Please Contact: Mary Howard
Please email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516047
17 September 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 26 September 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 Paul Neale, Assistant Minister, Cromer Parish Church with St Martin’s.
Members are requested to bring their Cabinet Agenda (10 September 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 25 July 2012.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B (4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
6.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To consider any questions received from members of the public.
7.
APPOINTMENTS
a) To appoint a Member to the Cabinet
b) To appoint Mr R Reynolds to replace Mr S Ward on the Audit Committee
c) To appoint a Member to replace Mr G R Jones on the Council Tax Support
Working Party
d) To appoint Mr N Smith to replace Mrs H Eales on the Joint Staff
Consultative Committee.
e) To appoint substitutes to the Big Society Board
To date there has been no substitution; however this is likely to cause problems
due to Members having to withdraw from the meeting when interests are declared
(when the Board consists of only five members). Because of the number of
applications considered, conflicts of interest are highly likely. Council is, therefore
asked to appoint substitutes.
f) To appoint 2 Members to the North Lodge Park Steering Group
At a meeting held with Cromer Town Council, it was agreed to establish a
steering group, consisting of two members of Cromer Town Council and two
members of NNDC (supported by the town clerk and relevant NNDC officers, as
appropriate) to determine the initial stages of the project and oversee the
procurement of a consultant. Council is, therefore, asked to make this
appointment.
8.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012
a) MINUTE 41: PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
23 JULY 2012.
MINUTE 12, RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK –
CORE STRATEGY POLICY HO3
(Cabinet Agenda, 10 September 2012 page 13)
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
That in response to the NPPF, Council resolves to support the inclusion of
elements of market housing within rural exception schemes which
otherwise comply with the provisions of Policy HO3 subject to clear
demonstration that the inclusion of market housing is necessary to deliver
affordable dwellings which otherwise would not be provided
MINUTE 19: RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK –
CORE STRATEGY POLICY HO9 and EC2
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
The Council resolves to support the following revised policy approach to the reuse of rural buildings in response to the NPPF, subject to considering the
introduction of an affordable housing tariff in respect of the enhanced value
arising from conversion to permanent residential use and further consideration of
the potential impacts arising from the loss of existing tourism and other business
uses:
i.
The economic re-use of rural buildings will be supported and full
weight will continue to be applied to Policy EC2.
ii.
In relation to the application of Policy H09 and residential conversion
that weight be attached to the NPPF with the affect that:
• Proposals for the reuse of disused or redundant buildings will be
subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 but not criteria 1
which limits location.
• Proposals for the change of use/variation of occupancy of
buildings in holiday use to allow residential use will be subject to
compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and where applicable Policy
EC8 but not criteria 1 in relation to location.
• Proposals for the change of use of all other commercial buildings
will be subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a
presumption that those providing a significant number of jobs
(three or more) should normally be retained in employment uses.
b) MINUTE 42: DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH NORFOLK INTEGRATED
APPROACH TO COASTAL MANAGEMENT (Cabinet Agenda, 10 September
2012 page 23)
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
1. That the integrated approach to coastal management, in particular the work
schemes set out in Table 1 of the report be endorsed.
2. That the remaining unallocated coastal Pathfinder budget (approximately
£65,000 revenue) and receipts including the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant
(£60,000 capital) and any income from successful Pathfinder replacement
housing are incorporated into a new integrated coastal budget for the purpose of
funding specific coastal projects and resources in line with the integrated
approach.
3. That the allocation of the integrated coastal budget is delegated to the Chief
Executive in consultation with the Coastal Portfolio Holder.
c) MINUTE 45: North Norfolk HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-15 (MAKING BEST
USE OF THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK)
(Cabinet Agenda, 10 September 2012 page 63)
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
That Council adopts the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Making Best Use of the
existing Housing Stock) document.
d) MINUTE 46 (b): PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – DELIVERY OF ANNUAL
ACTION PLAN QUARTER 1 (Cabinet Agenda, 10 September 2012 page 77)
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL
That two additional planning assistants be recruited on a temporary basis for a 12
month period pending the outcome for the peer challenge, to be funded from a
combination of the HPDG earmarked reserve and the proposed national fee
increase from October 2012. That additional support for planning enforcement, is
progressed with the Borough Council of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk.
9.
ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 18 SEPTEMBER
2012
10
ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
11.
2011/12 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
THE
OVERVIEW
AND
SCRUTINY
To approve the 2011/12 Statement of Accounts.
