Please Contact: Mary Howard
Please email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516047
15 October 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 24 October 2012 at 6.00 p.m.
There will be an opportunity before the start of the meeting for Members to take part in
prayer led by Revd Canon Dr David Court, Vicar, Cromer Parish Church with St Martin’s.
Members are requested to bring their Cabinet Agenda (15 October 2012) for items 8
and 9.
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
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any
of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires
that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable
pecuniary interest.
3.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
4.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 26 September 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) To appoint Miss B Palmer to replace Mr R Oliver on the Audit Committee.
b) To appoint Mr R Oliver to replace Mr K Johnson on the Planning Policy and
Built Heritage Working Party
c) To appoint Miss B Palmer to replace Mr J Savory on the Norfolk Rivers
Internal Drainage Board.
d) To remove Mr K E Johnson and Mr T Ivory from the Victory Housing Trust
Board.
(Background document: letter from Chief Executive of Victory Housing Trust,
available on request from Mary Howard, Tel.01263 516047,
email.mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk)
8.
9.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 15 OCTOBER 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 23
OCTOBER 2012
ITEM 11: NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-2015 (SUPPORTING
VULNERABLE PEOPLE TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
Cabinet recommend the adoption of the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Supporting
Vulnerable People to live independently within the Community) to Full Council.
10.
RECOMMENDATION FROM DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 18 OCTOBER 2012
ITEM 11: WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS AND SCHEME OF DELEGATION.
To consider any recommendation on this item from the Development Committee 18
October 2012.
11.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REVIEW 2011 - 2012
(Enclosed in separate binding, covering report attached page13)
Summary:
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Review
2011 – 2012 summarises the work of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee in the previous municipal year.
Recommendations:
That Full Council receives the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee Annual Review 2011 – 2012.
Chair of Overview and
Scrutiny
Ward(s) affected
Mr E Seward
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mary Howard, Tel: 01263 516047,
Email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
12.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
(Page 15)
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Audit Committee – 18 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 24 July 2012
Cabinet 10 September 2012
Development Committee – 20 September 2012
13.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
14.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
(Page 15)
(Page 23)
(Page 31)
(Page 38)
None received
15.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received
16.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received
17.
SEALED DOCUMENTS
Recommendation:
(Page 50)
That the list of sealed documents is received by Members.
Contact: Emma Duncan 01263 516045
Email: emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
18.
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.”
19.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Circulation:
All Members of the Council.
Members of the Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public
Agenda Item
4
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 26 September 2012 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B J Hannah
Mr P W High
Mr T Ivory
Mr B Jarvis
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
49.
Mr K E Johnson
Mr G Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr S Ward
Mr P Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Financial
Services, the Monitoring Officer, the Democratic Services Team Leader
(MMH) and the Democratic Services Officer (ED)
The Public and Press
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The meeting was chaired by the Vice Chairman, Mr P W Moore. He invited the Chief
Executive to give an update on the Chairman’s health. The Chief Executive said that the
Chairman was due to be discharged from hospital and transferred to a nursing home. He
welcomed visitors.
The Vice Chairman told Members that the Tour of Britain event at Bewilderwood had been
excellent, as had the Chairman’s reception at Holkham Hall. He congratulated the Norfolk
Wherry Brass Band on their victory in the National Brass Band Championships of Great
Britain.
50.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr M Baker
63 (c)
Notices of Motion, The National
Trust
Other interest members of the
National Trust
Mrs L Brettle
Mr N Dixon
Mr B Hannah
1
Full Council
1
26 September 2012
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr K Johnson
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mr R Wright
Other interest –
volunteer for the
National Trust
Mrs A Sweeney
51.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr S A Arnold, Mr B Cabbell Manners, Ms V R
Gay, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R C Price, Mr J Punchard, Mr J D Savory, Mr N Smith, Mr G
Williams and Mr D Young.
52.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 25 July 2012 were approved as a correct
record.
53.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
54.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
55.
APPOINTMENTS
a) To appoint a Member to the Cabinet
The Leader announced that Mr R Oliver had been appointed to the Cabinet. He also
announced changes to the Cabinet structure as follows:
Leader: Mr K Johnson
Responsible for: Internal and External Affairs
Deputy Leader: Mr T FitzPatrick
Responsible for: Customer Services, Democratic Services, Electoral Services, ICT,
Business Enterprise and Economic Development
Portfolio Holder: Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Responsible for: Coastal, Health and Wellbeing
Portfolio Holder: Mr T Ivory
Responsible for: Localism and the Big Society, Legal Services, Strategic Housing
2
Full Council
2
26 September 2012
APPOINTMENTS
(Continued)
Portfolio Holder: Mr J Lee
Responsible for: Environmental services, Tourism, Leisure and Cultural Services,
Licensing.
Portfolio Holder: Mr W Northam
Responsible for: Financial Services, Revenues and Benefits
Portfolio Holder: Mr R Oliver
Responsible for: Planning, Corporate Assets
b) To appoint Mr R Reynolds to replace Mr S Ward on the Audit Committee
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr R Reynolds to the Audit Committee.
c) To appoint a Member to replace Mr G R Jones on the Council Tax Support Working
Party
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr D Young to the Council Tax Support Working Party.
d) To appoint Mr N Smith to replace Mrs H Eales on the Joint Staff Consultative
Committee.
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr N Smith to the Joint Staff Consultative Committee.
e) To appoint substitutes to the Big Society Board
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr R Reynolds and Mrs P Grove-Jones as substitutes on the Big Society
Board.
f) To appoint 2 Members to the North Lodge Park Steering Group
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr T Ivory and Mr J Lee to the North Lodge Park Steering Group.
Mr E Seward announced that the Liberal Democrat Group had appointed Ms V R Gay as
Leader, with Mrs A Moore and Mrs B McGoun as Deputy Leaders.
3
Full Council
3
26 September 2012
56.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
a) MINUTE 41: PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY 23 JULY
2012.
MINUTE 12, RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO3
RESOLVED
That in response to the NPPF, Council resolves to support the inclusion of elements of
market housing within rural exception schemes which otherwise comply with the provisions
of Policy HO3 subject to clear demonstration that the inclusion of market housing is
necessary to deliver affordable dwellings which otherwise would not be provided
MINUTE 19: RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO9 and EC2
RESOLVED
The Council resolves to support the following revised policy approach to the re-use of rural
buildings in response to the NPPF, subject to considering the introduction of an affordable
housing tariff in respect of the enhanced value arising from conversion to permanent
residential use and further consideration of the potential impacts arising from the loss of
existing tourism and other business uses:
i.
The economic re-use of rural buildings will be supported and full weight will
continue to be applied to Policy EC2.
ii.
In relation to the application of Policy H09 and residential conversion that
weight be attached to the NPPF with the affect that:
• Proposals for the reuse of disused or redundant buildings will be subject to
compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 but not criteria 1 which limits location.
• Proposals for the change of use/variation of occupancy of buildings in
holiday use to allow residential use will be subject to compliance with
criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and where applicable Policy EC8 but not criteria 1 in
relation to location.
• Proposals for the change of use of all other commercial buildings will be
subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a presumption that
those providing a significant number of jobs (three or more) should normally
be retained in employment uses.
b) MINUTE 42: DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH NORFOLK INTEGRATED APPROACH
TO COASTAL MANAGEMENT
The Portfolio Holder introduced this item. She said that the Council’s policy was to be proactive on coastal issues with the involvement of coastal communities. An excellent start
had been made by a Coastal Issues Forum held on 10 September, followed by a workshop
for the community including parish councils and representatives from Natural England, the
Environment Agency, National Trust and National Farmers’ Union.
4
Full Council
4
26 September 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
(Continued)
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny said that his Committee had considered the report on
25 September 2012 and supported the recommendations.
RESOLVED
1. That the integrated approach to coastal management, in particular the work schemes
set out in Table 1 of the report be endorsed.
2. That the remaining unallocated coastal Pathfinder budget (approximately £65,000
revenue) and receipts including the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant (£60,000 capital)
and any income from successful Pathfinder replacement housing are incorporated into a
new integrated coastal budget for the purpose of funding specific coastal projects and
resources in line with the integrated approach.
3. That the allocation of the integrated coastal budget is delegated to the Chief Executive
in consultation with the Coastal Portfolio Holder.
c) MINUTE 45: North Norfolk HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-15 (MAKING BEST USE OF
THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK)
The Leader, in introducing the report, urged Members to attend a workshop scheduled for
4 October 2012.
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny said that the Committee had unanimously agreed with
the recommendation but proposed an amendment that the Committee wished to make:
“and in addition the Overview and Scrutiny Committee looks forward to Cabinet’s
recommendation, at its November meeting, on financial incentives to bring empty homes
back into occupation.”
The reason for the amendment was that legislative changes had been brought in which
made it easier for empty homes to be brought back into use. The Leader explained that
NNDC was working on a countywide approach with other councils in Norfolk. Mr T Ivory
expressed concern that the proposal from Overview and Scrutiny was not an amendment,
but a suggestion for Cabinet to take into consideration. The substantive recommendation,
therefore, was voted on.
RESOLVED
That Council adopts the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Making Best Use of the existing
Housing Stock) document.
d) MINUTE 46 (b): PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN QUARTER 1 (Cabinet Agenda, 10 September 2012 page 77)
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny told Council that the Committee had considered the
report on 25 September 2012 and supported the recommendation.
RESOLVED
That two additional planning assistants be recruited on a temporary basis for a 12 month
period pending the outcome for the peer challenge, to be funded from a combination of the
HPDG earmarked reserve and the proposed national fee increase from October 2012.
5
Full Council
5
26 September 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
(Continued)
That additional support for planning enforcement, is progressed with the Borough Council
of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk.
Mr M J M Baker said that he did not support the recommendation, considering that there
were already enough staff if the workload was reorganised.
57.
58.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 18 SEPTEMBER 2012
2011/12 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
These items were taken together and introduced by the Chair of Audit.
The Audit Committee had received training prior to consideration of the Statement of
Accounts. The Committee had examined the accounts thoroughly and was satisfied that there
were no material adjustments, the level of movements and reserves was appropriate, the
Balance Sheet showed prudential treasury management and there was clarity regarding the
Council’s stewardship of its resources. The ISA 260 report from the external auditor suggested
that improvement was needed over some technical processes but there were no significant
issues. The impact of International Financial Reporting Standards had been less than on last
year.
The Chair of Audit commended the work of the Finance Team. The Audit Committee had
gained a good overview of the accounts and recommended their approval to Full Council.
The Portfolio Holder proposed approval, thanking the staff for their work. He was seconded by
Mr R Reynolds.
RESOLVED
To approve the 2011/12 Statement of Accounts.
