Please Contact: Mary Howard
Please email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516047
16 July 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 25 July 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 Dr Allan Barton, Priest-in-Charge, Quintet Benefice (Aylmerton, Runton
w East Runton, Beeston Regis, Gresham).
Members are requested to bring their Cabinet Agenda (11 June 2012) for item 8.
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 30 May 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 – STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Changes to the Standards Arrangements were adopted by the Council on 30 May
2012. The resolution included the establishment of a Standards Committee, the cooption of parish Councils to the Standards Committee and the recruitment,
appointment and remuneration of an Independent Person. The new Standards
regime came into effect on 1 July.
a) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
At the first meeting of the new Standards Committee, on 17 July 2012, Members
elected a new Chairman and Vice Chairman for the ensuing year. Council is asked to
approve these appointments.
b) CO-OPTED MEMBERS
Council is asked to approve the appointment of co-opted Members to the Standards
Committee for the ensuing year.
c) INDEPENDENT PERSON
Council is asked to approve the appointment of an Independent Person to the
Standards Committee.
8.
RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET 11 JUNE 2012 and OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 26 JUNE 2012 (Cabinet Agenda, 11 June 2012, page 14)
a) MINUTE 19: 2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
a) The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2011/12;
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed in the report;
c) To transfer the surplus to the restructuring reserve;
d) The financing of the 2011/12 capital programme as detailed within the report;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,948,590 at 31 March 2012;
f) The updated capital programme for 2012/13 to 2013/14 and the associated
financing of the schemes as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix E.
RECOMMENDATION FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorsed the Recommendation from
Cabinet.
b) MINUTE 20: ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12
AND STRATEGY UPDATE FOR 2012/13
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
a) Treasury Management Annual Report for 2011/12 is approved.
b) When appropriate, a proportion of the investment portfolio is invested in the
LAMIT and Lime Property Funds.
RECOMMENDATION FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
a) To support the RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL that the Treasury
Management Annual Report for 2011/12 is approved.
b) To RECOMMEND to FULL COUNCIL that when appropriate, and after further
discussion at Cabinet, consideration be given to a proportion of the
investment portfolio being invested in the LAMIT and Lime Property Funds.
c) MINUTE 22: NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012 – 2015
(HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE)
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
The adoption of the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Housing and Infrastructure).
RECOMMENDATION FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorsed the Recommendation from
Cabinet.
9.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE 25
JUNE 2012
10
MINUTE 7: PENSIONS, RETIREMENT AND DISCRETIONARY COMPENSATION
PAYMENTS POLICY STATEMENTS
(Page 18 )
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
That the revised policy is recommended to Full Council for approval.
11.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 29
JUNE 2012
MINUTE 23: DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 4(1) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 (as
amended), LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS. 7 – 29 NELSON ROAD AND NOS 1
AND 3 HILLSIDE, SHERINGHAM
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he lived close to the site and
left the Council Chamber during discussion of this matter.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which recommended to Full
Council the confirmation of a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (as amended), land to the
rear of 7 – 29 Nelson Road and nos. 1 and 3 Hillside, Sheringham.
The Development Manager updated the Committee in respect of the District Valuer’s
response regarding the issue of possible claims for compensation. The District
Valuer had concluded that claims for compensation would be limited at worst.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor B J
Hannah, a local Member, who had had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of
this matter. Councillor Hannah supported the Officer’s recommendation.
The Development Manager stated that in view of the timescales involved, the
recommendation should be made direct to Full Council rather than Cabinet. A further
amendment to the recommendation was made to notify the Secretary of State of the
Council’s intention to confirm, rather than serve, the Article 4(1) Direction.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the recommendation but expressed a preference
for post and rail fencing in a dark colour rather than wire.
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
That the Development Committee recommends to Full Council that the
Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) at nos. 7-29 Nelson Road
and nos. 1 and 3 Hillside, Sheringham be confirmed and to cover the following
matters:
•
the erection of fences, walls, gates or other means of enclosure, being
development comprised within Class A, part 2, Schedule 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995;
•
that formal notification of affected householders be carried out;
•
that a press advertisement be carried out;
•
that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be
notified of the Council’s intention to confirm an Article 4(1) Direction.
Furthermore, that the affected households also be advised that the Council
would be prepared to consider without prejudice an application or applications
for planning permission(s) for an agreed low key uniform form of fencing for
the plots in question.
12.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 16 JULY 2012
ITEM 11: POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FORMER RAF COLTISHALL SITE
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
To recommend that Full Council endorses the nomination of Councillors FitzPatrick
and Ivory as the Council’s representatives on the Former RAF Coltishall Community
Liaison Reference Group.
13.
ANY RECOMMENDATIONS
COMMITTEE 24 JULY 2012
FROM
THE
OVERVIEW
AND
SCRUTINY
To receive any recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee 24 July
2012.
14.
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2011/12
(Page 26)
To receive the Annual Governance Statement 2011 – 2012
(Source: Karen Sly, Head of Financial Services, Tel: 01263 516243, Email:
karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov)
15.
REVIEW OF POLLING ARRANGEMENTS FOR GUNTHORPE APPEAL 2012
(Page 43)
Summary:
The Returning Officer is required every four years to
undertake a review of polling districts and polling places
within the Council’s administrative boundaries and to make
any recommendations for change. In 2011 the Returning
Officer recommended that the Council approve the merger
of polling districts UN4 Gunthorpe (North) and UM4
Gunthorpe (South) to make one polling district of UM4
Gunthorpe. This recommendation was agreed by Full
Council on 19 October 2011.
Following the conclusion of the polling review in 2011 the
Electoral Commission received an appeal from Gunthorpe
Parish Council regarding the closure of the polling place
and station in the polling district of UN4 Gunthorpe (North).
The Returning Officer has reviewed the representation and
listened to the Parish Council regarding the current
provision and location of the one polling station within
Gunthorpe Parish. She considers it most important that
electors have accessibility to a polling station. As a result of
the review the Returning Officer is willing to re-instate the
polling place and polling station as requested by Gunthorpe
Parish Council in UN4 Gunthorpe (North) and recommends
that the Council agrees to re-instate the polling districts of
UN4 Gunthorpe (North) and UM4 Gunthorpe (South) to
enable this to happen.
Conclusions:
The Returning Officer has shared the proposed change with
the Polling Review Working Group, Cabinet Member Tom
Fitzpatrick, and the Local Member for Wensum Ann Green.
Recommendations:
Council is RECOMMENDED to approve the following
change of Polling Districts, effective from 16 October 2012:
• Polling District UM4 Gunthorpe (South) and Polling
District UN4 Gunthorpe North (Bale) be re-instated
and to NOTE that the Polling Places and Stations will be as
follows:
UM4 Gunthorpe (South) - Gunthorpe Village Institute,
Swanton Road, Gunthorpe and
UM5 Gunthorpe (North) - Bale Village Hall, Sharrington
Road, Bale
The electors in the re-instated polling districts of UN4
Gunthorpe (North) and UM4 Gunthorpe (South) will be
designated to vote in the relevant re-instated polling places
and stations as above.
Cabinet member(s):
Councillor Tom Fitzpatrick
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
16.
Ward(s) affected:
Wensum
Suzanne Taylor, Electoral Services Manager
01263 516046
suzanne.taylor@north-norfolk.gov.uk
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
(Page 46)
At their meeting on 30th May Members resolved to adopt
a new Code of Conduct for the elected and co-opted
members of the Council in accordance with the
provisions of the Localism Act 2011. At the time that the
Council adopted the Code the Regulations governing
the disclosure of interests - in particular "disclosable
pecuniary interests" had not yet been made. This report
addresses the disclosure of interests.
Members are recommended to:1. Adopt the arrangements in relation to disclosable
pecuniary interests set out in paragraph 3 of this
Report.
2. Adopt the arrangements in relation to "other
interests" as are set out in paragraph 7 of this
Report.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
David Johnson, david.johnson@norfolk.gov.uk
17.
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTITUTION
(Page 49)
Summary:
Section 9P of the Local Government Act 2000 requires
every Local Authority to prepare and keep up to date a
document referred to as its constitution.
Conclusions:
The North Norfolk District Council's current constitution
requires some revision and updating to take account of
changes made by the Localism Act 2011 (in particular to
the Standards and Conduct regime), the management
restructuring at the Council and consequential
amending and tidying of the wording.
Recommendations:
1. To instruct the Monitoring Officer in consultation with
the Chief Executive Officer and the Constitution
Working Party to make the required changes as
described in this report to the Council’s Constitution
2. To confirm the appointment of the Head of Financial
Services as the Council’s designated officer for the
purposes of section 151 of the Local Government
Act 1972.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Contact Officer, telephone number and
email: David Johnson, david.johnson@norfolk.gov.uk
18.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
(Page 52)
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Audit Committee – 6 March 2012
Licensing and Appeals Committee 26 March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 28 March 2012
Licensing and Appeals Committee 2 April 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 17 April 2012
Development Committee – 3 May 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 23 May 2012
Cabinet – 14 May 2012
Development Committee – 31 May 2012
19.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
20.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
21.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
(Page 52)
(Page 60)
(Page 63)
(Page 69)
(Page 72)
(Page 76)
(Page 87)
(Page 92)
(Page 97)
None received
22.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received.
23.
SEALED DOCUMENTS
(Page 106)
Recommendation:
That the list of sealed documents is received by Members.
Contact: Emma Duncan 01263 516045
Email: emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
24.
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.”
25.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Circulation:
All Members of the Council.
Members of the Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public
Agenda Item
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 30 May 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mr M Baker
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B Hannah
Mr T Ivory
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
1.
Mr B Jarvis
Mr K E Johnson
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 J Perry-Warnes
Mr J Punchard
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr P Terrington
Mrs H Thompson
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr S Ward
Mr G Williams
Mr P Williams
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Legal and Democratic
Services Manager, the Head of Environmental Services, the Licensing
Manager, the Policy & Performance Management Officer and the
Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH)
The Press and Public
OUTGOING CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
Mr B Cabbell Manners said that he had enjoyed his year as Chairman. He expressed thanks
to Lynda Mcelligott for her help throughout the year. He commended the in-coming Chairman,
Mr J Perry-Warnes who, despite his own ill-health and that of his wife, had been an example
to all Members.
2.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
It was proposed by Mr K E Johnson and seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick that Mr J H PerryWarnes be elected Chairman. There being no other nominations, it was unanimously
RESOLVED that
Mr J H Perry-Warnes be elected Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.
Mr Cabbell Manners then vacated the Chair in favour of Mr Perry-Warnes.
1
Full Council
30 May 2012
4
3.
INCOMING CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The incoming Chairman said that he would fulfil his role to the best of his ability. He was
honoured to be the 28th Chairman in what was the 38th year of NNDC. He had first been
elected in 1988 and had enjoyed the support of his wife who still accompanied him to events
whenever possible. She had accompanied him to the Queen’s Garden Party at Buckingham
Palace on 29 May. It had been a very successful day.
This year’s Chairman’s Charity would be the Army Benevolent Fund.
The incoming Chairman thanked Mr B Cabbell Manners for his work as Chairman in the past
year and presented him with the Chairman’s Jewel and a gift.
4.
APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
It was proposed by Mr K E Johnson and seconded by Mr G Williams that Mr P W Moore be
appointed Vice Chairman of the Council. There being no other nominations, it was
RESOLVED that
Mr P W Moore be appointed Vice Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.
6.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATION OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Mr B J Hannah
11
Item
Interest
Personal and nonprejudicial – is a
Member of Norfolk
County Council and
was instrumental in
the setting up of the
North Norfolk Taxi
and Private Hire
Association.
17
Mr B Cabbell
Manners
11
Recommendations from the
Licensing and Appeals
Committee
Personal and nonprejudicial – is the
landlord of Amazona
Zoo.
Mr R Shepherd
17
Establishment of Norfolk Police
and Crime Panel
Personal and nonprejudicial – is in
receipt of a Police
pension.
Mr T Ivory
24
List of Sealed Documents
Personal and nonprejudicial – are
Members of the
Victory Housing Trust
Board.
Mr K E Johnson
2
Full Council
30 May 2012
7.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs H Eales, Mr P W High, Mr G R Jones, Mr R C
Price, Mrs L Walker and Mr R Wright.
8.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 18 April 2012 were approved as a correct
record.
9.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
Appointment of Leader
Mrs H Eales had decided to resign as Leader for personal reasons. It was proposed by Mr T
FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED that
Mr K E Johnson be appointed Leader of the Council.
Mr Johnson thanked Members for their support. He expressed gratitude to Mrs Eales for the
work she had done in the last 12 months. The Leader of the Opposition expressed thanks on
behalf of his Group.
Statutory Responsibilities
The Strategic Director – Information had left the Authority on 29 May 2012. Members asked
that their thanks to him should be publically recorded. His role had included the statutory
responsibility of Monitoring Officer. However, in view of the Senior Management re-structure, it
was difficult at this time to make a permanent appointment.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory and seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to negotiate with NP Law regarding the
appointment of an interim Monitoring Officer.
10.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Public questions had been received from Mrs Heels, Mr Heels, Mr Colman and Mrs Bartlett.
As the questions concerned Items 15 and 16 on the Agenda, these would be taken next.
Mrs Heels, Mr Heels and Mr Colman spoke on the Taxi Licensing section of Item 15,
Recommendations from the Licensing and Appeals Committee. Mrs Bartlett spoke on Item 16,
Recommendation from Cabinet, 16 April 2012, North Lodge Park Development Proposal.
11.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEES 26 MARCH
2012, 2 APRIL 2012 AND 21 MAY 2012
Mrs H Thompson, Vice Chair of the Licensing and Appeals Committee, said that the proposals
had been carefully considered by Members after considerable consultation. The proposed
changes to the Taxi Handbook were sensible and necessary. The handbook was an ongoing
work. She proposed an amendment to the recommendation from 21 May 2012. This was
seconded by Mr T Ivory and agreed.
3
Full Council
30 May 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEES 26 MARCH
2012, 2 APRIL 2012 AND 21 MAY 2012
(Continued)
In response to a question from the Chairman on the legality of including enforcement costs in
the Taxi Licensing fee, the Legal and Democratic Services Manager said that it was legal and
cited Regulation 22c.
Mr B J Hannah expressed concern that Members had not had an opportunity to read the
recommendations before the meeting. He proposed that consideration of the
recommendations from the meeting of 21 May 2012 should be deferred. This was seconded
by Mr M J M Baker, who said that Members were being expected to make decisions on
matters that they hadn’t had time to consider properly. He believed that if the
recommendations were accepted it could result in penalising private industry and increased
fares for the customer.
Mr E Seward said that taxis provided an essential public and community service. They were
small businesses, often sole operators, and as such were vulnerable. Later in the meeting
there would be a motion about the Coasthopper bus service and its continued subsidy. He
suggested that taxis should also receive a subsidy. Mr Seward expressed concern that there
was nothing in the document explaining the costs of taxi licensing.
Mr G Williams also asked that the decision should be delayed for a further cycle. The Legal
and Democratic Services Manager advised that there was no legal reason why the decision
could not be taken that evening.
A vote was taken on the proposal that the recommendations from the Licensing and Appeals
Committee of 21 May 2012 should be deferred. It was
RESOLVED, with 17 Members in favour and 20 against
That consideration of the recommendations from the Licensing and Appeals Committee of 21
May 2012 should not be deferred.
There were 2 abstentions.
Mr B Jarvis said that, at the meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee on 21 May
2012, a significant number of the suggestions from the taxi trade had been taken into account.
He expressed concern that Minute 2 (d) was not an accurate reflection of what had been
decided at the meeting and asked for an amendment. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, as a
Member of the Licensing and Appeals Committee, agreed that the minute was incorrect and
the amendment was made.
Mr Heels, at the invitation of the Chairman, made a further statement at this point.
The Portfolio Holder, Mr T Ivory said that some good comments had been received from the
representatives of the taxi trade. He welcomed the formation of the North Norfolk Taxi and
Private Hire Association. This would provide a good platform for better dialogue but it was
important that the Council should also engage with the rest of the trade and the public. The
Handbook should be subject to regular review but it was now time to draw a line under this
particular phase of the work.
4
Full Council
30 May 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEES 26 MARCH
2012, 2 APRIL 2012 AND 21 MAY 2012
(Continued)
The recommendations were taken individually:
1. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE 26
MARCH 2012
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mr M J M Baker and
RESOLVED to agree
a) The proposed revisions to the taxi licensing policy, handbook and licence conditions,
including those made at the meeting.
b) The proposed fee revision for the miscellaneous Licences as follows:
LICENCE TYPE
Motor Salvage Operator
Acupuncture; Tattooing; Body
piercing Registration
Street Trading Consent (commercial
business)
Sex Establishment Licence
Sexual Entertainment Venue
Licence
Goods and amenities on the
highway permit
New or renewal
FEE
£80
£65
New or renewal
£65
New or renewal
New or renewal
£1,685.50
£2,522.80
New or renewal
£30
2. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE 2 APRIL 2012
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mr B Smith and
RESOLVED
1. To retain a banding system for Animal Welfare Licences for a period of one year, after
which time it will be reviewed.
2. That the three bands and charges are as follows:
a) Animal Boarding, Dog Breeding Establishments and Pet Shops £110.00 per
annum.
b) Dangerous Wild Animals £145.00 per annum.
c) Zoos and Riding Establishments £155.00 per annum
3. To increase the cost of Animal Welfare Licences annually by increments with the aim
of achieving cost neutrality within the lifetime of the present Licensing and Appeals
Committee.
Mr J H A Lee abstained.
5
Full Council
30 May 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEES 26 MARCH
2012, 2 APRIL 2012 AND 21 MAY 2012
(Continued)
3. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE 2 APRIL 2012
REVISION OF THE TAXI LICENSING POLICY, HANDBOOK LICENCE CONDITIONS
AND ASSOCIATED LICENCE FEES
It was proposed by Mr R Shepherd, seconded by Mrs H Thompson and
RESOLVED
a) That the Council offers applicants the ability to apply for either a 1 year licence or a
3 year licence. The fees for a 3 year licence (new or renewal) would be set at a
level that covers the Council costs (£170).
b) That the fee for 1 year licences be set at a level to provide preferential transitional
arrangements for drivers on a stepped incremental basis (i.e. 1 year licence would
increase to £90 for the current year with a review on an annual basis).
c) That the requirement for a Driving Standards Assessment is introduced on a
voluntary (rather that compulsory) basis at the present time with the ability for the
Licensing authority to make it a mandatory requirement in cases where concern
over a particular driver or applicant has been raised. The Council encourage all
taxi drivers to obtain recognised professional training and qualifications throughout
their career to assist with probity checks.
d) All drivers and applicants to have a group 2 medical on a six yearly basis, unless
medical contradictions exist.
e) That the following licence fee structure for 2012/13 be approved:
LICENCE TYPE
Existing
fee
new
fee
2012
£90
likely
fee
2013
For
review
likely
fee
2014
For
review
Licence to Drive
Hackney Carriages
or Private Hire
Vehicles
New licence valid
for 1 year
£102.38
Licence to Drive
Hackney Carriages
or Private Hire
Vehicles
Licence to Drive
Hackney Carriages
or Private Hire
Vehicles
New licence valid
for 3 years
Not
applicable
£170
£170
£170
Renewal of licence
valid for 1 year
£48.82
£90
£130
£170
Licence to Drive
Hackney Carriages
or Private Hire
Vehicles
Hackney Carriage
Vehicle Licence
Private Hire Vehicle
Licence
Private Hire
Operators Licence
Renewal of licence
valid for 3 years
Not
applicable
£170
£170
£170
New or renewal –
valid 1 year
New or renewal –
valid 1 year
New or renewal –
valid 5 years
£138.43
£190
£190
£190
£138.43
£190
£190
£190
£145.33
£150
£150
£150
6
Full Council
30 May 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEES 26 MARCH
2012, 2 APRIL 2012 AND 21 MAY 2012
(Continued)
f)
12.
That, for the avoidance of doubt, the proposed Penalty Points System table “using a
mobile phone, radio hand set, eating or drinking whilst the vehicle is in motion” be
amended by adding the expression “unless specifically exempted by law”.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 16 APRIL 2012
This item was presented by the Portfolio Holder, Mr J H A Lee.
On 16 April 2012 Cabinet had recommended to Full Council an investment of around
£200,000 for improving North Lodge Park. It was also agreed to enter into dialogue with
interested parties as to how best use this investment. The investment was dependent on
financial input from Cromer Town Council which had not been possible to achieve.
The Council also entered into a public consultation process and it had become clear that
respondents were not in favour of some of the changes which could have led to the revenue
savings which would have helped fund the planned investment.
Cabinet had therefore decided that the best option would be to work with the Town Council
and other interested parties to develop a Community Trust which, in the future, could manage
North Lodge Park – potentially with a community asset transfer of the Park to the Trust. A
reasonably positive response to this had been received from Cromer Town Council. It was
therefore proposed that the recommendation from Cabinet for this investment should be
deferred and that officers be authorised to move forward with negotiations around the
development of a Community Trust to manage North Lodge Park in the longer term. The
proposal was seconded by Mr T Ivory.
RESOLVED to
1. Defer the recommendation from Cabinet, April 16 2012.
2. Authorise officers to move forward with negotiations around the development of a
Community Trust to manage North Lodge Park in the longer term.
13.
REPORT ON THE CABINET
The Leader reported that Mr T FitzPatrick had been appointed Deputy Leader. There would be
no further re-structuring of the Cabinet until the Senior Management re-structure was
complete.
14.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES, CHAIRMEN AND VICE CHAIRMEN AND
SUBSTITUTES
It was proposed by Mr K E Johnson, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED
To appoint Committees, Chairmen and Vice Chairmen and Substitutes, as detailed below, for
the ensuing year.
