to Mrs V Uprichard on the recent loss of
her husband.
The Chairman informed the meeting that Mr J Perry-Warnes was in hospital
having suffered a heart attack. He should be able to leave hospital later that
week. He was wished a speedy recovery.
58
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None.
59
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 31 October 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
60
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None.
Cabinet
Page
1 97
28 November 2011
61
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
62
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mr T FitzPatrick
63
Minute
No.
11
Item
Interest
Revenues and Benefits
Shared Service
Personal and nonprejudicial as an IT
Consultant
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on
18 July 2011 be received.
64
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE: 18 OCTOBER 2011: MINUTE 62: COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
RESOLVED to
65
a)
recommend to Cabinet that the Council investigates Community
Infrastructure Levy and that the Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party progresses the detailed work in relation to infrastructure
planning, viability testing, and preparation of a Draft Charging
Schedule.
b)
form a task and finish group to give progress on this matter and bring
a report back to Cabinet in due course.
2011/12 REVISED BUDGET
The base budget for 2011/12 was approved by Full Council on 23 February
2011. The budget was then updated as part of the Final Accounts process for
2010/11 to take account of roll forwards of previously unspent budgets. The
report presented for approval the revised budget for 2011/12 for both capital
and revenue.
Mr W Northam presented the report. He informed Members that, since the
last meeting, Mr D Young had contacted the monitoring officer concerning the
way in which the report on the Council’s capital programme was presented as
he considered it was not a very user-friendly presentation.
A Member asked why there was an underspend in the revised coast
protection capital programme as coast protection was paramount. The
Deputy Chief Executive responded that this was dependent upon central
Government funding, but the slippage would hopefully be agreed to by
Cabinet
Page
2 98
28 November 2011
Members. The Council was waiting for funding to be approved. The
Council’s profiling was often dependent upon external funding.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
66
The revised revenue budget for 2011/12;
The revised transfers to and from reserves included at Appendix C;
The transfer of the forecast surplus of £172,488 to the Organisational
Development reserve;
The revised capital programme and associated financing as included
at Appendix E;
The scale of fees and charges from 1 April 2012 included at Appendix
D;
Delegated authority for setting the fees and charges for waste be
given to the Strategic Director for Environment, Deputy Chief
Executive and relevant Portfolio Members.
PROPOSED SAVINGS REPORT – 2012/13 BASE BUDGET
The recent update of the Corporate Plan which was presented to Cabinet in
October 2011 was accompanied by an appendix entitled ‘Financial Plan
Update 2011/12 – 2014/15, Strategic Context and Organisational
Workstreams’. This paper identified a projected funding gap of £0.9 million for
2012/13 and just under £1.1m for 2013/14. This report provided an update on
the progression of two of the Council’s workstreams and identified a number
of savings and additional income streams that would help to address the
funding deficit.
In response to Members’ questions, it was explained that the issue of
transport was part of the Big Society fund which included a community fund.
Clarification was given concerning the cut in £5,000 to the North Norfolk
Business Forum which was that the Community Partnership had agreed a
further £20,000 for funding other sustainability administration costs.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a)
b)
Cabinet
The savings and additional income as identified within Table 1 of the
report.
Note the updated position in relation to the management structures
and prioritisation workstreams.
c)
To fund any ‘one-off’ costs in relation to staff restructuring through the
use of the Restructuring and Invest to Save Proposals reserve.
d)
A new reserve is established for the ‘New Homes Bonus’ and that the
allocation for 2012/13, estimated to be £595,700 is transferred to this
reserve.
Page
3 99
28 November 2011
67
TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY 2011/12 TO 2013/14 - AMENDMENT
The report set out a proposed amendment to the minimum credit rating
criteria required for investment counterparties within the current Treasury
Management Strategy.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy
2011/12 to 2013/14 is amended by reducing the minimum long-term credit
rating for investment counterparties form A+ (or equivalent) to A- (or
equivalent).
68
REVENUES AND BENEFITS SHARED SERVICE
The report updated members on progress to date on the shared service work
for Revenues and Benefits. The realisation of savings and efficiencies from
working in partnership could only be delivered if the two authorities operated
on the same application software. The decision therefore on the software
upgrade was crucial to any development of shared working and the
development of a fully operational shared service. There were a number of
interdependent decisions which were required to be made linked to the
software procurement. The report considered these areas and their
dependencies.
The Chairman presented the report and asked that the proposals be
amended to include £72,000 for back fill. She added that the ICT link would
be reported to Full Council.
A Member welcomed the proposals but expressed concern over whether the
project would run over budget and asked for regular updates and reporting.
The reference to delegated powers to be given to the Portfolio Holder for
Revenues and Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive (to continue to
develop the Partnership Agreement) in recommendation (b) was deleted.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a)
b)
c)
Cabinet
To agree the revised financial information within the business case as
updated verbally at the meeting regarding an additional £72,000 set
up for back fill.
For the Portfolio Holder for Revenues and Benefits and the Deputy
Chief Executive to continue to develop the Partnership Agreement for
which the Heads of Terms will require approval by Council. Delegated
authority to the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for
Revenues & Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to develop a
shared service model and following full consultation and report back to
Cabinet.
That Council, following discussion by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee, agrees to entering into a contract with Civica for the
provision of a software system; an outline of the legal obligations to be
presented to Council.
Page4 100
28 November 2011
d)
e)
f)
69
To continue to explore the infrastructure requirements with BT and
BCKLWN (Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk) and
recommend to Council the infrastructure requirements and associated
costs.
Approve the proposals for BCKLWN to host the ICT infrastructure and
business system and for NNDC to host any proposed shared
management structure.
Delegate authority to the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder for
Revenues and Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to agree
proposed service level agreements with customer services and other
support services.
SHERINGHAM LITTLE THEATRE BUSINESS PLAN AND GRANT
A report to inform Cabinet of the new Business Development Plan for
Sheringham Little Theatre which seeks to increase levels of earned revenue
enabling the theatre to maintain the level of service to the local community
while reducing dependence on public sector funds.
The Arts Officer and volunteers of Sheringham Little Theatre were thanked for
their hard work on this report. Reassurance was given that, under the new
Business Development Plan, Sheringham Little Theatre would continue to be
able to support the local economy and the outreach worker as in the past.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
70
Cabinet support the priorities and actions and note the financial
projections within the SLT business plan.
Cabinet confirm £48,000 financial support to the Sheringham Little
Theatre in 2012/13, £43,000 for 2013/14 and £38,000 for 2014/15.
a three year service level agreement is drafted to aid the monitoring of
the grant.
a progress report is brought back to Cabinet in October 2012 for
further consideration.
Cabinet approves £45,000 being placed into the capital programme to
cover the cost of property works on this Council asset.
THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO LOCALISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A BIG SOCIETY FUND
The report detailed the Council’s new approach to Localism, made
recommendations in relation to the Local Strategic Partnership and
established the principle of the Big Society Fund.
Mr T Ivory updated Members on the status of the Local Strategic Partnership
(LSP). The Local Strategic Partnership Board had met the previous week to
consider the organisation’s future following the removal of the statutory
requirements previously imposed on it and Norfolk County Council’s decision
to cease funding all the LSPs in Norfolk from the end of the current financial
year. Consequently, the LSP reconfigured itself to become a standing
conference that would offer a vehicle through which key stakeholders,
including this Council, could come together and coordinate their priorities for
the District.
Cabinet
Page5 101
28 November 2011
Mr Ivory said that he and Mr K Johnson had asked Officers to approach Holt
Town Council to suggest that the town consider becoming an early pilot of the
new neighbourhood planning system introduced under the Localism Act. The
Town Council had supported the suggestion and so a joint proposal had been
submitted to the Department for Communities to seek to have Holt included
within the Government vanguard pilot project. If successful, funding would be
made available by the Government to assist with the process. Mr Ivory asked
that it be made clear that the Council was willing to support Holt in a
neighbourhood plan pilot even if it was not possible to secure central
Government funding and that the recommendation be amended accordingly.
He added that at a recent meeting between the Cabinet and representatives
of most of the District’s town councils, there had been significant interest in
the potential of neighbourhood plans. Discussions on this matter would be
progressed in the coming weeks and expanded to include parishes as well. It
was hoped that any lessons learned from the Holt pilot would be of benefit
across the District. He thanked Norfolk County Council for the decision to
transfer the money previously provided to the LSP directly to the districts.
Should the proposals be agreed to, a detailed policy would be brought
forward on the operation of the fund. It was important to ensure that the
Council maximised the impact which the fund would have on communities
and so options for administering the fund internally as well as considering
external options were being explored. A future report would be making
recommendations on this issue.
Assurance was sought that community transport would not lose out because
of this. Mr Ivory responded that anyone wanting to secure funding would be
able to seek to do so.