59.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
to receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
60.
Standards Committee – 8 May 2012
Cabinet 11 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 26 June 2012
Cabinet 16 July 2012
Standards Committee 17 July 2012
Development Committee – 26 July 2012
Development Committee – 23 August 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
a)
Mr T FitzPatrick had attended the launch of the County’s apprenticeship Scheme. Mr M
J M Baker expressed concern that bureaucracy in the scheme discouraged prospective
employers. Mr FitzPatrick offered to put him in touch with County Councillor Ann
Steward who was running the scheme, so that he could discuss his concerns.
6
Full Council
6
26 September 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
b)
61.
(Continued)
Mr T Ivory informed Council that he, together with Mr K Johnson and Mr J Lee, had
attended a very productive meeting regarding North Lodge Park. The meeting had
been attended by representatives of Cromer Town Council and officers. There was a
real willingness to explore the formation of a trust.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
The following questions had been received from Mr N Lloyd and were answered by Mr J H A
Lee (responses in bold):
1.
What are the terms of reference for the business review of the North Walsham Dual
Use Sports Centre, what is the time scale for the conduct of the review, will the full
outcome be shared with members? What were the contractor selection criterion for
the consultants (it would be helpful to see their full scope of work), what is the
anticipated cost and was there a transparent competitive tendering process to ensure
value for money?
The Terms of Reference for the Consultant’s work in terms of developing a
financially sustainable business plan for the future running of the centre are as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Prepare a business plan covering the costs of operation, outlining
relevant scenarios
Consider the pros and cons of different operating models
Meet a cross-section of key players: school representatives, Council
officers, voluntary management committee and local members.
Visually assess potential options for small-scale capital investment to
optimise the revenue generation potential of the facility moving forward
Presentation of findings and recommendations
A hard copy of these has been provided for Councillor Lloyd.
The Consultants were appointed on 10th September and started work
immediately, to enable it’s discussion with the school representatives as soon
as practicable.
The Consultant’s report will be shared with all members in due course.
With regards to the consultant’s selection criteria, officers took advice from the
Regional Facilities Director at Sport England, who supplied a list of potential
consultants. These had already gone through procurement with Sport England
and have a proven track record in this area. On this basis, officers appointed
KKP consultants, who were the only one of the three who confirmed that they
could meet the timescale required.
The anticipated cost was around £5,000 and once the specification was agreed
this raised to £6,500.
2.
What is the envisaged process for NNDC to arrive at a decision on future funding of
the Sports centre along with the associated time scale?
The process and timescale very much depends on discussions with school
representatives regarding the operating models proposed by the consultant.
7
Full Council
7
26 September 2012
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
(Continued)
We will of course, keep local members fully informed as matters progress.
3.
At a meeting with the Centre Sports Committee on September 6th at which I attended
along with NNDC officers it was stated that it was not NNDC's intention for the Sports
centre to close. Instead NNDC were seeking to find a more workable solution. Does
this commitment still stand and does it include the acceptance in principle that for the
current level of sports provision to continue, that a level of public funding is required?
We are committed to finding a sustainable financial model for the centre to
remain open. This would build on the opportunity for a locally managed,
community based sports facility at minimal net costs to the Council.
4.
More generally what is the NNDC current revenue budget for supporting leisure
activities and sport in North Walsham, Cromer, Sheringham, Fakenham and Stalham.
North Walsham
DU Sports Centre = £117k
Victory S&FC = £240k
Bacton Woods = £3k
Sub Total = £360k
Cromer
Pavilion Theatre= £112k
Pier Fabric R&M = £29k
North Lodge Park – £76
DU Sports Centre = £95k
Sub Total = £312k
Sheringham
Splash = £346k
Sheringham Little Theatre = £59k
Sub Total = £405k
Fakenham
Sports & Fitness Centre = £123k
Sub Total = £123k
Stalham
DU Sports Centre = £123k
Sub Total = £123k
Holt
Country Park = £156k
Sub Total = £156k
Total = £1,479,000
5.
The North Norfolk Sports and Leisure Strategy 2010 - 2015 has not been withdrawn,
reviewed or replaced. The proposal for NNDC to cut all funding for the NWDUSC in 2
year’s time is a major deviation from the terms set out in this document. What is the
future strategy for Sport and Leisure proposed by NNDC for North Norfolk?
8
Full Council
8
26 September 2012
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
(Continued)
The Sports and Active Leisure Strategy was approved by Cabinet in November
2010.
The strategy accepted the financial difficulties in continuing to provide the
same level of Council subsidy across its sports facilities in the future.
We are considering the opportunities presented by a more local, community
based management model which we believe will allow the North Walsham Dual
Use Sports Centre to remain open. This also accords with the objectives in the
Strategy.
With regards to the wider strategy for the future provision of sport and active
leisure, we believe that our ongoing work with local sports clubs, governing
bodies and Active Norfolk, will continue to ensure that a good level of provision
is maintained and enabled by the Council.
6.
You may have heard that Lord Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic
Committee, is petitioning the Government to look at legislating to force councils to
protect their sports facilities and to change the status of sports provision from
'discretionary' to a "statutory requirement." Does the administration feel their proposal
to cut funding for sport in North Norfolk is appropriate bearing in mind the huge public
support for sport at this particular time?
We feel that it is absolutely appropriate to balance the leisure needs of our
residents against the available budget. As part of this, we have to look at
alternative, locally based management models. If this enables all of our
facilities to remain open, we would see it as a very positive outcome.
In thanking Mr Lee, Mr Lloyd expressed disappointment that there had been delay in getting
the answers. He expressed concern that the project was being progressed too hastily and
asked if savings could not be realised by other means.
Mr G Jones asked to speak. The Vice Chairman explained that the Council’s Constitution did
not allow for debate on this item. However local Members would be consulted on the project.
The Chief Executive said that the business plan wasn’t complete yet. When Cabinet had seen
it there would be a meeting for local Members and Members for surrounding parishes. Mr
Jones would be included.
62.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
63.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
a)
Localisation of Council Tax
Proposed by Mr R Oliver and seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds:
“To call on Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson to achieve variation on the localisation of council
tax policy implemented by the government finance bill in order to lessen its adverse effects on
the people of North Norfolk.
It is our belief that the policy of localisation of Council Tax and the subsequent cut in funding
for Council Tax benefits in this district is unfair. North Norfolk has a high ratio of pensioners to
working age receivers of benefits. We welcome the decision of the Government to protect the
relief on Council Tax benefits which pensioners on low income receive. As a result, for the
working age receiver of Council Tax benefits in this district there will be a disproportionately
9
Full Council
9
26 September 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
large cut in the support they presently receive. This means that those people of working age in
this district will be worse off than similarly affected people in other districts with smaller
pensioner populations. As our representatives in Parliament, Norman Lamb and Keith
Simpson represent the only way that this district can request reform of this policy. As a
minister in this government this council believes that Norman Lamb will be able to drive
changes in this policy. We therefore request that Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson do
everything in their power to achieve a fairer outcome for this council and the people of North
Norfolk by highlighting these problems and achieving the implementation of appropriate
changes at a national level.”
The motion was debated:
a)
Mr R Oliver said that the policy was unfair to claimants of working age. He urged for
cross party support of the motion.
Mr E Seward said that the Liberal Democrat Group shared Mr Oliver’s concerns but he
believed that Norman Lamb MP had already written to Eric Pickles, on 14 September
2012.
Mr M J M Baker did not accept the need for government cuts to benefits, believing that
spending on overseas aid should be reviewed.
The policy did not hit working people equally across the country. There was greater
impact in North Norfolk. The Chief Executive agreed with Mr R Wright that there was
approximately 14% variance from the national figure.
A political discussion followed. Mr T FitzPatrick expressed concern at this discussion
and reminded Members that the motion asked for action from both MPs who
represented the District.
b)
c)
d)
e)
RESOLVED
To support the motion.
b)
Localisation of Council Tax
Proposed by Mr G Jones and seconded by Mrs L Walker:
The Chief Executive informed Members of an amendment to the motion which had been
agreed with the proposer. The last sentence “in return for the District Council agreeing to
reduce second home discounts to 05%.which would produce some £1/2million for the county”
had been removed because Members could not be asked to make a determination on the
Council Tax in advance of the Head of Financial Service’s report in December. The motion
now read as follows:
North Norfolk District Council is concerned about the impact of the council tax legislation on
the economy of North Norfolk and on the lives of more than 4,000 of its poorest residents. In
particular, it recognises that the last Labour government left the economy in a financial
meltdown and applauds the action of the coalition government in trying to recover from this
position.
However the District Council takes the view that this legislation is neither proportionate nor fair
for two reasons:
1. It hits at the poorest members of the community whether or not they have the ability to
pay.
2. It impacts particularly on the rural community where costs are already very high in such
matters as transport.
10
Full Council
10
26 September 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
3. It does not take into account the position of North Norfolk, in demographic terms, with
over 62% of the benefit recipients of pensionable age and excluded from cuts.
The District Council notes:
•
That about £1.175 million pounds will be lost to the local economy each year and this
will impact on local trades and businesses and will consequently have a negative effect
on employment.
•
2,441 residents who receive council tax benefit will lose £30 or more a month. These
are the poorest members of the community and they will not be able to find this money.
It is likely that the collection rate will fall sharply and important services will be
drastically cut as a result.
•
Such drastic cuts to the poorest, at such short notice, could possibly lead to a
breakdown of social cohesion.
•
The impact on families with children could adversely affect the lives of children.
•
There are implications of up to an estimated £28,000 for the major precepting
authorities in respect of parish and town councils.
The District Council urges the relevant Ministers - Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government, Eric Pickles and Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, Ian Duncan
Smith to urgently review the impact of this legislation - in particular we ask them to review its
impact on largely rural authorities with the demography of North Norfolk. The District Council
urges the two Ministers to postpone the implementation of this legislation for twelve months
and to include any proposals in the Universal Credit legislation.
The District Council further urges MPs Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson to advocate on
behalf of the District Council in this matter.
Finally the District Council urges the County Council to join it in advancing the proposals set
out above and to agree short term measures from its extensive resources to mitigate against
the impact of this legislation, for one year,
In introducing the motion, Mr Jones said that the policy would affect the poorest people,
particularly in rural areas. He said there were already difficulties being experienced with the
Benefits system which needed to be addressed.
A political discussion followed. Mr T FitzPatrick and Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at
this discussion. They believed that Members should be considering what was best for people
in North Norfolk, especially the most vulnerable.