COMMITTEE No OF
SEATS
Scrutiny
12
Committee
CONSERVATIVE
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mrs A Green
LIBERAL
DEMOCRAT
Ms V R Gay
Mr P Moore
Mr E Seward (C)
INDEPENDENTS
Mr P Terrington
7
Full Council
30 May 2012
Mr B Jarvis
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith (VC)
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Development
Committee
14
Mrs S A Arnold (C)
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell
Manners (VC)
Mrs A Green
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs P GroveJones
Mr P High
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr J A Wyatt
Audit
Committee
6
Mr N D Dixon (C)
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R Oliver
Mr S Ward
Mrs A Moore
Mr D Young
Licensing &
Appeals
Committee
15
Mrs P GroveJones
Mr B J Hannah
Mr P W High
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs L Walker
Mr J A Wyatt
Standards
Committee
7
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Miss B Palmer
Mr R C Price (C)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs H Thompson
(VC)
Miss B Palmer
Mr J D Savory
Mr R Stevens
Mrs H Thompson
Partnership
Committee –
Revenues
and Benefits
Shared
Services
Mr K E Johnson
Mr W J Northam
(Miss B Palmer)
Mr E Seward
(Mrs A Moore)
Norfolk Joint
Museums
Committee
Police and
Crime Panel
Mrs L Brettle
(Mr R Reynolds)
County
Community
Mr S Ward
(Mr R Reynolds)
Mr B J Hannah
Mr P W Moore
Mr P Williams
Mr M J M Baker
Mr G Allen
Mr R Barr
Mr A Bullen
Mr M Coates
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mr A Nash
Mr S Sankar
Mrs A Shirley
Mr R Shepherd
8
Full Council
30 May 2012
Safety
Partnership
Scrutiny
Panel
CHAIRMEN, VICE – CHAIRMEN AND SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS OFCOMMITTEES
COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Scrutiny Committee
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Development
Committee
Mrs S A Arnold
Mr B Cabbell
Manners
Audit Committee
Mr N D Dixon
Licensing & Appeals Mr R C Price
Committee
Mrs H Thompson
Standards
Committee
Mr S Sankar
Mrs A Shirley
Police and Crime
Panel
15.
SUBSTITUTE(S)
Mr M J M Baker
Mr G R Jones
Mrs B A McGoun
Mr D Young
Mr R Price
Mr R Shepherd
Mr S Ward
Mrs B McGoun
Mr E Seward
Mrs L Walker
Mr N Smith
Mr S Ward
Miss B Palmer
Mr N Dixon
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr P Terrington
Ms V R Gay
Mr R Reynolds
Mr P W High
Mrs B A McGoun
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr S Ward
Mr J Punchard
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS ON WORKING PARTIES, FORUMS, AREA AND
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
It was proposed by Mr K E Johnson, seconded by Mr G Williams and
RESOLVED
To appoint Members on Working Parties, Forums, Area and Advisor Committees, as detailed
below, for the ensuing year.
9
Full Council
30 May 2012
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS ON WORKING PARTIES, FORUMS, AREA AND
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
(Continued)
WORKING PARTY,
FORUM,
AREA/ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Planning Policy and Built
Heritage Working Party
No of
seats
CONSERVATIVE
LIBERAL
DEMOCRAT
OTHER
11
Mr B Cabbell
Manners
Mr N Dixon
Mrs A Green
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson C
Mrs S Arnold VC
Mr P W High
Mr G R Jones
Mr P Williams
Mr D Young
Mr M Baker
Joint Staff Consultative
Committee
6
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs H Eales
Mr K Johnson
Mr P W High
Mrs B A
McGoun
Vacancy
Member Training,
Development & Support
Group
(Non political
Member/Officer Group)
(Not Politically
Balanced)
6
Mr K Johnson
Mr J Lee
Mr B Smith
Mrs V
Uprichard
Mr P W High
Vacancy
Coastal Issues Forum
(Members with Coastal
Wards or Special
Responsibility for
Coastal Issues) (Not
Politically Balanced)
23
Mr J Lee
Mr R Price
Mr K Johnson
Mr B Smith
Mr W Northam
Mr J Savory
Mr B Cabbell
Manners
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs H Thompson
Mr B Jarvis
Mr D Young
Mr B Hannah
Mr R Smith
Mrs L Walker
Mr P Williams
Mr P Terrington
Constitution Working
Party
5
Mrs A M FitchTillett
Mr K E Johnson
Mrs H Thompson
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A M
Moore
CHAIRMEN AND VICE – CHAIRMEN (WHERE APPROPRIATE)
WORKING PARTY, FORUM,
AREA/ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Planning Policy and Built
Heritage Working Party
CHAIRMAN
VICE - CHAIRMAN
Mr K Johnson
Mr S Arnold
Joint Staff Consultative
Mr K Johnson
Phil Godwin
10
Full Council
30 May 2012
Committee
16.
Member Training,
Development & Support
Group
(Non political Member/Officer
Group) (Not Politically
Balanced)
Mr K Johnson
Constitution Working Party
Mrs H Thompson
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO OUTSIDE BODIES
Mr P Terrington expressed concern that representation on the North Norfolk Renewables
Partnership was restricted to one Member. The Council’s representative, Mr T FitzPatrick,
explained that only one place had been allocated to NNDC and it had been agreed that it
should be taken by the relevant Portfolio Holder.
Some of the Outside Bodies should be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to
identify whether continued representation was in best interests of the Council.
Reports from representatives should be submitted for the Members’ Bulletin. Members would
value information on the work of the Outside Bodies. Mr G Williams asked that appointments
should be made on the basis of skill and interest, rather than political considerations.
It was proposed by Mr R Shepherd, seconded by Mrs H Thompson and
RESOLVED
1. That the Outside Bodies list be amended in accordance with section 4 and 6 of the report.
2. That the outside bodies referred to in section 5 are referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
further consideration as to whether they remain on the Outside Body list.
3. That the Council appoints Members to the schedule of approved Outside Bodies for the
2012/13 civic year as detailed in Minutes Appendix A.
17.
ESTABLISHMENT OF NORFOLK POLICE AND CRIME PANEL
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr K E Johnson and
RESOLVED to
1. Agree the establishment of a Police and Crime Panel (PCP) for Norfolk, as a
joint committee of the district, borough and county councils, and agree the
proposed Panel Arrangements.
2. Appoint Mr R Shepherd from the North Norfolk District Council majority group
to the PCP and appoint Mr J Punchard as the named substitute.
3. Endorse the proposed Rules of Procedure and recommend to the PCP that
they be adopted.
18.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 14 MAY 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE 23 MAY 2012
Both sets of recommendations had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
on 23 May 2012. The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny told Members that the Committee
endorsed the recommendations.
11
Full Council
30 May 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 14 MAY 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE 23 MAY 2012
(Continued)
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK INCLUDING PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13
It was proposed by Mr K E Johnson, seconded by Mr J H A Lee and
RESOLVED to approve
a) the revised Performance Management Framework, and
b) the performance measures for the Annual Action Plan 2012/13
The following Members abstained: Ms V R Gay, Mr B J Hannah, Mr N Lloyd, Mrs B A
McGoun, Mrs A Moore, Mr P W Moore, Mr E Seward, Mr R Smith, Mrs A C Sweeney, Mrs V
Uprichard, Mr G Williams, Mr P Williams, Mr J A Wyatt and Mr D Young.
A POLICY POSITION ON SECTION 106 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
It was proposed by Mr K E Johnson, seconded by Mr J H A Lee and
RESOLVED
That the key principles detailed at paragraph 4.1 of the report form the basis of the procedure
to be adopted by the Council in negotiating Section 106 contributions from new retail
proposals be endorsed with effect from 1st June 2012
19.
LOCALISM ACT 2011 – CHANGES TO THE STANDARDS ARRANGEMENTS
This report addressed key issues regarding Standards arrangements. It incorporated views
expressed by the Standards Committee at its meeting held on 8 May 2012 and work carried
out by Monitoring Officers in Norfolk.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED
To adopt as of 1 July 2012 the standards arrangements set out in this Report including:1. the new Members’ Code of Conduct set out in Appendix D;
2. the arrangements for dealing with standards allegations and the establishment of a
Standards Committee all as set out in Appendix E;
3. the procedures for the Monitoring Officer and/or the Independent Person to follow in
considering standards complaints set out in the Annex to Appendix E;
4. the appointment and remuneration of an Independent Person in accordance with section 6
of the Report and Appendix F;
5. the adoption of the Authority’s current arrangements in relation to the registration and
declaration of personal and prejudicial interests until such time as regulations in relation to
‘disclosable pecuniary interests’ are published in accordance with Clause 29 of the Act and
new recommendations in relation to interests are put before the Full Council for approval;
6. the delegation of dispensation powers under section 33 of the Act to the Standards
Committee and the designation of the Monitoring Officer as Proper Officer for the receipt of
applications for dispensations;
7. the changes to the Authority’s Constitution necessitated by the changes to the standards
regime and procedures outlined above;
12
Full Council
30 May 2012
LOCALISM ACT 2011 – CHANGES TO THE STANDARDS ARRANGEMENTS
(Continued)
8. the delegation to the Monitoring Officer of the power to take all steps and deal with all such
ancillary matters as are required to implement any of the above and to render the Authority
compliant with the Act, including engaging with Town and Parish Councils in relation to the
adoption of a Code of Conduct and the arrangements for dealing with Standards
allegations.
20.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
to receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
21.
Cabinet – 12 March 2012
Development Committee – 5 April 2012
Cabinet – 16 April 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
Mr T Ivory welcomed a newly elected Member, Mr P Williams to his first meeting of Full
Council.
22.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
None received.
23.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
24.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
COASTHOPPER SERVICE
The following motion had been received. It had been proposed by Mrs S A Arnold and
seconded by Mr J D Savory:
“I have been assured from the responsible officer at Norfolk County Council that whilst
there are no immediate plans to make changes to the Coasthopper, the contract with
Norfolkgreen ends in 2013. The service is heavily subsidised by Norfolk County
Council and also through the concessionary pass scheme. It is anticipated that the
County Council’s transport budget will be cut by £200,000 next year and whilst no
decisions have yet been made regarding the Coasthopper it is important that we make
every effort to retain this well used and popular service which, apart from the pleasure
given to users, both local and tourists, has brought very real benefits to local
businesses along its route.
I therefore ask this Council to contact Norfolk County Council and Norfolkgreen
endorsing its support for this important service and urging that everything possible is
done to ensure its continuance with current or even improved service for the
foreseeable future.”
Mrs S A Arnold said that the Coasthopper service was of enormous benefit to local people and
the tourist industry, but funding had been drastically reduced. Many people would like to see
13
Full Council
30 May 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
the service extend even further along the coast and it was believed that people who held
concessionary bus passes would be prepared to pay a small fare if the service could be
retained.
Mr D Young, in support of the motion, said that, as well as cuts to services, fares had risen by
4 times the level of inflation. He asked if the Council would consider subsidising the service, as
well as the County Council. Mr T FitzPatrick, in support of the motion, said that it reinforced
the work carried out by NNDC and Broadland District Council on the joint scrutiny of Public
Transport.
A suggested amendment by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett was withdrawn because it was considered that
it would compromise the clarity of the original motion.
It was proposed by Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Mrs L Brettle and
RESOLVED
to contact Norfolk County Council and Norfolkgreen endorsing the Council’s support for the
Coasthopper service and urging that everything possible is done to ensure its continuance
with current or even improved service for the foreseeable future.
24.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
In response to a question from Mrs B A McGoun, it was explained that the Agreement for
Services for Big Society Grant Fund between North Norfolk District Council and Norfolk
Community Foundation had to be in place to regulate the arrangement.
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
The meeting concluded at 8.05 pm.
____
Chairman
14
Full Council
30 May 2012
Minutes Appendix A
REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES
ORGANISATION
Active Norfolk
NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES
1
MEMBER (S) & SUBSTITUTE(S)
WHERE REQUIRED
Miss B Palmer
Bacton Gas Terminal
Environmental Liaison Committee
4
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Price
Mr B Smith
Broads Authority
1
Mr R Stevens
Broads Internal Drainage Board
8
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr B Jarvis
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Price
Mr R Shepherd
Mr R Stevens
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr N Smith
Civil Parking Enforcement
Committee
1
Mr K Johnson
Citizen’s Advice North Norfolk
2
Mr K Johnson
Ms B Palmer
Community Rail Norfolk
1
Mr T FitzPatrick (Director)
Cromer Lawn Tennis & Squash
Association
1
Mr R Wright
Fakenham Community Centre
Management Committee
3
Mr J Punchard
Mr R Reynolds
Mr S Ward
Happisburgh Lighthouse Trust
1
Mrs L Walker
HMP Bure Liaison Committee
3
Mr T Ivory
Mr R Shepherd
Mr G Williams
Holt & Dereham Citizens Advice
Bureau
1
Mr D Young
Local Government Association –
SIG - Coastal issues
1+ Sub
Norfolk Archaeological Services
Advisory Committee
1 + 2 Subs
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
(Mr P Terrington)
Mr T FitzPatrick
(Mrs L Brettle)
(Mrs A Green)
15
Full Council
30 May 2012
ORGANISATION
Norfolk Arts Forum Executive
Norfolk Coast Partnership
NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES
1+ 2 Subs
1+2 Subs
Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny
Committee (must be a Member of
Overview & Scrutiny Committee)
1+Sub
Norfolk Playing Fields Association
1
Norfolk Rail Policy Group
MEMBER (S) & SUBSTITUTE(S)
WHERE REQUIRED
Mr B Jarvis
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
(Mrs L Brettle)
(Mr P Terrington)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
(Mr B Jarvis)
Mr J Lee
1+Sub
Mrs H Thompson
Norfolk Records Committee
1
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage
Board
5
Mrs A Green
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr J D Savory
Mr R Shepherd
Mr J A Wyatt
Norfolk Rural Community Council
1
Mr T Ivory
Norfolk Tourism
1
Mrs H Thompson
Norfolk and Suffolk Energy
Alliance
1
Mr T FitzPatrick
North Norfolk Business Forum
(and Tourism Sector Round Table)
1
Mr N Smith
North Norfolk Community
Transport Partnership
1
To be reviewed
North Norfolk Renewables
Partnership
1
Mr T FitzPatrick
North Norfolk Skills Partnership
1
To be reviewed
North Norfolk Historic Buildings
Trust
1
Mrs A Green
North Walsham Area Community
Transport Association
2
Mr B Smith
Mr N Lloyd
North Walsham Leadership of
Place
2
Mr T Ivory
Mr E Seward
North Walsham Sports Hall
Management Committee
2
Mr N Lloyd
Mr G Jones (substitute)
16
Full Council
30 May 2012
ORGANISATION
PATROL Adjudication and Bus
Lane Adjudication Joint Committee
Shadow Health and Well Being
Board
NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES
1
1 (Leader)
MEMBER (S) & SUBSTITUTE(S)
WHERE REQUIRED
Mr K E Johnson
Mr K E Johnson
Sheringham Little Theatre Society
Board
1
Mr R Oliver
Sheringham Recreation Ground
Liaison Committee
2
Mr R Oliver
Mr R Shepherd
Southrepps Commons
Management Committee
1
Mrs S A Arnold
Strategic Housing Board
1
Mr K Johnson
The Wash & North Norfolk Coast
Marine Special Area of
Conservation Management Group
1
Mr P Terrington
Victory Housing Trust Board
2
Mr K Johnson
Mr T Ivory
Wells Harbour Users’ Advisory
Committee
1
Mr T FitzPatrick
Wells Maltings Trust
2
Mr J D Savory
Mr P Terrington
17
Full Council
30 May 2012
Agenda Item 10
Pensions, Retirement and
Discretionary Compensation Payments
- Policy Statements
Equalities Statement
North Norfolk District Council wishes to promote equality and has a number of
obligations under equality legislation. All employees are expected to adhere to
this procedure in line with these obligations. Reasonable adjustments or
supportive measures should be considered to ensure equality of access and
opportunity regardless of age, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy,
maternity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marriage, civil partnership,
disability, religion or belief.
General Introduction
Since 1997, Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) legislation has
required all local authority employers to publish a written Policy Statement on
how it will exercise the various discretions provided by the scheme; to keep it
under review; and to revise it as necessary.
This policy statement is outlined below:
In developing these Policy Statements it is important to clarify that:
a. The Policy Statements confer no contractural rights in relation to the
Local Government Pension Scheme and discretionary compensation
payments.
b. The Policy Statements may be changed by the Council at any time.
c. These policies should not restrict the Council’s discretion. There may
be circumstances where the Council may decide to make an exception
to any of these particular policies. Any exceptions to a policy contained
within these Policy Statements will only be made following consultation
with the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
It should be noted that any future changes to this policy statement will only
become effective one month after the revised policy statement is published.
The policies incorporated within this Policy Statement include:
1)
2)
3)
4)
General policy - retirement
Policy relating to flexible retirement
Statements relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under
the LGPS
Discretionary compensation payments policy
It is important in considering this document to note the following: All decisions relating to the operation of the policies outlined in this document
are delegated to the Corporate Leadership Team, Leader and Cabinet
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
18
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
Member for Human Resources following consultation with the Council’s s151
Officer, Monitoring Officer and the Head of Organisational Development.
1)
General Policy - retirement
The Council’s policy relating to employee retirement is:
a. Employees who wish to retire from their employment are required to
give notice of their intended date of retirement to their manager in
writing. The length of notice required must be at least the same as the
notice required to resign from employment. However, employees are
encouraged to give an early indication of their planned retirement date
b. Retirement from employment does not establish entitlement to either
occupational or state pension benefits. Equally this policy does not
change an employee’s entitlements as a member of an occupational
pension scheme. Employees who are members of the LGPS are
advised to seek advice about the impact of their planned retirement
date on their Pension benefits. This is particularly important where the
employee is planning on retiring either earlier or later than the
retirement age of the LGPS which is 65.
c. Employees who are members of the LGPS can elect to retire and
receive their benefits from age 60 onwards. Pension benefits must be
drawn by the age of 75.
d. Employees aged between 55 and 59 may with the Council’s consent
retire earlier or opt for flexible retirement provided a full business case
is approved by CMT.
2)
Policy Relating to Flexible Retirement
Flexible retirement occurs where an employee draws their pension and
carries on working, either at a lower grade and or on reduced hours. It is
available to LGPS members who are aged 55 or over, and who with the
Council’s consent reduce their hours or grade. Subject to necessary
approvals, such employees will be able to draw their local government
pension whilst continuing to work. In addition they can remain in the LGPS
th
until the day before their 75 birthday, building up further benefits in the
scheme. In all cases, employees must receive advice as to how flexible
retirement will affect their net pay and pension entitlement. This is important,
as an employee’s pension will normally be actuarially reduced if paid before
age 65.
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
19
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
3)
Statement Relating to the Exercise of Discretionary Powers under
the LGPS
Since 1997, the LGPS has required the Council to issue a written policy
statement on how it will exercise the various discretions provided by the
scheme; to keep it under review; and to revise it as necessary.
These discretions are outlined below and it is compulsory for the Council to
make an individual decision for each of the first four discretions (a – d) and
outline these decisions in the Council’s Policy Statement. It is also a legal
requirement that the employer has regard to the extent to which the policy on
exercising these four discretions might lead to a serious loss of confidence in
public service. The remaining discretions are not compulsory but are
recommended by the Norfolk Pension Fund (e – k).
Compulsory Items in the LGPS 2007 Regulations
a)
Awarding Additional Membership: B Regs, Regulation 12
An employer is allowed to increase a member’s benefits by awarding
additional membership up to a maximum of 10 years.
The Council has decided to use its discretion to enhance an employee’s
pension at the point of retirement in the following circumstances.
Where an employee is Retired or is made Redundant in the Interests of
the Efficiency of the Service, the Council will allow the employee to use the
whole of their compensation payable in accordance with the provisions of the
Discretionary Compensation policy (See Section 4) (less any redundancy
payment) to purchase permissible augmented years in the LGPS if they wish
to do this.
Such possible augmentation will not apply to an employee whose fixed term
contract comes to an end only if this can be objectively justified.
b)
Awarding Additional Pension: B Regs, Regulation 13
An employer is allowed to increase a member’s benefits by awarding
additional pension up to a maximum of £5000 per annum.
The Council will not use the discretion available to it to award additional
pension, other than that which results from augmentation referred to under
Regulation 12 above.
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
20
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
c)
Flexible Retirement: B Regs, Regulation 18
An employer may consent to flexible retirement for a member aged 55 or
more who reduces their grade or hours of work (or both) to receive all or part
of their LGPS benefits immediately, even though they have not left its
employment.
The Council has decided that:
¾ Early release of benefits following reduced hours or salary will be
allowed only in circumstances where it is demonstrated to be in the
Council’s long term interests
¾ Before a decision is made, the Council must be informed of the full
economic cost of granting flexible retirement and of any financial and
non-financial benefits
If the benefits payable on flexible retirement would normally be reduced for
early payment, the employer may agree to waive all or part of the reduction.
The Council has decided that¾ Each case will be considered on its merits. Before a decision is made,
the Council must be informed of the full economic cost of waiving all or
part of the reduction and of any financial and non-financial benefits
(Note:- the above decisions are delegated to the Corporate Leadership Team,
Leader and Portfolio Member for Human Resources following consultation
with the Council’s s151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and the Head of
Organisational Development.
d)
Early Payment of Pension: B Regs, Regulation 30
An employer may give consent for a member aged 55 or more who leaves its
employment without an entitlement to immediate LGPS benefits to receive
them straight away regardless.
The Council has decided that:¾ Voluntary early retirement with immediate payment of benefits will be
allowed only in circumstances where it is demonstrated to be in the
Council’s long-term interests
¾ Before a decision is made in any case, the Council must be informed of
the full economic cost of granting early retirement and of any financial
and non-financial benefits
If the benefits payable would normally be reduced for early payment, the
employer may agree to waive all or part of the reduction on compassionate
grounds.
The Council has decided that:¾ Each case will be considered on its merits. Before a decision is made,
the Council must be informed of the full economic cost of waiving all or
part of the reduction and of any financial and non-financial benefits
(Note:- the above decisions are delegated to the Corporate Leadership Team,
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
21
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
Leader and Portfolio Member for Human Resources following consultation
with the Council’s s151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and the Head of
Organisational Development.
Non-Compulsory Items in the 2008 Regulations
e)
Absence Contribution Time Limit: A Regs, Regulation 22(2)
A member who has been away from work as a result of maternity, paternity or
adoption leave, industrial action (mainly strikes) or unpaid leave of absence
has the right to pay voluntary pension contributions to prevent any gap in
membership.
The request to do so normally has to be made with 30 days of returning to
work (or within 30 days of the last day of service if they do not return to work)
The Council will not use the discretion available to it to extend the 30 days
application period.
f)
Membership Aggregation: A Regs, Regulation 16(4)(b)(ii)
A member who transfers from another LGPS employer, either directly or after
a break, may opt to aggregate the two periods of membership provided they
do so while still an active member in the new post and within twelve months of
joining. The employer has discretion to extend the twelve months time limit.
The Council requires any request to aggregate LGPS membership to be
made within the twelve months time limit.
g)
Shared Cost AVCs: B Regs, Regulation 15(3)
Regulation 25(3)
and A Regs,
It is implicit in these two Regulations that an employer may contribute towards
a Shared Cost Additional Voluntary Contribution (AVC) Scheme, i.e. an AVC
Scheme into which the employer pays contributions as well as the member.