(Source: Karen Sly, Tel. 01263 516243; Email: karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk)
Agenda Note
The 2011/12 Statement of Accounts was reviewed by the Audit Committee on 18
September 2012. The document has been sent to all Members by email and is
available on the Council’s website via the following link:
http://www.northnorfolk.org/minutes/Full%20Council/26%20Sep%202012/Statement
%20of%20Accounts.pdf
Paper copies are available on request from Democratic Services.
12.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
(Page 9)
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Standards Committee – 8 May 2012
Cabinet 11 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 26 June 2012
Cabinet 16 July 2012
Standards Committee 17 July 2012
Development Committee – 26 July 2012
Development Committee – 23 August 2012
13.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
14.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
(Page 9)
(Page 13)
(Page 21)
(Page 30)
(Page 35)
(Page 40)
(Page 48)
The following questions to the Portfolio Holder for Leisure Services have been
received from Mr N Lloyd:
1) What are the terms of reference for the business review of the North Walsham
dual use sports centre, what is the time scale for the conduct of the review, will the
full outcome be shared with members? What were the contractor selection criterion
for the consultants (it would be helpful to see their full scope of work), what is the
anticipated cost and was there a transparent competitive tendering process to ensure
value for money?
2) What is the envisaged process for NNDC to arrive at a decision on future funding
of the Sports centre along with the associated time scale?
3) At a meeting with the Centre Sports Committee on September 6th at which I
attended along with NNDC officers it was stated that it was not NNDC's intention for
the Sports centre to close. Instead NNDC were seeking to find a more workable
solution. Does this commitment still stand and does it include the acceptance in
principle that for the current level of sports provision to continue, that a level of public
funding is required?
4) More generally what is the NNDC current revenue budget for supporting leisure
activities and sport in North Walsham, Cromer, Sheringham, Fakenham and
Stalham.
5) The North Norfolk Sports and Leisure Strategy 2010 - 2015 has not been
withdrawn, reviewed or replaced. The proposal for NNDC to cut all funding for the
NWDUSC in 2 years time is a major deviation from the terms set out in this
document. What is the future strategy for Sport and Leisure proposed by NNDC for
North Norfolk?
6) You may have heard that Lord Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic
Committee, is petitioning the Government to look at legislating to force councils to
protect their sports facilities and to change the status of sports provision from
'discretionary' to a "statutory requirement." Does the administration feel their proposal
to cut funding for sport in North Norfolk is appropriate bearing in mind the huge public
support for sport at this particular time?
15.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received
16.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
a)
Localisation of Council Tax
Proposed by Mr R Oliver and seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds:
“To call on Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson to achieve variation on the localisation
of council tax policy implemented by the government finance bill in order to lessen its
adverse effects on the people of North Norfolk.
It is our belief that the policy of localisation of Council Tax and the subsequent cut in
funding for Council Tax benefits in this district is unfair. North Norfolk has a high ratio
of pensioners to working age receivers of benefits. We welcome the decision of the
Government to protect the relief on Council Tax benefits which pensioners on low
income receive. As a result, for the working age receiver of Council Tax benefits in
this district there will be a disproportionately large cut in the support they presently
receive. This means that those people of working age in this district will be worse off
than similarly affected people in other districts with smaller pensioner populations. As
our representatives in Parliament, Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson represent the
only way that this district can request reform of this policy. As a minister in this
government this council believes that Norman Lamb will be able to drive changes in
this policy. We therefore request that Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson do
everything in their power to achieve a fairer outcome for this council and the people
of North Norfolk by highlighting these problems and achieving the implementation of
appropriate changes at a national level.”
b)
Localisation of Council Tax
Proposed by Mr G Jones and seconded by Mrs L Walker:
North Norfolk District Council is concerned about the impact of the council tax
legislation on the economy of North Norfolk and on the lives of more than 4,000 of its
poorest residents. In particular, it recognises that the last Labour government left the
economy in a financial meltdown and applauds the action of the coalition government
in trying to recover from this position.
However the District Council takes the view that this legislation is neither
proportionate nor fair for two reasons:
1. It hits at the poorest members of the community whether or not they have the
ability to pay.
2. It impacts particularly on the rural community where costs are already very
high in such matters as transport.
3. It does not take into account the position of North Norfolk, in demographic
terms, with over 62% of the benefit recipients of pensionable age and
excluded from cuts.
The District Council notes:
•
That about £1.175 million pounds will be lost to the local economy each year
and this will impact on local trades and businesses and will consequently
have a negative effect on employment.
•
2,441 residents who receive council tax benefit will lose £30 or more a month.