Concern was expressed that the report lacked detail of what the issues were
and the evidence used. It was suggested that it would have been better to
include more detail in the report to enable the reader to make a sound
judgement on it.
It was confirmed that the £68,000 rate relief and £20,000 community transport
would be met out of the Big Society Fund.
RESOLVED that
Cabinet
a)
Cabinet support the proposal for North Norfolk Community Partnership
to be reconfigured from being a formal committee to become a
standing conference with an annual summit for the strategic partners
operating in North Norfolk and a 6 monthly review meeting.
b)
the Council support Holt Town Council in becoming a pilot for a
neighbourhood plan, regardless of whether or not the Town Council is
able to secure central Government funding, with any funding coming
from the Council’s resources if necessary.
c)
a Big Society fund is established from the return of the second home
council tax income and any uncommitted funds from this year
allocated to this fund through the establishment of an earmarked
reserve.
Page6 102
28 November 2011
71
d)
the principles of the Big Society fund are agreed as outlined within
Appendix L and a policy developed which will provide more detail on
the operation of the grant scheme.
e)
the fund is split between revenue and capital based upon an indicative
allocation of £500,000 for revenue and £200,000 for capital projects.
NORTH NORFOLK SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN: KELLING TO
LOWESTOFT NESS
The Shoreline Management Plan (SMP6) covered the frontage from Kelling to
Lowestoft Ness, thus including frontages in Great Yarmouth Borough Council
and Waveney District Council. This plan was first subject to public
consultation in 2004/5 and as a result of considerable public concern the plan
had not yet been adopted. Major amendments were made to the plan in 2007
to reflect these concerns and a revised version was subject to consultation in
2009, with the version now before Cabinet finalised in November 2010.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett read out a statement in support of the report. She
considered that the Council should support the recommendations. She also
considered that the Local Development Framework should be revisited.
Ms V Gay read out a statement from Mrs L Walker, the local Member for
Happisburgh ward. She considered that the SMP had caused much concern
since 2004. It was crucial that justice was sought for communities living along
the coast and there was a need to take measures to protect the future of the
coastline.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
a)
b)
72
the provisions in SMP6 relating to North Norfolk District Councils
Coast Protection responsibility (Kelling Hard to Cart Gap) be approved
and that delegated authority be given to the Cabinet Portfolio Holder
for the Coast and the Chief Executive to adopt the full SMP6 following
its approval by Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District
Council and the Environment Agency.
an Integrated Coastal Management Plan process be commenced to
be overseen by the Council’s Coastal Management Board.
FAKENHAM CONSERVATION AREA: ADOPTION OF CHARACTER
APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
The report concerned adoption of the Fakenham Conservation Area Appraisal
and Management Proposals for statutory planning purposes: report on further
community consultation.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, a local Member for Fakenham (North) said she
and Mr R Reynolds, also a local Member for Fakenham (North) wished to
thank the Cabinet for allowing further consideration to be given to the views of
Fakenham Town Council. Officers were also thanked for all their hard work.
Cabinet
Page7 103
28 November 2011
RESOLVED that
the Fakenham Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Proposals
document, as amended following further consultation with Fakenham Town
Council, is formally adopted and that it becomes a material consideration in
the planning process.
73
REVIEW OF THE DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION POLICY FOR
STAFF
The report proposed changes to the current Discretionary Compensation
Policy to reflect the continuing need to have a policy which was workable,
affordable and reasonable for the Council.
It was noted that a formal response to the report was awaited from UNISON.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
(subject to consideration of the formal consultation of the formal consultation
response from UNISON) to amend the Discretionary Compensation Policy as
outlined within the report.
The meeting closed at 11.00am.
_________________________
Chairman, 9 January 2012
Cabinet
Page8 104
28 November 2011
8 DECEMBER 2011
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)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
N Smith - substitute for J H Perry Warnes
P Terrington - substitute for S J Partridge
T FitzPatrick - Walsingham Ward
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
Mrs A M Moore - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell - Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr D Higgins - Principal Engineer, Norfolk County Council (Highways)
(161) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Perry-Warnes and S J
Partridge. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
(162) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(163) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(164) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors T FitzPatrick (local Member), Mrs A R Green, P W Moore (local Member)
and R Reynolds declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of
the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
Page 105
8 December 2011
(165) NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works
Councillor P W Moore declared a personal interest in this matter as he lived on
Manor Road, which was close to the site.
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest in this matter as he knew the
proprietor at the time of the original application in 2008.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports seeking approval to defer
the formal time period for compliance with the above Enforcement Notice.
Councillor P W Moore, the local Member, referred to the planning history of this site.
He stated that the Planning Inspector had refused to extend the period of compliance
with the Enforcement Notice. He considered that there was no reason why the
Committee should override the Inspector’s decision. He referred to the strong
highway reasons given by the Inspector in dismissing the appeal against the refusal
by Norfolk County Council of permission for change of use to a waste transfer
station. He considered that the Company should be able to find a suitable site to
park its lorries while the new site was being developed. He considered that the
safety of local people was the main concern. He considered that if the Company
failed to leave the site the matter could be referred to the Courts and it would take
longer to eliminate the danger.
The Principal Engineer stated that he had been the Highway Authority witness at the
public inquiry and had raised very significant concerns in respect of the poor highway
network and size of the lorries. The Inspector had agreed that the situation was
unacceptable. The Principal Engineer considered that the highway situation had not
improved since the appeal and the public had put up with the situation for long
enough.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that there was a 40week construction period before the Company could move into the new premises at
Cornish Way.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the Inspector’s decision should not be
overruled and suggested that the Company could run the business from its site in
Great Yarmouth pending completion of its new premises.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
1.
That the request to defer the time period for compliance with the
Enforcement Notice be refused; and
2.
That in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice, the
Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to commence
prosecution proceedings.
Development Committee
2
Page 106
8 December 2011
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.
(166) BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Shrive (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local
Member, supported this application. He had requested that a plaque be erected on
the building to commemorate the RAF Station at Bodham.
Councillor N Smith supported the views of the local Member. He considered that
there were material considerations such as provision of employment which
outweighed the policy objections. He proposed approval of this application which
was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
In answer to a Member’s question, the applicant stated that he was a
telecommunications consultant specialising in rural broadband and the business
would be based at the property.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application ticked all the boxes except in
terms of the substantial rebuilding which would be required. He considered that
there were precedents for the proposal. He had been advised by a builder that it
would be possible to incorporate the remains of the building into the dwelling.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle supported the Officer’s recommendation. She considered
that the proposed dwelling would be an intrusion into the Countryside.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the ruinous condition of the building and its
location which was clearly in the Countryside. He considered that if the proposed
dwelling were allowed, it would lead to suburbanisation of the site and destroy the
character of the area.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that there were substantial areas of wall
remaining, the concrete block structure was not a major part of the building and that
modern methods of construction could tie the existing walls into the building. He
referred to conflicting statements in the Officers’ report with regard to the historic or
architectural value of the ruins in the landscape.
Development Committee
3
Page 107
8 December 2011
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposed dwelling would be a new dwelling in
the Countryside and would not enhance the landscape.
The proposal for approval was put to the vote and declared lost with 4 Members
voting in favour and 10 against.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
(167) CROMER - PF/10/1448 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 01/1800 to
permit retail of multi electrical products; Unit E, North Norfolk Retail Park, Holt
Road for Bennetts Electrical
Councillor R Reynolds declared a non-prejudicial interest as he owned a small
electrical business.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
All Members had received a telephone call from the objecting spokesperson.
Public Speaker
Mr Farrow (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Economic and Tourism Development
Manager supported this application and the growth of the North Norfolk Retail Park.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager recommended approval
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including limiting the floor area for
sales of non-bulky goods to that shown on the submitted plan.
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, stated that Cromer had attracted a number
of major retailers. There was evidence to suggest that the out of centre stores
complemented the town centre and there had been increased footfall in the town
during the year. He stated that Bennetts was located close to Argos, Homebase and
Morrisons and it would be unfair to restrict one business when the others did not
have such restrictions. He urged the Committee to support this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that refusal would
remove choice for the consumer. He proposed approval of this application as
recommended.
In answer to a question by Councillor P W High, the Senior Planning Officer
explained why restrictions had originally been placed on the retail park.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had been a member of the Development
Control Committee (East) when the application was passed. The Committee had
raised concerns regarding the impact on the town centre and the condition was
imposed to stop people buying smaller items out of town. He did not support the
removal of the restriction.
Development Committee
4
Page 108
8 December 2011
Councillor N Smith asked for a definition of bulky goods and white goods.
Councillor J A Wyatt asked what restrictions applied to Argos. He considered that
this application should be deferred until this information was available.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that Cromer had been struggling until Argos
opened. Since then, more trade had been retained in the town as people did not
need to go to Norwich. He considered that people now went into the town centre.