The Council has decided that a Shared Cost AVC Scheme be not set up1.
h)
Forfeiture of Pension Rights: A Regs, Regulations 47(2), 72, 73, 74
& 76
If a member leaves as a result of a conviction for an offence in connection
with their LGPS employment or as a result of their own criminal, negligent or
fraudulent act in connection with that employment, the employer has
discretion (within the terms of these five regulations) to direct that all or part of
their LGPS pension rights should be forfeited and/or paid over to the employer
or specified dependants of the member.
The Council will exercise this discretion depending on the circumstances of
the case. These decisions are delegated to the Corporate Leadership Team,
Leader and Portfolio Member for Human Resources following consultation
1
To our knowledge, no Norfolk Pension Fund employer has set up a shared cost AVC
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
22
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
with the Council’s s151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and the Head of
Organisational Development.
i)
‘Specified Person’
Regulation 57(5)(c)
for
Member
Disagreements:
A
Regs,
There is a three-stage dispute procedure for members who disagree with any
LGPS decision made by their employer. The first stage is handled by an
independent referee appointed by the employer. Second Stage appeals are
dealt with by the administering authority, Norfolk County Council. The third
and final stage is an appeal to The Pensions Ombudsman.
The Council has appointed:
Mr Chris Harding, MBE, LL.B, Solicitor, c/o Norfolk Police Authority,
Jubilee House, Falconers Chase, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 0WW
to resolve first stage appeals on its behalf.
j)
Transfers of Pension Rights: A Regs, Regulation 83(8)
A member who has previous pension rights in a different pension scheme
may transfer them into the LGPS provided they opt to do so within twelve
months of joining it. The employer has discretion to extend the twelve months
time limit.
The Council will not use the discretion available to it to extend the twelve
month application period.
k)
Members’ Contribution Rates: B Regs, Regulation 3(4)
Employers are required to allocate employees into the appropriate
contribution band when they become an active member of the pension
scheme. If a permanent material change to the employee’s terms and
conditions of employment would later move them into a different band in the
course of a financial year, the employer has discretion to change their
contribution rate.
As required by the Regulations, employees’ contribution bands will be
determined by the Council on the basis of their pensionable pay and
contributions deducted accordingly.
Contribution bands will be initially based on full time equivalent salaries and
will be determined at the beginning of each financial year. Salary will include
all pensionable elements of pay.
Where an employee receives an increase or decrease in their salary during
the course of a year (whether as a result of job evaluation, a promotion or
some other reason) and this involves them moving into a new salary grade,
their contribution banding will be reassessed and where appropriate will pay a
revised contribution rate.
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
23
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
An employee may request a reassessment if they believe that their banding
assessment was inaccurate or if they are aware of a factor that had not been
taken into account.
n.b. In the first instance employees should assist Human Resources in
correctly
determining their banding before invoking the dispute
procedure referred to in this Policy Statement.
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
24
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
Agenda Item 10
4)
Discretionary Compensation Payments Policy (Required by The
Local
Government
(Early
Termination
of
Employment)
(Discretionary Compensation) (England and Wales) Regulations
2006)
The Council can exercise certain discretions under the LGPS. In addition, if it
is necessary to declare posts redundant or consider early retirement, the
Council can compensate employees under the provisions outlined in the
above regulations.
Therefore, under this policy the Council will:
a)
In the case of redundancy operate with its general policy which is
outlined in the Employee adjustment Procedure
b)
Discretionary compensation for redundancy:- calculate redundancy pay
using the statutory redundancy calculator, the actual weekly rate of pay
multiplied by 1.5 weeks for each year of completed local government
service (up to a maximum of 45 weeks pay). This compensation will be
payable in the form of a lump sum with any statutory redundancy
payment offset against the discretionary award
c)
Where a business case has been agreed pay a one-off payment,
based on the merits of each individual case, up to a maximum
permitted under the new regulations (i.e.104 week’s pay calculated on
a sum up to the employees actual week’s pay). Only in exceptional
cases would the payment exceed 45 weeks pay (the maximum
proposed for redundancy cases)
d)
Consider the immediate payment of benefits (without any discretionary
compensation) to an employee, who requests voluntary retirement
between ages 55 and 60. This will be determined on a case by case
basis subject to a full costed business case being submitted and
agreed by CLT in consultation with Cabinet, s151, Monitoring Officer
and the Head of Organisational Development (as per section D of the
pensions policy)
e)
The Council will aim to achieve a payback period of up to 3 years to
cover associated costs.
Version No: 1.2
Human Resources Service
25
June 2012
Review date: June 2013
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
1.
Scope of responsibility
1.1
North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) is responsible for ensuring that its business is conducted in accordance with the law and proper
standards, that public money is safeguarded and properly accounted for and used economically, efficiently and effectively. NNDC also
has a duty under the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which its
functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
1.2
In discharging this overall responsibility, NNDC is responsible for putting in place proper arrangements for the governance of its affairs,
facilitating the effective exercise of its functions, which includes arrangements for the management of risk.
1.3
NNDC has approved and adopted a local code of corporate governance, which is consistent with the principles of the CIPFA/SOLACE
Framework “Delivering Good Governance in Local Government” (2007). A copy of the local code is on our website at www.northnorfolk.gov.uk or can be obtained from the Financial Services Manager at Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer. This statement explains
how NNDC has complied with the code and also meets the requirement of regulation 4[3] of the Accounts and Audit (England)
Regulations 2011 in relation to the publication of an annual governance statement, prepared in accordance with proper practises in
relation to internal control and is reviewed annually or more frequently as required.
2.
The purpose of the governance framework
2.1
The governance framework comprises the systems and processes, and culture and values, by which the authority is directed and
controlled and its activities through which it accounts to, engages with and leads the community. It enables the Council to monitor the
achievement of its strategic objectives and to consider whether those objectives have led to the delivery of appropriate, cost-effective
services.
2.2
The governance framework has been in place at NNDC for the year ended 31 March 2012 and up to the date of approval of the
statement of accounts.
3.
The governance framework
3.1
Our governance framework derives from six principles identified in a 2004 publication entitled “The Good Governance Standard for
Public Services”. This was produced by the Independent Commission on Good Governance in Public Services – a commission set up
by the Chartered Institute Of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), and the Office for Public Management. The commission utilised
work done by, amongst others, Cadbury (1992), Nolan (1995) and CIPFA/ Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE)
AGS 1 of 17
26
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
(2001). These principles were adapted for application to local authorities and published by CIPFA/SOLACE in 2007. The six core
principles are:
3.1.1
focusing on the purpose of the authority and on outcomes for the community and creating and implementing a vision for the local
area;
3.1.2
members and officers working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles;
3.1.3
promoting values for the authority and demonstrating the values of good governance through upholding high standards of
conduct and behaviour;
3.1.4
taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk;
3.1.5
developing the capacity and capability of members and officers to be effective; and
3.1.6
engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability.
3.2
The system of internal control is a significant part of that framework and is designed to manage risk to a reasonable level. It cannot
eliminate all risk of not fully achieving policies, aims and objectives and therefore provides a reasonable rather than absolute assurance
of effectiveness. The system of internal control is based on an ongoing process designed to identify and prioritise the risks to the
achievement of NNDC policies, aims and objectives, to evaluate the likelihood of those risks being realised and the impact should they
be realised, and to manage them efficiently, effectively and economically.
4.
The Six Key Principles
4.1
Focusing on the purpose of the authority and on outcomes for the community and creating and implementing a vision for the local area.
4.1.1
The Council’s aims and objectives are set out in the Corporate Plan “Small Government, Big Society” covering the period 20112015. This contains a statement of the Council’s vision for the area, priorities and business strategy over the same period.
4.1.2
The Corporate Plan identifies the key strategic priorities for the Council up to 2015 including clear statements of intent under
each of the following priority areas:
•
To boost employment and create more jobs
AGS 2 of 17
27
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
•
•
•
•
To enable the provision of new homes and the infrastructure that goes with them
To protect our coastline and the character of our countryside and built heritage
To empower individuals and local communities to have a greater say in their own futures
To reform the organisation to deliver high quality services that achieve our priorities in an efficient manner that represents
good value for local taxpayers
4.1.3
The Corporate Plan contains details of what we want to achieve and the methods we will employ in delivering the key priorities
and is accompanied by a detailed work programme “Small Government, Big Society” setting out the details which underpin the
Corporate Plan. Additionally the Cabinet receives an annual Medium Term Financial Strategy which draws on other strategies,
including ICT, asset management and human resources covering a four-year period, which is used to set initial parameters for
the annual budget process.
4.1.4
The Council has an effective performance management framework – utilising a dedicated IT system to record and report upon
performance management information. The system is driven by the Corporate Plan which focuses attention on Council priorities.
This is cascaded through departmental service plans, individual employee appraisals and action plans. It is clearly established in
the annual service and financial planning and performance management cycle.
4.1.5
The Annual Report and Performance Plan represents the culmination of the annual planning and reporting process. The report
evidences the compliance of the Council with its Performance Management Framework.
4.1.6
The Council’s Cabinet and the Performance and Risk Management Board monitor and scrutinise progress against targets and
performance in priority areas affecting relevant service areas, and consider and approve corrective action where necessary, on a
quarterly basis. These reports also include quarterly budget monitoring reports covering the General Fund, capital projects, key
prudential code indicators and certain specific budget areas regarded as particularly sensitive. The reporting process is under
constant review in order to develop its maximum potential, and we are conscious that the financial information needs to be
closely linked to the service performance information.
4.1.7
The Council maintains an objective and professional relationship with external auditors and other statutory inspectors, as
evidenced by the Annual Audit Letter.
4.1.8
Through reviews by external agencies, and Internal Audit, the Council constantly seeks ways of ensuring the economic, effective
and efficient use of resources, and for securing continuous improvement in the way in which its functions are exercised. A
corporate procurement group has been established and continues to oversee the policy framework which governs the way in
AGS 3 of 17
28
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
which the Council obtains goods and services. In the same way the Council’s Asset Management Board oversees the property
portfolio of the Council and monitors the implementation of the Asset Management Strategy and capital programme.
4.1.9
The Council has reviewed its financial and contract rules as part of a comprehensive review of the Constitution which was
completed during 2010/11. This work will be revisited during 2012/13 to reflect the new management arrangements following the
appointment of a new Chief Executive in early 2012 and subsequent changes to the Corporate Leadership and Senior
Management Teams.
4.1.10 All budget heads are allocated to a named budget officer, who is responsible for controlling spend against a budget. This control
is reinforced by regular budget monitoring reports to Cabinet.
4.1.11 The Council continues to develop and refine systems for identifying and evaluating all significant risks, via the corporate
Performance and Risk Management Board. The Risk Management Framework has been the subject of further refinement during
2011/12. Preliminary papers have kept both the Audit Committee and the Performance and Risk management board advised of
the developments which should allow for a more comprehensive management of these risks with ownership of actions to
improve mitigation being allocated to named Officers. The Performance and Risk Management Board has defined terms of
reference to develop a comprehensive performance framework for risk management and to embed risk management across the
Council. The Performance and Risk Management Board maintains the risk register, and submits it to the Audit Committee on a
regular basis. In addition updates on business continuity have been provided to the Audit Committee throughout the year with
the emphasis on completing a comprehensive set of service contingency plans within a new framework. The Business Continuity
Working Group maintains a forum for discussion and development of the overarching business continuity framework.
4.2
Members and Officers working together to achieve a common purpose with clearly defined functions and roles
4.2.1
The Council aims to ensure that the roles and responsibilities for governance are defined and allocated so that accountability for
decisions made and actions taken are clear.
4.2.2
The Council has adopted a constitution which sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures
which are followed to ensure these are efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. It does this by electing a Leader
and appointing a Cabinet. The Leader then allocates executive responsibilities.
4.2.3
The Council publishes a forward plan which contains details of key decisions to be made by the Cabinet. Each Cabinet member
has a specific portfolio of responsibilities requiring them to work closely with senior officers and other employees so as to
achieve the Council’s ambitions. The Cabinet operates on the basis of collective responsibility.
AGS 4 of 17
29
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
4.2.4
Additionally, the Council appoints a number of committees to discharge the Council's regulatory and scrutiny responsibilities.
These leadership roles, and the delegated responsibilities of officers, are set out in the Constitution. A comprehensive review of
the Constitution was undertaken in 2010/11, and approved by Council on 6 April 2011. The Constitution Working Party has met
twice during the year to review and update the Constitution with recommendations being approved by Full Council on 18 April
2012. As noted above this work will be revisited during 2012/13 to reflect the new management structures.
4.2.5
All Committees have clear terms of reference and work programmes to set out their roles and responsibilities. An Audit
Committee provides assurance to the Council on the effectiveness of the governance arrangements, risk management
framework and internal control environment.
4.2.6
Meetings are open to the public except where personal or confidential matters are being discussed. During 2009/10, to improve
openness and accountability, public speaking was introduced at all Committees and Full Council. In addition, senior officers of
the Council can make decisions under delegated authority, again the extent of these delegations is set out in the Constitution.
4.2.7
The Constitution also includes a Member/Officer protocol which describes and regulates the way in which Members and Officers
should interact to work effectively together.
4.2.8
The Council's Chief Executive (and Head of Paid Service) leads the Council's officers and chairs the Corporate Leadership
Team . All staff, including senior management, have clear conditions of employment and job descriptions which set out their
roles and responsibilities.
4.2.9
Currently the Chief Executive also acts as the s151 Officer appointed under the 1972 Local Government Act, and carries overall
responsibility for the financial administration of the District Council. The Council complies with the requirements of the CIPFA
statement on the Role of the Chief Financial Officer in Local Government, as a member of the Corporate Leadership Team.
Currently the corporate finance function headed by the Financial Services Manager and Deputy s151 Officer, provides support
to each service area in respect of budget preparation and financial monitoring process. This third tier post, along with all other
appointments at this management level, is currently under review as part of the revised management structure.
4.2.10 The Monitoring Officer carries overall responsibility for legal compliance and is supported by a legal team. The Council employs
two practising solicitors.
4.2.11 The Council’s Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) is made up of the Chief Executive and two Corporate Directors who meet on a
weekly basis to develop policy issues commensurate with the Council’s aims, objectives and priorities. CLT also considers other
internal control issues, including risk management, performance management, compliances, efficiency and value for money and
AGS 5 of 17
30
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
financial management. CLT also meets with portfolio holders on a regular basis to review progress in achieving the Council’s
ambitions, priorities for action, performance management and forward planning for major issues.
4.2.12 Below CLT the management structure is well defined in a hierarchical manner, comprising the following teams:
Title
Principal Objectives
Corporate Leadership Team
(CLT)
Weekly meetings that deal with forward workplan and media issues
Provides collective responsibility for:
• Providing corporate leadership;
• Employee development ;
• Internal and external communications;
• Performance management; and
• Co-ordinating and delivering corporate objectives and priorities for action;
• Reviews corporate policy implementation;
• Agrees corporate standards; and
• Considers key operational matters
Title
Principal Objectives
Senior Management Team
(SMT)
Four weekly meetings (will be subject to review once the new management structure has been
finalised)
In addition there are specific groups established to progress issues on a corporate basis, examples being:
Group
Asset Management Board
Principal objectives
To confirm the capital strategy and asset management plan
To oversee:
• The full implementation of the capital strategy and asset management plan;
• The arrangements for maintenance of the corporate asset register;
• The production of a surplus land and property register ;
AGS 6 of 17
31
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
Group
Principal objectives
• To consider future land and property requirements and review under-used or empty
property; and
• To consider and approve terms for the disposal or surplus land and property assets
Performance and Risk
Management Board
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coastal Management Board
•
•
To oversee coastal adaptation and policy and coast defence capital works.
Providing strategic oversight of the Coastal Pathfinder Programme.
Environmental
Board
•
To develop and oversee the delivery of North Norfolk Council's programme of work in the
area of environmental sustainability;
To co-ordinate and monitor environmental sustainability work;
To oversee the reporting of sustainability work to the relevant committees of the Council.
Sustainability
•
•
4.3
To establish a performance management framework that is understood and implemented
by all;
To identify and manage the Council’s strategic and operational risks and strengthen
business continuity;
To ensure that all staff and Members have a shared understanding of the council’s priorities
and of what is needed to be done to realise those priorities;
To ensure that the commitment given to performance and risk management is
commensurate with the importance placed on embedding a successful performance and
risk management culture;
To ensure that services deliver the corporate objectives by challenging the measures and
targets put forward by service heads / managers; and
To ensure that management and Council decisions are based on valid, accurate and timely
information.
Promoting values for the community and demonstrating the values of good governance through upholding high standards of conduct
and behaviour.
4.3.1
The Council has adopted a number of codes and protocols that govern both Member and Officer activities. These are:
AGS 7 of 17
32
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.3.2
Members Code of Conduct;
Officers Code of Conduct;
Planning Protocol;
Members’ declarations of interest;
Member/Officer relations; and
Gifts and hospitality
The Council takes fraud, corruption and maladministration very seriously and has the following policies in place which aim to
prevent or deal with such occurrences:
•
•
•
Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy;
Whistle Blowing Policy; and
HR policies regarding the implications for staff involved in such incidents.
4.3.3
It is part of the function of the Monitoring Officer to ensure compliance with established policies, procedures, laws and
regulations. After consulting the Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, the Monitoring Officer can report to the full Council if
any proposal, decision or omission would give rise to unlawfulness or maladministration. Such a report will have the effect of
stopping the proposal or decision being implemented until the report has been considered.
4.3.4
The financial management of the Council is conducted in accordance with the financial rules set out in the Constitution and with
Financial Regulations. The Council has designated the Chief Executive as Chief Finance Officer in accordance with Section 151
of the Local Government Act 1972. The Council has in place a four-year Financial Strategy, updated annually, to support the
medium-term aims of the Corporate Plan.
4.3.5
The Council maintains an externalised Internal Audit function, which operates to the standards set out in the ‘Code of Practice
for Internal Audit in Local Government in the UK” produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy
(CIPFA). This is the fourth year of an arrangement with South Norfolk Council to provide internal audit services to a
consortium of client authorities under a contract with Deloitte Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd.
4.3.6
Individual services have produced Service Plans. These Service Plans are updated each year so as to translate the Corporate
Plan requirements into service activities and to take into account available funding. In this way services identify and plan to
achieve the Council’s priorities and ambitions. These plans also identify any governance impact.
AGS 8 of 17
33
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
4.3.7
4.4
At employee level the Council has established an Employee Development Scheme so as to jointly agree employee objectives
and identify training and development needs. The Scheme provides for an annual appraisal for each member of staff at which
past performance is reviewed, work objectives are planned and also provides for regular monitoring of performance during the
year.
Taking informed and transparent decisions which are subject to effective scrutiny and managing risk.
4.4.1
The Council’s Constitution sets out how the Council operates and the process for policy and decision making.
4.4.2
Full Council sets the policy and budget framework. Within this framework, all key decisions are made by the Cabinet. Cabinet
meetings are open to the public (except where items are exempt under the Access to Information Act).
4.4.3
The Leader’s Forward Plan of key decisions to be taken over the next three months is published on the Council’s website.
4.4.4
All decisions made by Cabinet are made on the basis of reports, including assessments of the legal and financial implications,
policy and equalities assessments, and consideration of the risks involved and how these will be managed. The financial and
legal assessments are provided by named finance and legal officers.
4.4.5
The decision-making process is scrutinised by a scrutiny function which has the power to call in decisions made, but which also
undertakes some pre-decision scrutiny and some policy development work.
4.4.6
Other decisions are made by officers under delegated powers. Authority to make day to day operational decisions is detailed in a
departmental Scheme of Delegation.
4.4.7
Policies and procedures governing the Council's operations include Financial Regulations, Contract Procedure Rules and a Risk
Management Policy. Ensuring the policies are up to date and complied with is the responsibility of managers across the Council.
The Internal Audit, Finance and Legal Services check that policies are complied with. Where incidents of non-compliance are
identified, appropriate action is taken.
4.4.8
The Council’s Risk Management Policy requires that consideration of risk is embedded in all key management processes
undertaken. These include policy and decision making, service delivery planning, project and change management, revenue and
capital budget management and partnership working. In addition, a Corporate Risk Register is maintained and the Performance
and Risk Management Board meets monthly to review the extent to which the risks included are being effectively managed. The
AGS 9 of 17
34
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
Audit Committee oversees the effectiveness of risk management arrangements and provides assurance to the Council in this
respect. Financial Management processes and procedures are set out in the Council’s Financial Regulations and include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.4.9
Comprehensive budgeting systems on a medium term basis;
Clearly defined capital and revenue expenditure guidelines;
Regular reviews and reporting of financial performance against the plans for revenue and capital expenditure;
Overall budgets and a clear Scheme of Delegation defining financial management responsibilities;
Regular capital monitoring reports which compare actual expenditure plus commitments to budgets;
Key financial risks are highlighted in the budgeting process and are monitored through the year by service and corporately;
Robust core financial systems; and
Documented procedures are in place for business critical financial systems, and these are also checked on a regular basis
by Internal Audit.
Containing spending within budget is given a high priority in performance management for individual managers. Monitoring
reports are submitted to the Cabinet on a quarterly basis linking finance and service delivery performance.
4.4.10 The Council has several committees which carry out regulatory or scrutiny functions. These are:
•
•
•
•
•
4.5
Development Control Committee to determine planning applications and related matters;
Standards Committee which promotes, monitors and enforces probity and high ethical standards amongst the Council’s
Members, and this extends to having the same responsibility for all town and parish councils within the District;
Audit Committee to obtain assurance about the adequacy of internal controls, financial accounting and reporting
arrangements, and that effective risk management is in place. Its work is intended to enhance public trust in the corporate
and financial governance of the council;
A Licensing Committee, which monitors and reviews the effectiveness of the Council’s licensing policy and procedures;
Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which review and/or scrutinise decisions made or actions taken in connection with the
discharge of any of the Council’s functions.
Developing the capacity and capability of Members and Officers to be effective
4.5.1
The Council aims to ensure that Members and managers of the Council have the skills, knowledge and capacity they need to
discharge their responsibilities and recognises the value of well trained and competent people in effective service delivery. All
new Members and Officers undertake an induction to familiarise them with protocols, procedures, values and aims of the
Council.
AGS 10 of 17
35
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
4.6
4.5.2
All Council services are delivered by trained and experienced people. All posts have a detailed post profile and person
specification. Training needs are identified through the Employee Development Scheme and addressed via the Human
Resources service and/or individual services as appropriate.
4.5.3
The Council achieved accreditation in January 2008 under the Investors in People Standard, which is a quality framework to
ensure that the Council’s employees have the right knowledge, skills and motivation to work effectively. Reaccreditation took
place during 2009/10 and the Council achieved a bronze level assessment.