These are the poorest members of the community and they will not be able to
find this money. It is likely that the collection rate will fall sharply and
important services will be drastically cut as a result.
•
Such drastic cuts to the poorest, at such short notice, could possibly lead to a
breakdown of social cohesion.
•
The impact on families with children could adversely affect the lives of
children.
•
There are implications of up to an estimated £28,000 for the major precepting
authorities in respect of parish and town councils.
The District Council urges the relevant Ministers - Secretary of State for Communities
and Local Government, Eric Pickles and Secretary of State for Works and Pensions,
Ian Duncan Smith to urgently review the impact of this legislation - in particular we
ask them to review its impact on largely rural authorities with the demography of
North Norfolk. The District Council urges the two Ministers to postpone the
implementation of this legislation for twelve months and to include any proposals in
the Universal Credit legislation.
The District Council further urges MPs Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson to advocate
on behalf of the District Council in this matter.
Finally the District Council urges the County Council to join it in advancing the
proposals set out above and to agree short term measures from its extensive
resources to mitigate against the impact of this legislation, for one year, in return for
the District Council agreeing to reduce second home discounts to 05%.which would
produce some £1/2million for the county.
c)
The National Trust
Proposed by Mrs L Brettle and seconded by Mrs A Sweeney:
The Council is asked to endorse the sensible and constructive attitude taken by the
National Trust over Marine Conservation Zones. Whilst supporting the general good
purpose of the zones, the National Trust has clearly defined its objections to the
Blakeney Reserve - lack of consultation and scientific rigour. We at NNDC can
envisage the results lack of access could entail - problems for tourism, local
businesses, fishing, birdwatching, etc., but the National Trust offers an alternative
site and any help or advice they can give. This motion asks that NNDC supports the
National Trust in their response to the Government's proposals for Marine
Conservation Zones
d)
The Ambulance Service – proposed by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by
Mr K Johnson
We welcome the recent announcement that the East of England Ambulance service
is to increase the level of rapid response resources in the North Norfolk area after
concerns were issued in both Cromer and North Walsham over ambulance provision
in these towns. However, there remains concern over whether there will cuts in
Fakenham’s rapid response service and as to how the performance figures for
emergency 999 calls are improved in the North Norfolk area. Therefore, to this end, I
would like to call on this District Council to request an audience with a responsible
member of the East of England Ambulance Service, or relevant Health Authority, and
give a full and complete report on this matter, as soon as reasonably possible, to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee to which Council members could be invited to
attend.
17.
SEALED DOCUMENTS
(Page 58)
Recommendation:
That the list of sealed documents is received by Members.
Contact: Emma Duncan 01263 516045
Email: emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
18.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution – if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public
be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds
that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
paragraph(s) _ of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
19.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Circulation:
All Members of the Council.
Members of the Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public
Agenda Item
4
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 25 July 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr T Ivory
Mr P High
Mr K E Johnson
Mr G Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Mr J Perry-Warnes
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 V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr G Williams
Mr P Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Organisational
Development, the Democratic Services Team Leader (MMH) and the
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
Also in
Attendance:
The Public
25.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman provided a brief summary of events that he had recently attended. These
included a visit to the Queen’s garden party at Buckingham Palace, the welcoming of the Duke
of York on a visit to North Norfolk, the Olympic torch procession, a celebration of the Queen’s
Diamond Jubilee at Norwich Cathedral and the village games awards at UEA.
26.
27.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr P Moore
33
Recommendation from the Joint
Staff Consultative Committee 25
June 2012
Disclosable pecuniary
interest - Member of
Local Government
Pension Scheme
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr M Baker, Mrs B McGoun, Ms B Palmer, Mr R
Price, Mr J Punchard, Mr J Savory, Mrs H Thompson and Mr S Ward.
1
Full Council
25 July 2012
28.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 30 May 2012 were approved as a correct
record.
29.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
30.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
A public question had been received from Mr Spink. The question concerned Agenda Item 8(c)
Housing Strategy 2012-2015 and it was agreed that it would be taken when the item was
presented.
31.
APPOINTMENTS – STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Mr K Johnson introduced this item. He explained that changes to the Standards Arrangements
were adopted by Council on 30 May 2012 and that the resolution included the establishment
of a Standards Committee, the co-option of independent and parish members to the
Standards Committee and the recruitment, appointment and remuneration of an Independent
Person.