Bennetts had originally been located at the opposite end of the town and he
considered that it could be argued that the current store was closer to the town
centre. Argos sold goods from its catalogue without restriction and he considered
that competing shops should be able to do the same. He considered that Cromer
was now prospering because it had welcomed “blue chip” companies.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that permission was granted for
Argos without the bulky goods restriction. The retail floor space was restricted given
that it was a different type of retail operation and there was a desire to attract the
company to the town at that time.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A C
Sweeney and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4 with 5 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including limiting the floor area for sales of nonbulky goods to that shown on the submitted plan.
(168) HOLT - PO/11/0978 - Development of approximately 85 dwellings, access,
public open space and associated infrastructure; Land off Cley Road and
Woodfield Road for Landform Holt Limited
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Dann (Holt Town Council)
Mr Kent, Mr White, Mrs Wharf and Mr Shepherd (objecting)
Mr Pagano (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that an amended Site Parameters
Plan had been submitted which omitted the layout of open space on the site together
with references to building heights. English Heritage had no comments to make on
this application.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to two letters which he understood
had been sent to Members by local residents. A further letter had been received
from one of the correspondents in respect of highway issues and requesting a limit
on the number of dwellings to be served from Cley Road and on the development as
a whole, issues regarding construction traffic, landscaping and Human Rights.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the report referred to evidence
before the Inspector including a traffic impact assessment. This was incorrect and
should refer to an accessibility statement. A traffic impact assessment had been
submitted with the current application and had been considered by the Highway
Authority.
Development Committee
5
Page 109
8 December 2011
The Principal Engineer stated that in the opinion of the Highway Authority a very
good package of mitigation measures had been put forward.
In response to a comment made by an objector, the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager explained the circumstances that had led to the allocation of
H01. It had originally been put forward by the District Council as a preferred option,
but in response to consultation the Council had decided not to proceed with
allocation of the site particularly given the concerns in respect of highway issues and
impact on town centre congestion, and had instead proposed a site at Gresham’s
School. However, at the examination the developer had persuaded the Inspector
that H01 was the better site and the Inspector had recommended that H01 be
allocated rather than the Gresham’s School site. The Inspector had failed to carry
out further local consultation on the amendment, for which the Inspectorate had
apologised. The Council had to take some responsibility as it had adopted the
allocation on the recommendation of the Inspector. However, the current planning
application had been through extensive public consultation by the applicant and the
Council. The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that the issue
for the Committee to consider was whether or not the details of the scheme as put
forward were acceptable.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that this was a difficult application for
local Members, who both understood the situation and were aware of the problems,
particularly in respect of Cley Road. He requested confirmation that a traffic
management plan would be required in respect of Cley Road and the site itself to
alleviate the problems.
The Principal Engineer confirmed that he had recommended a condition to require
the submission of a traffic management plan.
Councillor High considered that there were positive aspects to the scheme as parked
cars would be removed from Cley Road as a result and the double yellow lines would
be extended. The provision of 45% affordable homes on the site would be of benefit.
He considered that the timing of deliveries was crucial.
The Principal Engineer stated that timing of deliveries would normally be included as
part of a construction plan.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, expressed concern at the impact of
construction traffic on the town, particularly during the summer. He considered that
the creation of a car park for the town would obviate the need for the parking
restrictions proposed under this application. He requested that the contribution being
requested towards car parking be ring-fenced for Holt. He referred to the proposed
highway works on the Old Cromer Road and stated that the main problem was with
the speed of traffic coming from the town. He requested a flashing speed sign to be
erected near the pedestrian crossing. He referred to the proposed construction
strategy and requested that construction traffic should not be routed through the
town. He considered that there should be a maximum of 85 dwellings on the site.
He stated that the King George V Playing Field would be used by children from the
site. He considered that the developer should make a greater contribution to enable
the playing field to be brought up to modern standards, rather than make provision on
site. He also considered that this would benefit the developer.
The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that the additional contribution
towards the playing field should be the subject of further negotiation with the
developer.
Development Committee
6
Page 110
8 December 2011
Councillor Baker requested that the Town Council also be consulted on this matter.
Whilst he did not favour development to the north of the town, he considered that
refusal of this application would be overturned on appeal and therefore proposed
approval of this application subject to the issues he had raised.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager and Principal Engineer
answered Members’ questions regarding projected vehicle movements.
Councillor P W High supported Councillor Baker’s request for a maximum of 85
dwellings, with only 12 being served from Cley Road. He did not wish to see
reductions in any other contributions arising from an increased contribution towards
the playing field.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded Councillor Baker’s proposal.
In answer to a question by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, the Planning Policy and
Property Information Manager explained that the requirement for minimum densities
had been removed. The proposed density was typical of estate-type developments.
He did not support a higher density to deliver more affordable dwellings.
Councillor Cabbell Manners considered that, given the proximity of the site to the
town, residents would be likely to walk into the town. He considered that the traffic
situation would have been worse if the development were south of the bypass.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that it was not known at this stage
the precise level of affordable housing provision. If less than 45% a viability
assessment would be needed. If costs were increased because of increased
contributions it could impact on affordable housing provision.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application, subject to:
1) Completion of a S.106 Obligation based on the latest draft Heads of
Terms referred to in the Officer’s report.
2) The imposition of conditions as considered necessary by the Head of
Planning and Building Control to include:
-
Submission of reserved matters for approval of layout, scale,
appearance and landscaping.
Full details relating to the construction of roads, footways,
cycleways, visibility splays, accesses and parking provision.
A construction management plan and access route.
Construction worker parking provision.
On-site wheel cleaning facilities.
Timing of off-site highway works.
Surface water drainage.
Code for Sustainable Homes compliance.
10% renewable energy provision.
Boundary treatments (including full details of security fencing
around the allotments).
Programme for archaeological investigation.
Management of open space.
Development Committee
7
Page 111
8 December 2011
3) The number of dwellings on the site to be limited to a maximum of
85, with a maximum of 12 dwellings being serviced from Cley Road.
4) The contribution towards car parking to be ring-fenced for Holt.
5) Negotiations for an increased contribution towards open space
provision to be used to fund improvements to King George V Playing
Field instead of on-site provision, in liaison with the Town Council.
(169) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1201 - Change of use from residential to A1
(hairdresser); 36A Vicarage Street for Mr S Marshall
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers (also speaking on LA/11/1202 below)
Mrs Belson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mrs Gunner (objecting)
Mr Marshall (supporting)
This application was considered in conjunction with LA/11/1202 below.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, stated that the rear of this building was a
historic view from the church yard and the last remaining part of old North Walsham.
He requested that, in the event of approval, the use be restricted to a hairdressing
salon to prevent the building being used for other A1 uses in the future, and a time
restriction imposed to ensure that the use would cease when the applicant retired.
He expressed concern that approval would not assist in the reuse of vacant units
within the town which he considered were more appropriately located. He stated that
there were very few good quality residential units in the centre of the town. He
considered that approval would detract from the integrity of the Listed Building and
be detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings. He considered
that policy should be weighed against other material considerations and requested
that the application be refused.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that there was no policy objection to this
application. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green seconded the proposal. However, she considered that
there should be no signage erected on the building.
Councillor N Smith requested a condition to require the building to return to
residential use on cessation of the hairdressing use.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it would be possible to restrict
the use to hairdressing only. He would prefer to seek the applicant’s agreement with
regard to a temporary permission. As an alternative, he suggested a personal
permission.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern at the conversion of a building from
residential to retail when there was housing need and a shortage of habitable
accommodation in town centres.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R
Green and
Development Committee
8
Page 112
8 December 2011
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including a restriction to hairdressing only, opening hours
being restricted to between 1000 and 1730 on Mondays to Fridays and
between 0900 and 1600 on Saturdays, personal to the applicant and the
premises to be returned to residential use on cessation of the permitted
use.
(170) NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/1202 - Removal of internal wall; 36A Vicarage Street
for Mr S Marshall
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
This application was considered in conjunction with PF/11/1201 above.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(171) THURSFORD - PF/11/1344 - Installation of solar panels to roof of outbuilding;
Old Coach House, Fakenham Road for Mrs A R Green
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a prejudicial interest in this application as she
was the applicant, and left the Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor R Reynolds welcomed the use of a farm building to site the solar panels
and hoped that similar proposals would come forward in the future.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs P
Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(172) WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0750 - Formation of parking and turning area and
erection of fencing; Land at rear of 31 High Street for Cleaves Trust
Councillor T FitzPatrick declared a personal interest in this application as he was a
resident of Walsingham and as such could use the services of the Cleaves Trust. He
was also a customer of one of the objectors.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had commented that the
access had been in existence prior to conversion of the adjacent buildings. He
stated that whilst the concerns of the neighbours were understood, as the access
could be used in its present form there was no reason to refuse this application.