A vote was taken and the motion was not supported.
c)
The National Trust
Proposed by Mrs L Brettle and seconded by Mrs A Sweeney:
The Council is asked to endorse the sensible and constructive attitude taken by the National
Trust over Marine Conservation Zones. Whilst supporting the general good purpose of the
zones, the National Trust has clearly defined its objections to the Blakeney Reserve - lack of
consultation and scientific rigour. We at NNDC can envisage the results lack of access could
entail - problems for tourism, local businesses, fishing, birdwatching, etc., but the National
Trust offers an alternative site and any help or advice they can give. This motion asks that
11
Full Council
11
26 September 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
NNDC supports the National Trust in their response to the Government's proposals for Marine
Conservation Zones.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett explained that the Marine Conservation Zone would affect an area from
Stiffkey to Kelling and would have the greatest impact between Blakeney and Morston.
RESOLVED
To support the motion.
d)
The Ambulance Service – proposed by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Mrs A
Green
We welcome the recent announcement that the East of England Ambulance service is to
increase the level of rapid response resources in the North Norfolk area after concerns were
issued in both Cromer and North Walsham over ambulance provision in these towns.
However, there remains concern over whether there will cuts in Fakenham’s rapid response
service and as to how the performance figures for emergency 999 calls are improved in the
North Norfolk area. Therefore, to this end, I would like to call on this District Council to request
an audience with a responsible member of the East of England Ambulance Service, or
relevant Health Authority, and give a full and complete report on this matter, as soon as
reasonably possible, to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to which Council members
could be invited to attend.
The Chief Executive had been in contact with the East of England Ambulance Trust. They had
given assurance that they would send a representative to Overview and Scrutiny on 23
October, or to a special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Chair of
Overview and Scrutiny said that all Members could attend meetings of the Committee and
were welcome to ask questions.
Concern was expressed by Members that targets intended for urban areas and impractical
deployment of vehicles were preventing good response rates in North Norfolk. It was proposed
by Mr M J M Baker, seconded by Mr E Seward and
RESOLVED
To add to the motion “The Council should write to the East of England Ambulance Trust
expressing disappointment at the way the District is being treated.”
RESOLVED
to support the amended motion.
48.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
The meeting concluded at 7.30pm
____
Chairman
12
Full Council
12
26 September 2012
Full Council
24 October 2012
Agenda Item No____11________
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REVIEW 2011 - 2012
Summary:
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Review
2011 – 2012 summarises the work of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee in the previous municipal year.
Recommendations:
That Full Council receives the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee Annual Review 2011 – 2012.
Chair of Overview and
Scrutiny
Ward(s) affected
Mr E Seward
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mary Howard, Tel: 01263 516047,
Email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background
The terms of reference of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee include, at
item 6, “To produce an annual report to Council on the work of the Committee
over the year.” The 2011 – 2012 review has been produced in consultation
with the Committee and includes an introduction by the Chairman. It was
resolved to present the review to Full Council at the meeting of the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee of 25 September 2012.
1.2
Aims
The review aims to give an account of the Committee’s activities during the
municipal year 2011 – 2012 as well as providing an overview of the purposes,
legislative background and processes of Scrutiny.
2.
Contents
The review demonstrates that the Committee has tackled topics which reflect
the concerns of the public and the objectives of the Corporate Plan. The
Committee has also carried out a joint scrutiny review with Broadland District
Council. The report also suggests some of the challenges which the
Committee might face in the forthcoming year. An Overview and Scrutiny
Task and Finish Group has been exploring improved ways of working and is
due to report its findings to the Committee in late autumn 2012.
4.
Implications and Risks
Effective scrutiny is essential to ensure that the Cabinet is held to account
and is carrying out the Council’s aims as well as getting the best value for
money as a result of its decisions
13
Full Council
5.
24 October 2012
Financial Implications and Risks
Scrutiny of the budget and contract procurement provides critical friend
challenge to ensure that there is value for money, that the budget is on target
and that expenditure reflects the aims of the Corporate Plan.
6.
Sustainability
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considers sustainability in the topics it
reviews.
7.
Equality and Diversity
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee, in setting its Work Programme and
carrying out reviews considers the needs and aspirations of all residents of
North Norfolk.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considers Section 17 Crime and
Disorder issues when this is relevant to a specific review. Overall
responsibility for scrutiny of crime and disorder now sits with Norfolk County
Council.
14
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 18 June 2012 in the Committee
Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N D Dixon (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr B Jarvis
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Financial Services Manager, the Head of Internal Audit, the Civil
Contingencies Manager (for minute 14) the Policy & Performance
Management Officer and the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH).
1
APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Mrs A Moore, Mr R Oliver, Mr S Ward and the Interim
Monitoring Officer.
2
SUBSTITUTES
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds was substitute for Mr R Oliver.
3
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
4
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
5
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
6
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 6 March 2012 were
approved as a correct record.
7
AUDIT UPDATE AND ACTION LIST
Audit Committee
15
18 June 2012
Members were updated on progress on actions arising from the minutes of the meeting
of 6 March 2012.
a) All items on the Action List had been completed or were on the Agenda for the
meeting of 18 June 2012.
b) The Democratic Services Team Leader was tasked with identifying a date for a halfday session of training in preparation for the report on the Final Accounts.
8
THE FUTURE PROVISION OF EXTERNAL AUDIT
Since the demise of the Audit Commission was announced by the Coalition Government
in August 2010 there had been a great deal of work carried out by both the Audit
Commission and the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure a
smooth transition. The work was now coming to a conclusion and the Council had
recently received notification of a consultation on the appointment of its External Auditors
from September 2012. A recent letter from the Audit Commission indicated that
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC) would be reappointed as External Auditors to the
Council.
The Council was happy with this arrangement and Members of the Audit Committee
agreed that it made sense to build on the good relationship that had been formed with
PWC.
In 2011 the Committee had challenged PWC on the level of fees. The response had
been that there was no scope for reduction. However, there was no reason why the
Committee could not return to this topic and it would be added to the Action List.
RESOLVED
to note the contents of the report.
9
REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNAL AUDIT 2011/12
The report set out the results of an annual review of the effectiveness of Internal Audit,
undertaken to satisfy criteria in the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2011. Internal
Audit’s performance and quality assurance framework had been examined to enable the
Audit Committee to confirm whether Internal Audit Services were effective, and that the
assurances provided in the Internal Audit Annual Report and Opinion could be relied
upon, and used to inform the Council’s Annual Governance Statement for 2011/12.
The Head of Internal Audit had a performance and quality assurance framework in place
to demonstrate the effectiveness of Internal Audit. The criteria were:
a) Delivering the Aims and Objectives of Internal Audit.
b) Complying with CIPFA’s Code of Practice for Internal Audit in Local Government.
c) Complying with CIPFA’s Statement on the Role of the Head of Internal Audit in Local
Government.
d) Quality Standards applying to the Internal Audit Service.
e) Strengthening the Council’s Systems of Internal Control.
f) Improving Service Delivery and Adding Value.
REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNAL AUDIT 2011/12
Audit Committee
16
18 June 2012
(Continued)
g) External Audit’s Reliance on Internal Audit’s Work.
h) Supporting an Effective Audit Committee.
The outcomes of the Effectiveness Review were presented in the report, confirming that
Internal Audit was meeting all the criteria. Reliance could therefore be placed on the
opinions expressed by the Head of Internal Audit, which could then be used to inform the
Council’s Annual Governance Statement.
The Head of Internal Audit alerted the Committee to some inconsistencies in the
Constitution regarding Rights of Access to records, assets, personnel and premises.
Although these rights of access had been correctly observed when the auditors were
carrying out their work at the authority, they were not documented in the latest version of
the Council’s Financial Regulations. This would be notified to the Constitution Working
Party.
The report was discussed:
a) In relation to the Assurance Framework and Counter-Fraud activities: it was agreed
that Internal Audit develop a greater understanding of provisions in these areas in
2012/13.
b) There had been significant improvement in Internal Audit’s quality standards during
2011/12.
c) 100% of high priority recommendations had been implemented by the Council for 2
successive years. This was a good achievement with NNDC being only one of two
Councils in the Consortium to have achieved this level of performance.
d) 75% of the opinions given to individual audit assignments had been positive, i.e. had
received Good or Adequate assurances. It had also been noted that 3 areas had
been awarded Good assurance with working practices found to mirror best practice.
e) Wherever possible External Audit had sought to place reliance on the work of Internal
Audit. This, in turn, helped to reduce the amount of work that the former were then
required to do and enabled their fees to be kept to a minimum.
f) Supporting an Effective Audit Committee: the self assessment had shown 83.3%
compliance against criteria reviewed.
g) Remaining with the subject of an effective Audit Committee, there was next some
debate over key issues highlighted as requiring further enhancement by the self
assessment. It was noted that foundation training for Members of the Audit
Committee had taken place on 18 June 2012 and the Head of Financial Services
would be providing further training before the receipt of the Financial Statements.
h) It was further acknowledged that the Chair of Audit had met in private with the Head
of Internal Audit and the External Audit Manager on 13 February 2012.
i) Increased clarity regarding counter-fraud measures adopted by the authority: the
Head of Internal Audit gave examples of the type of counter-fraud activities that
should be supported by the Council and suggested that there was a need for Internal
Audit to link up with the officer responsible for these matters, to confirm that a proactive stance was being adopted. Members were accepting of this proposal and
sought to receive a summary report examining what steps were being taken to raise
officer/Member awareness. That said, until the senior management restructure was
complete, it would be difficult to progress this requirement as the officer responsible
for Counter Fraud and Whistleblowing at the Council had yet to be named.
REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNAL AUDIT 2011/12
Audit Committee
17
18 June 2012
(Continued)
j)
Members also discussed the requirement for further work to be done on developing a
mechanism for use by the Committee to assess the performance of External Audit.
RESOLVED
to note the findings of the review, and the evidence gathered in support of the
effectiveness of the Internal Audit Service, and take these into consideration when
receiving the Head of Internal Audit’s Annual Report and Opinion, and the Council’s
Annual Governance Statement
10 HEAD OF INTERNAL AUDIT’S ANNUAL REPORT AND OPINION FOR 2011/12
This report had been developed to satisfy the requirements of the Accounts and Audit
Regulations 2011 ‘to undertake an adequate and effective internal audit of its accounting
records and of its system of internal control in accordance with the proper practices in
relation to internal control,” and to meet the Head of Internal Audit’s annual reporting
obligations as set out in the CIPFA Code of Practice for Internal Audit in Local
Government. To confirm that the organisation had complied with the above, the Head of
Internal Audit had produced an Annual Report and Opinion, which examined and utilised
the outcomes of Internal Audit work undertaken in 2011/12 to formulate an opinion on
the overall internal control environment which had been operating at the Council over the
last twelve months.