Appointment of Chairman and Vice-Chairman
At the first meeting of the Standards Committee, on 17 July 2012, Members elected a new
Chairman and Vice-Chairman
It was proposed by Mr K Johnson, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED that
The appointment of Mrs H Thompson as Chairman and Mr P Moore as Vice-Chairman of the
Standards Committee be approved
Co-opted Members
It was proposed by Mr P Moore, Vice-Chairman of the Standards Committee, seconded by Mr
K Johnson and
RESOLVED that
The appointment of Mr G Allen, Mr R Barr, Mr A Bullen, Mr M Coates, Mrs M Evans, Mr H
Gupta, Mr A Nash and Mrs A Shirley as co-opted members of the Standards Committee be
approved.
Independent Person
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr K Johnson and
RESOLVED that
The appointment of Mr A Oram as Independent Person to the Standards Committee be
approved.
2
Full Council
25 July 2012
32.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 11 JUNE 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE 26 JUNE 2012
The recommendations had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The
Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny told Members that the Committee endorsed the
recommendations.
2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
RESOLVED to
a) Approve the final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2011/12;
b) Approve transfers to and from reserves as detailed in the report;
c) To transfer the surplus to the restructuring reserve;
d) Approve the financing of the 2011/12 capital programme as detailed within the report;
e) Approve the balance on the general reserve of £1,948,590 at 31 March 2012;
f) Approve 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 of the
report.
ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12 AND STRATEGY UPDATE
FOR 2012/13
RESOLVED
a) To approve the Treasury Management Annual Report for 2011/12
b) That, when appropriate, a proportion of the investment portfolio is invested in the LAMIT
and Lime Property Funds
NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-2015 (HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE)
A public question had been received on this item. Mr Spink requested information on how
many empty properties had been made fit for habitation following compulsory purchase by the
Council. He referred specifically to two derelict properties in West Runton.
Mr K Johnson responded by saying that the Council took the issue of empty properties very
seriously. He stressed that compulsory purchase was a last resort and that there would always
be an attempt to negotiate with property owners first. He added that there was a possibility that
a premium council tax rate could be introduced for empty homes. With regards to the specific
properties mentioned, Mr K Johnson said that pressure had been placed on the owners and
one had been sold to the owner of the adjacent empty property. A planning application had
been received and it was hoped that work would commence soon.
The local Member, Mrs H Eales said that she agreed with Mr Spink’s concerns. Despite
receiving planning permission for the property, the owner showed no intention of commencing
work and the properties continued to blight the village.
Mr R Wright was concerned that any attempts to deal with empty properties should be dealt
with fairly. He said that there were a lot of empty properties that the public were not aware of
and it was unfair to focus on those that were visible from the road.
Mr P Williams said that the Council maintained a database of empty properties and each
property should be assessed and the owners encouraged to bring it back into use. The Chief
Executive confirmed that the council tax database provided information on long-term empty
properties. Once a property was empty for more than 6 months, 100% council tax would be
3
Full Council
25 July 2012
levied. It was possible that in the future a 150% levy could be introduced and this could
discourage owners from leaving properties empty long-term. She added that a change of
ownership of an empty property did not mean that it would not be pursued.
Members then discussed the North Norfolk Housing Strategy 2012-2015:
a) Mr G Williams acknowledged that housing was a priority for the district and that there was
support for the Housing Strategy. However, he said he had concerns about how the
strategy had been put together and he felt that approval of it would be premature.
b) Mr T Ivory said that housing was a fundamental issue for the district and he felt that
considerable groundwork had been put into place to support the strategy, including
workshops for members and length discussions at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Mr G Williams responded that some of the workshops were held after the documents had
been drafted.
c) Mr G Jones commented that he hoped the Strategy would produce specific targets for the
Council to work towards.
It was proposed by Mr K Johnson, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED that
The North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Housing and Infrastructure) be adopted.
The following Members abstained: Ms V Gay, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P High, Mr G Jones,
Mrs A Moore, Mr P W Moore, Mr E Seward, Mr R Smith, Mrs A Sweeney, Mrs V Uprichard,
Mrs L walker, Mr G Williams, Mr P Williams, Mr J Wyatt and Mr D Young
33.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE 25 JUNE
2012
It was proposed by Mr K Johnson, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RESOLVED that
The revised Pensions, Retirement and Discretionary Compensation Payments Policy
Statements be approved.
34.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 29 JUNE 2012
It was proposed by Mrs S Arnold, seconded by Mr R Shepherd and
RESOLVED that
The Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (as amended) at no.s 7-29 Nelson Road and no.s 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;
4
Full Council
25 July 2012
•
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.