4.5.4
Environmental Health has achieved accreditation under the ISO 9001:2000.
4.5.5
In respect of Members, the Council has established a Member Training, Development and Support Group which guided a full
induction process for members following the full council elections. The group has continued to meet to support the Member
induction programme. As a commitment to developing and supporting elected Members the Council has committed itself to
achieving the Members Charter which will provide a structured approach to building elected Member capacity.
4.5.6
Members who have not undertaken training are not permitted to sit on the regulatory committees. This, along with the Scrutiny
role provides important developmental opportunities for Members.
4.5.7
The Council is concentrating on delivering improved service for its customers through an information management strategy
designed to enhance the value and usefulness of the corporate resource that information, data and knowledge represents.
Engaging with local people and other stakeholders to ensure robust public accountability
4.6.1
The Council’s approved a Communication Strategy updated during 2010 along with a new web development strategy, both of
which were approved in September 2010. The Strategy aims to ensure that the work of the Council is open, honest and
transparent and to enhance inclusion by building on our understanding of all residents’ needs and perceptions, through improved
customer service and community engagement.
4.6.2
The Strategy sets the framework for both conveying messages and seeking residents’ views, and supports the need for further
improvement with clear aims and a set of specific actions.
4.6.3
The Council has continued to engage with local people and stakeholders in the following ways on a range of issues;
•
Surveys;
AGS 11 of 17
36
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
•
•
•
•
•
Community workshops;
Interviews;
Public meetings;
Road shows; and
Area Forums
4.6.4
The results of this consultation continue to be used to shape and inform the Council’s policies and strategies.
4.6.5
The Council has tried to engage “harder to reach” groups through varying the way in which it conducts consultation so that the
views of a broad spectrum of the community can be well represented.
4.6.6
The Council has also undertaken work with key stakeholders such as parish councillors through the Town and Parish Council
Forums to try to ensure enhanced participation through these types of established forums.
4.6.7
This is an area which will be scrutinised and reviewed by the Council in parallel to understanding the implications, and
opportunities arising from, the Localism Act 2011.
5.
Review of effectiveness
5.1
NNDC annually reviews the effectiveness of its governance framework including the system of internal control. The review of
effectiveness is informed by managers within the Council who have responsibility for the development and maintenance of the
governance environment, the work of the internal auditors and from comments made by the external auditors and other inspection
agencies.
5.2
Both during the year and at year end, reviews have taken place. In year review mechanisms include:
5.2.1
The Cabinet is responsible for considering overall financial and performance management and receives comprehensive reports
on a quarterly basis. It is also responsible for key decisions and for initiating corrective action in relation to risk and internal
control issues.
5.2.2
The Monitoring Officer has a duty to monitor and review the operation of the Constitution to ensure its aims and principles are
given full effect.
AGS 12 of 17
37
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
5.2.3
A full review of the Constitution was undertaken during 2010/11 to ensure it is accurate and reflects current best practice and
legal requirements with a further review to embrace the new management structures to be completed during 2012/13.
5.2.4
The current Members’ Allowance scheme was adopted by the Council following an independent review panel being established
to make recommendations.
5.2.5
The Council has a Scrutiny Committee which can establish ‘task and finish’ groups, which can look at particular issues in depth,
taking evidence from internal and external sources, before making recommendations to the Cabinet. Scrutiny can “call-in” a
decision which has been made by the Cabinet but not yet implemented, to enable it to consider whether the decision is
appropriate. In addition the Scrutiny Committee can exercise its scrutiny role in respect of any Cabinet function, regardless of
service area or functional responsibility, and will conduct regular performance monitoring of all services, with particular attention
to areas identified as under-performing.
5.2.6
The introduction of the “Councillor Call for Action” by the government provides another mechanism by which members of the
public can raise their concerns. This option is included within the Council’s Constitution and procedures.
5.2.7 The development of the procurement function across the public sector has led to the establishment of a number of framework
agreements for purchasing where the detailed work on price and quantity with suppliers has already been carried out. Contracts
for supply are only established when goods works or services are called off under the agreement. The development of the new
Shared Service for the Revenues and Benefits service is a key undertaking for the Council in planning and procuring a revised
approach to this service provision during 2011/12 and its implementation during 2012/13.
5.2.8
The Equality Framework builds on the work already undertaken in this area. It is based on three levels of “developing, achieving
and excellent”.
5.2.9
The Standards Committee met seven times during the year to consider and review issues relating to the conduct of
Members. The Committee has received a number of items during the year including, reports detailing complaints
received by the Monitoring Officer and the status of such complaints, a report on the future of the Code of Conduct
arrangements and the implications of the Localism Act 2011 and the annual report of the Monitoring Officer.
5.2.10 The Audit Committee met four times during the year to provide independent assurance to the Council in relation to the
effectiveness of the risk management framework and internal control environment. The Committee received regular reports on
risk management, internal control and governance matters in accordance with its agreed work programme. Of the 16 internal
audit assignments completed during 2011/12 the level of assurance achieved was adequate overall. Four internal audit reviews
AGS 13 of 17
38
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
gave limited assurance (Car Parks & Markets, Sundry Debtors, Waste Management and Business Continuity). The audit of
Sports Halls/Centres provided an improved position from the previous review leading to an adequate assurance level for this
service and the audit of Affordable Housing improved from the previous review achieving a good assurance (the highest
assurance awarded). Two other audits (Elections/Electoral Registration and Coastal Change and Pathfinder Management) also
received a good assurance level. Only one high priority recommendation was made in the year as part of the Waste
Management review, this had implemented by 31 March 2012.
5.2.11 Internal Audit is an independent and objective assurance service to the management of the District Council who complete a
programme of reviews throughout the year (16 assignments completed during 2011/12) to provide an opinion on the internal
control, risk management and governance arrangements. In addition, Internal Audit undertakes fraud investigation and proactive
fraud detection work which includes reviewing the control environment in areas where fraud or irregularity has occurred.
Significant weaknesses in the control environment identified by Internal Audit are reported to senior management and the Audit
Committee although it should be noted that there were no high risk recommendations received in relation to any of the audits
undertaken during the 2011/12 financial year.
5.2.12 The External Auditor’s Annual Audit Letter is considered by the Audit Committee and the Performance and Risk Management
Board.
5.2.13 The Performance and Risk Management Board monitor Best Value and Key Performance Indicators on a quarterly basis and
recommend improvements to the Cabinet. They also continually review corporate risks and ensure that actions are being taken
to effectively manage the Council's highest risks.
5.2.14 The Council continues to review its treasury management arrangements in line with best practice and in response to
regular updates and advice from the Council’s Treasury advisors, Arlingclose.
5.3
The year-end review of the governance and the control environment arrangements by the Performance and Risk Management Board
included:
5.3.1
Obtaining assurances from Directors and Service Managers that key elements of the control framework were in place during the
year in their departments.
5.3.2
The statement itself was considered by CLT and is supported by them as an accurate reflection of the governance arrangements
in place for the year.
AGS 14 of 17
39
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
5.3.3
Obtaining assurances from other senior management, including the s151 Officer and the Monitoring Officer that internal control
and corporate governance arrangements in these essential areas were in place throughout the year.
5.3.4
Reviewing any high level audit recommendations that remained outstanding at the year end and taking appropriate action if
necessary.
5.3.5
Reviewing external inspection reports received by the Council during the year, the opinion of the Head of Internal Audit in her
annual report to management and an evaluation of management information in key areas to identify any indications that the
control environment may not be sound.
5.4
The Audit Committee received assurances from the Head of Internal Audit that standards of internal control, corporate governance
arrangements and systems of risk management were all operating to an adequate standard.
5.5
The Audit Committee review the effectiveness of the governance framework as part of an annual review of the Local Code of Corporate
Governance, and an improvement plan to address weaknesses and ensure continuous improvement of the system is in place.
6.
Significant governance issues
6.1
The review process has highlighted a number of significant issues regarding the governance and internal control environment and these
together with improvement/action proposed are described briefly in the tables below along with the outcomes from the action points for
the previous year.
Action Points arising from 2010/11
Ref
10/11 a
Action
Service level risk assessments
should be completed by all service
managers with all service level risk
registers added to the TEN system.
Officer / Target
Date
Organisational
Development
Manager
Sept 2011
Outcome
Service level risks were added to the Ten Risk Management System
by the end of June 2011 and the first review of risks was carried out
with all Service Managers. The Performance and Risk Team and
Service Managers carried out the second six monthly review of
services risks by the end of 2012. The next review will take place
during the Summer of 2012 during the service planning process and
reviews will take place every six months thereafter.
AGS 15 of 17
40
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
Ref
10/11 b
10/11 c
Officer / Target
Date
Action
Review of the governance
arrangements for significant
partnerships and the policies and
procedures for evaluating the
effectiveness of partnerships.
Deputy Chief
Executive
Sept 2011
To ensure adequate arrangements
are in place for the Council to
respond to civil contingencies and
provide business continuity.
Environmental
Health Manager
Sept 2011
Outcome
Updates have been reported to the Audit Committee during the year
including a review of the partnership Framework. A revised approach
to partnership is being suggested through a revised definition to
tighten the scope of the partnership framework. A paper is due to go
to PRMB in July 2012.
The post of Civil Contingencies Manager was filled in September
2011. A review of contingency plans has been undertaken and a work
program established for a future cycle of review. The Business
Continuity Working Group has been re-established and the
development of team business continuity plans is being supported.
The Civil Contingencies Manager continues to work closely with
counterparts across Norfolk and at a high level, District Council
collaborative working arrangements are being progressed.
Arrangements to improve efficiency and/or resilience are being put in
place with a number of partner agencies.
A work program to address the issues identified in the recent Business
Continuity audit has been developed and is currently being
implemented.
Action Points arising from 2011/12
Ref
11/12 a
Action
Officer
Following the implementation of the new management structure the
Council’s Constitution and governance structures that support the
management structure will both be reviewed.
AGS 16 of 17
41
Chief Executive
Target Date
December 2012
North Norfolk District Council
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT
Ref
Action
Officer
Target Date
11/12b
Limited assurance internal audit reviews to be reported to the Performance
and Risk Management Board along with an update on progress of
implementation of recommendations.
Head of Financial
Services
December 2012
11/12c
To ensure adequate arrangements are in place for the Council to respond to
civil contingencies and provide business continuity and to ensure all
recommendations from the 2011/12 Internal Audit Review are implemented
in accordance with the agreed timescales.
Head of Environmental
Services
December 2012
11/12d
Review of the governance arrangements for significant partnerships and the
policies and procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of partnerships.
Chief Executive
October 2012
6.3
We propose over the coming year to take steps identified above to address the above matters to further enhance our governance
arrangements. We are satisfied that these steps will address the need for improvements that were identified in our review of
effectiveness and will monitor their implementation and operation as part of our next annual review.
7.
Certification
7.1
To the best of our knowledge, the governance arrangements, as defined above, have been effectively operating during the year with the
exception of those areas identified above. We propose over the coming year to take steps to address the above matters to further
enhance our governance arrangement. We are satisfied that these steps will address the need for improvements that were identified
during the review of effectiveness and will monitor their implementation and operation as part of our next annual review.
Leader of the Council:
Keith Johnson
Chief Executive:
Date:
Sheila Oxtoby
AGS 17 of 17
42
Date:
North Norfolk District Council
Agenda Item No____15_________
Review of polling arrangements for Gunthorpe Appeal 2012
Summary:
The Returning Officer is required every four years to undertake a
review of polling districts and polling places within the Council’s
administrative boundaries and to make any recommendations for
change. In 2011 the Returning Officer recommended that the
Council approve the merger of polling districts UN4 Gunthorpe
(North) and UM4 Gunthorpe (South) to make one polling district
of UM4 Gunthorpe. This recommendation was agreed by Full
Council on 19 October 2011.
Following the conclusion of the polling review in 2011 the
Electoral Commission received an appeal from Gunthorpe Parish
Council regarding the closure of the polling place and station in
the polling district of UN4 Gunthorpe (North).
The Returning Officer has reviewed the representation and
listened to the Parish Council regarding the current provision
and location of the one polling station within Gunthorpe Parish.
She considers it most important that electors have accessibility
to a polling station. As a result of the review the Returning Officer
is willing to re-instate the polling place and polling station as
requested by Gunthorpe Parish Council in UN4 Gunthorpe
(North) and recommends that the Council agrees to re-instate the
polling districts of UN4 Gunthorpe (North) and UM4 Gunthorpe
(South) to enable this to happen.
Conclusions:
The Returning Officer has shared the proposed change with the
Polling Review Working Group, Cabinet Member Tom Fitzpatrick, and
the Local Member for Wensum Ann Green.
Recommendations:
Council is RECOMMENDED to approve the following change of
Polling Districts, effective from 16 October 2012:
• Polling District UM4 Gunthorpe (South) and Polling District UN4
Gunthorpe North (Bale) be re-instated
and to NOTE that the Polling Places and Stations will be as follows:
UM4 Gunthorpe (South) - Gunthorpe Village Institute, Swanton Road,
Gunthorpe and
UM5 Gunthorpe (North) - Bale Village Hall, Sharrington Road, Bale
43
The electors in the re-instated polling districts of UN4 Gunthorpe
(North) and UM4 Gunthorpe (South) will be designated to vote in
the relevant re-instated polling places and stations as above.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Councillor Tom Fitzpatrick
Wensum
Suzanne Taylor, Electoral Services Manager
01263 516046
suzanne.taylor@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Introduction
1.
The Electoral Administration Act 2006 (EAA 2006) introduced for all polling districts and
polling places to be reviewed by each Council by the end of 2007 and then every 4 years
thereafter. Under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983 it is the
Council’s duty to fix polling districts and to designate polling places within those districts
and it is the Returning Officer’s duty to determine the polling stations within the polling
places at which polling is to take place. The Council delegated the designation of polling
places to the Returning Officer (RO) in May 2008.
A polling district is a geographical sub-division of an electoral area, i.e. an area in the
constituency for which the electors vote together at the same polling place such as a UK
Parliamentary constituency, a European Parliamentary electoral region, a ward or an
electoral division. Polling districts are identified by three digits that distinguish the polling
district and that, together with the elector’s number from the register of electors for that
district, make up the elector’s distinctive and unique electoral registration number.
A polling place is a readily identifiable place within the polling district to which the
electors will go to vote. However, as there is no legal definition of what a polling place is
the area could be defined as tightly as a particular building or as widely as the entire
polling district.
A polling station is the building or part of a building where the actual process of voting
takes place. It is located within the polling place and must be designated by the
Returning Officer for the particular polling district. The extent of the polling station will
depend upon local circumstances
The review process
2. Following receipt of the appeal from Gunthorpe Parish Council to the Electoral
Commission and subsequent notification to the Returning Officer a short review was
carried out.
3. The intention is for the review to be completed in time for any alterations to be made to
polling districts in the next revised edition of the Register of Electors which is published
on 16 October 2012.
44
Implications stemming from the review
4. The following implications should be noted
•
Financial
The intention in the original polling review was to generate a net saving of around
£600 every four years at each district-wide election.
•
Sustainability
There are no implications regarding sustainability
•
Risk
There are no additional risk factors associated with the review.
arrangements will be publicised to ensure public awareness.
•
The revised
Equality
There are no implications regarding equality
Conclusions and recommendations
5.
The Returning Officer has shared the proposed change with the Polling Review
Working Group, Cabinet Member Tom Fitzpatrick and the Local Member for Wensum
Ann Green.
6.
Council is RECOMMENDED to approve the following change of Polling Districts,
effective from 16 October 2012:
•
Polling District UM4 Gunthorpe (South) and Polling District UN4 Gunthorpe
(North) be re-instated
and to NOTE that the Polling Places and Stations in Gunthorpe will be as follows:
UM4 Gunthorpe (South) - Gunthorpe Village Institute, Swanton Road, Gunthorpe and
UM5 Gunthorpe (North) - Bale Village Hall, Sharrington Road, Bale
The electors in the re-instated polling districts of UN4 Gunthorpe (North) and UM4
Gunthorpe (South) will be designated to vote in the re-instated polling places and stations as
above.
45
Agenda Item No___16_________
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
Summary:
At their meeting on 30th May Members resolved to adopt
a new Code of Conduct for the elected and co-opted
members of the Council in accordance with the
provisions of the Localism Act 2011. At the time that the
Council adopted the Code the Regulations governing
the disclosure of interests - in particular "disclosable
pecuniary interests" had not yet been made. This report
addresses the disclosure of interests.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Members are recommended to:1. Adopt the arrangements in relation to disclosable
pecuniary interests set out in paragraph 3 of this
Report.
2. Adopt the arrangements in relation to "other
interests" as are set out in paragraph 7 of this
Report.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
David Johnson, david.johnson@norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
At their meeting on 30th May members resolved to adopt a new Code of
Conduct for the elected and co-opted members of the Council in accordance
with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. The Code promotes and
maintains high standards of conduct for members and is consistent with the
principles of conduct in public life set out in the Act, namely selflessness,
integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
1.2
At the time that the Council adopted the Code the Regulations governing the
disclosure of interests - in particular "disclosable pecuniary interests" had not
yet been made. The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests)
46
Regulations 2012 (copy annexed to this Report) set out the definition of
"disclosable pecuniary interests". Members will note that they cover matters
such as employment, office, trade, profession obligation, sponsorship,
contracts, land, licences, corporate tenancies and securities. These interests
are also disclosable pecuniary interests if they are interests of a member’s
wife or partner. Whilst there is a degree of commonality with the previous
Code the critical distinction in all Local Authority Codes of Conducts is now
between disclosable pecuniary interests and "other interests".
2.
Disclosable Pecuniary Interests
In relation to disclosable pecuniary interests the Localism Act requires a
member to declare and withdraw from participation in any matter where they
have such an interest. It does not require them to leave the Committee room
but says that an Authority's own arrangements may adopt this requirement.
This seems to me to be a sensible step and I will recommend to members that
they adopt the following as part of the Council's arrangements and standing
orders.
"A member who has a disclosable pecuniary interest in relation to any item in
any matter being considered at a meeting that member must withdraw from
the room in which the meeting is taking place including any public seating
area or gallery."
3.
Other Interests
Whereas disclosable pecuniary interests are well defined (as they need to be
since failure to register, disclose and declare them is now a criminal offence)
interests other than disclosable pecuniary interests are left entirely to the
discretion of each Local Authority. This presents the Authority with the first
problem which is that these interests could consist of anything related to the
life of a Councillor. This in turn makes it very difficult to require Councillors to
list all these matters and to make that list meaningful in relation to any specific
matters arising in the course of their duties as the Councillor.
In considering the scope of these other interests there are some that might
readily come to mind, for example:•
being a Councillor at another Authority or a member of another public
body;
•
being a Magistrate;
•
being a Trustee of a Trust dealing with private or charitable matters;
•
a non-remunerated Directorship of a company as, for example,
perhaps a non-executive Director;
•
a member or officer of a club or society, political party or a Trade
Union;
•
a member of a lobby group or campaign;
47
•
a member of a pension scheme for a particular body;
•
being a licence holder of licensed premises;
•
being a volunteer for a body;
•
membership of a secret society such as the Freemasons.
As members will readily see, in certain circumstances a Councillor might
consider it appropriate at a meeting at which he or she is present to declare to
the meeting such an interest when an item relating to that interest is on the
agenda. Having declared such an interest there would be no obligation on
the member to withdraw from the item but there would also be no bar to the
member doing that if they felt that the interest was such that members of the
public might consider it to have an effect on their judgment of the public
interest. This would be entirely appropriate.
However, it would be more difficult to list in advance all such items and to
draft a comprehensive definition of them all. My recommendation, therefore,
is that members resolve to restrict the register to disclosable pecuniary
interests and to leave such other interests to each member to declare as they
think fit at each meeting.
4.
Conclusion
Members are recommended to:1. Adopt the arrangements in relation to disclosable pecuniary interests set
out in paragraph 3 of this Report.
2. Adopt the arrangements in relation to "other interests" as are set out in
paragraph 7 of this Report.
48
Agenda Item No______17______
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTITUTION
Summary:
Section 9P of the Local Government Act 2000 requires
every Local Authority to prepare and keep up to date a
document referred to as its constitution.
Conclusions:
The North Norfolk District Council's current constitution
requires some revision and updating to take account of
changes made by the Localism Act 2011 (in particular to
the Standards and Conduct regime), the management
restructuring at the Council and consequential
amending and tidying of the wording.
Recommendations:
1. To instruct the Monitoring Officer in consultation with
the Chief Executive Officer and the Constitution
Working Party to make the required changes as
described in this report to the Council’s Constitution
2. To confirm the appointment of the Head of Financial
Services as the Council’s designated officer for the
purposes of section 151 of the Local Government
Act 1972.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Contact Officer, telephone number and
email: David Johnson, david.johnson@norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
Section 9P of the Local Government Act 2000 requires every Local Authority
to prepare and keep up to date a document referred to as its constitution
which must contain:•
a copy of the Authority's standing orders for the time being;
•
a copy of the Authority's Code of Conduct (if any) for the time being;
49
•
such information as the Secretary of State may direct;
•
such other information (if any) as the Authority considers appropriate.
Copies of the constitution must be available at the Council offices and
available on demand to any person requesting a copy.
3. Changes
The North Norfolk District Council's current constitution requires some revision
and updating to take account of changes made by the Localism Act 2011 (in
particular to the Standards and Conduct regime), the management restructuring
at the Council and consequential amending and tidying of the wording.
4.
Governance
The first area which requires some amending is to the provisions concerning
the election and dismissal of the Leader of the Council. The provisions of the
Local Government Act 2000 amended by the Localism Act 2011 impose
requirements upon an authority operating executive arrangements.
The Council has a Leader and Executive form of governance arrangements
which means that its constitution must now include provision with respect to
the election of the executive leader, including provision for an election where
there is a vacancy in the office of executive leader, and provision for the
council to remove the executive leader by resolution.
If a council passes a resolution to remove the executive leader, a new
executive leader is to be elected at the meeting at which the leader is
removed from office, or at a subsequent meeting.
5.
Standards and Conduct
The replacement of the Local Government Act 2000 Standards and Conduct
regime by that contained in the Localism Act 2011 also needs to be reflected
in the constitution. Members have already approved a Code of Conduct and
arrangements for investigating breaches of the Code. These newly adopted
provisions will go into the constitution in place of the superseded ones.
6.
Management Restructure
Following a restructure of the senior management of the authority references
to officer posts and titles will need to be revised to reflect the new structure.
The Chief Executive Officer is currently also the Council’s designated officer
for the purposes of section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972 (financial
propriety role). It is inappropriate that these two roles be held by one officer
so under the restructure the Chief Executive officer has designated Karen Sly
to be the Council’s Section 151 Officer and Council’s endorsement to this
appointment is sought.