Development Committee
9
Page 113
8 December 2011
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, referred to concerns raised in respect of
increase in traffic along a narrow, unmade lane, car parking being visible from the
windows of adjacent dwellings, increase in the number of cars and Human Rights
issues. He requested the Committee to consider conditions in respect of the number
of cars per house being limited to two, allocation of spaces to individual dwellings,
and prevention of the spaces being rented out or sold off to non-residents of the
dwellings.
The Chairman considered that it would be up to the Cleaves Trust to deal with the
allocation of the parking spaces.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it would be reasonable to limit
parking to the residential use of the dwellings, which would prevent general parking
by people using the village centre. However, it would not be possible to limit the
number of cars.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, to include restricting the use of the parking area
to the residential use of numbers 29 and 31 High Street.
One Member abstained from voting.
(173) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2
flats; site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
(174) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(175) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(176) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(177) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
10
Page 114
8 December 2011
(178) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(179) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(180) 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 items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(181) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal interest in case reference ENQ/09/0276.
The Committee considered item 16 of the Officers’ exempt report updating the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 September
2011.
The Committee considered the cases listed in the Schedules and identified those
which they wished to be prioritised.
Concerns were expressed with regard to the workload of the Enforcement Team. It
was noted that some of the complaints appeared to be frivolous in nature and
Councillor M J M Baker suggested that they be brought to the Committee to consider
writing them off.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that discussion was needed
with regard to the way unauthorised signage in the countryside was dealt with.
RESOLVED
1.
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
2.
That the cases highlighted by Members be dealt with as a priority.
3.
That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed from
the Schedules.
4.
That a report be brought to Committee in respect of case reference
ENQ/09/0276.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
11
Page 115
8 December 2011
Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 13 December
2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mrs B McGoun
Mr P Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Officers in
Attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive (for Items 94 - 98), the Financial Services
Manager (for items 95 - 97 ), the Revenues and Benefits Services Manager
(for item 98) the Community Liaison Officer (for item 99) the Environmental
Protection Team Leader (for item 100) and the Democratic Services Team
Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs H Eales, Ms V Gay, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P High,
Mr K Johnson, Mr G Jones, Mr J Lee, Mrs A Moore, Mr W J Northam,
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
84 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Smith and Mr R Wright
85 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Shepherd for Mr R Wright and Mrs B McGoun
for Mr R Smith
86 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
87 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2011 were signed as a correct record.
88 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
1 116
13 December 2011
89 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
90 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting. Two of the petitions had expired with neither reaching the
required threshold.
91 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
A request for an item to be called in had been received. It would be dealt with during the
consideration of the relevant item on the Agenda.
92 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet’s response to the comments made by the Committee on the corporate plan was
attached to the Overview and Scrutiny Update report.
93 THE FORWARD PLAN
The Democratic Services Team Leader reminded Members to check the Management
of Council Business matrix that was circulated weekly to ensure that they were kept up
to date with the reports coming to Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and Full Council.
94 THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO LOCALISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
BIG SOCIETY FUND
Two Members had called in the Cabinet’s decision relating to the Council’s approach to
Localism and the establishment of a Big Society Fund in accordance with Chapter 4 of
the Constitution, Part 3, Section 8.
The item was introduced by the Portfolio Holder for Localism, Councillor Trevor Ivory.
He informed the Committee that since the presentation of his original report to Cabinet
on 28 November 2011, there had been a meeting with the Local Area Partnerships
Association (LAPA) to discuss the way forward and consider issues of concern as well
as various discussions with charitable organisations and voluntary bodies, including
Voluntary Norfolk, VSC Together, Norfolk Rural Community Council and the Norfolk
Community Foundation to consider their future input and role.
He explained that the proposal for consideration before the Committee was whether to
ring-fence the money from the second homes income to a Big Society Fund and thus
allow it to continue to be used for the benefit of local communities. If this was supported
by Full Council then the detail of how the Fund would be administered would be worked
on. There were three areas for consideration:
a) Governance arrangements of the fund and how it would operate.
b) Capacity building – considering how to provide the expertise and skills to take
projects forward.
c) The provision of general broad support to the voluntary sector in North Norfolk.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
2 117
13 December 2011
It was proposed that a report would be presented to Cabinet in February 2012 outlining
the detail. If the Committee agreed, this would come to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee in January 2012 for pre-scrutiny. In particular, it was hoped that the
Committee would be able to have an input into shaping the governance arrangements
and how the fund would operate. He concluded by advising Members of the tight
timescale. If the item was deferred it would be very difficult to have something in place
for 1 April. This was important as the funding for the Local Area Partnerships (LAPs)
ended on 31 March and the tight schedule was in place to ensure that there was not a
funding gap.
The Chairman invited Councillor Glyn Williams to clarify why he had requested a call in
of this item. He explained that it was a ‘technical’ call in due to the way in which it was
dealt with by Cabinet. It was not about challenging the idea of a Big Society Fund but
about making sure that the Council achieved the best outcome for its residents. He
requested that in future as much detail as possible should be included in reports
presented to Cabinet. In response to the Portfolio Holder’s request for the Committee to
be involved in working on the detail of the Big Society Fund, he said that he welcomed
the opportunity but still had concerns that the scheduling was too tight. He added that it
was not clear whether Cabinet had considered any alternatives to delivering funding to
community groups and voluntary bodies and that this could have been done if more time
ahd been allowed. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed that there had been problems
regarding the process of this item. The Portfolio Holder for Localism added that the
Council was dependant on a number of outside organisations making decisions in
relation to the Big Society Fund. He would not have wished it to progress so quickly but
welcomed the role of the Committee in shaping the detail of the proposals.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that regular meetings between the Leader
and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were being set up from
March 2012 to ensure that the scheduling of reports was managed more efficiently.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member warned that any discussions involving the LAPs could be a long and
drawn out process and that it would have been preferable to begin the process
earlier. He queried whether similar meetings were taking place with the town and
parish councils. Finally, he advised that further money could be saved if the LAPs
became more streamlined. The Leader said that a meeting had taken place with the
Chairmen of some of the town councils. Meetings with all the LAPs were underway
and were going very well. She felt that they were working hard to move forward
without the core funding. The Portfolio Holder for Localism added that rationalisation
was vital to the LAPs succeeding in the future. The intention was that any interested
parties would be invited to put forward proposals on how they could provide the
capacity building skills required to support the Big Society Fund. Eventually there
would be just one efficient organisation overarching the whole process.
b) A Member asked whether it was possible that the LAPs could provide the capacity
building support that was required. He was also concerned that there did not seem
to be any arrangements in place to support the LAPs during the transition period
when their core funding ceased. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that all
organisations would be eligible to put themselves forward to provide the capacity
building support. He added that some of the LAPs had already folded in anticipation
of the changes to their funding. As far as support during the transitional period, he
said that the partnerships had received an extension of 3 months to the initial
December date and he felt that it was necessary to extend it again.
c) The Chairman asked if there was any evidence of the areas of duplication and the
costs involved. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that there was no specific
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
3 118
13 December 2011
evidence but that it had become clear during recent meetings with the LAPs that
there were areas of duplication. For example, they had all cited their capacity
building role within the voluntary sector
d) There was a concern that local schemes such as the Voyager Project in North
Walsham would struggle without the support of a ‘champion’ in the Griffon
Partnership. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that there was no intention to
criticise the Partnerships and as they were all independent bodies, the Council was
not in a position to close them. He stressed that the LAPs were not the only
champions for local causes. The parish and town councils were valued
representatives of their communities and their support was an important part of the
decision process for allocating funding.
e) A Member questioned whether the Council had the ability to track funds once they
were transferred to organisations. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that this
role would be taken on by the capacity building resource. It was also important that
access to other grant funding was not lost. The Big Society Fund should not be used
where funding could come from other sources. A recent discussion with the
Community Foundation had been very helpful in providing advice on how to avoid
such duplication.
f) The issue of continuing support for voluntary groups across the District was raised.
There were approximately 400 such groups in operation and they were very
effective at attracting funding. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that it was
important that support for voluntary groups continued but there should also be
opportunities for other community-based groups to access funding.
g) A Member commented that the LAPs, town councils and parish councils did not
always get on well together and he was concerned that there would be increased
rivalry if they were competing for the same funding. The Portfolio Holder for
Localism agreed. He said that it was important that there was a focus on community
priorities and neighbourhood plans could offer a very effective means of clarifying
community needs and objectives.
Councillor Glyn Williams said that the additional information that the Portfolio Holder for
Localism had provided to the Committee together with the opportunity for input on the
governance arrangements and operational side of the Big Society Fund, had led him to
conclude that it would not be beneficial for the item to be sent back to Cabinet. He
therefore withdrew his request for a call in.