On the basis of Internal Audit work performed during 2011/12, the Head of Internal Audit
was able to confirm that overall standards of internal control at the Council were
adequate and so too were Corporate Governance arrangements and systems of Risk
Management.
The report was discussed:
a) 3 Good assurances had been awarded to Affordable Housing, Coastal Change and
Pathfinder Management and Electoral Registration.
b) There had been a very slight deterioration in the assurances awarded since the
previous year.
c) One high priority recommendation had been due to be implemented in 2011/12 and
this had been appropriately actioned. The recommendation had related to Waste
Management and, more specifically, Garden Waste and Bulky Waste.
d) Separate reports on progress achieved in relation to the implementation of audit
recommendations were provided by Internal Audit in line with half yearly cyclical
Committee reporting requirements.
e) Only one extra day had been delivered against the days originally planned.
f) Concern was expressed that 50.6 % of recommendations due to be completed in the
course of 2011/12 had yet to receive any action.
g) A Member asked if NNDC should be aiming for higher than Adequate assurances.
The Head of Internal Audit explained that Good was indicative of best practice but
the authority should primarily be aspiring to satisfactory/adequate levels of
assurance. To seek to achieve best practice in all areas of operations would not
necessarily be the best use of resources for the authority. The Head of Financial
Services also endorsed this view.
HEAD OF INTERNAL AUDIT’S ANNUAL REPORT AND OPINION FOR 2011/12
Audit Committee
18
18 June 2012
(Continued)
RESOLVED to
1) Receive and note the Annual Report of the Head of Internal Audit;
2) Note the overall standards of internal control at the Council were adequate for the
year ended 31 March 2012.
3) Note that an adequate assurance has been given in respect of Corporate
Governance arrangements and systems of Risk Management for the year ended 31
March 2012.
4) Note that the opinions expressed have been given due consideration when
developing the Council’s Annual Governance Statement.
11 THE STATUS OF AGREED AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS DUE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION BY 31 MARCH 2012
The report updated Members on progress made in implementing the agreed audit
recommendations due for completion by 31 March 2012. It provided an overview as to
how recommendations had progressed since the previous report was presented to
Committee on 6 December 2011, and also drew attention to the efforts made by
management throughout 2011/12 to ensure that ongoing improvements to the internal
control environment were taking place.
The report was discussed:
a) There had been deterioration in the number of recommendations implemented. The
Interim Accountancy Manager had done some additional follow-up work in Quarter 1
of 2012/13 and there was some discussion that Members should be provided with an
update in consequence. The other important item arising from this report was the fact
that the high priority recommendation requiring action in 201112 had been
appropriately resolved.
b) Attention was next given to outstanding audit recommendations in relation to 3
specific audits and reference was additionally made to outstanding agreed actions
pertaining to computer audits. The audits were:
• NN/11/01 Environmental Services
• NN/11/12 Development and Building Control
• NN/12/03 Waste Management Contract
• Computer Audit
In the case of the Computer Audits four separate reviews were involved. The relevant
managers would be asked to provide an update by email, to be provided to the
Committee within the next 2 or 3 weeks. The outcomes would be reported to the
Performance and Risk Management Board. It was possible that some of these
recommendations had now been cleared following the Interim Accountancy
Manager’s push for further updates from management regarding the status of their
agreed audit recommendations.
RESOLVED
to note the current position regarding the overall status of audit recommendations as at
31 March 2012, and the areas where further work is required.
12 MONITORING OFFICER ANNUAL REPORT 2011/12
Audit Committee
19
18 June 2012
Members were advised that any specific questions would be relayed to the Interim
Monitoring Officer.
The report was discussed:
a) It would be helpful to know how many Code of Conduct complaints there had been,
and the outcomes. It was understood that the Standards Committee had a matrix
which recorded this information.
b) Training on the new Code of Conduct had not yet been provided. This issue would be
taken up with the interim Monitoring Officer.
c) The Constitution had recently been revised. Copies of the latest version would be
provided for Members.
RESOLVED
to note the report.
13 LOCAL CODE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND ANNUAL GOVERNANCE
STATEMENT 2011/12
The Corporate Governance framework was made up of the systems and processes,
culture and values by which an organisation was directed and controlled. For local
authorities this included how a council related to the community it served. The Local
Code of Corporate Governance was a public statement of the ways in which the Council
would achieve good corporate governance. It was based around six principles which
were identified in the joint publication by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy (CIPFA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).
The Annual Governance Statement was prepared following a review of all the evidences
available to the Council in seeking compliance with its Local Code.
The arrangements set out in the Local Code of Corporate Governance and the Annual
Governance Statement would allow the Council to move ahead with its corporate
planning processes confident that it could address the issues of governance and risk.
The report was discussed:
a) The Limited assurances in the Head of Internal Audit’s report had influenced the
Action Plan.
b) Complaints should not be included because they went to the Standards Committee.
However, information should be added about how often the Standards Committee
met.
c) 4.3.5, page 74: the final sentence should refer to South Norfolk, not Deloitte.
d) Icelandic banks, 5.2.14: this section should be re-worded to reflect that the Council
reviewed the international monetary situation on a daily basis.
e) The Chairman asked for more detail in the report in future.
RESOLVED
to approve, subject to amendments, the Annual Governance Statement along with the
updated Local Code of Corporate Governance and associated action plan.
14 BUSINESS CONTINUITY
Audit Committee
20
18 June 2012
Limited progress had been made on the completion of Team Business Continuity Plans
but 10 had now been received. 85 – 90% of the Civil Contingencies Manager’s time was
being taken up in putting arrangements in place for the Olympic Torch. Initially the extent
to which local authorities would be involved in these arrangements had not been
perceived. The impact was on officer time, rather than financial.
The senior management restructure had also disrupted the work on Team Business
Continuity Plans but it was still hoped to complete the work by August.
The Corporate Business Continuity Plan would be reported to the Audit Committee in
September. The Corporate Business Continuity Plan and the Team Plans ran in
conjunction. The Audit Committee would continue to monitor until the project was
completed.
RESOLVED
To receive an update at the September meeting.
15 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK INCLUDING PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13
The Framework had been reported to Cabinet and Full Council in May 2012. The
Committee had seen the whole document in draft stages. It would be subject to a
forthcoming audit to ensure that it wouldn’t need further revision. The targets would be
assigned to individual officers.
An annual Performance report was published with a forward by the leader. This was in
the public domain. The final draft would be reviewed by the Performance and Risk
Management Board on 13 July 2012, after which the Leader and Chief Executive would
approve it for publication via the website and press releases. In response to a Member’s
question the Policy & Performance Management Officer said that, although the Annual
Report had been published in Outlook before, it was dependent on the amount of space
available and the other information which needed to be included.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
16 UPDATE ON REVIEW OF TEN SYSTEM
Enhancements to the system were being designed which would provide significant
improvements in managing performance. The decision to move forward would not be
taken until the findings of the audit report were known. The auditors would be asked to
review the work which had been done. The audit was due for completion in mid July and
a report made back to the Audit Committee in September. It was hoped to have the
enhanced system in place by the end of September.
A demonstration for Members of the TEN System would take place following the
meeting.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
17 CORPORATE RISK REGISTER
Audit Committee
21
18 June 2012
The Risk Register had been to the Performance and Risk Management Board in March
and would go again on 13 July 2012. The report was discussed:
a) Some of the figures were set by the Performance and Risk Management Board in an
independent assessment which was also seen by the Audit Committee.
b) The Risk Management Framework included criteria for assessing risks.
18 AUDIT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
a) A further review on Business Continuity was added to the Work Programme for
September.
b) In the past an Audit Committee Annual Report had been prepared but Members had
queried if this was necessary, especially with a reducing resource base. It would be
more appropriate for the Chairman to provide an annual summary to Full Council
when he introduced the Annual Governance Statement.
RESOLVED
that the Chair of Audit should provide an annual summary to Full Council on 25 July
2012.
The meeting ended at 4.10 pm.
______________________
Chairman
Audit Committee
22
18 June 2012
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 24 July 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Revenues and Benefits
Services Manager, the Environmental Protection Team Leader and the
Scrutiny Officer.
Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P W High, Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam, Ms B
Palmer, Mr R Shepherd and Mr D Young.
Mr James Bacon, Norfolk Credit Union
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
37 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Jarvis, Mr J Lee (Portfolio Holder), Mr J Perry-Warnes and Mr R Reynolds.
38 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Shepherd for Mr R Reynolds.
39 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
40 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 26 June
2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
41 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23
24 July 2012
42 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
Item
Interest
Review of Environmental
Services Contract
Personal and nonpecuniary: had put out
a bag of textile
recycling which was
not collected.
No.
Mr E Seward
47
43 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
44 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
45 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be received at Full
Council on 25 July 2012.
To date there had been no response from Cabinet regarding the provision of a
temporary extra resource in Planning Enforcement. The Scrutiny Officer would follow up
on this, as well as a report on the Splash.
46 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
No comments were made.
47 SIX MONTHLY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT
a) The Corporate Director explained that Barry Brandford was employed by King’s Lynn
and West Norfolk Borough Council but was also contracted to NNDC in an
Environmental Services Management role. This arrangement was working quite well
but Mr Brandford was also lead technical officer for the MRF (Materials Recycling
Facility) and was not able to make as much direct input into the team than if it was a
5-day per week arrangement.
b) The Contract with Kier had been in place for 15/16 months. Performance was as
expected from a new contract and a new contractor. Kier had made some significant
changes to the waste collection round, for example, changing the day of collection.
Customer satisfaction had been maintained at a reasonable level. Overall, where
there had been problems, Kier had resourced a solution.
c) There had been some problems with Kier’s IT systems and interface with NNDC.
This had not affected service provision which had been largely without problems.
d) Over 60,000 collections were made per week. The industry norm for missed
collections was 35 missed collections per 100,000. Officers had set the target of 15.
At its peak, during October/November, there were 214/279 missed collections per
100,000 due to round changes. NNDC had made every effort to communicate the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
24
24 July 2012
SIX MONTHLY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT (Continued)
changes but it was clear that some customers did not read the information given to
them. Missed collections were now down to 40-50 per 100,000. A robust
improvement plan had been put together and there was a commitment on the part of
the contractor to get things right.
e) Mr P Moore noted that there now seemed to be more people sweeping paths in North
Walsham and he had noticed a big improvement. He asked whether this was part of
the new contract. The Corporate Director said that this was so – the contract had
moved to an output specification which meant that sweeping took place as often as
was needed. Mr Moore congratulated Kier on their performance in this area.
f) Mr P Terrington said that in respect of the output specification, whilst cleansing was
carried out brilliantly in Wells, he had some concerns over whether this was effective
in villages. The Corporate Director replied that some additional input may be
required in villages, but all villages would be swept at times. Villages had a lot of
detritus (wash-off from fields) which blocked drains. This did not tend to be a priority
because it was in a rural area, but more priority was given to litter. Where there was
a considerable amount of detritus, Parish Councils could contact Environmental
Services or Kier and this would be addressed.
g) In response to a question from Mr P Terrington over whether kerbside textile
collections would be going ahead, the Corporate Director said that the textile
collection had been a trial. It had been impacted by higher textile prices which had
led to the theft of textile bags, and by other organisations making similar collections.