35.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 16 JULY 2012
POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FORMER RAF COLTISHALL SITE
Mr J Lee introduced this item. He said that there were concerns about the make-up of the
Former RAF Coltishall Community Liaison Reference Group but that the nominated
representatives would work hard to ensure that the Council’s views were represented.
Mr G Williams said that efforts had been made to have an additional representative from North
Norfolk District Council on the Liaison Reference Group but that the County Council had
refused the request. He was very concerned that parishes to the north of the site were being
excluded from the Group and had asked the County Council to explain this but they had
refused to respond. He asked the Council to support his request for an explanation.
Mr G Jones requested that the two nominated representatives reported back regularly to
Members on any developments.
Mr T Ivory supported Mr G Williams’ request. He said that it was very important that
membership of the Group reflected the local community. The County Council had incorrectly
assumed that the former RAF site was in the parish of Coltishall. He said that he would like to
second Mr G Williams’ proposal to show there was cross-party support.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that he believed the County Council’s purchase of the site could provide
a great opportunity for North Norfolk, however, the Liaison Group needed full representation
and he therefore supported the amendment.
Mr N Dixon commented that he was the County Councillor for the site in question. He believed
that the current Liaison Reference Group provided a good starting point and that it should be
viewed as a work in progress.
Mr G Williams proposed the following amendment to the recommendation:
“The Council informs Norfolk County Council of its concern over the future of the former RAF
Coltishall site being progressed via the Community Liaison Reference Group without the
proper engagement of North Norfolk Communities, particularly the parishes of Swanton
Abbott, Skeyton, Westwick and Worstead”
The amendment was seconded by Mr T Ivory. A vote was taken on the substantive
recommendation, as amended, and it was
RESOLVED to
Endorse the nomination of Councillors FitzPatrick and Ivory as the Council’s representatives
on the Former RAF Coltishall Community Liaison Reference Group subject to the Council
informing Norfolk County Council of it’s concern over the future of the former RAF Coltishall
site being progressed via the Community Liaison Reference Group without the proper
engagement of North Norfolk Communities, particularly the parishes of Swanton Abbott,
Skeyton, Westwick and Worstead
5
Full Council
25 July 2012
38.
ANNUAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2011/12
Mr N Dixon, Chairman of the Audit Committee presented this item. He thanked the Head of
Financial Services for her hard work in producing the Annual Governance Statement 2011/12.
Mr G Jones said that he believed the Performance and Risk Management Board (PRMB)
should be a cross-party group that reported back regularly to Members. The Chief Executive
responded that the PRMB met bi-monthly. It was not a constituted body but an officer and
member working group. It reported to the Audit Committee, Cabinet and the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee depending on the nature of its recommendations. In response to a further
question from Mr G Jones regarding the input of opposition groups into matters concerning
performance management, she said that reports and the minutes of the PRMB were available
on the Intranet. She reminded Members that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could
request reports on any topic.
It was proposed by Mr N Dixon, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED that
The Annual Governance Statement 2011/12 be received
39.
REVIEW OF POLLING ARRANGEMENTS FOR GUNTHORPE APPEAL 2012
Mrs A Green, local Member for the affected polling districts introduced this item. She said that
there had been particular concern over the merger of Gunthorpe North and Gunthorpe South
due to the positioning of a major road between the two which could impact on electors access
to a polling station. She welcomed the decision to reinstate the two polling districts.
Mr R Wright said that he had concerns about the proposal. He believed that the low number of
voters at the polling stations concerned meant that it must be an expensive exercise. The
Chief Executive replied that it cost £605 every 4 years. She added that if there was a will
locally to have two separate polling stations then it should be accommodated where possible.
Mr K Johnson reminded Members that there was a working party responsible for reviewing
polling arrangements and it could be reconvened to consider any further concerns that
Members may have. Mr R Smith, a member of the Polling Review Working Group said that he
would welcome the opportunity for further discussion.
Mr T FitzPatrick, a Member of the Polling Review Working Group and Portfolio Holder for
Electoral Services said that there had been particular concern over the Gunthorpe polling
stations due to the busy main road.
Mr S Arnold was concerned that the cost implications of running polling stations in polling
districts where there was a low number of voters could add-up to a considerable amount over
time. She said that more focus should be placed on encouraging alternative forms of voting.
It was proposed by Mrs A Green, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED 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
reinstated
And to note that the Polling Places and Stations will be as follows:
UM4 Gunthorpe (South) – Gunthorpe Village Institute, Swanton Road, Gunthorpe and
UN4 Gunthorpe (North) – Bale Village Hall, Sharrington Road, Bale.