50
7.
Recommendations
1. To instruct the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chief Executive
Officer and the Constitution Working Party to make the required changes
as described in this report to the Council’s Constitution
2. To confirm the appointment of the Head of Financial Services as the
Council’s designated officer for the purposes of section 151 of the Local
Government Act 1972.
51
Agenda Item 18
AUDIT COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on 6 March 2012 in Meeting Room
One, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Committee:
Members in
Attendance:
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance
Mr N D Dixon (Chairman)
Mrs A Moore
Mr D Young
Mr P W Moore
The Interim Accountancy Manager, the Head of Internal Audit, the
Environmental Health Manager and the Civil Contingencies Manager (for
minute 68) and the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH).
Sarah Brown (PriceWaterhouseCoopers)
55 APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr B Jarvis, Mr J Punchard
and Mr S Ward.
56 SUBSTITUTES
Mr S Ward was substitute for Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds but had made his apologies.
57 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
58 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
59 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
60 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 6 December 2011 were
approved as a correct record.
Audit Committee
1
52
6 March 2012
61 AUDIT UPDATE AND ACTION LIST
Members were updated on progress on actions arising from the minutes of the meeting
of 6 December 2011.
a) To review the working protocol: this item would be removed from the Action List and
put on the Work Programme for December 2012.
b) Partnership Arrangements: the Performance and Risk Management Board had not
met since the last Audit Committee. It was due to meet on 16 March 2012 when the
Partnership Arrangements would be received. The Revenues and Benefits Shared
Services and FLAG arrangements should be brought into the Framework but this
needed input from the Partnership and Risk Management Board.
c) Terms of Reference of the Audit Committee: this would be considered by the
Constitution Working Party which was due to meet on 9 March 2012.
d) Members’ Allowances: procedures were in place with regard to changes:
• A Members’ Payroll Establishment Report was produced quarterly and
checked and authorised by the Democratic Services Team Leader. Any
changes were notified to Human Resources on a Notification of Change form.
• Any changes to Members’ Allowances were notified via the Democratic
Services Team Leader on a Notification of Change form. The details of the
change were recorded on the HR/Payroll system. As the system was date
driven a history was created every time a change was made. The details on
the form were checked again once the payroll had been processed by the
Payroll Officer and again by an HR Officer before the payroll was finalised.
The form was then placed on the Members’ file for reference.
• During an election due to the bulk changes the information was recorded on a
spreadsheet. The Payroll Officer provided a list of all current Members to the
Democratic Services Team Leader who was then responsible for advising the
Payroll Officer of any changes to be made. Lessons had been learned after
the election that more discussion was required between all parties involved.
Discussion needed to take place around the date of the election.
e) TEN system: the system needed to be examined and alternatives looked at, with our
current requirements in mind. The Interim Accountancy Manager and the Policy and
Performance Management Officer would undertake this task. The providers of the
TEN system would be invited and asked to look at how the Council was using it. An
update would be brought to the June meeting of the Audit Committee.
f) Risk Management Framework: the Interim Accountancy Manager had produced
some material which could be adopted for Audit Committee training purposes. It was
believed that Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would also welcome
the training. The Member Training, Development and Support Group would be
approached to see if the training should be more widespread.
g) The future of public audit: further information had been received by the Interim
Accountancy Manager and was circulated to Members.
62 CERTIFICATION REPORT (2010/11) – REPORT TO THOSE CHARGED WITH
GOVERNANCE
At the request of the Chairman Sarah Brown had written an introduction to the
Certification Report. Members expressed approval of this.
The claims and returns certified in 2010/11 were the Housing and Council Tax Benefit
Subsidy, the Disabled Facilities Grant and the National Non-domestic Rates Return. A
qualification letter had been issued in respect of the Housing and Council Tax Benefit
Subsidy but the others had been certified without amendment or qualification.
Audit Committee
2
53
6 March 2012
CERTIFICATION REPORT (2010/11) – REPORT TO THOSE CHARGED WITH
GOVERNANCE
(Continued)
The certification fees were lower than in the previous year. This was because less
testing had been needed on the Housing and Council Tax Benefit Subsidy. There was a
definite improvement on the previous year with no significant risks and not many
recommendations.
RESOLVED
to receive the report.
63 EXTERNAL AUDIT PLAN 2011/12
The significant and elevated audit risks were:
a) Fraud and management override of controls (significant)
b) Recognition of income and expenditure (significant)
c) Property valuation (elevated)
d) Heritage assets (elevated)
e) Valuation and accounting treatment of leases (elevated)
f) Redundancy costs (elevated)
Members requested that the level of risk should be denoted by a method other than
colour-coding.
External Audit used professional judgement to assess what was material. This included
consideration of the amount and nature of transactions. Generally 2% of gross
expenditure was the rule of thumb in determining an overall level of materiality for
Councils. External Audit was required to report to those charged with governance
uncorrected misstatements identified during the audit that were determined by
management to be immaterial to the financial statements, other than those which were
clearly trivial. In 2010/11 a triviality level of £50,000 had been adopted with respect to the
statement of accounts. In accordance with External Audit’s audit guide the upper limit to
the 2011/12 triviality calculation remained £50,000. It was proposed, subject to the
agreement of the Audit Committee, to continue defining the “clearly trivial” threshold as
being misstatements of £50,000 or less.
Risk of fraud: the responsibility of the Audit Committee as part of its governance role
was:
a) To evaluate management’s identification of fraud risk and implementation of antifraud measures.
b) To ensure any alleged or suspected instances of fraud brought to the Committee’s
attention were investigated appropriately.
The Audit Committee was not aware of any fraud. They had been aware of specific
instances of fraud in the past but were satisfied that procedures were in place to prevent
reoccurrence. The Internal Audit Strategy highlighted areas where historically there had
been the potential for fraud and corruption. The Internal Audit programme addressed
these areas. The Map of Audit Assurances provided since 2008/9 mostly showed
improvement although there were a few areas which had gone from Adequate to Limited.
There were protocols in place between Internal and External Audit to keep the Audit
Committee informed of any instances of fraud.
Recent developments: it was probable that provisions would need to be made at 31
March 2012 in relation to any costs likely to be incurred in meeting obligations relating to
Audit Committee
3
54
6 March 2012
EXTERNAL AUDIT PLAN 2011/12
(Continued)
2011/12 carbon emissions. Detailed guidance was being provided. For the first time in
the 2011/12 Statement of Accounts the Code of Practice on Local authority Accounting
in the United Kingdom required authorities to present information about the heritage
assets they held. It was believed that the Council did not hold any heritage assets of
significant value although this was being investigated.
Audit fees: the increase on the budgeted fee was mostly because of work on the
Housing Benefits subsidy for additional testing performed due to errors noted and
producing a qualification letter and the NNDR claim as full testing is required at least
once every 3 years. Concern was expressed at the level of fees in such a period of
financial constraint. The Audit fee accounted for a significant sum of the base budget.
There was no option but to have the certification work carried out but the Committee
queried if ways of doing it as cost-effectively as possible could be identified. The
Committee would monitor this and refer the matter to Cabinet if necessary. Sarah Brown
confirmed to Members that certification fees are charged in accordance with the Audit
Commission certification hourly rates and external audit will continue to work as
efficiently as possible as they had always done in the past. The budgeted fee for
Housing Benefits did not include the fee for additional testing, which was required by the
certification instructions agreed by the DWP, for errors identified in initial samples. The
approach undertaken for additional testing is performed in full compliance with the
requirements for the DWP and after consultation and agreement with the Benefits
department. Fees would reduce if fewer errors were identified in the claim as
demonstrated in the reduction in fee from the prior year. Additional work was required on
the NNDR claim in 2010/11 because it was a requirement of the certification instructions
that full testing was performed every 3 years. As this work was performed in 2010/11
PWC fully expected the fee in 2011/12 to be in line with 2009/10.
Sarah Brown would discuss the committee’s comments regarding fees with the
engagement leader.
RESOLVED
to continue defining the “clearly trivial” threshold for the Council as being misstatements
of £50,000 or less.
64 PROGRESS REPORT ON INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY, NOVEMBER 2011 –
FEBRUARY 2012
80% of the Internal Audit work had now been completed with 6 final audits and a further
6 in varying stages of delivery. Revisions to the Audit Plan, detailed in the Officer’s report
at Section 2.1 had led to a one day increase overall in the total audit days that had
originally been approved by the Committee in March 2011.
Amendments to the Annual Audit Plan were discussed. When amendments were
necessary the Head of Internal Audit would liaise direct with the S151 Officer and
discuss the matter with the relevant service heads. The Audit Committee would be
notified of any amendments via the quarterly progress report. Additional requirements
over and above the agreed allocation of days would also be brought back to the
Committee. The Audit Committee was concerned with strategic, not operational matters.
The Internal Audit strategy determined how Strategic and Annual Plans were developed.
It was important to have flexibility in the Annual Plan. There were occasions when, for
example, delaying an audit could ensure that a more constructive review was
subsequently delivered.
Audit Committee
4
55
6 March 2012
PROGRESS REPORT ON INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY, NOVEMBER 2011 –
FEBRUARY 2012
(Continued)
During the period November 2011 to February 2012 when completing audits of Car
Parking and Markets and Sundry Debtors Internal Audit gave a limited assurance to
these areas whereas previously it had classified their corresponding systems of internal
control as adequate. However this year’s review of Sports Halls/Centres had conversely
shown that arrangements here had improved such that the previous assessment of
limited had been revised to an adequate assurance level. In response to a question
regarding Car Parking and Markets, the Head of Internal Audit said that follow-up work
would be undertaken in 2012/13 to monitor progress in relation to the implementation of
audit recommendations applying to these two areas. The Committee agreed that the
issues highlighted by this particular audit needed to be considered further at the next
meeting.
The report on Sundry Debtors was discussed. The Interim Financial Services Manager
made mention that consideration was being given to centralising debtor accounts
because, with the current system, the same debtor could appear on several different
accounts. This added difficulty to the process of pursuing a debtor.
Such debts were usually of low value but there should be credit checks before entering
into higher value arrangements, e.g. tenancy of an industrial unit.
The report on Corporate Governance was discussed. There was a low risk
recommendation to replace the committee report template with a revised version. Mr P
W Moore explained that he was chairing an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task
Group which was doing further work on the template. The Audit Committee agreed that
the implementation of the template could be held over until the work was complete. Once
it was in place, the use of the template would be strictly enforced.
The report also highlighted revisions needed to the Council’s Constitution. The
Constitution Working Party had been re-convened and was due to meet on 9 March
2012 to revise the document. The revisions would be brought to Full Council on 18 April
2012.
When considering the proposed audit coverage for the 2012/13 review of Corporate
Governance arrangements, it was recognised that this should take into account the
outcomes of the Chief Executive’s planned work on the committee system and cycle of
meetings.
RESOLVED
to note the outcomes of the 6 audits completed between November and February, and
the recent amendments made to the Annual Audit Plan.
65 RISK
The Corporate Risk Register was due to go to the Performance and Risk Management
Board on 16 March 2012. Concessionary fares had been deleted. Shared Services and
other items which could impact the viability of the Council had been added. The Register
was still in the old format as there was no approval as yet to use the new one. The new
format enabled the risks to be merged in categories with a series of actions allocated to
named officers. In June the Audit Committee should be able to see the new format. The
Chief Executive was the Corporate Risk Officer.
RESOLVED
to receive the Corporate Risk Register at the June meeting.
Audit Committee
5
56
6 March 2012
66 INTERNAL AUDIT’S TERMS OF REFERENCE, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS,
CODE OF ETHICS, STRATEGY, AUDIT PLANS AND SUMMARY AUDIT COVERAGE
INFORMATION FOR 2012/13
The report provided an overview of the stages followed prior to the formulation of the
Strategic Audit Plan for 2012/13 to 2014/15, and the Annual Audit Plan for 2012/13.
The Annual Audit Plan would then serve as the work programme and initial terms of
reference for the Council’s Internal Audit Services Contractor, Deloitte Public Sector
Internal Audit Ltd, and provide the basis upon which the Head of Internal Audit would
subsequently give Audit Opinions on the systems of internal control and risk
management, and corporate governance arrangements at North Norfolk District Council
for the year 2012/13.
The report also aimed to clarify the links between Internal Audit’s Terms of Reference,
Performance Indicators, Strategy, and its Strategic and Annual Audit Plans, as well as
detailing the way in which Internal Audit would operate at the Council in the year ahead,
in order to satisfy the CIPFA Code of Practice for Internal Audit in Local Government and
Statement on the Role of the Head of Internal Audit in Public Service Organisations.
When conducting the audit needs assessment exercise for 2012/13, Internal Audit had
been mindful of the financial pressures facing the authority both currently and in future
years. Internal Audit was also aware of recent developments affecting the Council,
namely the appointment of a new Chief Executive, formation of a new Corporate
Leadership Team and a current restructuring exercise at Service Manager/Heads of
Service level. Aside from these significant management restructuring initiatives, Internal
Audit also understood that the Revenues and Benefits Shared Service arrangements
with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council were progressing well and that from
August 2012; the Council was seeking to join the CNC Building Control Partnership.
Appropriate internal audit arrangements were being made for these shared services
arrangements.
Internal Audit’s Terms of Reference were reviewed annually by the Head of Internal
Audit and then presented to the Audit Committee for formal approval. The Terms of
Reference for 2012/13 were attached at Appendix C.
In accordance with contractual arrangements each year, an Audit Needs Assessment
was completed by the Head of Internal Audit or the Deputy Audit Manager as part of the
audit planning process, culminating in the development of a Strategic Audit Plan, with an
Annual Audit Plan being extracted from the latter for adoption in the succeeding financial
year. In previous years, there had been 5-year Strategic Audit Plans but this year a 3year Strategic Audit Plan would be trialled. Consultations with Section 151 Officers
across the Norfolk Internal Audit Consortium had indicated the need to continue to
provide a forecast of future audit coverage but given the changing environment which
local government currently faced, adopting a shorter timeframe was favoured, and the
end date of the Plan effectively tied in with the financial year when the existing Internal
Audit Services Contract with Deloitte Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd was due to expire.
Detailed planning work had already been undertaken in relation to the Cedar Financial
Application, as noted in the most recent Progress Report on Internal Audit Activity.
Arrangements were being made for completion of the requisite review work linked to the
Cedar Application in 2012/13.
The Corporate Leadership Team was interested in pursuing a combined computer audit
review of Project Management and the Cash Receipting Application during 2012/13.
Internal Audit was currently examining how this might be achieved in terms of providing
Audit Committee
6
57
6 March 2012
INTERNAL AUDIT’S TERMS OF REFERENCE, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS,
CODE OF ETHICS, STRATEGY, AUDIT PLANS AND SUMMARY AUDIT COVERAGE
INFORMATION FOR 2012/13
(Continued)
robust assurances over the two areas, whilst also generating cost savings for the
authority in complying with this request.
The computer audit of the Civica application and the Document Imaging system
scheduled for 2012/13 might not go ahead as planned because of the Revenues and
Benefits Shared Services project and the fact that the Partnership Agreement made the
internal auditors at King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council responsible for
auditing all aspects of Revenues and Benefits for the 2 Councils from 2013/14 onwards.
However, there had been a request from North Norfolk’s Corporate Leadership Team for
a review of the developing Revenues and Benefits shared service provisions to be
performed in 2012/13. The requirement had yet to be incorporated into the Annual Audit
Plan for 2012/13.
A revised version of the Internal Audit Plan would be brought back to the Committee
upon finalisation with the Corporate Leadership Team of auditing requirements with
reference to Project Management, the Cash Receipting application and the Revenues
and Benefits developing shared service provisions.
RESOLVED
To approve:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Internal Audit’s Terms of Reference and Performance Indicators for 2012/13;
Internal Audit’s Code of Ethics for 2012/13;
Internal Audit’s Strategy for 2012/13;
The Strategic Audit Plan for 2012/13 to 2014/15;
The Annual Audit Plan for 2012/13; and,
The Summary of Internal Audit Coverage for 2012/13.
67 AUDIT COMMITTEE SELF-ASSESSMENT 2011 – 12
The Members of the Committee had completed the self-assessment individually. The
responses had been collated by the Interim Accountancy Manager. The self-assessment
highlighted the need for training on the Statement of Accounts, which would be arranged
by officers.
The Committee had experienced difficulties regarding stability of membership. This was
being addressed. It was unfortunate that Members in full-time employment, who had so
much to offer, were unable to attend regularly.
RESOLVED
To note the content of this report and commission Officers to provide the improvements
noted in section eight.
68 BUSINESS CONTINUITY
a) Ten Team Plans were in place. Teams were being asked to produce Plans even
though the Senior Management Review might impact on them.
b) The Business Continuity Working Group meetings were working well.
Audit Committee
7
58
6 March 2012
BUSINESS CONTINUITY
(Continued)
c) Standby power: a generator had been tested at the weekend and worked well.
d) The Corporate Business Continuity Plan was almost complete and would go to CLT
for approval. It would be revised in 6 months time when all the Team Plans were in
place and the Senior Management Review was complete.
e) The Disaster Recovery and Work Action Recovery sites review was still on going. it
was hoped that the Victory Housing Trust site could be used in the event of the
Annexe being unusable.
f) The interim recommendations of the internal audit report had been used by officers
as a health check.
g) The Committee requested an oral update on Team Plans for the June meeting and
requested 3 updates per annum on Business Continuity – March, June and
December.
RESOLVED
to note the contents of the report.
69 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
This item had been covered under Minute 61 (e)
70 AUDIT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
The following updates were made to the Audit Committee Work Programme for June:
a) To add the Working Protocol for December 2012.
b) To receive an update on the TEN system in June.
c) It was unlikely that PWC would have any reports for June.
The meeting ended at 4.45 pm.
______________________
Chairman
Audit Committee
8
59
6 March 2012
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on
26 March 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr P High
Mr B Jarvis
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
The Licensing Manager, the Legal Advisor, and the Democratic
Services Officer (AA).
30
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B Hannah, Ms B Palmer, Mrs H Thompson and Mrs L
Walker.
31
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
32
MINUTES
Licensing and Appeals Committee – 14 November 2012 – Minute 28 – Licensing
Act 2003 – Consultation on Deregulation of Entertainment Licensing
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to the fourth paragraph and asked for the word
“children” be deleted so that the sentence read: “Members raised other areas of
concern including cage-fighting, firework displays although these were not currently
regulated.” This was because she had been referring to cage-fighting in general and
not just children cage-fighting.
Subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of the meeting of the Licensing and
Appeals Committee held on 14 November 2011 and also the minutes of the meetings
of the Licensing Sub-Committees held on 9 November 2011, 18 January 2012 and 8
February 2012 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
33
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
34
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
1
60
26 March 2012
35
REVISION OF THE TAXI LICENSING POLICY, HANDBOOK AND LICENCE
CONDITIONS
The report outlined the work of the Members Working Party on this matter, the
consultation exercise undertaken and the proposals for changes.
The Licensing Manager reported that the consultation exercise had resulted in some
detailed responses and together with the area meetings had shown that there was a
general consensus on the proposed changes to drivers’ licences but not to licensed
vehicle signage. The policy, handbook and licence conditions had been revised and
was now a much shorter and more clearly laid out document. It was intended that
the changes would come into effect on 1 May 2012.
The Chairman thanked the Officers for their work in undertaking the exercise and to
those Members who had attended the area meetings. Taxi drivers had been given
every opportunity to comment on the revisions.
The Legal Advisor said that the taxi licensing policy would, in the case of a licence
being revoked or an unsuccessful application being appealed to the Magistrates’
Court, assist the Council to defend its decision.
Members went through the revised documents and made further amendments to
them.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
Members agree the proposed revisions to the taxi licensing policy, handbook and
licence conditions, including those made at the meeting, and recommend approval to
Full Council.
The meeting was adjourned at 12.10pm and reconvened at 12.25pm.
36
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13
The report outlined revisions to licence fees for Taxi Licensing; Animal Welfare
Licences and various other licences and sought recommendation of their adoption by
Full Council.
Fees for ‘Taxi Driver, Vehicle and Operator Licences
The Licensing Manager explained that the proposed licence fees reflected the costs
to the Council in processing an application. The proposals in relation to taxi licensing
had been published in the Eastern Daily Press two weeks ago. Any comments on
them would be reported to the meeting of Full Council in April. The proposed fees
compared favourably with those of other councils. No Government funding was
available for this.
Fees for Animal Welfare Licences
Some of the proposed fees for animal establishments were significantly higher than
the current fees. The current fees related to the type of establishment but the
proposed fees were to cover the cost of processing the licence application.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
2
61
26 March 2012
Some Members expressed concern over the effect of the licence fee increases on
smaller animal establishments whilst others felt that the Council should not be
subsiding businesses.
Members felt that they wished to look at this in greater depth, including a breakdown
of costs, numbers and sizes of animal establishments, before making a
recommendation to Full Council. In order to do this, it was agreed that this issue be
adjourned for further discussion at a special meeting.
Fees for other licences
Licence fees had been priced against the current workload. Fees for sex
establishments were an estimation on what the administration costs would be.
RESOLVED that
the Fees for Animal Welfare Licences item be adjourned for further discussion at a
special meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee to be held on Monday 2
April 2012.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
a)
Members agree the proposed fee revisions for ‘Taxi’ Driver, Vehicle and
Operator Licences and recommend approval to Full Council subject to the
consultation process.
b)
Members agree the proposed fee revision for the miscellaneous Licences and
recommend approval to Full Council.
The meeting closed at 1.25pm.
_____________________
Chairman
Licensing and Appeals Committee
3
62
26 March 2012
Agenda item…………….
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 28 March 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 R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
The Corporate Director (Steve Blatch), the Head of Planning (for minute
151), the Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager (for minute 152), the
Housing Services Manager (for minute 150), the Acting Financial Services
Manager (for minute 154) and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Mrs H Eales, Mr K Johnson, Mrs A Moore and Mr W J Northam.
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
139 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman welcomed back to the Committee Mr J Perry-Warnes. Mr Perry-Warnes
thanked everyone for their kindness. The Democratic Services Team Leader said that
Mr N Smith had informed her that he had been transferred to Basildon Hospital for
treatment and was keen to return to being a Councillor.
140 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Jarvis and Mr N Smith.
141 SUBSTITUTES
None.
142 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
143 MINUTES
The minutes of the special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 31
January 2012 and of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15
February 2012 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
Mr B Smith referred to minute 138 e) Coastal Issues. He had not yet been able to
speak to the Portfolio Holder about the possibility of having an item on Coastal Issues
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
63
28 March 2012
on the work programme later in the year possibly May, but would contact her as soon as
possible. It was noted that the next meeting of the Coastal Issues Forum would be
dependent upon the restructuring of the Senior Management Team and May might not
be possible. It was more likely to be held in June or July. The timing of the coastal item
was to be discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Workshop on 17 April.