He proposed the following recommendation:
The Committee recommends to Council that all major policy proposals should be
subject to timely consultation and engagement with key stakeholders before decisions
are formulated and taken by Cabinet and Council.
Councillor Annie Claussen-Reynolds proposed a further recommendation:
a) To approve the ring-fencing of the money for the Big Society Fund.
b) That a further report should be brought to Cabinet and Full Council in February, and
to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for pre-scrutiny in January
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL
1. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends to Council that all major policy
proposals should be subject to timely consultation and engagement with key
stakeholders before decisions are formulated and taken by Cabinet and Council.
2. To approve the ring-fencing of the money for the Big Society Fund.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
4 119
13 December 2011
3. That a further report should be brought to Cabinet and Full Council in February, and
to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for pre-scrutiny in January
95 2011/2012 REVISED BUDGET
The report outlined the revised budget 2011/12 for both capital and revenue. The budget
had been revised to take account of variances which had been highlighted as part of the
ongoing budget monitoring process. A balanced position was presented for the 2011/12
revised budget while allowing for a contribution to be made to the Organisational
Development reserve to offset any reduced savings in 2012/13 as a consequence of the
of the revised approach in relation to the implementation of the new pay model resulting
from the Pay and Grading Review.
Members discussed the report:
1. There was a concern that the training budget had been cut. The Deputy Chief
Executive explained that there had been a lag in reducing the training budget
following reductions in staff numbers. There would also be an increased emphasis
on e-learning in the future and the possibility of sharing training resources with other
local authorities was also being considered. She reassured Members that funding
was still in place for continued professional development (CPD)
2. Clarification was sought on the total sum in the Organisational Development reserve
after the transfer of £172000. The Financial Services Manager said that it now
totalled £352,000.
AGREED
To recommend to Full Council:
a) The revised revenue budget for 2011/12;
b) The revised transfers to and from reserves included at Appendix C;
c) The transfer of the forecast surplus of £172,488 to the Organisational
Development reserve;
d) The revised capital programme and associated financing as included at
Appendix E;
e) The scale of fees and charges from 1 April 2012 included at Appendix D;
f)
Delegated authority for setting the fees and charges for waste be given to the
Strategic Director for Environment, Deputy Chief Executive and relevant
Portfolio Members.
96 PROPOSED SAVINGS REPORT – 2012/13 BASE BUDGET
The report provided an update in relation to two of the Council’s workstreams which
were currently being progressed to identify future year savings for 2012/13 and 2013/14.
The two workstreams in question focussed on a change to the Council’s management
structure and potential savings and additional income that could be achieved by service
areas. It was now proposed that some of these savings were accepted for inclusion
within the 2012/13 base budget. The Portfolio Holder for Finance added that the New
Homes Bonus had been increased to £611,000. He was confident that a balanced
budget was achievable.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
5 120
13 December 2011
Members discussed the report:
a) The Chairman asked whether grants to local Citizens Advice Bureaux remained the
same. The Portfolio Holder for Finance confirmed that this was the case.
b) The fairness of the cuts for each service area was questioned. The planning section
seemed to have been hit harder than most. The Portfolio Holder for Finance said
that not all of the recommendations had been agreed to. Initial proposals amounted
to savings of £1.3m and this had been reduced to £980,000 as it was felt that some
service areas would be hit too hard. The Deputy Chief Executive added that
managers had been asked for potential savings of 10%. It had never been intended
that this would be across the board. Cabinet had considered each proposal carefully
and the likely impact on service delivery. In response to a further question regarding
savings relating to planning support services and whether this would impact on
planning enforcement, she said that this referred to administration support and the
scanning of documents. The Portfolio Holder for Planning said that there were no
savings proposed regarding planning enforcement.
c) Concerns were raised about proposals to increase car parking charges, savings
related to local markets and the loss of the subsidy for the canteen. In particular, the
target to increase parking income by £100,000 seemed very ambitious during a
difficult economic period. The Deputy Chief Executive said that there had been
some modelling regarding the car parks. The initial target was £140,000 and this
had been scaled back to £100,000 so it was felt to be achievable. As far as the
markets were concerned, the main saving was a consequence of bringing the
management back in-house. The subsidy for the canteen would be reduced initially
by 50% and there would be a focus on encouraging staff to use it more.
d) Mr P Terrington, a Member for Priory Ward said that many residents of Wells felt
that an increase in parking charges was unfair. The town did not have a
supermarket or any large chain stores that provided free parking and the
independent shopkeepers felt the increase would be detrimental to their trade. The
Portfolio Holder for Finance said that Cabinet had been concerned about raising
parking charges but high inflation was having an impact on refurbishment costs. The
two tier charging strategy had worked well for other local authorities. It would be
reviewed after 12 months. The Leader added that the cost of car parking season
tickets was not being increased.
e) It was highlighted that the ring-fencing of £700,000 for the Big Society Fund was not
entirely true as community transport had now been listed as a saving. The Deputy
Chief Executive said that this had yet to be decided so it was not included as a
saving at the present time.
f) A Member asked whether any decision regarding the future of the Council’s
magazine, Outlook could come back to the Committee. The Chairman replied that it
would come back as a budget consideration at a future date.
AGREED to recommend to Full Council:
•
•
•
•
The savings and additional income as identified within Table 1 of the report
Note the updated position in relation to the management structures and
prioritisation workstreams
To fund any ‘on-off’ costs in relation to staff restructuring through the use of the
Restructuring and Invest to Save Proposals reserve
A new reserve is established for the ‘New Homes Bonus’ and that the allocation
for 2012/13, estimated to be £595,700 is transferred to this reserve
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
6 121
13 December 2011
97 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY 2011/12 TO 2013/14 AMENDMENT
The report set out a proposed amendment to the minimum credit rating required for
investment counterparties within the current Treasury Management Strategy. Mrs B
McGoun said that she was very concerned about the proposal.
AGREED
To recommend to Full Council that the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and
Investment Strategy 2011/12 to 2013/14 is amended by reducing the minimum longterm credit rating for investment counterparties from A+ to A-.
98 REVENUES AND BENEFITS SHARED SERVICE
The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager gave a presentation on the progress to
date on the shared services work for Revenues and Benefits. It was explained that the
savings and efficiencies of working in partnership could only be realised if the two
authorities operated on the same application software. In the longer term a replacement
software system would provide savings and improve efficiencies by reducing
duplication. The service would be subject to significant change in the future with the
introduction of welfare reforms and a stable software system would be essential.
Members discussed the presentation:
1. There was a high level of risk for this project and it should be considered for
inclusion on the risk register. The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager said
that there was always an element of risk but that it had been identified early on and
they had tried to mitigate where possible. The Council was liaising with South
Norfolk District Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council as they were already
using software by the preferred provider, CIVICA. It was possible that staff could be
seconded from them if necessary.
2. The introduction of the Universal Credit system could have a financial impact on the
Council, particularly if no funding was provided to assist with the cost of
implementation. The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager said that the Council
had responded to the government consultation paper on the Universal Credit system
and they would strongly support an administrative grant to support the
implementation of a new system. It was likely that local authorities would have a
face-to-face role rather than a processing one. In response to a further question
regarding the provision of broadband, she explained that BT were responsible for
providing the fibre links for broadband and a third party would then buy the right to
use that infrastructure so the Council would have to deal with BT regardless.
3. A concern was raised regarding the proposed redundancies within IT support. The
Revenues and Benefits Services Manager replied that when the Borough Council of
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN) took on the role of software support, 0.5 fte
would be lost at North Norfolk District Council. This would not be a saving as it was
likely that this resource would be used for other ICT projects.
4. The cost of the high speed link hub in Fakenham was queried. A final price had not
been provided and there was a concern that it may be prohibitive. The Deputy Chief
Executive said that the intention was to have a pipe from Cromer to Kings Lynn via
Fakenham. It was hoped that the link would be 200mb initially but there would need
to be a back-up through the Internet and this would involve an upgrade. BCKLWN
had already had an upgrade and NNDC were waiting for a site survey to see if it was
possible. If not then the fallback option of starting on two separate sites would be
used.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
7 122
13 December 2011
5. A Member asked if the introduction of the Universal Credits system would be
supported by an outreach team. The Deputy Chief Executive said that this was
being pushed for by local authorities.
AGREED
1. The revised financial information within the business case as updated verbally at
the meeting regarding an additional £72,000 set up for back fill.
2. For the Portfolio Holder for Revenues & Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive
to continue to develop the Partnership Agreement for which the Heads of Terms will
require approval by Council. Delegated authority to the Leader of the Council and
Portfolio Holder for Revenues & Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to develop
a shared service model and following full consultation and report back to Cabinet.