The cost of collecting 20,000 tonnes of textiles outweighed the recycling credits
which the Council could get and it was better to let another charity benefit. A number
of options were being considered.
h) The Corporate Director clarified to Mr R Shepherd that the number of collections
included garden waste and the number of missed collections equated to the number
of customer complaints received. This included customer error.
i) The Chairman asked how this tied in with Customer Services complaints. The
Corporate Director said that some complaints were directed at Kier. Others came via
Customer Services who would try to resolve them or refer the customer to Kier. Kier
fed complaints into their database which the Council could access.
j) Ms V Gay expressed concern regarding future change to Bring Sites as many
people were used to visiting certain sites. The Corporate Director explained that
changes to the sites were dependent on the dry recyclables contract for the MRF
unit. Technology had progressed since the MRF began. Plastics technology had
moved on and most places could now take a wider range of plastics. Cardboard and
glass could also be taken. The tonnage of glass was down already and there was
the question of what to do with glass banks – there could be a potential saving here.
k) In response to a question from Ms V R Gay regarding fuel usage, the Corporate
Director said that Kier had initially had to hire extra vehicles because some of the
vehicles they had procured were not suitable for North Norfolk. This had now been
resolved and the number of vehicles was back down to 13 instead of 15 and less fuel
was being used with a further drop expected.
l) Third Party Monitoring for Cleanliness did not add value to the contract and would be
discontinued at a saving of £15,000.
m) Mrs P Grove-Jones asked why it was necessary to pay for a garden waste collection
when it was turned into compost and sold. She considered that garden waste
collection customers should be given a bag of compost. The Corporate Director
advised that free bags of compost were available at the Green Build event which
would be advertised. The reason for charging for garden waste collection was that
some people did not have gardens and they should not subsidise it. Alternatively,
garden waste could be composted at home or taken to a County Council collection
centre.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
25
24 July 2012
SIX MONTHLY REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT (Continued)
n) Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to fuel shortages earlier in the year and considered that
there should be a reserve tank nearby. The Corporate Director said that this matter
had previously been raised at a meeting of Full Council. Kier did not hold reserves of
fuel, but in the procurement process had stated that they would rely on an
emergency fuel plan but this did not come into effect until the Government
announced it. It had therefore been decided to suspend the waste collection service.
Kier had been asked to ensure that resilience was provided in future and were trying
to address this problem.
o) Mrs A Moore said that when verges on the A149 in North Walsham were cut, this
resulted in litter being pulled out. She asked whether Norfolk County Council advised
NNDC when they carried out cutting. The Corporate Director advised that cutting
was carried out by local farmer contractors and that this could be unpredictable. As
soon as the Council was made aware, they could arrange for litter pickers to tidy up.
p) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked how quickly missed waste collections were picked
up. The Corporate Director said that there were different reasons for missed
collections, including changes of round or vehicle breakdown. It was important that
customers reported a missed collection within a day. Sometimes it was possible to
resolve the matter on the same day. Otherwise it would be the next working day.
q) Mr R Smith noted that street cleansing was very good in Sheringham but was
concerned at litter accumulating on the promenade. An organised litter pick of the
promenade took place every month and last month the litter on the foreshore had
been significant. He asked whether Kier cleaned the beach. The Corporate Director
responded that he was not sure whether Kier cleaned the beach apart from the Blue
Flag area. The accumulation of debris could be washed up by the tide. The
Chairman asked that the Corporate Director look into this and report back to Mr
Smith.
r) The Corporate Director explained to Mr R Smith that the IT systems interface had
three main problems; interface between the Council and Kier; in-cab technology and
the communications technology behind that – which was being installed and; getting
the routing right – the most efficient routes did not take account of, for example,
roads which were too narrow for vehicles. In response to a question about the
volume of calls to Kier, and how they were fed into the Customer Services system,
the Corporate Director said he would look into this and provide information to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee via email.
s) A response from the Head of Environmental Services to a question from the
Committee on response to fly-tipping had been included in Overview and Scrutiny
Update. The Corporate Director responded to Mr B Smith that worsening
performance was partly due to it not being reported quickly, the interface issue and
the way in which the street cleansing crews were run.
t) The Corporate Director replied to Mr B Smith that tetrapaks could not be included in
the recycling bin because the materials they were made of contaminated the
cardboard stream. Hopefully, tetrapaks could be included in the dry recyclables
contract. Should the Council decide to include glass in its contract, it would be
collected in the recycling bin. The manual handling implication for handling glass,
however, was the weight. There were other ways of collecting glass. Empty paint
cans and those containing a small amount of paint could be disposed of in the
domestic rubbish bin. Paint cans with lids on must not be placed in the bin. The
Corporate Director would take Members’ questions regarding paint back to the
Environmental Services team for more clarification.
u) Mr P W Moore requested that an update on fly-tipping be included in the additional
information which the Corporate Director was providing for Members.
v) The Corporate Director replied to the Chairman that the continuation of textile
collections would be a decision for the Portfolio Holder and managers.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26
24 July 2012
RESOLVED
To note the report and to receive further information by email on the various items
raised.
48 REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE POLICIES AND AUTHORISATIONS
a) Copies of a Member brief on Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act were distributed.
This is attached at Minutes Appendix A.
b) The Corporate Director said the legislation was designed to protect people’s privacy
and had only been used 5 times last year. Dog fouling was now excluded from this
as the legislation now only included covert surveillance. Some legislative changes
were expected later this year and their implementation would be incremental but
would be reported to Members. The Chairman asked to be kept informed.
c) It was proposed by Ms V Gay and seconded by Mr P Moore that this be reported
back to the Committee.
d) It was noted that one of the authorisations listed was a technical breach of the
legislation, but management of it was being reviewed.
e) The Corporate Director explained to Mr P Moore that some of the cameras used for
surveillance were movement activated.
RESOLVED
a) That Members note the report of authorisations made in the past year and note and
accept the delay to changes made to the policy in light of the on-going management
restructuring.
b) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is kept informed of progress and once the
policy is in draft form, it be brought to the Committee for pre-scrutiny.
49 NORFOLK CREDIT UNION PRESENTATION
Mr James Bacon made a PowerPoint presentation to Members on Norfolk Credit Union.
The slides could be made available to Members on request.
a) The Chairman suggested that the Council’s Outlook magazine could advertise the
service provided by Norfolk Credit Union.
b) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked what training was given to volunteers. James
Bacon said that volunteers received a 3-hour training session and were supervised
for the first few weeks. He himself had a background in banking and a management
degree.
c) Mrs P Grove-Jones pointed out that the Credit Union was in direct competition with
loan sharks. She recalled national savings stamps which used to be sold to children
to encourage them to save. Stalham Town Council were interested in corporate
membership of the Credit Union and asked that it be drawn to people’s attention.
James Bacon responded that he was willing to come and talk to groups.
d) James Bacon explained to Mr D Young that whilst people could save with Norfolk
Credit Union, it was not an instant access account and notice would be required for
any withdrawals. A current account could also be opened. Broadland and Breckland
District Councils were working with the Union and South Norfolk Council was
intending to work with them.
e) Mr P Moore asked what type of security vetting was in place for volunteers. James
Bacon said that depended upon the environment you were working in. In schools, a
CRB check was required.
f) James Bacon replied to Mr B Smith that there was a charge of 98p per week on a
current account.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
27
24 July 2012
NORFOLK CREDIT UNION PRESENTATION
(Continued)
g) Ms V Gay was very interested in the Money Magic course but had concerns that any
person with literacy problems might be deterred from attending a course if it was held
in a school. James Bacon noted this and said that the course was put together for
adults but was now being tailored for children.
h) The Democratic Services Team Leader said that an item could be prepared to be
published in Outlook magazine.
i) Mr D Young requested that Members be emailed application forms for use in their
wards.
j) The Chairman thanked James Bacon for his presentation.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.30am and reconvened at 11.45am.
50 ANIMAL CONTROL UPDATE
a) The Environmental Protection Team Leader reported that Environmental Health
Officers were now picking up duties previously undertaken by the Pest Control
Officers. There was, however, a training requirement for Officers. A Pest Control
Officer post had been made redundant and the main impact was on rat control.
There were no implications for dog fouling because this was enforced by
Environmental Protection Officers.
b) Mr R Shepherd considered that some convictions would be helpful in preventing dog
fouling. The Environmental Protection Team Leader responded that patrolling was
now carried out on a more intelligence-based approach. Convictions depended on a
member of the public’s willingness to give evidence in court.
c) Mr P Moore asked whether patrols were high visibility or low key. The Environmental
Protection Team Leader said that they were both: high visibility to advise people and
get the message across, but where there was a problem a low key approach would
be taken.
d) Officers carried a small supply of bags to hand out where appropriate but this had a
cost implication and it was the dog owner’s responsibility to provide them.
RESOLVED
To note the contents of the report.
51 SHARED SERVICES INCLUDING ICT PROCUREMENT FOR REVENUES AND
BENEFITS REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS
a) The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager made a PowerPoint presentation, the
slides for which are attached at Minutes Appendix B.
b) Mr P W Moore suggested that Members be kept up to date on progress through
regular reports. He had a number of questions which he would let the Revenues and
Benefits Services Manager have so that she could email the answers to Members of
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
c) Ms V R Gay asked whether there was a backlog of work. The Revenues and
Benefits Services Manager replied that there was six weeks of work outstanding in
Benefits but this was improving as the staff became more familiar with the system.
Dedicated staff, including agency staff, were addressing the backlog. The Revenues
work was approximately five weeks behind.
d) Ms Gay expressed concern at the limited timescale for the implementation of Council
Tax Localisation and any risk to the Council. The Chief Executive said that the main
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28
24 July 2012
SHARED SERVICES INCLUDING ICT PROCUREMENT FOR REVENUES AND
BENEFITS REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS
(Continued)
risk was to the County Council. A working party had been set up by Cabinet to
oversee the implementation and there was confidence that it would be delivered on
time.
e) Mr W Northam said the Council’s Revenues and Benefits staff were working well
under pressure and he congratulated them on what they had achieved so far. The
Partnership was working as a team.
f) The Chairman expressed the hope that, when necessary cabling work had been
completed, the process would be speeded up and asked that a further report on
performance issues be made to the November meeting of the Committee. The Vice
Chairman supported this.