144 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
145 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr P Moore
151
Introduction of Fees for PreApplication Advice and “Do I
need planning permission?”
enquiries
Personal and nonprejudicial as a
practising planner.
146 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
No petitions had been received. It was noted that there was no legislative requirement
for this item to be on the agenda. The Monitoring Officer considered that this should be
addressed by the Constitution Working Party and how the Council dealt with petitions.
147 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
148 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
149 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
The Committee noted the information. The Forward Plan and Democratic Services
Work Programme were both being overhauled so a more comprehensive and readable
picture would be available soon.
150 NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL TENANCY STRATEGY
The Housing Services Manager drew out the main points of the report.
The report was discussed:
a) Mr R Reynolds sought clarification that there was no possibility that tenants would be
expected to move house. The Housing Services Manager explained that the Council
could not control what tenancy controllers put in their Registered Providers Tenancy
Policy. Victory Housing Trust was currently producing its strategy. Other providers
worked across a wider area and the Council would have considerably less influence
there. She considered that Victory Housing Trust would move to fixed term
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
64
28 March 2012
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
tenancies, but the Council would have the opportunity to comment on their policy
proposals. It was to make best use of housing stock, but a review had to take into
account people’s circumstances. The new policy would apply to new tenants only
and existing tenants would retain life-time tenancies.
Mr P Moore expressed concern about the shortage of social housing and what
progress was being made towards new houses being built. The Corporate Director
said that the Government recognised the huge pressure on social housing and that
the Housing Services Manager and Registered Providers and other parties had
sought to discuss these issues. There was an aspiration to make better use of
limited housing stock.
It was recognised that people moving out was very disruptive to the social fabric, as
people were more likely to be good citizens if they knew they could live in a house for
as long as they wanted to. The Corporate Director said that the issues of anti-social
behaviour and community stability had been considered. To maintain stable
communities had been identified as a key aim by Cabinet.
Mr P Terrington asked if more social housing needed to be ring-fenced for local
people. The Housing Services Manager said that the Tenancy Strategy wouldn’t
come into operation for 5 or 6 years. The Council however, was seeking guidance on
the possible extension of the local lettings agreement to all stock in the area to give
greater priority to local people.
Mr G Williams expressed concern that the Strategy was no more than aspirational.
The responses from RSLs had not been very positive regarding the Fixed Term
Tenancy. The Housing Services Manager said that NNDC was happy with the way
things were working generally but that a Fixed Term Tenancy provided more options.
There were already policies in place regarding down-sizing. There was a certain
nervousness from Registered Providers and tenants about Fixed Term Tenancies.
NNDC probably had more influence over Victory Housing Trust and possibly
Broadland Housing.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to page 25 “To ensure that specialist
accommodation can be made available to households most in need” and asked how
this could be achieved. The Housing Services Manager said that if tenants were in a
position to move on they would be offered alternative accommodation. The
Corporate Director said that if a household’s circumstances had changed and there
were other households in greater need of the property it was possible to discuss
alternative accommodation. It was recognised that this was a sensitive issue.
A high turnover in tenancies could result in anti-social behaviour because there would
be little incentive to invest in garden maintenance.
In reply to a question from Mr R Smith, the Housing Services Manager said that the
Council would have no problem with Registered Providers retaining lifetime
tenancies. There would be more concerns if Registered Providers were too harsh.
The Strategy could be reviewed at any time.
In response to a question from Mr B Smith about difficulties faced by people on low
incomes in renting property, the Housing Services Manager explained that affordable
rents were fully covered by Housing Benefit. Private rents weren’t. Central
Government was pushing for affordable rent. Most of the Registered Providers with a
contract with the Homes and Communities Agency were developing new homes with
affordable rents. At present Victory Housing Trust were charging social rent on the
properties they had taken over at the Housing Stock Transfer and affordable rent on
properties built since then would be charged on re-let. Members expressed concern
that there would be increasing demands on Housing Benefit.
The recommendation to Full Council was endorsed.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
65
28 March 2012
151 INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE AND “DO I NEED
PLANNING PERMISSION?” ENQUIRIES
The report was discussed:
a) The schedule of proposed fees had been discussed at the last agents’ meeting –
agents were Planning’s principle customers. They understood the reasons for the
proposal but they did not welcome it. Fifty-six agents and eighteen developers had
been consulted. To date only three responses had been received which did not
support the proposal. The consultation closed on 30 March 2012.
b) At the request of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the Portfolio Holder had
written to Mr Pickles in December 2011 regarding the local setting of Planning Fees.
c) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was aware that there was already pressure
on Planning. In response to a question from the Chairman, the Head of Planning and
Building Control said that he wouldn’t know if there were resources to implement the
new scheme until it was tried. It should be monitored nine months after it was begun.
d) The Planning Service was costly. This needed to be considered as well as the
current workload.
e) A concern was expressed that the new scheme could lead to an increase in
enforcement cases. The Corporate Director reminded Members that NNDC had a
strong policy framework which could be viewed online.
f) “Do I need planning permission?” enquiries: if a letter was sent to an applicant it cost
the Council money. However, the opinion expressed in the letter did not prevent the
Council carrying out enforcement at a later stage, eg if the proposed construction
turned out to be larger or different.
g) Mr P W Moore told the Committee that he was not a member of the agents’ group.
He said that his main concern was not the financial aspect of the proposed scheme,
but the timescale. He asked that this should come back to the Committee for review.
h) The Head of Planning and Building Control said that he had been asked to prepare a
paper for CLT on capacity in Planning.
i) Members needed to be reassured that the Council was providing a better Planning
service.
j) There was a concern that the duty officers might get overloaded with work. However,
this could be self-regulating because people would have to wait in a queue. The
Head of Planning and Building Control was reluctant to extend the time allocated for
duty officers.
k) In response to a question from Mr P Terrington, the Head of Planning and Building
Control said that pre-application enquiries were in the public domain. Major preapplication enquiries were published on the website.
l) In response to Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds’ concern about the potential of extra
pressure on town and parish councils, the Head of Planning and Building Control said
that legislation did not permit the public to circumvent the Planning process by going
to their town or parish council regarding personal planning permission.
m) Some members of the public would approach their local Member. Although Members
had direct access to officers they were asked to be conscious of the pressure on
them.
RESOLVED
The Committee supported the introduction of Fees for Pre-Application and “Do I need
Planning Permission” in principle.
The Committee was anxious to ensure that there were sufficient resources and would
review the situation in January.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
66
28 March 2012
152 CAR PARKING CHARGES
a) The Pay and Display signs had been changed, and warning notices had been
posted.
b) There had been no increase in ticket charges since 2009 and since 2010 for season
tickets.
c) A 50p charge for a 30 minute stay had been introduced for all car parks.
d) Parking would cost an extra 10p per hour on coastal car parks.
e) Town car parks in Cromer, Holt, Sheringham and Wells would be charged at £1 for
the first hour and 70p per hour thereafter.
f) An evening charge of £1 had been introduced and would apply to the hours 6-11pm.
g) North Walsham and Fakenham Town Councils had met with Officers regarding the
free car parks. They had been fruitful meetings but decisions had not yet been made
by the town councils. There would be no charging on these car parks until the
situation was resolved. Wells Town Council would discuss car parking at its meeting
in April.
h) The Car Park Order had been published in the local press. There had been no
legislative requirement to carry out a more formal consultation. The decision had
been made at Full Council in December and had been in the public domain.
i) The Chairman said he had received complaints that there was nothing on the
Council’s website explaining the changes to parking charges and who the public
could write to expressing views. Legal notices in car parks were too complex and
unlikely to be read. The Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager noted the point for
future consideration.
i) In reply to a question from Mr G Williams, the Coastal, Localities and Assets
Manager said that a full set of responses had been available in the Members’ Room.
Everybody was entitled to raise an objection but it would require a substantive reason
to change the Order. This might be something like a Highways objection regarding a
traffic obstruction.
j) In reply to a question about enforcement, the Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager
said that this year’s income from enforcement using King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
showed that enforcement was working.
k) Mr W J Northam said that the changes in the charging regime would be reconsidered
if it wasn’t effective.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.20am and reconvened at 11.35am.
153 STREET SIGNS
The Chairman read out a written response from the Corporate Director, Nick Baker, who
was unable to attend the meeting:
a) The number of signs outstanding: 7 currently on order from supplier.
b) The number of new signs erected this year was 189 – a mixture of new signs and
replacement for damaged signs.
c) The budget that was left for this year was £5000 revenue due to efficiencies from a
vacant post being covered by the contractor and £25,825 in the capital budget. The
capital was being rolled forward into the budget for next year.
d) The revenue budget for 2012/13 was £37,906 which was split as follows:
• Direct costs - £27,436
• Support costs - £510
• Depreciation - £9,960
e) To report a damaged or missing sign, Members should contact the Environmental
Services Team on ext 6302 streetsign.maintenance@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
67
28 March 2012
154 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 10
a) The final recommendation was no longer required. It had been superseded by the
Head of Planning and Building Control’s report.
b) The Car Park Charges did not come into effect until 1 April 2012. They would be
included in next year’s budget monitoring.
155 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) Credit unions: an invitation would be made to make a presentation to the
Committee. All Members would be invited.
b) Community safety: discussion should wait until the Chief Executive’s report was
received.
c) County Strategic Partnership Joint Scrutiny Panel – agreement had been sought
from member Councils that this body should disband. The Leader and Chair of
Scrutiny supported this.
d) A special meeting was to take place on 17 April, before the workshop, to discuss the
Annual Plan before it went to Full Council.
e) Mrs A Claussen- Reynolds gave a report on the CfPS seminar, attached at Minutes
Appendix A.
f) Mr R Reynolds reported on the Joint Scrutiny with Broadland. They had discussed
many issues with a view to completion of the transport study, possibly in April. At
this meeting they discussed contact with the bus companies for our areas and a
questionnaire had been produced to approach the management of local companies.
Also, a questionnaire has been produced for several town and parish councils to
complete (probably the clerks). They discussed as to whether the moped loan
scheme was working – this to be investigated further. They also discussed the
important of extending railway lines in the future.
g) Mr P W Moore updated Members on the work of the Task and Finish Group. The
aim was to rationalise the way the Committee worked, including eliminating “Council
jargon” from reports. The Group was also looking at the sequencing between
Cabinet, Scrutiny and Full Council. A meeting was still to take place between the
Chair of Scrutiny, the Leader and the Chief Executive. There was no projected date
for the completion of the work. The Group felt it was more important to get it right!
There would be consultation with the Chief Executive to refine proposals.
The meeting concluded at 12.05pm.
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
68
28 March 2012
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Licensing and Appeals Committee held at 10.00 am on 2
April 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Members Present:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B J Hannah
Mr P W High
Mr B Jarvis
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Price (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mr J Wyatt
Officers in attendance:
The Licensing Manager, the Legal Advisor, and the Democratic
Services Team Leader (MMH).
37
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mrs P Grove-Jones.
38
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
39
40
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr R C Price
40
Licensing Fees for 2012/13 –
Animal Welfare Licences
Personal and nonprejudicial –is a dog
owner and patronises
kennels in North
Norfolk.
Mrs H
Thompson
40
Licensing Fees for 2012/13 –
Animal Welfare Licences
Personal and nonprejudicial –
patronises a horse
riding establishment in
North Norfolk.
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES
On 26 March 2012 Members had agreed fee revisions for Taxi Driver, Vehicle and
Operator Licences but had not reached consensus about revised fees for Animal
Welfare Licences, Members considering that the proposed increases were too great.
The meeting had, therefore, been adjourned and re-convened on 2 April 2012.
Since the meeting of 26 March 2012 the Licensing Manager had produced a
breakdown of costs which had been attributed to animal welfare licences in 2011/12.
This had been provided to Members. A table showing the current fees in other
councils in Norfolk had also been provided.
Licensing and Appeals Committee
69
2 April 2012
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES (Continued)
The NNDC breakdown included the significant cost of 2 Hearings concerning Animal
Establishments. This had a bearing on the proposed fees, if cost neutrality was to be
achieved. Although it could be argued that 2011/12 had not been a typical year there
could be similar circumstances in the future.
The Licensing Manager advised Members that they might wish to recommend
incremental increases to Full Council, but this would mean that the Council’s costs
would not be covered.
Members discussed the proposed fees:
a) There was a legal requirement that Animal Establishments should be licensed
annually but there were different regulations for zoos.
b) A question was asked regarding home boarding. The Licensing Manager
explained that, unlike a kennels, a home boarding arrangement meant that a dog
was being looked after in a dwelling. Officers inspected the home to ensure that it
was a suitable environment. Registration was necessary if home boarding was
being offered as a business.
c) Charity establishments: these did not need to be licensed as the animals were
owned by the charity.
d) In response to a Member’s question the Licensing Manager explained that he
had only been able to ascertain the fee for Animal Boarding at Great Yarmouth
Borough Council. He had been unable to find out the fees for the other types of
licence. Breckland had done a similar exercise to NNDC to establish the whole
cost of Animal Welfare licensing. That was why their fees were uniform and
significantly higher.
e) In response to a question the Licensing Manager explained that a Dog Breeding
Establishment was defined by the nature of its operation. Officers regularly
investigated queries from the public regarding this issue.
f) Garden centres which sold mammals and birds required a Pet Shop licence.
Some pet shops had a licence although they rarely needed one and might reflect
before renewing it in the future.
g) It was not possible to vire money from an underspend on street signs to subsidise
Animal Welfare Licensing. To avoid challenge the Council needed to demonstrate
that its activities were profitable.
h) In response to a question the Licensing Manager said that there were more
overheads from other types of Licensing than from Animal Welfare. This was
because of paperwork, telephone calls etc. In previous years there had been little
legal input into Animal Welfare licensing but this had changed recently because
of the two Hearings. The only aspect of Animal Licensing which was not provided
in-house was the veterinary inspection, but this was re-charged to the applicant.
i) Mr P W High said that he would not support the fees proposed in the officer’s
report of 26 March 2012. He asked Members to consider having a uniform, but
reasonable, fee for all types.
j) Mr R Reynolds agreed that the activity should not be subsidised and suggested
banding the fees. Mrs H Thompson agreed with this and suggested that the
increase should be incremental over a number of years. Mr B J Hannah
suggested a uniform fee of £125 with review next year when the Licensing
Manager would have had more opportunity to prepare a breakdown. Mr P W High
seconded this.
k) The Chairman said that he thought there was a consensus that the activity should
be cost neutral but that the proposed increase was too high, especially as some
businesses would have lower levels of occupancy during the winter months. He
advised Members, when making their decision, to recommend that cost neutrality
Licensing and Appeals Committee
70
2 April 2012
LICENSING FEES FOR 2012/13 – ANIMAL WELFARE LICENCES (Continued)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
would be achieved, if not now then within the lifetime of the present Licensing
and Appeals Committee.
Banding was further discussed at this stage and the following groupings were
suggested:
• Animal Boarding, Dog Breeding Establishments and Pet Shops: businesses
which were potentially profitable but with unknown returns.
• Zoos and Riding Establishments: businesses which were potentially profitable
with a specified charge to the customer.
• Dangerous Wild Animals: could be part of a business or could be a pet.
Mr B Jarvis, seconded by Mr R Reynolds, suggested doubling the existing fees,
but Mr B Smith urged that there should be one charge across each band to avoid
complicating matters and increasing administration charges.
The Licensing Manager would discuss a suggestion regarding payment by Direct
Debit with the Finance team. He believed that legislation required licensing fees
to be paid in advance.
Members voted on the proposals regarding methods of charging. The proposal to
retain the banding was agreed but the proposal to have a flat fee of £125 was
lost. The fees for each band were voted on one by one and agreed unanimously.
When the revised fees were notified to applicants a sentence should be included
to explain that the increase was regretted but was necessary to cover costs, to
explain that this was subject to review and that the eventual aim was to achieve
cost neutrality.
The Licensing Manager would draft a letter to central government advocating the
return of dog licences and urging compulsory chipping.
RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council:
1. To retain a banding system for Animal Welfare Licences for a period of one year,
after which time it will be reviewed.
2. That the three bands and charges are as follows:
a) Animal Boarding, Dog Breeding Establishments and Pet Shops £110.00 per
annum.
b) Dangerous Wild Animals £145.00 per annum.
c) Zoos and Riding Establishments £155.00 per annum
3. To increase the cost of Animal Welfare Licences annually by increments with the
aim of achieving cost neutrality within the lifetime of the present Licensing and
Appeals Committee.
41
TO RECEIVE UPDATES ON MEMBERS’ TASK AND FINISH GROUPS
The work on Taxi Licensing had taken a significant amount of time. The other 2
groups had met. Progress had been slower but now could move forward. Members
agreed that the work was important and should proceed. Some charity collections, in
particular, were currently causing concern to residents and reflection was needed on
public protection, especially for the vulnerable. Licensing administrators would reagenda the meetings and notify the schedule to Members.
The meeting closed at 11.30 am.
_____________________
Chairman
Licensing and Appeals Committee
71
2 April 2012
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 17 April 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, Policy and Performance Management Officer and the
Democratic Services Team Leader.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs H Eales, Ms V Gay, Mr P High, Mr K Johnson, Mrs A Sweeney, Mr R
Wright
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
156 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr N Smith and Mr R Smith.
157 SUBSTITUTES
Ms V Gay for Mr R Smith and Mr R Wright for Mr N Smith.
158 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
159 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
160 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
161 FIRST ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
Mrs H Eales said the Cabinet had yesterday recommended to Full Council the adoption
of the Annual Action Plan 2012/13. Some changes had been made to the document in
order to give it greater clarity. It would be revised and discussed regularly. She thanked
the Corporate Leadership Team and Officers for the hard work which they had
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
72
17 April 2012
undertaken. The Annual Action Plan was to be produced annually because of economic
uncertainty. Once Senior Management Team had been appointed, they would be
providing service plans with performance measures to monitor delivery. The role of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be to monitor performance on a quarterly basis.
Members discussed the document. The document that went to the meeting of Full
Council on 18 April 2012 as a result of this item is attached at minutes appendix B .
Numbers in bold below refer to this document:
a) The following questions were received from Mr R Smith:
1 Outlook: (p32 delivering the vision) it is stated that measures will be taken to make
Outlook cost neutral. How will this be achieved (eg through advertising)?, what is the
timescale for this to happen, and what cost would be considered cost neutral?
2 P24 Coastline and Built Heritage. Could you define defaulting on the waste contract?
3 It is important that plans and policies are reviewed however I have concerns at
reviewing conservation areas. Will the need to balance sensitive development in historic
areas continue to be respected or is the emphasis now on promoting development at any
cost?
4 Young people continue to be ignored in this plan. I find it surprising we are
mentioned nowhere in the document and the officer consultation response skirts the
questions raised by my County colleagues. Could the portfolio holder please answer the
question asked by them in full to the Committee. (2)
In response to Mr R Smith’s questions, Members were informed that:
• measures to be taken to ensure the production of Outlook magazine (page 32 –
Delivering the Vision) was cost neutral would be through advertising. The North
Norfolk Business Forum was assisting with this and cost neutrality should be
achieved within the next three years.
• defaulting on the waste contract could be defined as when the set of measures
had not been delivered and led to financial penalties;
• the review of conservation areas and whether the need to balance sensitive
development in historic areas would continue to be respected or whether the
emphasis was now on promoting development at any cost – the emphasis was
not at any cost and was linked to developing housing and an economic balance
with the need of the countryside;
• young people were part of everything the Council did. The document did not
identify any specific part of the community but all were part of what the Council
was producing in their plans. The Council recognised equality and diversity and
would ensure that young people were looked after. (2)
b) Mr G Williams referred to the response concerning there being no information on
performance measures. He asked that next year’s document would state what the
targets were and what the Council was aiming for. Mrs Eales responded that it
should be easier to put together next year’s document and it would hopefully be
possible to include performance measures alongside the Annual Action Plan.
Performance Measure were being developed for this Annual Action Plan and would
be presented to Cabinet in May.
c) Mr P Moore asked that “enhance” be included in the section concerning Coast,
Countryside and Built Heritage. (7)
d) The plan omitted to say that eight conservation areas had been reviewed and
another four should be completed during the year.
e) Page 22 – Housing and Infrastructure – A 4 had been deleted. In view of the
consultation response it was deemed unnecessary.
f) Mr P Moore asked how the Council could encourage developers to bring forward
developments once they had obtained planning permission. He also considered that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
73
17 April 2012
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
n)
o)
p)
q)
a system of producing decision notices more quickly would help. He was informed
that this would be looked into. Mr B Smith felt that the Community Infrastructure
Levy from a building programme could support new build, particularly the rental
section. In response to a question from Mr J Perry-Warnes, the Chief Executive
explained that the Council was looking into whether it could develop a scheme in
conjunction with its housing strategy. Sites where no development had begun 6-12
months after planning permission had been granted were being looked at. The
Overview and Scrutiny Committee could investigate how performance in this area
could be improved. Mr R Reynolds was concerned that properties could start to be
built and then left neglected because of the financial climate. Mr J Perry-Warnes felt
that the point about exceptions schemes being progressed should be made more
strongly.
Design a more cohesive framework for coastline management (p24). Mr P
Terrington was concerned at how progress with coastal management could be made
when the Coastal Issues Forum had not met. Mrs H Eales explained that it was in
the process of being set up and would meet shortly and the following year would see
much work on the coastal zone.
Under Democratic Embodiment (p25), Ms V Gay expressed concern that only a small
number of town and parish councils had held elections the previous May and she
wondered how the election of town and parish councillors could be promoted. In
response, Mrs H Eales felt that if the Council could make town and parish councils
feel more relevant then the people in those parishes would feel more relevant and
more interest would build up. The Council was looking into this issue and 40-50
people from parish councils had signed up to attend a meeting on this. Mr B Smith
considered that people were deterred from becoming town and parish councillors
because they had to divulge personal information. The Chief Executive responded
that a new code for parish and town councils would come into effect from July,
although this would still require people to register their interests.
Consultation responses (p8). Mr G Williams considered that there was ambiguity
regarding the Neighbourhood Plans and the LDF. The Leader, agreed to look at the
wording. (1)
Action Plan (p20): Improving the job prospects of our residents: We will explore
opportunities to work with local businesses and identify funding to support the
provision of apprenticeships, training and work experience. (3)
Mr R Wright asked what was the criteria used for the compulsory purchase of an
empty house. Mrs H Eales replied that the Council had started a pilot project, and a
house had to be empty for a long time and become untidy. The Chief Executive
added that the Council had had success by stating intention of compulsory purchase.