3. To entering into a contract with CIVICA for the provision of a software system; an
outline of the legal obligations to be presented to Council.
4. To continue to explore the infrastructure requirements with BT and BCKLWN and
recommend to Council the infrastructure requirements and associated costs.
5. Approve the proposals for BCKLWN to host the ICT infrastructure and business
system and for NNDC to host any proposed shared management structure.
6. Delegate authority to the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder for Revenues
and Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to agree proposed service level
agreements with customer services and other support services.
7. To receive quarterly updates on the Revenues and Benefits shared services work
99 EQUALITIES UPDATE
The Community Liaison Officer gave the Committee a brief presentation on the Annual
Equality report 2010-11.
Members discussed the presentation:
1. The issue of future challenges was raised. The Community Liaison Officer said
employment and involvement of residents in decision making were key equaility
issues e.g. disabled people were twice as likely to be unemployed and sought
greater involvement in decision making. Other equality issues for the District
included domestic violence and hate crime. The Deputy Chief Executive added that
previously equality had been viewed as an add-on and the Council was now trying to
embed it in all aspects of its work.
2. A Member suggested that the Council could employ people with learning disabilities.
South Norfolk District Council had set up a successful scheme for producing and
planting bedding plants. The Chairman added that there may also be opportunities
for local groups such as About with Friends to access resources via the Big Society
Fund.
100 GYPSY AND TRAVELLERS UPDATE
The Environmental Protection Team Leader updated the Committee on occupancy rates
for the two Temporary Stopping Places for the period April to October 2011 and the
capital grant expenditure to date. The Fakenham site had only been used for a short
period during August and the Cromer site had been in continuous occupation since May
2011. The level of contribution sought from occupiers was under review to close the gap
between income and revenue costs on the sites. In addition, changes to the Mobile
Homes Act were likely to result in a more formal agreement to occupy pitches and a
structure for repayment of pitch fees should the agreement to occupy cease before the
agreed time period.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
8 123
13 December 2011
The balance of the grant for the funding of the construction of the sites was now being
used to finance the running costs. It was forecast that there would be a balance of
approximately £92,000 at the end of the 10 year lease period.
Members discussed the update:
a) The Chairman asked whether the initial grant could also be used to cover
maintenance costs. The Environmental Protection Team Leader said that the grant
could be used to pay for the leasing costs of the sites and he was currently
investigating any other costs that could be included.
b) The impact of the sites on illegal encampments was raised. The Environmental
Protection Team Leader said that the Council still had to go through the legal
process to move people on from illegal sites. Some families were willing to move to
the Temporary Stopping Places.
c) A Member asked whether changes to the Mobile Homes Act would alter the status
of Temporary Stopping Places. The Environmental Protection Team Leader said
that the status wouldn’t change; the Act makes provision for temporary sites as well
as permanent ones.
d) A concern was raised that the sites were being used by homeless families as a
means of getting on to the housing register. The Environmental Protection Team
Leader said that the family in question was already on the housing register but that
the chance of them being housed was very low. The Council was currently working
with the family to resolve the issues. In response to a further question regarding the
use of the initial grant to cover costs caused by anti social behaviour, he said that
day to day running costs of the site were covered by occupancy charges and this
was one of the reasons for increasing them.
e) A Member queried whether the family who had been asked to leave the Cromer site
due to anti-social behaviour could return at a later date. The Environmental
Protection Team Leader said they could not stop them returning but that they would
try and negotiate a shorter period of stay in the future. In response to a further
question regarding options if landowners did not wish to renew the leases on the
sites, he said that the leases ran for 10 years and this would be something that
would be considered carefully nearer to the renewal date.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme
1. Flooding at Walcott: David Kemp, a representative from the Environment Agency
would be attending the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 25 January to address
concerns. County Councillor Paul Morse and the Chairmen of Walcott and Bacton
Parish Councils would also be invited to attend.
2. Member training: The Member Training Development and Support Group was now
meeting on a quarterly basis.
3. Work programme topics: The Big Society Fund would be discussed at a special
meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 31 January 2012. Future items
for inclusion on the work programme were planning enforcement, the future of
Outlook and updates on the Revenues and Benefits shared service.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
9 124
13 December 2011
4. Review of the Constitution: the Monitoring Officer was aware that the Constitution
needed to be reviewed. A log was being kept of all proposed amendments and
these would be considered when the Constitution Working Party was reconvened.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
The meeting concluded at 13.03 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Page
10125
13 December 2011
Agenda Item no _________2________
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 9 January 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members present:
Mrs H Eales (Chairman)
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mr G Jones
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs H Thompson
Mr D Young
Officers in attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive, the
Strategic Director – Information, the Strategic Director –
Environment, the Customer Services Manager and the
Democratic Services Officer (AA).
74
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None.
75
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 28 November 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
76
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None.
77
ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS: NORTH NORFOLK FLAG FISHERIES AND
COMMUNITIES ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMME
There was one item of urgent business which concerned the North Norfolk
Flag Fisheries and Communities Engagement Programme. The reason for it
being urgent was so that the required working cash flow could be provided in
advance of retrospective reimbursement from the Marine Management
Organisation.
Copies of the report had been circulated to Members before the meeting.
Cabinet
Page1 126
9 January 2012
Agreement was being sought to make available to North Norfolk Business
Forum (NNBF) an interest free loan for £50,000 over a 3 ½ year period. This
loan was to provide cash flow support to the NNBF in advance of the
organisation making retrospective quarterly claims for reimbursement from
the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).
RECOMMENDED to Full Council to
provide an interest free loan for £50,000 to the North Norfolk Business Forum
for a period of 3 ½ years to help the organisations cash-flow while
undertaking their agreed role and responsibilities as FLAG Programme
Manager.
78
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
79
Mr T FitzPatrick
Minute
No.
80
Mr T Ivory
80
Item
Interest
North Norfolk Flag Fisheries
and Communities
Engagement Programme
Personal and nonprejudicial as the
Council’s
representative on the
North Norfolk
Business Forum and
Director of the Trust
Personal and nonprejudicial as a
representative on the
North Norfolk
Business Trust,
though not
representing this
Council
North Norfolk Flag Fisheries
and Communities
Engagement Programme
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meetings of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on
20 October and 21 November 2011 be received.
80
COUNCIL OFFICES BUILDING
The Council Offices were within the 20-25 year age when much of the original
plant and equipment infrastructure would be beyond or close to design lifeexpectancy and the building structure elements would also require renewal.
Various Capital projects had been identified some years ago for the Council
Offices totalling £275,000, but spend was deferred pending a full structural
report. Consultants had been engaged to completely review the building and
advise on defects and priorities to establish if the deferred capital items
remained the most urgent issues to be addressed.
Cabinet
Page2 127
9 January 2012
A Member asked whether any thought had been given to disposal of the
annexe located on the Council’s overflow car park. She recalled that a report
on the annexe had been made in May 2009, then withdrawn but reported to
Cabinet again in July. She was informed that the consultants had suggested
that the Officers housed in the annexe could be relocated in the main building
and the annexe itself rented out. The removal cost of the annexe would be
£74,100. This matter had been considered and Members were looking into
bringing all Officers back into the main building.
A Member expressed concern over what he considered to be a substantial
sum of money being spent on renewal of parts of the building and equipment,
and he questioned whether it was really necessary at this time and suggested
waiting until the financial situation improved. He was informed that, having
been advised by the consultants of work which they considered was
necessary to be undertaken, it was essential that it should be carried out
particularly in view of any potential health and safety issues. It was
emphasised that the works to be carried out were essential for the security of
the building and not to update it. The cost of emergency lights was
considered to be high, however, and the Property Manager was looking into
whether the work could be undertaken at a lower price.
RESOLVED that
81
a)
immediate action is taken to remedy those issues identified as of
major concern as listed in paragraph 5 of this report and that £200,000
from the consolidated capital fund for administration buildings is made
available to address these specific items.
b)
a regular programme of improvement works as recommended by the
consultants is scheduled for the next five years as part of the capital
funding for Council officers to secure the functionality and value of the
asset.
NEW VISION CONTRACT
The current contract for supplying tourism related technology would expire in
March 2012. A wider review of Customer Services including the Tourist
Information Centre’s would take place in 2012/13.
RESOLVED to
retain the New Vision Group as the supplier of our tourism related technology
for the 2012/13 financial year at a cost of £30,120.
The meeting closed at 10.16am.
_________________________
Chairman, 6 February 2012
Cabinet
Page3 128
9 January 2012
12 JANUARY 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)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer - substitute for P W High
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
D Young - High Heath Ward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - observer
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett - observer
K E Johnson - observer
Mrs A M Moore - observer
N Smith - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mrs N Turner - Strategy Team Leader
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Mr D Thompson - Soil Consultant
(182) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High and S J Partridge.