RESOLVED
a) That an update report be made to the November meeting of the Committee.
b) That the list of questions from Mr P W Moore together with answers be circulated to
the Committee.
52 REVIEW OF OUTSIDE BODIES
a) This item was deferred to the September meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
b) More information was requested by Mr R Smith on Norfolk Tourism.
c) The Democratic Services Team Leader replied to Mr B Smith that she did not believe
that the removal of the North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership from the list
of Outside Bodies would affect NWACTA as it came under the Community Strategic
Partnership but she would look into this.
d) Ms V R Gay said that the North Norfolk Skills Partnership carried out very important
work to raise the standards of skills in North Norfolk.
e) Mr P Terrington asked for clarification regarding nominations to Outside Bodies. The
Democratic Services Team Leader explained that nominations to Outside Bodies
were made by Full Council unless they were specific to a particular role or portfolio.
RESOLVED
to defer until September.
53 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Democratic Services Team Leader informed the meeting that the first meeting of
the Council Tax Working Party was to take place on 8 August 2012.
b) Broadland District Council was discussing public transport recommendations on
Tuesday 31 August at 10am. Mr B Smith and Mr P Moore would attend the meeting.
c) The first meeting of the Police and Crime Panel had taken place on 20 July. It had
been attended by Mr R Shepherd. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman had been
elected and it had been agreed that future meetings would take place at Norfolk
County Council as it was more central.
d) Mr P Moore informed Members that Sadlers Wood had received a Flag Award.
Consultations were taking place on setting out the play area which, because of the
work involved, would mean it was unavailable during the summer holidays.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
29
24 July 2012
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Continued)
e) A briefing on the proposed changes to the NHS would be welcomed by the
Committee. The Scrutiny Officer would discuss this initially with the Health
Improvement Officer.
f) Mr P W Moore said Mr G Williams hoped to make a report to the Committee on the
Task and Finish Group and would be available to do so in October.
The meeting concluded at 12.50pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
30
24 July 2012
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 10 September 2012 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson (Chairman)
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mr G Jones
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Oliver
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, Corporate Director (N. Baker), Corporate
Director (S. Blatch) the Coastal Engineer (for item 31) the Housing
Services Manager, the Strategy Team Leader, the Economic and
Tourism Development Manager, the Economic and Tourism
Development Officer, the Policy and Performance Management
Officer, the Head of Organisational Development, the Coastal
Community Projects Manager
The press
34.
LEADER’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Leader commented on the recent successful weekend across the District – with
the Tour of Britain event hosted by Bewilderwood and Greenbuild at Felbrigg Hall. He
said that this had been an excellent conclusion to a very successful summer
nationally and he thanked volunteers and staff who had given up their time to help.
35.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
36.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2012 were confirmed as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett commented on Minute 31: Cromer Coast Protection Strategy. She
said that all statutory consents had been granted and the work could now
commence.
Cabinet
31
10 September 2012
37.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Questions had been received from Mr Burke and Mr Berry. The questions concerned
Agenda item 4, Items of Urgent Business – Happisburgh Beach Access Steps. Mr
Burke, a resident of Happisburgh, requested that the Council reconsider their
decision to remove the steps. He referred to a petition of more than 1600 signatures
supporting this request. Mr Berry, Chairman of Happisburgh Parish Council spoke in
favour of removing the steps and storing them locally whilst the cliffs were monitored.
He said that the Parish Council would prefer money to be spent on strengthening the
ramp access to the beach.
The Chairman advised that the item of urgent business would be taken directly
following the public questions.
38.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There was one item of urgent business relating to Happisburgh Beach Access Steps.
Ms V Gay read out the following statement on behalf of the Local Member for
Happisburgh, Mrs L Walker:
‘I stand by my letter to the Eastern Daily Press (EDP). The officers are doing a
brilliant job and I fully accept their advice on storing the steps until the coastal activity
stabilises. Malcolm Kerby’s letter to the North Norfolk News and later the EDP put
everything into perspective. I know the petition contains a lot of signatures and I
applaud those signatories taking the time to make their views known. However, I
question if they were given the full facts about the situation. I have not seen the
second section of the petition and would be interested to see how many council tax
paying residents have signed. The Parish Council supports the officers views and is
willing to store the steps. As local member I fully support the proposed action of the
Council’.
The Portfolio Holder for Coastal Issues then read out the following statement:
‘This item has come about as a matter of public interest in response to a petition.
The petition calls upon North Norfolk District Council to:“Re-open the metal steps to allow residents and visitors to access the west beach at
Happisburgh” and to “to look again at the options for reinstating the bridge to the
steps, including making the bridge a design feature”.
It is regrettable that the bridge to the steps had to be removed but this was done in
the light of rapid erosion of the cliffs last winter, to protect the safety of potential
users. Since the bridge has been removed, cliff top recession has continued and it is
not a practical option for the bridge to be reinstated.
The base of the steps is now submerged, not only at high water spring tides but far
more frequently on normal high water tides. This would make it impractical and
unsafe to use the steps for much of the time, even if the bridge remained in position.
There is no doubt that further recession of the cliffs at this point will continue and the
steps are in fact redundant in their current location and the Council has no alternative
but to remove them. Re-opening them or reinstating the bridge are simply not
feasible options and the Council cannot therefore do what the petition asks for.
Cabinet
32
10 September 2012
Together with the local community, the Council has invested a huge amount of time,
effort and money into managing the impacts of coastal change in Happisburgh in
support of the local economy, the quality of life of villagers and the overall
sustainability of the village. It is proposed, with the support of Happisburgh Parish
Council, to remove the steps and to store them locally, whilst cliff recession rates are
closely monitored.
If the steps remain in-situ they will become merely another relic and a reminder of the
adverse impacts of coastal erosion, a potential danger to beach users and a symbol
of blight.
I suggest we follow the Council’s procedure outlined in the Council’s ‘Petitions
Scheme’ and report it to the Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 25th September and
Full Council on 26th September. It should be noted, however, that for the reasons
outlined above the steps have to be removed. I further suggest that Overview and
Scrutiny committee should oversee the decision relating to the possible reinstatement
of the steps at a later date after a suitable monitoring period.
I can sympathise with the views of those seeking to retain access to the beach in this
location, via the steps, but regret that this is not currently feasible. I am grateful to the
local landowner who has offered to store the structure once it has been removed and
very much hope that the cliff stabilises sufficiently for it to be feasible for the steps to
be reinstated at some point in the future.’
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that the
Committee would oversee the decision relating to the possible reinstatement of the
steps at a later date.
The proposal was discussed:
1. Mr G Jones said that he believed the petition was ill-conceived as it did not refer
to the costs involved in reinstating the steps.
2. Mr P W Moore, Vice-Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was
concerned about the proposal to wait a further year before reassessing the
situation regarding the steps. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett replied that it was necessary to
allow sufficient time to monitor the movement in the cliffs.
3. Mr B Farrow, Coastal Engineer, explained that the Council had always been keen
to promote access to Happisburgh beach, however, they were guided by national
policy which was not to prevent erosion. It was impractical to keep the steps
where they were and even if they were retained they would have to be moved. He
concluded by saying that a lot of money from the Pathfinder scheme had been
invested in improving access to the east beach and providing parking facilities.
It was proposed by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RESOLVED
a)
b)
c)
d)
Cabinet
That the steps and bridge be removed and stored at Happisburgh
The whole structure is securely stored and maintained locally
That erosion rates of the cliffs in the area continue to be monitored
That a report is brought to Cabinet/Council within the next twelve months with a
recommendation regarding the future of the structure
33
10 September 2012
39.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
40.
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Council Tax Support Working Party held on 7th
August 2012 be received.
41.
PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
Mr T Ivory queried the second recommendation in Minute 12 of the meeting held on
23 July – ‘That the quantity of affordable dwellings exceeds the quantity of market
housing’. He felt that it repeated the first recommendation to some extent and that it
could set a target for housebuilders to negotiate. It would be better to rely on the
viability test proposed in the first recommendation. He added that if rural exception
sites were the only option and they could not meet the proposed target for affordable
housing then they would be excluded from consideration and that was not a sensible
way forward.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED that
1. The minutes of the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party meetings
held on 23 July and 20 August 2012 be received.
2. The Stalham Development Brief be approved subject to:
The Highways Authority supporting the conclusions in the Traffic Assessment
A minimum of .5 ha being designated for community use
An increase in the amount of boundary ‘buffer’ landscaping between the
employment land and existing /proposed residential land; and
Clarity on the issue of phased implementation of the public park and access to
serve the employment/community use land.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) That in response to the NNPF, the Council resolves to support the inclusion of
elements of market housing within rural exception schemes which otherwise
comply with the provisions of Policy HO3 subject to clear demonstration that the
inclusion of market housing is necessary to deliver affordable dwellings which
otherwise would not be provided.
b) That Council support the following revised policy approach to the re-use of rural
buildings in response to the NPPF, subject to considering the introduction of an
affordable housing tariff in respect of the enhanced value arising from conversion
to permanent residential use and further consideration of the potential impacts
arising from the loss of existing tourism and other business uses:
i.
The economic re-use of rural buildings will be supported and full weight
will continue to be applied to Policy EC2.
ii.
Cabinet
In relation to the application of Policy H09 and residential conversion that
weight be attached to the NPPF with the affect that:
34
10 September 2012
•
•
•
42.
Proposals for the reuse of disused or redundant buildings will be
subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 but not criteria 1 which
limits location.
Proposals for the change of use/variation of occupancy of buildings in
holiday use to allow residential use will be subject to compliance with
criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and where applicable Policy EC8 but not criteria 1
in relation to location.
Proposals for the change of use of all other commercial buildings will
be subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a presumption
that those providing a significant number of jobs (three or more)
should normally be retained in employment uses.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH NORFOLK INTEGRATED APPROACH TO
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Issues introduced this item. She
explained that the Council was embarking on developing an integrated approach to
coastal management. This would involve developing appropriate ways of managing
the coast with reference to the communities’ needs, coastal processes, policy context
and the availability of funding. The approach would offer improved coastal
information, development of funding opportunities and implementation of a broad
spectrum of initiatives and schemes for managing the coast across the frontage.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee said that the
Committee would be considering the policy aspects of the report. He said it was
anticipated that there would be a positive response to the proposals.