6
Full Council
25 July 2012
The electors in the reinstated polling districts of UM4 Gunthorpe (South) and UN4 Gunthorpe
(North) will be designated to vote in the relevant re-instated polling places and stations as
above.
40.
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED to
1. Adopt the arrangements in relation to disclosable pecuniary interests set out in paragraph
3 of the Report.
2. Adopt the arrangements in relation to "other interests" as are set out in paragraph 7 of the
Report.
41.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
to receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
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
Mrs S Arnold referred to item f – Development Committee meeting held on 3 May 2012. She
said that the appeal relating to the Dudgeon Cable route had been handled extremely well by
the Planning Legal Manager and that of the 22 conditions requested by the Council, 21 had
been applied.
42.
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTITUTION
The Chairman introduced David Johnson, Interim Monitoring Officer, who would be assisting
in the implementation of the Localism Act 2011 and the revision of the Constitution.
It was proposed by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Mr K Johnson and
RESOLVED to
1. 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. 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.
43.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
Mr T FitzPatrick informed Members that he had met Prince Andrew during his recent visit to
the District to learn more about the developing offshore industry in the region, and he was able
to discuss the work of the Renewables Partnership with him.
7
Full Council
25 July 2012
44.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
None received
45.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
46.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received. Mrs S Arnold provided a brief update on the Motion regarding the Coasthopper
bus, passed at the previous meeting of Council on 30th May. She said that Norman Lamb MP
had held a public meeting about the matter on 24th July 2012 and she was disappointed that
there had been no official invitation for a representative of the District Council to attend. The
Chief Executive said that she intended to follow-up the matter with Norman Lamb’s office..
48.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
The meeting concluded at 7.27pm
____
Chairman
8
Full Council
25 July 2012
Agenda Item 12
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 08 May 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members present:
District
Councillors:
Ms B Palmer
Mr J Savory
Mrs H Thompson
Independent
Members:
Mr G Allen
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mr S Sankar
Mrs A Shirley (Chairman)
Parish Members:
Mr R Barr
Mr M Coates
Mr A Nash
Officers in
Attendance:
The Monitoring Officer
The Democratic Services Officer (ED)
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr A Bullen and Mr P Moore
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
3.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 13 March
2012 were approved as a correct record.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
Standards Committee
9
08 May 2012
6.
PARISH AND DISTRICT MEMBERS’ REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND
OFFICER REGISTER OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY
The Registers were open to display and were available for inspection in the
Legal Services area.
7.
NEW STANDARDS REGIME PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the outcome of a recent
meeting of Norfolk Monitoring Officers which had been convened to consider
how to manage the process of introducing the new Standards regime
arrangements. There had also been discussion around achieving a
consensus on the Code of Conduct to enable a consistent approach across
the County. It was agreed that an outline report would be drafted and each
authority would be consulted to see if agreement could be reached on key
areas.
The Monitoring officer explained that no formal decision was required. He felt
that the Standards Committee was the best forum to consider the proposals
and express preferences before a final decision would be taken by Full
Council. He briefly outlined the proposed arrangements:
a) The adoption of the Code of Conduct, together with the guidance for
Members. Two Codes of Conduct had been submitted – one from the
Local Government Association and one from the Department for
Communities and Local Government. At a recent meeting of Council
Leaders, a preference had been expressed for the DCLG version.
Monitoring Officers favoured the LGA Code.
b) The establishment of arrangements for dealing with standards allegations
and the establishment of a Standards Committee.
c) The Appointment of an Independent Person and reserve Independent
Persons. Monitoring Officers had recognised that there could be problems
with recruitment for this post and it was proposed that there was a ‘pool’ of
Independent persons formed that could include current Independent
Members of Standards Committees across Norfolk. Although existing
Independent Members could not be retained by their current Standards
Committee, they would under this proposal, be able to be appointed to
another Standards Committee within the region.
d) The establishment of a register of interests to be kept and maintained by
the monitoring officer and to contain those matters set out in Appendix 3
until such time as the Secretary of State publishes regulations relating to
‘disclosable pecuniary interests’ when the Authority may be asked to
consider new proposals and changes to standing orders in relation to the
registration and declaration of interests.
e) 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.
f) The adoption of such other changes to the Authority’s Constitution as are
necessitated by the changes outlined above.
g) 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 council compliant with the Act.