There was one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(183) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 December 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(184) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
Development Committee
1
Page 129
12 January 2012
1.
Request to reconsider an extension to the time period for compliance with an
Enforcement Notice at Marshgate, North Walsham.
Reason for urgency: the date for compliance is 27 January 2012.
2.
Planning application PF/11/1492, Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham.
Reason for urgency: to expedite processing of the application by undertaking
a site inspection.
(185) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, B Smith and R Reynolds
declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item
concerned.
(186) HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats:
site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs V Woods (Hempton Parish Council)
Mr M Champion (objecting)
Mr M Burghall (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received in
respect of alterations to the car park surfacing and the porch design on one of the
dwellings.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an updated map and earthworks survey
plan had been supplied by Historic Environment Services in respect of the
archaeological remains of the former Priory. She reported the contents of an email
received from consultants acting on behalf of Hempton Parish Council in respect of
concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the archaeological
remains and requesting deferral pending the outcome of an application to extend the
area of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The Senior Planning Officer read to the
Committee the comments of English Heritage, which had excavated a trial trench and
considered that there were no archaeological remains on the site of the proposed
dwellings.
English Heritage considered that there was no reason to delay
consideration of this application and had requested the imposition of archaeological
conditions. A further email had been received from English Heritage stating that it
was clear that the area of the proposed development was not without merit and was
likely to have been associated with the priory but outside its precinct. Whilst the
development area was not appropriate for designation, archaeological conditions
were recommended to ensure that the site was recorded. However, the area of the
drainage pipe could possibly be designated.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the drainage pipe could be non-porous as
requested by English Heritage.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include a programme of archaeological work to be carried
out and further details in respect of the drainage pipe to be submitted and agreed
with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with English Heritage and the
Historic Environment Service.
Development Committee
2
Page 130
12 January 2012
Councillor Miss B Palmer, the local Member, stated that there was a need for
affordable housing but not on the proposed site. She referred to the waterlogged
nature of the site, highway issues, impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument, the
need for care in keeping soil disturbance to a minimum and careful disposal of any
soil given the presence of blackleg.
Councillor R Shepherd asked if the adjacent dwellings had ever flooded. Councillor
Mrs A R Green confirmed that they had suffered considerable damage, including
subsidence.
Councillor Mrs Green expressed concern at any work being undertaken near the
archaeological site. She also stated that the right turn at the junction was difficult to
negotiate.
The Chairman asked whether development could be stopped if any items of merit
were found as a result of the archaeological dig.
The Development Manager stated that the highway issues had previously been
debated and the Highway Authority had no objection. Issues regarding flooding and
subsidence had been raised previously and there were technical ways to overcome
these issues. An alternative location had been discussed which was unacceptable to
the Highway Authority and in terms of proximity to Fakenham. The only issue
remaining was in respect of archaeology. He reiterated the comments made by the
Senior Planning Officer in respect of the consultation responses from English
Heritage and the Historic Environment Service.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the Fakenham area needed as much affordable
housing as it could get. He considered that the archaeological conditions should be
strictly adhered to. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by
Councillor J A Wyatt.
The Development Manager requested delegated authority to approve subject to the
wording of draft conditions to cover the protection of archaeological interests being
agreed with English Heritage and the Historic Environment Service and subject to the
agreement of the developer to those conditions.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include a programme of archaeological work to be carried
out, subject to the wording of those conditions being agreed by English
Heritage, the Historic Environment Service and the developer, and
further details in respect of the drainage pipe to be submitted and
agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with English
Heritage and the Historic Environment Service.
Development Committee
3
Page 131
12 January 2012
(187) WEYBOURNE – PF/09/1270 – Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Bolton (representing Parish Councils of Kelling, Salthouse, Gunthorpe,
Thursford, Fulmodeston and Ryburgh)
Mr A Case, Mrs Runciman and Mr D Ross (objecting)
Mr M Petterson (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Stibbard Parish Council continued to raise
a strong objection to this application. Keith Simpson MP had also forwarded
objections which he requested were taken into account. The Senior Planning Officer
outlined the grounds of objection raised in 5 letters of objection which had been
received. A letter had been received which confirmed that Crown Estates had not
granted an offshore licence. Some of the objectors had disputed part of the report
which stated that constructive discussions had taken place between the applicants
and the objector. An email in response to that point had been received from the
applicants stating that they had kept to the agenda proposed by the objectors. An
email had been received from the applicants’ solicitor stating that the soil
temperatures quoted were the worst case scenario and were not normal operating
temperatures.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that no objections had been received from expert
bodies and technical consultees. She recommended approval as set out in the
report.
Councillor M J M Baker raised a point of order as to why the application was being
discussed when the issue regarding the sub-station was not resolved and there were
no connections at either end of the route.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July
2011 when it was resolved to defer to await the outcome of the inquiry in respect of
Little Dunham sub-station. The minute did not refer to any subsequent legal
challenge. The appeal had been dismissed by the Secretaries of State and a legal
challenge brought against the decision. There was an existing planning permission
for the cable route through Breckland District, which connected to the proposed route
now being considered. The applicants had requested that the application be
determined. They had a right of appeal against non-determination, in which case the
application would have to be brought to Committee and its views sought on what it
would have decided. The Planning Legal Manager stated that for these reasons, in
his opinion it was appropriate to consider the application and make a decision.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there were other legal issues to consider.
Late responses had been received, raising issues in respect of land values and
compensatory payments to landowners and tenant farmers. Whilst these concerns
were understood they were civil matters and, in his view, not material to the planning
decision.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the Committee was a semi-judicial body
and had to consider this matter and make a decision.
Development Committee
4
Page 132
12 January 2012
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor P
Terrington, Member for Priory Ward, expressing a number of concerns regarding soil
impact, shortcomings in the report by Wells Harbour Commissioners in respect of the
Sheringham Shoal project cited by the applicants, possible negative social,
environmental and economic impacts, the potential increase in the number of
households in fuel poverty as a result of subsidies paid to wind energy generating
companies and raising questions regarding the starting point of directional drilling
under watercourses in respect of potential flooding and contamination.
Councillor D Young, Member for High Heath Ward, referred to his previous
objections. He considered that there had been little change, the Little Dunham
substation proposal had been refused by two Secretaries of State who were probusiness and pro-renewable energy, and there was no guarantee that a suitable site
would be found anywhere near Little Dunham. He expressed concern at the impact
on hedgerows and asked if it would be possible to cut the trenches under the
hedgerows in order that they could be retained. He queried how it would be possible
to cut a trench through a watercourse. He expressed concern at the timescale for
reinstatement of soil and considered that the proposal should be limited to stage 1 or
the reinstatement period be measured from the commencement of work rather than
the end, and possibly to require ducting for stage 2 to be installed.
The Landscape Officer explained that the width of the trench had been reduced to
20m at all hedgerow crossing points. There were proposals to replace the lost
sections with a species rich mix which should increase the biodiversity value of the
hedgerow. She explained the methodology for crossing the watercourses where
horizontal directional drilling would not be used.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that this meeting was premature given the
uncertainty as to the proposals at either end of the route. She stated that the
concerns of the parishes in her Ward had been addressed and they had no objection.
She asked whether permission for the cable route would preclude the erection of
pylons.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the applicant had
considered and discounted the overhead option. He stated that a separate consent
process would be required if a further proposal for pylons came forward.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that all parishes in her Ward were opposed to the
proposal. She considered that the proposed route was not an option. There had
been no further changes and the route through Mr Boeson’s farm remained the
same. She stated that the recovery time of the land was unknown. She referred to
the study by Cranfield University which referred to soil problems and considered that
there were reasons for further investigation. She was very concerned at the
possibility of laying cables in two stages and stated that there had been no
negotiation with Crown Estates to increase the size of the proposed windfarm. She
considered that the East Coast Transmission Route should be used and that modern
style pylons would solve many of the problems. She considered that the advantages
of putting the cables underground were minimal. She considered that any benefits
would be outweighed by the impact on the local agricultural industry, there would be
no benefit for tourism and the associated costs would lead to an increase in fuel
poverty. She considered that this application should be refused.
In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Mr Petterson stated that the
cables could possibly be ducted but no decision had been made on this issue. There
would be no impact on the width of the trench regardless of whether the cables were
ducted or laid directly in the ground. The Head of Planning and Building Control
added that the width of the trench was dictated by the working corridor.
Development Committee
5
Page 133
12 January 2012
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the majority of landowners had not
objected. At his request, the amendments to the route through the land farmed by Mr
Runciman and Mr Boeson were displayed. In respect of the land farmed by Mr
Boeson, the Senior Planning Officer understood that the landowner had agreed to
the proposed route.