It was proposed by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council:
a) That the integrated approach to coastal management, in particular the work
schemes set out in Table 1 of the report be endorsed
b) That the remaining unallocated coastal pathfinder budget (approximately £65,000
revenue) and receipts including the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant (£60,000
capital) and any income from successful Pathfinder replacement housing are
incorporated into a new integrated coastal budget for the purpose of funding
specific coastal projects and resources in line with the integrated approach.
c) That the allocation of the integrated coastal budget is delegated to the Chief
Executive in consultation with the Coastal Portfolio Holder.
43.
BUDGET MONITORING 2012/13 PERIOD 4
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services, introduced this item. He
explained that the report summarised the budget monitoring position for the revenue
account and capital programme to the end of July 2012. The overall position at the
end of period 4 showed a forecast overspend of £69,074 for the current financial year
on the revenue account.
Mr W Northam said that car parking income was £40,000 above the budgeted
amount. He had spent considerable time speaking to people visiting his local car park
and there had been no concerns about the level of charges. Mr G Jones commented
that he would be interested to know how much of the car parks income was made up
of fines for non-payment.
Cabinet
35
10 September 2012
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED to
a) Note the contents of the report and the current forecast for the current financial
year
b) Note the current position on the approved capital programme and approve the
recommended amendments.
44.
ENTERPRISE NORFOLK
The Deputy Leader introduced this item. He outlined a new business start-up support
programme called Enterprise Norfolk. He explained that since the loss of the East of
England Development Agency (EEDA) and Business Link, local authorities were left
to fill the gaps of providing support to entrepreneurs and companies to start and grow
their businesses. Norfolk County Council’s Cabinet had recognised the need for
county-wide enterprise support by providing a budget of £200,000 per year for 2
years initially. It was proposed that £35,000 per year was made available to North
Norfolk District Council in 2012/13 as a grant to provide and enhance a business
start-up service in one or more venues across the District. Norfolk County Council
had encouraged the Council to support this grant with a proportion of match funding
to provide an enhanced local provision.
The following options were considered:
Option 1 – To accept the £35K per annum for two years NCC grant and to authorise
the release of £25K per annum for two years from the Economic Development
Service budget to enable a high level of enhanced local support for business startups.
Option 2 – To accept the £35K per annum for two years NCC grant and to authorise
the release of a lesser amount of additional funding which will enable a lower level of
enhanced support for business start-ups.
Option 3 – To accept the £35K per annum for two years NCC grant and to not
authorise any additional funding and offer no additional support for business startups after the initial training.
Option 4 – Not to accept the £35K per annum for two years NCC grant.
Members discussed the report:
1. Ms V Gay commented that green business was one of the most resilient sectors
of the economy and she wondered how the Council would promote this. Mr T
FitzPatrick replied that the recent Greenbuild event had shown the large number
of local business in this sector and the Council would continue to support and
promote them.
2. Mr G Jones said that it was important that regular feedback should be provided
on the number of businesses assisted by the Enterprise Norfolk scheme.
3. Mr E Seward commented that lessons could be learnt from businesses that
weren’t successful.
RESOLVED to
accept the NCC grant of £35,000 per annum over the period 2012/13 and
2013/14 (£70,000 for two years) and authorise the release of £25,000 per
annum over the period 2012/13 and 2013/14 (£50,000 for two years) from
Cabinet
36
10 September 2012
the Economic Development Service budget as match funding to that NCC
grant to deliver a business start-up support programme called Enterprise
Norfolk and to ultimately increase the number of Business Start-Ups (NI 171
– New business registrations) in the district. This programme seeks to assist
a minimum of 300 beneficiaries and create 50 new business starts.
45.
NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-2015 (MAKING BEST USE OF
THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
The Leader introduced this item. He said that the recent Housing workshops for
Members had been very successful.
This was the second in a series of three Housing Strategy documents. It considered
how to make the best use of the existing housing stock in North Norfolk and
contained a detailed action plan for the period 2012/15 setting out the Council’s
objectives.
It was proposed by Mr K Johnson, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
That the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Making Best Use of the Existing Housing
Stock) document be adopted.
46.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
2012/12 QUARTER 1
The Leader introduced this item. He explained that the report covered the
performance of the Council against the priorities set out in the Annual Action Plan
2012/13. The first Annual Action Plan outlined how the priorities in the Corporate
Plan would be realised over the 12 months from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee requested figures
on previous years housing allocations for when the document was considered by the
Committee.
It was proposed by Mr K Johnson, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED
To note the current position with the waste and cleansing contract as set out in the
briefing note shown at Appendix 3 of the report.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
that two additional planning assistants be recruited on a temporary basis for a 12
month period pending the outcome of the peer challenge, to be funded from a
combination of the HPDG earmarked reserve and the additional revenue from the
proposed national fee increase from October 2012. That additional support for
planning enforcement is progressed with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough
Council
Mr N Lloyd requested that any future reports on the North Walsham Dual Use Sports
Centre should be considered by Full Council.
The Meeting closed at 10.55am
Cabinet
37
10 September 2012
20 SEPTEMBER 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) (in the Chair for Minute 91)
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
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
E Seward – substitute for J A Wyatt
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
Miss B Palmer – The Raynhams Ward
R C Price – Waxham Ward
Officers
Mrs E Duncan – Head of Legal
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mrs T Armitage – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs N Turner – Strategy Team Leader
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
Mr P Rhymes – Conservation and Design Officer
(78)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Perry-Warnes and J A
Wyatt. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
The Chairman reported that Councillor Perry-Warnes had suffered a stroke. The
Committee wished him well for his recovery.
(79)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23 August 2012 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(80)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(81)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared an interest, the details of which are given
under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
38
(82)
CROMER - NNDC TPO (CROMER) 2012 No. 3, Hampshire House, Cromwell
Road
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners requested the Landscape Officer’s comments on
Natural England’s policy to obliterate sycamores.
The Landscape Officer explained that whilst sycamores were once considered to be
non-native, evidence had now been found to suggest that they were in fact native
trees and that they were second to oak trees in terms of biodiversity value. He stated
that they would be one of the most important trees on the North Norfolk coast in the
future as they were resistant to the effects of global warming, whereas beech and
horse chestnut trees were dying out. He recommended that the TPO be approved
with modifications to the map to address inaccuracies with plotting of some of the
trees.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs P
Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (Cromer)
2012 No.3 be confirmed with modifications to the map.
(83)
HIGH KELLING - NNDC TPO (HIGH KELLING) 2012 No.4, Pineheath Road High
Kelling
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Public Speakers
Mr Burns (objecting)
Mr Morgan (supporting)
The Landscape Officer explained that the removal of trees referred to by the
objecting spokesman had been undertaken with the agreement of the Council and
replacement trees had been planted. He stated that High Kelling was a difficult area
to manage and it was considered that a blanket Tree Preservation Order would not
be appropriate. Tree Preservation Orders were served where there was perceived to
be a problem. However if appropriate management was taking place a TPO would
not be served.
The Development Manager read to the Committee an email received from Councillor
D Young, the local Member. Councillor Young had not visited the site, however he
considered that it would be unwise to disagree with the Landscape Officer’s
recommendation unless the Committee had visited the site and were satisfied with
the landowner’s plans.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
Development Committee
20 September 2012
39
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (High
Kelling) 2012 No. 4 be confirmed.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(84)
BACTON - PF/12/0710 - Erection of side conservatory; 59 Newlands Estate for
Mr Rush
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, considered that the proposed conservatory
would detract from the main building, and the overall bulk of the extension would be
overbearing. He considered that the proposal did not accord with Policy HO8. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the structure would be ugly and
seconded refusal.
The Development Manager advised against refusal on grounds of non-compliance
with Policy HO8.
He did not consider that the proposal represented a
disproportionately large increase or that it would impact on the surrounding
countryside. He considered that the issue related to the overall design of the
structure in terms of the main building, in which case Policy EN4 was more relevant.
The Senior Planning Officer added that the context of the buildings in the area should
be taken into account.
Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor
Mrs P Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the design of the
development as proposed in conjunction with the existing extensions to
the building would be detrimental to the overall form of the existing
building and the character of the surrounding area.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
40
(85)
BINHAM - PF/12/0459 - Demolition of single-storey side extension, erection of
two-storey and single-storey side extensions and glass roofed porch; 50
Warham Road for Mr W Spice
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Spice (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor J D
Savory, a local Member, who considered that the needs of a local family outweighed
the issues raised in the report and therefore supported this application.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the policy issues. He stated that whilst some
form of extension may be acceptable, the main concern was the appearance of the
proposed extension in the street scene and lack of subordination with the original
building. He considered that the proposed extension would have an adverse impact
on the modest cottage both in the street scene and surrounding area.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposed extension was a vast
improvement and would be an asset to the village. He proposed approval of this
application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that whilst the extensions to the building were
becoming slightly bulky, he did not consider that this proposal would damage the
street scene. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs A R Green asked if the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager would be satisfied if the extension were stepped back. The Senior Planning
Officer explained that to do so would raise technical difficulties in creating a useable
space. He considered that it might be possible to extend the building at the rear
rather than in the linear form proposed.
Several Members supported this suggestion. Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones asked if it
would be possible to defer consideration to put the suggestion to the applicant. The
Chairman and Officers advised that it would be advisable to refuse this application
and the applicant could then reapply with a revised scheme.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the existing building was not fit for
purpose. He referred to the linear nature of many of the buildings in Binham, some
of which were considerably longer than the proposal if built.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and at the request
of the Chairman, Mr Spice explained that he had considered all options and his
reasons for the option chosen.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
carried by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention that this application be approved.
The Development Manager referred to an offer by the applicant to reconstruct the
fossilised gable and considered that detailed plans should be sought.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
41
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the submission of detailed plans in
respect of the reconstructed gable.
(86)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0681 - Erection of 24 dwellings (of which 50% affordable
dwellings) and associated garages, carports, boundary wall and fences and
creation of 2 accesses; Land west of Langham Road for Hillside Residential
Ltd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Faulkner (Blakeney Parish Council)
The Senior Planning Officer explained the design and landscape issues relating to
this application and issues relating to occupancy of the affordable dwellings. She
reported that the comments of the Environment Agency were awaited in respect of
the surface water drainage proposals. She stated that a Section 106 Obligation was
in the process of preparation and would include affordable housing provision,
financial contributions requested by Norfolk County Council and contributions
towards play and open space provision.