Standards Committee
10
08 May 2012
Members discussed the outline report:
1. It seemed that the principles of the new arrangements were the same as
the existing regime. The only change seemed to be in the processes
involved. The Monitoring Officer agreed. He said that the seven principles
of public life remained an integral part of the new Standards regime. It
was hoped that difficulties in the way complaints were handled could be
avoided in the future and that it was imperative that practice notes were
issued to explain to complainants that some issues were not covered and
to deal with any unrealistic expectations.
2. There was a concern that the current system had been put in place to
ensure that complaints were dealt with independently at a local level and
that a move back to self-regulation could be viewed negatively by the
public. The Monitoring Officer agreed this was a risk. It was hoped that
concerns regarding self-regulation could be addressed with the
appointment of an ‘Independent Person’. In addition, it may be necessary
to review the Monitoring Officer protocol to ensure that it reflected the
member Code of Conduct.
3. The role of the Independent Person could prove to be onerous given the
large number of complaints made to the current Standards Committee.
The Monitoring Officer said that using a ‘pool’ of Independent Persons
could help with this. In response to a further concern that vexatious
complaints should be dealt with early on, he said that the issuing of
practice notes could assist with this.
4. There was a possibility that the Standards Committee could be viewed as
powerless without the option to use sanctions when dealing with
complaints. The Monitoring Officer explained that any complaints referred
to the Committee for a Hearing would be serious rather than trivial. In
addition, for County and District Councils more focus would be placed on
Group Leaders to support the Committee’s decisions and ensure
compliance with them.
5. In response to a concern that any future Standards Committee could be
dominated by one political party, the Monitoring Officer said that there was
also the option to co-opt town and parish councillors onto the Committee.
6. Mrs H Thompson, a District Councillor and County Councillor updated the
Committee on a recent meeting at the County Council to consider the
Outline report. She said that they had agreed to accept the LGA Code of
Conduct but that they intended to alter some of the wording. The
Monitoring Officer added that this was an advantage to the Code being
dealt with locally.
7. At the request of a Member, the Monitoring Officer explained that the
current Standards Committee would be retained until the final regulations
were implemented. The anticipated date was currently 1st July 2012.
8. There was a concern that the role of Monitoring Officer could be reduced
in the future and could eventually become a shared resource between
local authorities. The Monitoring Officer said that currently it was a
statutory requirement that each authority must have a monitoring officer
but there could be a change in how the role was discharged at some
point.
Standards Committee
11
08 May 2012
The Chairman asked the Committee to consider the proposals before them in
turn:
a) A new Code of Conduct
It was agreed that the Local Government Association Code of Conduct was
the preferred option.
b) Retention of a Standards Committee
The Monitoring Officer advised Members that if there was no Standards
Committee in place Hearings would have to be considered by another
committee of the Council.
It was agreed that a Standards Committee should be retained and that parish
and town councillors should be co-opted onto the committee.
c) Recruitment of Independent Members
The Committee agreed to support the proposal for a pooled arrangement for
Independent Persons. One Member abstained.
d) Registration of Interests
The Committee agreed to continue with the existing arrangements until the
publication of regulations relating to ‘disclosable pecuniary interests’.
8.
LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK CASES
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of complaints
received.
The meeting concluded at 15.20 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
12
08 May 2012
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 11 June 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mr K Johnson (Chairman)
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr John Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mr G Jones
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Oliver
Ms B Palmer
Mr J Perry-Warned
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr G Williams
Mr J Wyatt
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
12.
The Chief Executive, Corporate Director (N. Baker) the Head of
Finance (for items 19, 20 and 21)the Technical Accountant (for item
20) the Housing Services Manager (for item 22) the Coast and
Community Partnerships Manager (for item23),
The press
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
13.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012 were confirmed as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
14.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
15.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
16.
Cabinet
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
13
11 June 2012
Member(s)
17.
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr K Johnson
North Norfolk Housing
Strategy 2012-2015
Personal and non
prejudicial as a
Member of the Board
of Victory Housing
Trust
Mr T Ivory
North Norfolk Housing
Strategy 2012-2015
Personal and non
prejudicial as a
Member of the Board
of Victory Housing
Trust
Mr N Lloyd
North Walsham Sports
Centre Joint User Agreement
Personal and non
prejudicial as the
Council’s appointed
representative to the
North Walsham
Sports Hall
Management
Committee
MEMBER TRAINING DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT GROUP
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Members’ Training, Development and Support
Working Group held on 28 February 2012 be received.
18.
PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Built Heritage Working Party held on
23 April 2012 be received.
19.