Councillor Cabbell Manners considered that whilst only minor changes had been
made to the route through Mr Boeson’s farm, it was as close to the hedgerow as
possible. Major changes had been made to the route through Mr Runciman’s land.
He proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor Baker referred to the width of the land which would be affected. He
referred to areas where the soil structure had been damaged by disturbance of the
soil, and stated that soil movements from Neolithic times could still be mapped from
space because of differences in the growth of crops. He referred to the growing of
root crops in the area, and stated that supermarkets insisted on certain methods and
conditions for growing and would not award contracts where first-class quality could
not be guaranteed. He stated that there was no evidence that the necessary
offshore permissions were forthcoming and no evidence that there would be no
impact on the chalk reef.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the concerns remained in respect of the small
farms. He queried the timescale for reinstatement of soil and asked if other methods
of construction had been considered. He requested clarification as to whether
permission would be needed for construction of pylons if the cable route were not
approved.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that consent would be required,
possibly from the Secretary of State. However, the Committee was not being asked
to consider this issue.
Mr Petterson stated that it was expected that topsoil would be stripped for a
maximum period of six months, but this would depend on the length of the section
involved. In respect of Mr Runciman’s farm it would probably be a maximum of 2-3
months. The trench itself would be open for 2-3 days only, given the safety risk and
risk of theft of cables. He stated that it would not be possible to use other methods of
construction through the farms in question, given the length that would be required.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that there had been no complaints following the
Sheringham Shoal development and seconded Councillor B Cabbell Manners’
proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application should be refused, but
proposed deferral pending granting of offshore consent and planning permission for a
substation. There was no seconder.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that whilst it was a direct negative of the proposal, he
would like to propose refusal of this application. This was supported by Councillor
Mrs A R Green.
The proposal to approve this application was put to the vote and declared lost by 3
votes to 9.
Development Committee
6
Page 134
12 January 2012
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 5
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
have a detrimental impact on the landscape and a detrimental impact on
the local agricultural economy.
(188) SALTHOUSE - Residential conversion of barns at Bard Hill (applications
20060642 and 20060736)
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports which sought approval to
waive payment of the first financial contribution towards affordable housing and
renegotiate the second payment.
The Senior Planning Officer corrected the report and stated that liability under the
Section 106 Obligation would pass to successors in title of the developer. He
reported that a letter had been received from a local resident requesting that the
Obligation be enforced, possibly by the payment of smaller instalments, and stating
that Salthouse needed affordable housing.
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
The Strategy Team Leader explained the viability issues relating to this case and
answered Members’ questions.
RESOLVED
That the press and public be re-admitted to the meeting.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That consideration of this matter be deferred for a more detailed report
following advice from the District Valuer in respect of the figures
discussed under private business, and that further consideration be
given to the legal consequences of the agreement on present and future
occupiers of the barns.
(189) CHANGE TO PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING ENFORCEMENT CASES
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports in respect of a strategy for
the management of Enforcement caseload.
The Chairman stated that there were enforcement issues in her Ward in which both
she and the Vice-Chairman had declared interests. It was suggested that Officers be
authorised to find an alternative Member to consult in such cases.
Development Committee
7
Page 135
12 January 2012
The Chairman suggested that matters deleted under the proposed procedure be
reported to Committee as part of the quarterly schedule. It was suggested that the
scheme be piloted for an initial period of six months.
RESOLVED
That the use of delegated powers to resolve outstanding Enforcement
cases in consultation with local Ward Members and the Chairman/Vice
Chairman of the Development Committee as set out in the report be
supported and that a six-month trial be undertaken. In cases where the
Chairman and Vice-Chairman both have an interest in a case, the
Officers be authorised to consult another appropriate Member.
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.
(190) HOLT - PF/11/0989 - Conversion of outbuilding to two-storey dwelling and
erection of 2 two-and-a-half-storey dwellings; Land rear of 27 High Street for C
T Baker Ltd
Councillor M J M Baker declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was
the Managing Director of the applicant Company and left the Council Chamber during
consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager had no objection in respect of changes to the fenestration.
He
recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions as listed in the report.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include submission of precise details of
materials, the removal of permitted development rights for alterations,
extensions and outbuildings, submission of a scheme for on-site cycle
parking provision, and compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes
and Sustainable Construction Checklist.
Development Committee
8
Page 136
12 January 2012
(191) HOLT - LE/11/1013 - Demolition of outbuildings; Rear of 27 High Street for C T
Baker Ltd
Councillor M J M Baker declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was
the Managing Director of the applicant Company and left the Council Chamber during
consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of a
condition requiring a scheme for the method of demolition to be
submitted and agreed.
(192) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0372 - Conversion of A1 (retail)/office unit to
residential flat; 4 Bank Loke for Anchor Homes Ltd
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that item 3 of the main issues for consideration
should read “amenity and parking issues”.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs A
M Moore, a local Member, who had had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of
this matter. Councillor Mrs Moore objected to this application as the site was within
the core retail area and a condition had been imposed in 2006 to require two
retail/office units. She had also referred to an application which was approved at the
previous meeting (despite local objections) to convert a residential unit in the core
retail area to a hairdressing salon.
In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones that it appeared that
applications were often determined against the wishes of the Town Council and local
residents, the Development Manager stated that in this case the Town Council
supported the application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions as set out in the report.
(193) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(194) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
9
Page 137
12 January 2012
(195) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(196) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(197) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(198) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that the following items be considered
as matters of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of
the Local Government Act 1972.
(199) NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works
Councillor B Smith referred to a personal interest he had declared at the previous
meeting as he knew the proprietor at the time of the original application in 2008.
This matter had been considered at the meeting of the Committee on 8 December
when it had been resolved to refuse a request to defer the time period for compliance
with the Enforcement Notice and to authorise prosecution proceedings in the event of
non-compliance with the Notice. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
read to the Committee a letter which had been received from HFS Enviroco outlining
the implications of the decision for the Company and requesting that further
consideration be given to this matter. The Company considered that it would be
unable to relocate until 5 March 2012, given the timescale for obtaining a licence
from VOSA to site the HGVs on the alternative site which was currently subject to an
application for planning permission, whereas the date for compliance with the
Enforcement Notice was 27 January 2012.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, referred to the planning history in relation to
this matter. He stated that the Town Council did not support an extension of time.
However, he expressed concern with regard to employment issues and considered
that the Council could delay taking action until the Company relocated. He also
suggested that the Council put pressure on VOSA to expedite processing of the
licence application. He considered that a verbal report was insufficient and that this
matter should be deferred for a full written report.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there was no desire to jeopardise jobs and
the Company seemed to be making an effort to relocate. He advised that the
prosecution could be delayed if necessary. He understood that VOSA would take 9
to 10 weeks to process an application and he was not sure if they would
accommodate a request for an earlier decision.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed refusal of the request.
Development Committee
10
Page 138
12 January 2012
In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the planning application for the new site
was very likely to be approved, without prejudice.
Councillor B Smith stated that he was sympathetic to the applicants. He considered
that it was difficult to secure alternative sites. He stated that the jobs of the 15
employees on the site had to be considered. He proposed that consideration of this
matter be deferred to a full report to the next meeting.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that further action should be delayed until
7 March.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there was a meeting
of the Committee scheduled for 8 March, by which time it would be known if the
Company had removed the HGVs from the site. He suggested that a report be
submitted to that meeting to update the Committee.
The Chairman seconded the proposal for a further report to be considered by the
Committee.
Councillor M J M Baker requested that in the event of the HGVs being moved from
the site, the local Member be requested to check that they were not illegally parked
elsewhere.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this matter be deferred for a full report to the
Committee on 9 February 2012.
(200) FAKENHAM - PF/11/1492 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings with cartsheds;
land rear of 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillors R Reynolds and Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the local Members, declared
a prejudicial interest in this application and left the meeting prior to the consideration
of this matter.
The Development Manager stated that there had a number of objections to this
application and the local Members lived very close to the site and as such had
declared a prejudicial interest. He recommended that the Committee visit this site
prior to a full report being considered.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the Town Mayor be invited to
attend.
The meeting closed at 1.15 pm.
Development Committee
11
Page 139
12 January 2012
Agenda Item______
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
DEEDS
Deed of Covenant relating to Land on the South East Side of Sadler’s Way, North Walsham
made between Orbit South Housing Association Limited (1) and
North Norfolk District Council (2)
(Douglas Bain)
AGREEMENT
Nominations Agreement relating to a Site at The Granary, Great Ryburgh, Norfolk between
North Norfolk District Council (1) and
Hastoe Housing Association Ltd (2)
(Douglas Bain)
Loan Agreement made between Claire Gotts and Michael Gill (1) and
North Norfolk District Council (2) for £1,150
(Lesley Winston)
Full Council
Page 140
22 February 2012