A house had to be purchased at the market price. The Council needed to look at the
top 10 enforcement issues.
The Chief Executive was writing a paper for Cabinet on enforcement. This would
come to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Mr G Williams asked that ‘training and work schemes’ be added to B4 under Jobs
and the Economy (p20). (3)
In respect of countryside usage (p24), Mr G Williams suggested that development
and the environment should be balanced. It was suggested that community usage
should be added to this section. However, it was believed that was a direct quote
from the Corporate Plan and could not be altered. (7)
Mr G Williams suggested that the health strategy should be consistent with the aims
of all the other strategies. (9)
Under ‘Localism’ (p25), B7 should include reference to the environment. (8)
Under ‘Delivering the Vision’ (p27), one of the key issues was a communication
strategy and this should be included as an action. (10)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
74
17 April 2012
r) In response to a question by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, it was explained that jobs
and the local economy would be promoted through the North Norfolk Business
Forum. The Learning for Everyone Team had done an excellent job.
s) In respect of responses to fly-tipping, this should be within two working days. (7)
t) Mr B Jarvis asked that in respect of Jobs and the Local Economy (p20), the Broads
and the rivers in North Norfolk be mentioned because they provided tourism for the
economy. (5)
u) Jobs and the Local Economy (p20): Members asked for more information on the
work of the Learning for Everyone Team.
v) Coast, Countryside and Built Heritage: zero defaults could be achieved as part of the
process of monitoring the waste contract. It was a measure of how well the
contractor was doing. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee received regular
updates on the Waste Contract.
w) Whilst public transport was a Norfolk County Council issue, it was a big issue in
relation to the local economy and should feature in the plan. (4)
x) Mr B Smith considered that the Coast Hopper service should be extended but it was
noted that the subsidy for running was less and the service was being decreased.
More pressure should be put on to keep the service going.
It was proposed and seconded to accept the Action Plan and to forward the comments
from the special meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 17 April 2012 to Full
Council. As an amendment, it was proposed and seconded to put forward the comments
from the special meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and make no mention of
the Action Plan. The amendment was lost and the original proposition carried and it was
RESOLVED
To accept the Action Plan and to forward the comments (Appendix A) from the special
meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 17 April 2012 to Full Council.
The meeting concluded at 11.05am.
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
75
17 April 2012
3 MAY 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Terrington - substitute for M J M Baker
J D Savory - Priory Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mrs T Armitage – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
(256) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M J M Baker. There was one
substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(257) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 5 April 2012 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to:
Minute 244 – Sheringham PF/12/0079 – amend to read “Councillor Mrs A C
Sweeney asked whether it would be possible to erect a small bungalow …..”
Minute 246 – Stiffkey PF/11/1257 – Councillor R Reynolds’ comments - amend to
read “He stated that the occasional accident had occurred in the village but, as far as
he was aware, none had occurred at this site.”
(258) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(259) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs A R Green, J Perry-Warnes, R Reynolds and P Terrington declared
interests, the details of which are given under the minutes of the items concerned.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
76
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.
(260) FAKENHAM - PF/12/0247 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 39
Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he lived
close to the site. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(261) FAKENHAM - PF/12/0301 - Erection of cart shed (revised design incorporating
side extension); 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he lived
close to the site. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(262) HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0091 - Variation of Condition 6 of permission
reference: 03/2055 to permit permanent residential occupation; 1 & 5 Wood
Farm Barns, Broomsthorpe Road for Mr J Nunn
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
77
Members expressed concern that the dwellings could become second homes, but
noted that there was nothing that could be done to prevent such use.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation to secure a commuted sum of £30,000 towards the provision
of affordable housing.
(263) HOLT - PF/12/0123 - Change of use from B1 (offices) to C3 (residential); Nelson
House, 2 White Lion Street for Mr J B Shrive
Councillors Mrs A R Green and J Perry-Warnes declared personal interests as they
were acquainted with Mr Shrive. The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that such
an interest did not require the Members concerned to vacate the Council Chamber.
Members stated that they had received correspondence from Mr Shrive. The
Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that the receipt of correspondence
did not constitute an interest.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Shrive (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the recommendation in the report should
refer to C3 and not C1.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, read to the Committee an email he had
received from Councillor M J M Baker, also a local Member. Councillor Baker was
concerned that approval would set a precedent, but supported approval of this
application if Officers were satisfied that a special case could be made as, in his
opinion, residential use was the best way to secure the preservation of the building’s
appearance. Councillor High supported this view. He considered that the historic
value of the building was paramount and would not support any use other than
residential. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded the proposal. He considered that a precedent
would not be set because this was a unique case given the building’s historic use as
a dwelling prior to the applicant’s ownership, the preservation of the building by the
applicant and its historical significance both to the town and the nation.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that, in the future, town centres would
become residential with businesses relocating out of town, as had happened in the
USA. He considered that it was important to retain the building as a single dwelling
and it should not be converted into flats.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the building had a
small garden area. The car parking area was currently rented by the applicant, but
there was no requirement for car parking provision in a town centre location.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
78
The Development Manager confirmed that the application related to a single
dwelling. Subdivision of the building into flats would require a separate planning
application which would be considered on its merits. He stated that residential use
was acceptable in town centres as a mix of uses; however this building was located
within the primary shopping area where residential use was not acceptable under
Policy SS5. However, it appeared that Members considered that the special
character of the building was primarily residential and such use would help to
preserve that special character. It was necessary for the Committee to consider very
carefully its reasons for approval in order that a precedent would not be set.
It was not considered to be a significant policy departure when weighed against other
policies and material considerations.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee in respect of its reasons for
approving this application.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reasons: The building is currently in use as an office and therefore
approval of this application would not result in the loss of a shop;
residential conversion is considered to be the best way to preserve the
future of this iconic Listed Building; and the building was formerly a
dwelling and has retained its garden.
(264) LANGHAM - PF/12/0181 - Conversion and extension of barns to provide hotel
with swimming pool, restaurant and bar facilities, conversion of barn to four
residential dwellings and erection of five holiday dwellings; Land at Glass
Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Hope (Langham Parish Council)
Mr P Allen (supporting)
Mr I Johnston (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) briefly outlined the background
to this case and the differences between the proposed scheme and that which had
been implemented under PF/06/0770. He updated the Committee on the following
issues:
Highway safety – the Highway Authority did not support a 20 mph speed restriction
on North Street as requested by the Parish Council as traffic did not adhere to the 30
mph currently in place. Further reduction would require physical features to reduce
traffic speeds and the Highway Authority considered that the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager was unlikely to support such features. However, it was for
the Committee to decide whether to request the Highway Authority to reconsider its
view.
Foul sewage – the views of Anglian Water were still awaited.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
79
Section 106 Obligation. On the basis of the information submitted by the applicant it
was not considered that a viability report should be sought in respect of the
affordable housing contribution. With regard to letting days, it was clear that the
restriction in the Section 106 Obligation would affect the applicant’s ability to secure
funding from the bank and therefore the applicant had requested permission for the
letting days to refer only to the barn units.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee an email
which had recently been received from the applicant in respect of concerns raised in
the report relating to road safety, foul sewage, viability and economic issues.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there were a number
of outstanding issues which he considered could be resolved. An amended plan had
been received which had addressed the design issues raised by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to resolution of traffic management issues,
variation of the Section 106 Obligation, clarification of foul sewage issues with
Anglian Water and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor J D Savory, a local Member, acknowledged the Parish Council’s concerns
with regard to highway safety and considered that discussion was needed with the
Highway Authority in order to resolve the issue regarding the speed limit. He referred
to the amount of traffic that had been generated when the site was used by Langham
Glass. He referred to the primary school in North Street which drew in children from
a wide area who arrived by car. However, he considered that the situation could be
managed. He considered that many benefits would accrue from redevelopment of
the site in terms of employment, economic benefits and regaining a village shop. He
had concerns in respect of the number of parking spaces and requested that this
issue be considered carefully. However, his principal concern related to the
affordable housing and he considered that the applicant should be requested to
provide affordable housing or a contribution towards provision of an affordable
housing scheme for the village.
Councillor P Terrington supported the views of Councillor Savory and the Parish
Council. He considered that the number of parking spaces within the site should be
reconsidered, together with possible on-street parking restrictions. He considered
that affordable housing should be provided within the village and suggested that a
minimum of one-third (8 units) would be appropriate.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners also supported the provision of 8 units in the village
and considered that it would be preferable to provide housing for people who wished
to live in the village rather than 23 holiday dwellings. He considered that the
proposed scheme would be an important boost to the economy.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the application under
consideration did not include market housing and made no offer of affordable
housing. The remaining cottages were outside the current application. The
suggestions which were being put forward would either require a new application or a
major amendment of the current application.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
80
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Johnston commented on the suggestions put
forward by Members. He explained the rationale for the current proposal. He
referred to discussions he had had with Officers regarding an alternative scheme
which would allow the units to the east of the site to be sold on the open market in
exchange for a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in Langham
and further contributions towards village facilities.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that if it wished to approve
such a proposal, the Committee should indicate that it is minded to support the
suggestion in principle but request an amended scheme which would be subject to
reconsultation. This would be a significant change to the current application, and
whilst it would raise policy issues, he confirmed that the units could be built under the
approved scheme as holiday units.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed that consideration of this application be
deferred to the next meeting but in the meantime, Officers negotiate the provision of
21 market dwellings in place of the 21 holiday units previously approved, conversion
of four barn units to holiday homes and an affordable housing contribution based on
8 affordable dwellings to be provided in the village.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed that the Head of Planning and Building Control be
authorised to approve the application subject to resolution of traffic management
issues, variation of the Section 106 Obligation, clarification of foul sewage issues with
Anglian Water and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The Chairman invited the Chairman of the Parish Council to comment on the
suggestion put forward by the applicant. Mr Hope stated that he had some
reservations as a previous affordable housing scheme in the village had caused
concern in the village as the dwellings had been let to people from outside the
village. He stated that there would be a need for consultation within the village on
this suggestion. There was also an issue as to whether there was a suitable site for
eight affordable dwellings.
Councillor J D Savory stated that he was aware of the previous issues regarding
affordable housing. However, there were recent examples in Hindringham and Field
Dalling where affordable housing had been let successfully under the local lettings
policy to people with strong local connections. He considered that the suggestion
was interesting. He expressed concern with regard to access onto North Street for
21 permanent residences, but considered that the issues could be resolved through
negotiation.
Councillor P Terrington stated that whilst he was minded to support the suggestions,
he was concerned that it would tie the Officers’ hands. He also stated that there
would need to be discussion with the Parish Council regarding the scheme.
The Planning Legal Manager suggested that the Committee support the Officer’s
recommendation but also give authority to explore whether there was scope for
affordable housing to be incorporated in an amended proposal, with the applicant
providing an open book valuation on the market housing and negotiations taking
place with the Parish Council. He requested that the timescale for bringing the
matter back to the Committee and the number of affordable housing units be left
open.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
81
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the satisfactory resolution of the
traffic management issues, variation to the previous Section 106
Agreement and clarification of foul sewage issues with Anglian Water
and the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, the Committee
would be minded to support in principle an amended proposal to
provide market housing in place of holiday units subject to either the
provision of affordable housing on site or a contribution towards off-site
provision subject to an open book valuation.
(265) LANGHAM - LA/12/0182 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to four
dwellings; Land at Glass Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(266) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1106 - Continued use of former coal yard for
storage of boats and siting of portable office buildings; Former Coal Yard,
Maryland for Kiss Works Limited
Councillor P Terrington declared a personal interest in this application as his family
owned an area of land which was let to a third party for boat storage.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Nicholson (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating that Locker Room B was not being used. He reported that an email had
been received from SCIRA stating that it was renting the site, which was being used
by its sub-contractors for storage associated with the wind farm development. The
development was due to finish later in the year and the offices would relocate to
Egmere. However, the exact finish date would depend on the sea and weather
conditions.
Councillor P Terrington referred to representations he had received from the
objectors. SCIRA had worked with the objectors to resolve their concerns, but the
objectors were concerned about noise and potential problems that could arise in the
future if another occupier took over the site after SCIRA’s departure. He requested
temporary approval restricted to use by the current occupier only for a period of one
year unless the site is vacated sooner.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
82
Councillor J D Savory stated that he had also been involved with the objectors on this
matter for some time. He stated that there had been a long history of noise
complaints prior to the current occupation of the site. He requested that hours be
restricted to between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.
The Chairman stated that she understood the office hours operated by the Company
were not the same as normal commercial office hours.
The Development Manager advised the Committee that a temporary one year
permission, restricting the use of the offices to SCIRA and its sub-contractors, was
acceptable in planning terms. In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard, he stated that lighting issues could be dealt with by condition under
delegated powers.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved for a temporary period of one year,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including restriction
to use of the offices by SCIRA and its sub-contractors and a lighting
condition.
(267) WORSTEAD - PF/12/0356 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0418 to permit retention of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and
fencing; Solar Farm, Heath Road for Renpower Investments UK Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs B Smith (objecting)
Mr Knights and Mr Meacock (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the applicant had
fitted cowls to two of the cameras and installed software which would remove images
of the gardens. However, cowls would not be effective on some of the other
cameras. The proposal was not considered to be acceptable as now submitted but it
was considered that it could be made acceptable. He requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the CCTV issue in the
interests of protecting the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. If the
Committee was minded to refuse this application it would be necessary to commence
enforcement action.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee the
comments of Councillor G Williams, the local Member, who considered that the
CCTV system should be removed or replaced with a scheme which did not impact on
residential properties, or be subject to major redesign to remove or relocate cameras
1, 2, 3 and possibly 11.
Councillor P W High considered that the CCTV system was a gross invasion of
privacy and that cameras 1, 2, 3 and 11 should be relocated. He requested refusal
of the CCTV element of the proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the perceived Human Rights issue was important,
as whilst it was possible to screen out the images, the perception of being overlooked
remained. He supported Councillor High’s comments and considered that the
application should be refused on Human Rights, Policy EN8 and crime and disorder
grounds.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
83
The Development Manager stated that a split decision could not be issued in this
case. He suggested that this application be deferred for further negotiations in
respect of cameras 1, 2, 3 and 11, but that the Committee indicate that it is minded to
refuse the application in its present form.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the installation of an alarmed gate at the
location of camera 1 would be effective as anyone who arrived to steal anything
would need to access the site by lorry.
Councillor B Smith suggested that a low beam system be installed.
Councillor P Terrington considered that the applicants should also negotiate with the
affected residents in order to seek a solution.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That a decision on this application be deferred pending further
negotiations with the applicants on a number of options to include
possible removal of camera 1 and amendment to, or removal of,
cameras 2, 3 and 11 or installation of low beam cameras.
The Committee is minded to refuse this application as currently
submitted because of the intrusive and perceived intrusive effect of the
cameras as installed on the occupiers of the adjacent residential
dwellings.
(268) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That site visit be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
HIGH KELLING – PF/12/0278 – Demolition of single storey dwelling and
erection of two storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms Elwood
(269) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly report
on planning applications and appeals for the period from January to March 2011,
covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes. Figures are
also included for land charge searches.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that pre-application charges
were now in force.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
84
Councillor R Shepherd expressed his gratitude to the staff in the Planning
Department for the help they had given him since his election. The Committee
endorsed his views.
(270) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports outlines progress being made in
clearing the backlog of outstanding enforcement cases which had built up by the end
of 2011.
At the Development Committee meeting, the Head of Planning and Building Control
reported that there had been some slippage since writing the report as April’s figures
showed that more new cases had been received than had been resolved.
The Development Manager explained that a number of ‘special cases’ planning
applications had recently been submitted, which were within the remit of the Team
Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases). He requested that Members bear this in
mind when considering the enforcement performance.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones appreciated that it was difficult to resolve some cases,
but considered that it was necessary to be stricter in enforcing against certain
breaches of planning control to send a message to others. There was a tendency
towards leniency in some of the more difficult cases.
The Development Manager stated that the difficult cases to clear were those
involving neighbour disputes and the Council tended to become involved in cases
which were important to the people involved, but were otherwise trivial in nature. It
was therefore the intention to introduce a priority system for complaints. A Local
Enforcement Plan, as recommended in the new National Planning Policy Framework
would be prepared for consideration by Development Committee.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle expressed her gratitude to the Enforcement Officer for the
way she dealt with matters in her Ward.
(271) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(272) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(273) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(274) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(275) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
85
(276) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(277) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(278) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 18 of the Officers’ exempt reports updating the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of current enforcement cases
and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 March 2011.
RESOLVED
1. That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of
Current Enforcement Cases be noted.
2. That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed
from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
3 May 2012
86
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 May 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
The Chief Executive, the Head of Planning and Building Control, the
Development Manager, the Policy and Performance Management Officer
and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Mrs S Arnold, Mrs H Eales, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Ms V Gay, Mrs P GroveJones, Mr K Johnson, Mr G Jones, Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam, Ms B
Palmer, Mr R Wright and Mr D Young.
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
1
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
The Chairman welcomed Mr N Smith who had recently joined the Committee.
2
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr P Terrington and Mr G Williams.
3
SUBSTITUTES
Ms V Gay for Mr G Williams, Mr R Wright for Mr J Perry-Warnes and Mr D Young for Mr
P Terrington.
4
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
5
MINUTES
28 March 2012, minute 155 (f) – Mr R Reynolds referred to the Joint Scrutiny with
Broadland at which it had been mentioned that the completion of the transport study
could possibly be in April. He said that he had stated it should be within the next couple
of months.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
87
23 May 2012
Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 28 March 2012 and of the special meeting held on 17 April
2012 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
6
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
7
8
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr R Reynolds
12
Community Asset Transfer
Policy
Personal – as a
member of Fakenham
Community Centre
Management
Committee
Mr P Moore
14
Planning Enforcement Progress
Report
Personal and nonprejudicial as a
practising planner
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
9
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
10 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that Cabinet’s response to the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Annual Action Plan had been reported to
Full Council on 18 April 2012.
11 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
None received.
12 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK INCLUDING PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
a) The Chief Executive explained that the report would go to Full Council and would
include the Action Plan and Performance Measures. Due to the timing, the first
quarter which was at the end of June, would be reported to Members in September.
Reports would go to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet quarterly, with
an Annual Report.
b) Mr P W Moore expressed concern at what he perceived to be a lack of definition in
the Framework. The Chief Executive explained that the quarterly reports would
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
88
23 May 2012
c)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
include qualitative as well as quantitative information. Exception reports would be
brought to cabinet or Scrutiny on areas which were not on track.
Some were operational and some were performance measures and would be
reported on a quarterly basis. Where there was no target or it was meaningless,
progress would be measured on the direction of travel. It would also be helpful to
have comparative details with other councils. Previously, national indicators had
been used but these had gone. By September, there should be information for all
measures.
In respect of Annual Health Indicators, these included factors beyond the Council’s
control. Figures would be available in September for all but those marked NA.
Targets had only been included where the Council had a high degree of control.
The ambition for a green flag for Sadler’s Wood was welcomed. In response to a
question from Ms V Gay, it was explained that the target for Blue Flag beaches had
been set at 3 because more stringent criteria had been set for the award. This was
something which could be considered by the Sustainability Board.
The corporate targets did not preclude individual Members looking at their own areas
of interest and bringing any concerns to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
When something was not reaching its target, it could be looked at through the
Performance and Risk Management Board, Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee with a view to taking alternative action.
Mrs H Eales thanked the Policy and Performance Management Officer for all her
hard work and she also thanked the Cabinet and the Corporate Leadership Team.
The Cabinet had deliberately not set a lot of targets because of the financial
instability in the country.
It was proposed by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Mr R Reynolds and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) To approve the revised Performance Management Framework.
b) To approve the performance measures for the Annual Action Plan 2012/13.
Ms V Gay and Mr R Smith voted against the recommendation.
13 COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY
a) This item had been to Cabinet on May 14 2012. Mr W Northam suggested that this
item be noted before going to Full Council and coming back to this Committee for
amendment. The Chairman dismissed this option as the Committee needed the
opportunity to comment before going to Full Council.
b) Ms V Gay expressed concern on whether town and parish councils would receive
support.
c) Mr E Seward asked if there had been any interest in taking on these assets. Mr W
Northam replied that interest was being expressed. Mr R Smith said that
Sheringham Town Council was very interested.
e) Mr P Moore expressed concern regarding the ability of communities to take on the
assets. Mr W Northam explained that as part of the transfer process, they would
need to prove they could sustain the asset. The Chief Executive said that central
government funding was available to support the asset transfer. Potential lessees
would need to demonstrate their sustainability but each application would be looked
at on an individual basis.
f) Mr P Moore asked when the Policy would come back to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and if there would be a meaningful opportunity to make amendments.
g) The Fakenham Community Project was very supportive of the scheme.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
89
23 May 2012
h) Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if freeholds were available and if they would e at a price
accessible to the community. The Chief Executive said that if a commercial value
was attached to an asset the Council had a duty to dispose of it at the best price
unless there was a social consideration. Freehold transfer was not precluded but
generally it would be leasehold.
RESOLVED
That this topic return to the Work Programme for July 2012.
14 A POLICY ON SECTION 106 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
No retail development had been expected before 2016 but the Council had received a
significant number of applications. It was essential the Council adopted the policy
outlined in paragraph 4.1 of the report.
RESOLVED
To support the recommendation.
15 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
a) The report had been to the Development Control Committee on 3 May. Since then
there were 182 enforcement cases outstanding with 95 being more than 3 months
old. This number was higher than at the end of the last quarter.
b) Enforcement was managed by the Team Leader – Enforcement and Special Cases.
His workload was heavy with special cases. For this reason the Development
Manager had been involved in enforcement. A planning officer was also spending
50% of her time on this work, but application processing work (on which she spent
the balance of her time) was also under pressure.
c) There had been restructuring in the Planning Service in 2010. One of the posts lost
had been the Senior Enforcement Officer. There had been a build-up of cases since
the post was lost. Enforcement cases could be difficult to close and could lead to titfor-tat complaints that the Council was nevertheless obliged to investigate.
d) The Chairman of the Development Committee expressed her support for the
enforcement team. She asked Members to be as supportive of the team as possible.
e) Officers were consulting ward Members regarding enforcement cases. They would
identify cases where there had been a breach but it wasn’t expedient to take action.