The Strategy Team Leader explained that the Local Lettings Agreement, which gave
priority to people from the parish and surrounding parishes when allocating
affordable housing, only applied to exception housing sites, whereas the site in
question was an allocated site and this policy did not apply. However, the Council’s
allocations policy was under review in the light of the Localism Act and the new policy
would maximise the number of homes occupied by people in housing need with
strong connections to towns and villages in North Norfolk. It was expected that the
policy will come into use in April, prior to completion of the affordable dwellings on
the site, and therefore could enable the Parish Council’s request for some of the
affordable dwellings to be let to local people to be met through the allocations policy
rather than a planning agreement.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that she had attended the Parish
Council’s AGM when the developers had made a presentation. She had listened but
had not made any comment. She considered that the amended plans endeavoured
to address the special nature of the site. She welcomed the inclusion of 50%
affordable housing and the review of the allocations policy which would address the
Parish Council’s concerns. She considered that there was no reason to reject this
application.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward, the Development Manager stated
that local letting could not be secured by a planning agreement. Local lettings would
need to be secured through the Council’s housing responsibilities and he referred to
the Strategy Team Leader’s comments regarding the allocations policy.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported this application. However, he expressed
concern as to whether the developers could appeal if the affordable housing element
made the scheme unviable.
The Development Manager explained that this was a risk with any development of
this nature.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
42
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A
Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to:
The Environment Agency confirming it has no objection to the revised
Flood Risk Assessment
A S106 Obligation securing the provision and phasing of affordable
housing, financial contributions as requested by the County Council
and by the District Council in relation to open space enhancements and
managing visitor pressure.
The imposition of appropriate conditions, in particular to include:
implementation of highway works, and prior approval of details
regarding landscaping and materials.
(87)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0478 - Erection of two 18m high wind turbines (height to
hub); Old Manor Farm, Long Common for Mr J McLeod
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Miss Cripps (objecting)
Mr McLeod (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the main issues outlined in the report and the
number of representations both objecting to and in favour of this application. There
were no updates to report.
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, stated that he had attended a number of
Parish Council meetings when this application had been discussed, and had had
meetings on and off site with the applicant and main objectors. A considerable
amount of correspondence had been received and local opinion was divided on this
issue. He stated that the turbines would be visible from Back Road and one cottage
would have a view of three turbines including the turbine at Gothic Cottage. He
stated that the applicant’s intention was to be electricity neutral and would be happy
to accept a condition to prevent any additional turbines on his land.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the site inspection had been invaluable as
it was possible to assess the topography of the site, which sat low in the landscape.
He considered that the proposal was acceptable and proposed approval of this
application, which was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
Councillor P W High expressed concern at the impact on the attractive landscape
and on the views to Happisburgh and the coast. He did not support the application.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposal would destroy the landscape
and possibly lead to other proposals for wind turbines in the area. He asked if the
Gothic Cottage application had been considered by the Committee.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
43
The Development Manager explained that Gothic Cottage had been a delegated
decision and had not been presented to Committee.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that there were lovely sweeping views towards
Happisburgh lighthouse and the Committee had a responsibility to protect North
Norfolk’s heritage. She acknowledged the applicant’s aspiration to make his farm
electricity-neutral but the turbines would stand for 25 years during which time they
would deteriorate. She referred to the objections to the turbine at Gothic Cottage
since its erection. She was opposed to this application in terms of its impact on the
landscape and heritage views.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked if it would be possible to reduce the
height of the proposed turbine and requested a comparison with the height of the
Gothic Cottage turbine.
The Development Manager explained that the current proposal was approximately
10m lower than the turbine at Gothic Cottage. He explained that the latter application
had been determined under delegated powers with the agreement of the local
Member. He stated that there was a distinct difference between the two modest
turbines now proposed and a windfarm. There were arguments around landscape
and heritage impacts, but Officers were of the view that the impact was insufficient to
justify refusal of this application.
The Landscape Officer stated that the issues had been carefully considered and she
was of the opinion that any harm caused by the proposal would not result in
significant erosion of the landscape character. Long distance views would be
retained, and whilst there would be an impact, it would be minor.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr McLeod explained that the size of the turbines
matched almost exactly the electricity needed on the farm. Smaller turbines would
not produce sufficient electricity. Lowering the height could cause the blades to
make contact with the ground, and there would also be less wind at lower levels and
more disturbance of the wind flow.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that whilst he generally opposed turbines on land, he
was impressed that obvious care had been taken to site the proposed turbines where
they were obscured from view as much as possible. They would also reduce the
need for electricity and he therefore supported this application.
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(88)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0541 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 04/1385 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
restriction; Brymur Farm, The Common for Mr B Ward
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Corfield (supporting)
Development Committee
20 September 2012
44
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had also contacted the
Guinness Partnership, a registered social landlord from Hertfordshire, with regard to
taking on the dwelling for affordable housing. This did not comply with Policy HO6
which required the dwelling to be offered to a local provider. In any case, the
Guinness Partnership had declined the offer.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal of this application subject to an
amendment to the recommendation in the report to state that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the site has been offered to a Registered Social Landlord
operating locally on terms that would allow a dwelling to be constructed and occupied
as an affordable dwelling and that option has been rejected.
Councillor Miss B Palmer, the local Member, stated that the applicant could not meet
the requirement to have occupied the dwelling for 12 years as it had not been built.
He could demonstrate that there was no need for the dwelling on site. The dwelling
had been offered to a registered social landlord. She stated that there were no
amenities within a six mile radius of this site, little public transport and access to and
from the site was difficult.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that there was no need as the dwelling had
not been built, no amenities and the site was not suitable for a dwelling. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that there were two other dwellings along the road
which had no agricultural connection.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Senior Planning Officer
confirmed that the dwelling could be built and occupied if the site were purchased
with an agricultural occupancy restriction.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on the following grounds:
SS2: Development in the Countryside
HO6: Removal
Conditions
of
Agricultural,
Forestry
and
other
Occupancy
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the removal of the
occupancy condition would fail to accord with Policy HO6 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. This is because the dwelling to
which the condition relates has not yet been constructed and it cannot
therefore have been occupied for a minimum period of 12 years. In
addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site has been
offered to a Registered Social Landlord operating locally on terms that
would allow a dwelling to be constructed and occupied as an affordable
dwelling and that option has been rejected.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
45
(89)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
The Development Manager reported that the applicant had requested deferral of this
application to allow further time for consideration of drainage details. This request
was supported by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred at the request of the
applicant and local Member.
(90)
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Bryan (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor N D
Dixon, the local Member. He considered that the density of development was
inappropriate for the estate and suggested that the Committee visit the site if
Members were unfamiliar with the estate.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that Officers did not consider that the proposal
was out of character with the estate and recommended approval of this application
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones requested information on policies regarding infill of
gardens in the area. She was concerned that there were a number of large gardens
on the estate.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that there was no specific policy on infill
development and the proposal had been considered under Core Strategy Policy
EN4. It was necessary to consider how development fitted in with its setting.
The Development Manager added that Policy EN4 did not prevent infilling but
required it to considered carefully.
In response to a question and at the request of the Chairman, Mr Bryan explained
that the only window in the existing dwelling which overlooked the proposed dwelling
was a secondary window.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward, the Senior Planning Officer
considered that there was limited scope for infilling on other plots within the estate.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
46
(91)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0803 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 10/1045 to permit retention of slate roof covering; White Horse, 34
High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
The Chairman had to leave the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application. The Vice-Chairman took the Chair in her absence.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared a personal interest as she was an
occasional customer of the public house.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
The Conservation and Design Officer stated that the building was proposed for local
listing within the Overstrand Conservation Area Appraisal. He reminded the
Committee that the extension had not been built in accordance with the approved
plans and it was important to consider the message that would be sent out if this roof
were allowed to remain in the Conservation Area. He considered that the Council
had been very reasonable in its previous decision under application PF/10/1045.
There was a need to ensure local distinctiveness and quality of design which
preserved or enhanced the Conservation Area.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that she had called in the
application as she considered the recommendation to be contrary to the Council’s
aim of supporting local businesses. She stated that this was a successful business in
which the owner had invested a considerable amount. She explained why the
extension had not been built in accordance with the planning permission. She stated
that the extension was similar in style to a summer house and views of it were
limited. She requested approval of this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the extension was hardly noticeable
and referred to the change of view by English Heritage elsewhere in the country in
favour of new design.
Councillor B Smith supported the local Member. He stated that there were other
buildings in the area with slate roofs.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the white paintwork emphasised the slate
roof.
Councillor P W High stated that the extension as built was not as approved. Whilst
he understood the local Member’s point of view, he could not support this application.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the slate tiles had weathered very well. He
was supportive of local jobs and supported the local Member’s view. He considered
that there was no reason to require the tiles to be amended.
Councillor Mrs A R Green agreed with Councillor High’s comments in respect of the
retrospective nature of the application. However, she considered that the extension
as built was acceptable.
Councillor E Seward considered that the extension was incompatible with the area.
However, he referred to the local Member’s comments regarding the technical
difficulties in replacing the slates with the approved pantiles.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
47
The Senior Planning Officer stated that whilst there were other examples of slate
roofs in the village, in this case they were out of context with the host building. He
was not aware that the applicant had submitted any technical evidence to indicate
that pantiles could not be used. He considered that pantiles were not much heavier
than slates.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor E Seward
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of
the Head of Development Management.
On being put to the vote, the proposal was declared lost by 2 votes to 8.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2
That this application be approved.
Reasons: Members consider that the roof as constructed is acceptable
given a combination of the weathering which has taken place and the
fact that there are examples of slates being used in the surrounding
area, and are mindful of the need to ensure the successful continuation
of the business.
(92)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(93)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(94)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(95)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(96)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(97)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(98)
WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds proposed that all future wind turbine
applications be determined by the Committee. This was seconded by Councillor B
Cabbell Manners.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
48
The Head of Legal suggested that a report be submitted to the next meeting to
propose a change to the Scheme of Delegation. This would then need to be ratified
by full Council.
The Development Manager explained that applications would only be approved
under delegated powers where objections had been received with the consent of the
local Member(s).
The Committee discussed this matter and it was agreed:
(99)
1.
That Officers circulate a list of live applications for wind turbines in the District.
Any Member could then request that the applications be called in for
determination by the Committee.
2.
That a report be prepared for consideration at the next meeting of the
Committee in respect of a change to the Scheme of Delegation to require all
applications for wind turbines to be considered by the Development
Committee. If such change is agreed, the approval of Full Council would be
sought to amend the Scheme of Delegation.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
It was noted that the next scheduled meeting on 15 November 2012 coincided with
the election of the new Police Commissioner and agreed that the meeting would be
moved to 8 November 2012, with the site inspections being moved to 1 November
2012.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
20 September 2012
49
Agenda Item
17
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
ORDER
Tree Preservation Order relating to Hall Farm, Market Street, Tunstead, Norwich, NR12
8AH.
Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham) relating to Headley Drive, North Walsham, NR28
9ND.
AGREEMENT
Loan Agreement between Kelly-Marie Skelton (“The Borrower”) (1) and North Norfolk District
Council (“The Lender”) (2).
Full Council
50
24 October 2012