If the Ward Member(s) and the Committee Chairman agreed, the case would be
closed. This would allow concentration on more important issues. This method was
preferable to bringing minor complaints en bloc to Committee and saved report
writing and taking up of Committee time.
f) Officers were to produce a prioritisation plan which would need to be agreed with
Members.
g) In every case an Officer would need to assess whether there had been a breach of
planning control and whether an application should be invited to enable conditions to
be imposed or whether enforcement action should be taken.
h) Ms V Gay welcomed the report. She supported robust enforcement and was pleased
that senior planning officers were overseeing it. She agreed there should be a
prioritisation arrangement.
i) Some cases were at least two years old and some were civil issues rather than
planning matters.
j) Whenever possible, enforcement complaints were passed onto other agencies.
k) The serving of a Section 215 notice was used in some cases.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
90
23 May 2012
l) The Local Enforcement Plan would set the Council’s priorities and how the service
would be managed. It was a substantive task and would take 6 months to complete.
It would provide a way forward in the long term and would be discussed at Cabinet.
In the short term consideration was being given to provide a temporary resource.
m) Enforcement had to back up the planning officers and the Development Committee.
The Council needed to demonstrate that it had a policy that would be effective in
dealing with planning control.
n) Mr P Moore expressed concern that the public might not perceive consultation with
the local member as being fair. There was also a need to take into account time
limits for enforcement, so fast action may be needed. Planning officers could decide
whether it was expedient to take action.
o) The Development Manager explained that local Members would only be consulted in
those cases where it was not considered expedient to take action. Most authorities
had a points system for prioritisation.
p) Ms V Gay considered that the serving of a Section 215 notice in appropriate cases
demonstrated that the Council was responding to an enforcement issue and this was
good for the reputation of the Council.
q) A few cases went to the Magistrates’ Court as most people genuinely didn’t know
they had committed a breach. It took several months for a case to reach court.
r) The Development Manager agreed with Mr D Young that it would be helpful if the
local Member could check on long-term cases to see if there was still an issue.
RESOLVED
a) To welcome the production of a Local Enforcement Plan and prioritisation
arrangement sooner rather than later.
b) To welcome the exploration of a short-term resource to support the service.
16 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Democratic Services Team Leader informed the meeting that Mr James Bacon
of Norfolk Credit Union would be attending the Committee’s meeting on 24 July
2012. She would email all Members to ask them for any questions which she could
forward to Mr Bacon in advance.
b) The final report for the Public Transport Panel had been received from Broadland
District Council and was going to Broadland’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on
29 May. It would be included on the agenda for 26 June 2012. The four Members
from NNDC would be asked for their comments to be included on the agenda.
c) The Committee approved the revised work programme.
d) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds had spent some time with the Ambulance service and
would write a report for the Committee. Ms V Gay and Mr E Seward expressed
appreciation for the reports provided by Mrs Claussen-Reynolds.
e) A report on Outside Bodies was going to Full Council on 30 May 2012. One of the
recommendations was that some of the Outside Bodies should be reviewed by the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
f) Housing Strategy: a workshop would be held for all Members on 20 June 2012. The
event was in the evening, time to be confirmed.
g) Mr G Jones referred to a Museums Task and Finish Group at Norfolk County
Council. He believed that Members should express an opinion. The Chief
Executive suggested that he should write a report for the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
The meeting concluded at 11.55am.
_________________________
Chairman, 26 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
91
23 May 2012
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 14 May 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs H Eales (Chairman)
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr John Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mr N Lloyd
Ms B Palmer
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr H Thompson
Mr S Ward
Mr G Williams
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
1.
The Chief Executive, Corporate Director (S. Blatch),
Corporate Director (N. Baker), the Policy and Performance
Management Officer (for item 7), the Estates and Valuation Manager
(for item 8), the Coastal Engineer (for item 11)
The press and the public
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr K Johnson
2.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2012 were confirmed as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman after the following amendments had been agreed.
a) Minute 118, Development of the Offshore Wind Energy Sector off the North Norfolk
Coast – A Strategic Positioning Paper and Proposal for Local Partnership Working
Arrangements, item 1(ii), page 6, to change to: ‘An Area Action Plan to cover the
development along the B1105 corridor to include, not only the traffic flow, but also
Site Specific Plans for development sites’.
b) Minute 118, Development of the Offshore Wind Energy Sector off the North Norfolk
Coast – A Strategic Positioning Paper and Proposal for Local Partnership Working
Arrangements, item 1(iii), page 6, to change to ‘A report on the possibility of raising
s106 contributions from offshore windfarm support bases and infrastructure
developments’.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
Cabinet
92
14 May 2012
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
6.
PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
MINUTE 32: NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK - PUBLICATION
RESOLVED that
Pending further consideration the Council continues to apply full weight to adopted
Core Strategy policies as a basis for reaching decisions on planning applications.
7.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK INCLUDING PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13
The Leader, Mrs H Eales, introduced this item. She explained that The Performance
Management Framework had been revised to reflect the development of a new
Corporate Plan and Annual Action Plan 2012/13. There were three sets of
performance measures to ensure the delivery of the first Annual Action Plan 2012-13:
1. Operational performance indicators for which the Council sets targets and
where there is a high level of control over the outcome.
2. Performance measures which indicate that the position is improving but
where NNDC does not have sufficient control over the outcome to set a
target. These would be managed by assessing direction of travel.
3. Measures reviewed on an annual basis that show the combined impact of all
the activities undertaken by the Council and demonstrate the level of need for
further action.
The Leader acknowledged that some targets, such as housebuilding were
aspirational. Continued nationwide financial instability meant that it was hard to
forecast effectively in such areas and even if planning permission was granted for
new homes there was the possibility that developments would not come to fruition.
She concluded by referring to the Annual Health Indicators for the District, as outlined
within the Performance Measures. It was intended that these would indicate where
the Council should focus their efforts in the following year.
Mr G Williams commented on the second performance measure for the Annual
Action Plan. He said that it would be more appropriate to state ‘to indicate that the
position is changing’ rather than improving. He acknowledged that it was hard to set
targets where there was no baseline but said that it would be helpful to have a
clarification on the term ‘review and report’. The Leader said that the item would be
going to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 23rd May and members would
have the opportunity to make comments then. Full Council would receive the
Performance Management Framework for approval on 30th May. 2012.
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL
To approve:
a) The revised Performance Management Framework, and
b) The performance measures for the Annual Action Plan
8.
Cabinet
COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY
93
14 May 2012
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Corporate Assets, introduced this item. He
explained that the Community Asset Transfer Policy set out how the Council would
respond to requests from community groups wanting to take over ownership of
NNDC owned property assets. A community asset was defined as an asset owned
by the District Council which was not held for investment reasons and not essential
for operational purposes. He stressed that the policy was not an alternative to the
provisions of the Localism Act relating to the disposal of Assets of Community Value
but was intended to complement this.
The Portfolio Holder clarified that the term ‘community asset transfer’ related
primarily to long leasehold or freehold transfer. It was anticipated that the majority of
such assets would be leased for a peppercorn rent. In cases where the organisation
was an unincorporated association which was not registered as a charity, it was likely
that the only appropriate option would be a shorter term lease. He concluded by
saying that it was important to have a comprehensive policy in place to ensure that
the full worth of community assets was recognised and to ensure that transfers were
sustainable and successful in the long term.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mr G Williams asked whether there had been an increase in interest from
community groups hoping to take over council assets. Mr T Ivory, Portfolio Holder
for Localism and the Big Society said that he had recently met with community
groups in Fakenham regarding the Community Campus Project. They had
indicated an interest in taking over some council-owned assets. It was also likely
that the Leadership of Place project in North Walsham would lead to similar
requests.
b) Mr G Williams commented that section 3.3 of the policy statement which referred
to the opportunities created by a transfer of assets to a community should state
that the policy complemented the Council’s support for capacity building. The
Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society agreed with this. He said that
this was a draft version and that amendments could be made prior to the
publication of the final version.
c) Mr D Young was concerned that some incorporated organisations, including
charities, were run by just one or two individuals and there was a risk that they
could fold after a few years. He suggested that a licence to occupy may be
preferable in such cases. The Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society
said that it was advantageous for most organisations to have a longer lease in
place as it could open up avenues for funding. He referred to the Sheringham
Little Theatre which already operated successfully on this basis. He added that
the Council’s commitment to capacity building would ensure that such ventures
would remain viable.
d) Mr N Lloyd asked whether there would be a review process in place to address
any problems that may occur. The Portfolio Holder for Corporate Assets replied
that the Council maintained an overview of any leases and action would be taken
if any problems occurred.
RESOLVED to
Approve the Draft Community Asset Transfer Policy as the basis for consultation with
relevant community groups, town and parish councils.
9.
Cabinet
A POLICY POSITION ON SECTION 106 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
94
14 May 2012
Mr T Ivory introduced this item in Mr K Johnson’s absence. He explained that the
decision to introduce a procedure in respect of negotiating Section 106 contributions
from new retail developments had arisen following several proposals from developers
across the district. The proposed policy framework would consider how the Council
could assess the impact of proposals for new retail developments and implement any
mitigating measures on established town centres. Mr Ivory stressed that any possible
interventions would not be a ‘wish-list’ but would reflect the longer-term aspirations
of the local community and could be financed through a variety of means including,
where appropriate, planning obligations. He concluded by saying that in order to
consider the impact of the current new retail proposals on town centres, the
procedure should be developed and adopted as soon as possible.
Members discussed the report:
1. Ms V Gay asked for further clarification on the proposed appointment of a retail
consultant, in particular whether there would be a series of consultants appointed
for the different areas of the District or whether one retail consultant would be
appointed on a short-term contract. Mrs S Blatch, Corporate Director, replied that
a retail consultant had already been appointed for one of the applications in North
Walsham and the Head of Planning and Building Control was considering
whether a Framework Contract should be put in place for future applications. He
added that an ad hoc arrangement could breach the procurement threshold.
2. Mr G Williams commented on the use of the term ‘wish-list’. He suggested that
‘aspirations’ may be a preferable term.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
That the key principles detailed at paragraph 4.1 of the report form the basis of
the procedure to be adopted by the Council in negotiating Section 106
contributions from new retail proposals be endorsed with effect from 1st June
2012.
10.
CABBELL PARK
Mr J Lee, Portfolio Holder for Leisure & Cultural Services, introduced this item. He
explained that before any progress could be made in relation to Cabbell Park, the
legal estate needed to be transferred to the Council under the terms of the trust
deed. He added that discussions had taken place with Medcentres, the Town Council
and the Football Club to try and balance their interests with the legal requirement to
hold the land as open space. It was hoped that there would be an opportunity to
secure the future of the Youth Team too.
RESOLVED that
1. The Trustees be approached to transfer the legal title of Cabbell Park to the
Council.
2. The Chief Executive be given delegated authority to negotiate a way forward with
any interested parties and
3. The matter returns to Cabinet for consideration once an agreement has been
reached.
11.
Cabinet
COASTAL WORKS MEASURED TERM CONTRACT
95
14 May 2012
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Issues introduced this item. She
explained the measured Term Contract was the best way to procure small scale,
reactive coastal works. Under this arrangement a contractor would agree to carry out
a variety of coastal works over a period of time within a defined geographical area
with the works subsequently valued at rates contained in an agreed priced schedule
of rates.
A procurement exercise had been undertaken and the successful tenderer was
Renosteel Construction. It was anticipated that the contract would commence on 1st
June 2012.
RESOLVED to
agree to award the Coastal Measured Term Contract to Renosteel Construction Ltd.
The Meeting closed at 10.38am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
96
14 May 2012
31 MAY 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer - substitute for P W High
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
Mrs B McGoun – St Benet Ward
N Smith – Erpingham Ward
P Terrington - Priory Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
K Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor P W High. There was one
substitute Member in attendance as shown above. An apology for absence was also
received from Councillor J D Savory, local Member for Priory Ward.
(2)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 3 May 2012 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at Stiffkey, reference
PF/12/1257, which the Head of Planning and Building Control had been authorised to
approve under minute (246) of the meeting held on 5 April 2012. The reason for
urgency was to expedite processing of this application following the receipt of an
amended plan which did not fully accord with the terms of the delegated authority.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
97
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor R Reynolds declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the items concerned.
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.
(5)
BRISTON - PF/12/0173 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
1994/1558 PM to allow use of land designated as open space as allotments and
further parcel to garden; Land to rear 62a -72 Jewel Close and 33 Wellington
Road for Lomax Land Holdings Ltd
The Chairman stated that Members had received correspondence in this matter.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Simmonds (Briston Parish Council)
Mr Cox (Melton Constable Parish Council)
Mrs McKenzie-Dodds (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from a
resident of Melton Constable reiterating concerns already raised in the report. A
petition containing 170 signatures had been received requesting the retention of the
land as open space. 169 of the signatories to the petition lived within 300 metres of
the site.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the change of use would not have required
planning permission if the condition had not been imposed on the planning
permission. In the event of completion as open space the Parish Council could
convert the site to allotments at a later date without the need for planning permission.
He considered that allotments would give a mix of recreation space to the
development. The land had been allocated as open space for the development and
not residents of Melton Constable. The Senior Planning Officer responded to
concerns raised by the public speakers with regard to the footpath link.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, stated that he had not called in this
application. Councillor R Wright, as local Member for Melton Constable, had called
in the application but had not attended the meeting. Councillor Wyatt had no
concerns provided the footpath link was provided to allow access to the school from
Briston.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
98
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no new grounds of objection
following reconsultation and readvertisment of the application, and
subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the construction of the
footpath link prior to the first use of the allotments.
(6)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0314 - Retention of roof cupola; The Quay House,
1 Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Scammel-Katz (Cley Parish Council)
Councillor D Young, the local Member, expressed concern at the impact of the
cupola on the Conservation Area and the retrospective nature of this application.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that had a planning application been received
prior to the erection of the cupola, it would have been assessed and the same
recommendation may have been made. The Planning Legal Manager explained that
the law required retrospective planning applications to be determined as if they had
been submitted prior to development.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that the cupola was out of keeping and an
inappropriate design in the Cley Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by
Councillor R Shepherd.
On being put to the vote, the proposition was declared lost with 3 members voting in
favour and 8 against.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to amending the colour finish of the
structure to match the existing render.
Two Members voted against the proposition.
(7)
HORNING - PF/11/1274 - Conversion, extension and alteration of shop and
dwelling to two residential flats; The Galley, 43 Lower Street for Mr J Timewell
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
99
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the local Member, stated that The Galley had a very good
reputation and was popular with residents and tourists. It added to the vibrancy of
the village and was vital to the village’s tourism offer. She questioned the
interpretation of Core Strategy Policy CT3 and requested that this application be
deferred to undertake a viability test.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported the local Member’s views. She proposed
refusal of this application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Policy CT3 referred to important local
facilities and services. In the opinion of Officers this definition did not apply to The
Galley and, although he considered that an argument could be made on this basis, in
his opinion it would not be sustainable at appeal.
The Development Manager advised the Committee on possible reasons for refusal.
He stated that whilst it was regrettable when shops were lost, the fact that the unit
was currently in a quality use was not a matter that could be taken into account and
there was no guarantee that this would continue to be the case. With regard to
Policy CT3, the difficulty arose as there was alternative provision available and
refusal would therefore not accord with the policy.
Members referred to the importance of having a range of businesses to attract
tourists and sustain communities.
The Chairman stated that owners could not be forced to trade.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners expressed concern that the building could become
derelict if the business closed. He considered that if the business were trading
successfully it would have been marketed as such.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in the loss of an important local facility which would be
detrimental to the viability, vitality and attractiveness of the village.
(8)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0384 - Raising of roof to provide first floor
accommodation and erection of one and a half-storey front extension; 1 Beach
Close for Rev & Mrs Chandler
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Vickers (Overstrand Parish Council)
Mrs Ellis (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer recommended an additional condition to require surface
water drainage to be linked to the main sewer instead of a soakaway.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, considered that the proposal was
out of character with the surrounding area. She stated that the surrounding area
comprised low level, attractive bungalows, on a private road and on the edge of the
Development Committee
31 May 2012
100
25-year coastal erosion zone. She considered that the scale of the proposal was
tantamount to an additional dwelling. She considered that this application should be
refused on overdevelopment and design grounds.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the proposed extension was compliant
with Policy EN4, there was a mix of development in the area including bungalows
with rooms in the roof and a chalet adjacent to the property. The coastal erosion
issues had been addressed in the report. In response to concerns raised by the
objector regarding overlooking, she explained that the proposed rooflights were
above eye level and the first floor windows in the western elevation would be obscure
glazed bathroom windows.
In response to concerns raised regarding scale, the Development Manager stated
that the site was within the Development Boundary for Overstrand and therefore
Policy H08 was not applicable. The increase in footprint would be only approximately
3m2, although the volume increase would be 80%. The Coastal Engineer had been
consulted in respect of Policy EN11 and had raised no concerns.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to conditions removing
permitted development rights in respect of further windows on the
southern and western elevations, requiring obscure glazing of the first
floor windows on the western elevation, details of cladding to be agreed
and surface water to be discharged to the main sewer.
(9)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0212 - Erection of dwelling and conversion of
outbuilding to annexe; The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands for Mr P Parker
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Gooderham (supporting)
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, referred to comments by the applicant’s
agent and English Heritage. He considered that harm to the Conservation Area was
the key issue rather than public benefit and that there would be little public benefit
from this proposal compared with the existing permission. He expressed concern
with regard to the car parking proposals. He considered that the current proposal
would not secure optimum use and he could not therefore support the application.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the design of the proposed dwelling was not
sympathetic to the surrounding area.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that contemporary design was not appropriate in
this part of Wells. However, the existing permission for a contemporary building
could be implemented. On that basis, as the current proposal was for a smaller
building he supported the application.
Councillor Shepherd proposed refusal of this application.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
101
In answer to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that if the original proposal were built it would be difficult to resist a future application
for conversion to a dwelling.
Councillor M J M Baker seconded the proposal to refuse this application.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposed building
is considered to be inappropriate in the Wells Conservation Area in
terms of its design, scale and massing, with no community benefits to
outweigh these concerns.
(10)
WICKMERE - PF/12/0277 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 00/1632 and condition 5 of planning permission reference 09/0052 to
permit permanent residential occupation; No 4, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton
Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara Associates
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest in this application as he was
acquainted with Mr McNamara.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr McNamara (supporting)
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, spoke in support of this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green referred to discussions at a recent meeting of the Planning
Policy and Built Heritage Working Party regarding options for dealing with Policy H09
in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework. She suggested that
consideration of this application be deferred pending a decision as to the Council’s
future approach to the policy. She stated that there was a need to be consistent as
there was likely to be a number of similar applications.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported Councillor Mrs Green’s suggestion and
considered that the Council should also defer enforcement action pending the
resolution of this issue.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Development Manager
explained that a case at Helhoughton referred to by the applicant differed from this
application in that the building in that case was listed by association with a listed
building and a view was taken on the basis of the quality of the building. The
buildings which had the benefit of permanent residential permission on the
applicant’s site were Grade II listed, with the remaining non-listed buildings being
subject to a holiday restriction in accordance with the policy in force at the time of
application. He referred to the planning history of the application site, and stated that
whilst he was aware of the Working Party’s consideration of policy in the light of the
NPPF, this application was currently contrary to the Council’s adopted policy. He
recommended refusal of the application but suggested that enforcement action be
deferred pending the review of the policy, the timescale to be discussed with the
Chairman and local Member.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
102
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners
That consideration of this application be deferred pending a decision in
respect of Policy H09 in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework,
and that no enforcement action be taken pending the review.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J
A Wyatt
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of
the Head of Planning and Building Control, and that enforcement action be
suspended pending the review of Policy H09, the timescale to be agreed with
the Chairman of the Committee and the local Member.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost with 5 Members voting in
favour and 8 against.
The original proposition was put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That consideration of this application be deferred pending a decision in
respect of Policy H09 in the light of the National Planning Policy
Framework, and that no enforcement action be taken pending the
review.
(11)
MATTERS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(12)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(13)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(14)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(15)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on the proceedings at the
recent Public Inquiry in respect of application reference PF/09/1270 (Cable route).
The Committee requested that a vote of thanks to the Planning Legal Manager for his
work on this case be recorded.
(16)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
103
(17)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(18)
STIFFKEY - PF/11/1257 - Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation; Red
Lion, 44 Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion Ltd
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that this application had been
considered at the meeting on 5 April 2012, when it had been resolved to delegate
authority to approve this application subject to reduction in the height of the building
to the approximate height of the adjacent bungalow and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
An amended plan had been received indicating a reduction of the site level by
300mm. The building would remain approximately 2.3m higher than the adjacent
bungalow.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had been
reconsulted and maintained his objection in respect of the impact of the development
on the setting of the Conservation Area and wider landscape. Whilst the reduction in
the ground level was welcomed, Officers did not consider it to be sufficient to
overcome the objections previously raised.
The Senior Planning Officer
recommended refusal of this application in accordance with her previous
recommendation.
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, reported that Councillor J D Savory, also a
local Member, supported this application and considered that the economic benefits
should be weighed against the environmental issues. Councillor Terrington stated
that his own views were that the building was too high, although he agreed with the
views expressed in support and considered that there could be an engineering
solution to enable the height to be further reduced.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners suggested that the removal of the lantern section
could achieve a satisfactory reduction in height. He suggested deferral to allow
further negotiations.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that a reduction in height of one metre would
achieve a satisfactory result and that the proposal would be of benefit to the village.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer explained that the agent had
stated that the reduction in ground level was the maximum that could be achieved.
She was unsure as to whether there was further scope for reducing the ceiling
heights to further reduce the overall height of the building.
At the request of the Chairman, the applicant, who was present at the meeting but
had not requested to speak, confirmed that the lantern had been added at the
suggestion of the Senior Conservation and Design Officer and indicated that it might
be possible to delete this feature from the application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
Development Committee
31 May 2012
104
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the removal of the lantern from the
application and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The meeting closed at 12.35 pm.
Development Committee
31 May 2012
105
Agenda Item
23
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
ORDER
Tree Preservation Order relating to Bower Close, Potter Heigham
Tree Preservation Order relating to rear of Cedar Close, Lower Street, Horning
Tree Preservation Order relating to Staithe Road/Old Yard Road, Sutton
Tree Preservation Order relating to The Old Vicarage, Station Road, Potter Heigham
Tree Preservation Order relating to Muckle Hill Farm, Anchor Road, Spa Common, North
Walsham
Tree Preservation Order relating to Redwyn, Station Road and Oak Lodge, Orchard Drive,
Potter Heigham, Great Yarmouth
AGREEMENT
Loan Agreement between Stacy Clay (1) and North Norfolk District Council (2) for £1,050.00
TRANSFERS
LEASES
Lease of Land and Shop Unit 1, the Promenade, Cromer between North Norfolk District
Council (1) and North Norfolk Surf Lifesaving Club (2) and Michael Snelling and Adam FrereSmith (3).
Full Council
106
25 July 2012