2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services, introduced this item. He
explained that the report presented the outturn position for the revenue account and
capital programme for the 2011/12 financial year. Details were provided of the more
significant year-end variance and of recommended contributions to earmarked
reserves for future spending commitments. An update to the current capital
programme was also included.
The outturn position on the revenue account as at 31 March 2012 showed an
underspend for the year of £241,601. The general fund balance remained within the
current recommended level.
Members discussed the report:
a) Ms V Gay sought clarification regarding the underspend on coastal protection and
the unspent pathfinder project grant. She was particularly concerned about the
unfilled vacancy within the coastal team. Mr W Northam responded that the
Cabinet
14
11 June 2012
vacancy would be filled once the senior management restructure was completed.
He added that there was a large reserve in place to enable the Council to
respond to all their commitments regarding coastal work and the Pathfinder
project. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Issues said that there was
still significant work to be done in relation to the slip road and the replacement
steps at Happisburgh. In response to a further question from Ms V Gay regarding
the timeline for appointing a new member of staff, the Chief Executive said that
various options were being considered, including the outsourcing of some work.
b) Mrs B McGoun was concerned that budgeted expenditure in relation to the North
Norfolk Youth Voice had not been incurred. She sought assurance that the
allocated sum would still be spent on youth projects. The Chief Executive said
that the variance occurred when the Communities Team was restructured. The
responsibility for working with youth groups had not been reallocated as yet but
this would be addressed as part of the Council’s localism agenda. In response to
a further question regarding a 14% saving on environmental strategy, the Head of
Finance explained that these costs had previously been charged to revenue and
were now transferred to capital. She agreed to provide further information on the
£25,585 recharge from Computer Services to Member Services.
c) Mr D Young sought clarification on whether the £20,000 relating to the Strategic
Housing and Choice Based Lettings system was slippage or additional funding.
The Head of Finance confirmed that it was slippage. In response to a further
question regarding Grassed Area Deposits, the Head of Finance explained that
the budget was allocated to revenue before being transferred to the reserve. This
applied to the Local Strategic Partnerships budget too. Mr Young then queried
the budget allocated to Earmarked Reserves, he was concerned that there was
no plan to spend any money from the reserves until beyond 2016. The Chief
Executive explained that there was a need to maintain reserves at a certain level
due to uncertainty over future funding. Mr W Northam added that £300,000 had
been allocated to the general reserve to ensure a balanced budget.
d) Further concerns were raised regarding delays to coastal projects. The Chief
Executive said that a copy of the coastal works programme would be circulated to
all Members.
The Chief Executive advised Members that in future any technical questions relating
to financial reports should be submitted in advance of the meeting or directed to the
financial team.
RECOMMENDED 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.
20.
ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12 AND STRATEGY
UPDATE FOR 2012/13
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services introduced this item. He
explained that the report sets out the Treasury Management activities actually
undertaken during 2011/12 compared with the Treasury Management Strategy for
the year. An update for alternative investment options for 2012/13 was included.
Cabinet
15
11 June 2012
Mr W Northam drew Members’ attention to the decision taken in December 2011 to
reduce the Council’s exposure to the European Investment Bank (EIB) by selling
£4m of its bond holding. The gain made on the sale had been placed into an
earmarked reserve and was available to be released to the General Fund. He
concluded by saying that in the future, the Council would invest in collective
investment schemes focusing on property investment.
Members discussed the report:
1. Mr G Williams asked whether the Council would consider direct investment in
property – particularly in local town centres. He added that such investment could
help achieve various policy objectives. Mr W Northam replied that it was an
option that had been considered and it would be reassessed when the economy
was more stable. The Technical Accountant said that a pooled property fund
allowed the Council to spread the risk further. The Chief Executive added that the
Council was considering a local investment strategy. This would sit outside of
normal treasury investment and she referred Members to the Housing Strategy.
2. Mr D Young asked for further details regarding the LAMIT and Lime Property
Funds. He wondered whether they could be sold and what sort of yields could be
achieved. The Technical Accountant explained that they were long-term
investments and it was possible to withdraw money but it would take longer. He
said that yields were better than fixed-term deposits with banks, at just above 5%
but acknowledged that they were more volatile.
3. Mr P W Moore asked for clarification on the figure invested of £105,410 for
internally managed (short term) investments. The Technical Accountant
explained this was the total value of investments placed in the year and was a
turnover figure giving an appreciation of total investments placed (and
subsequently matured) during 2011/12.
Mr W Northam proposed that the second recommendation was amended to:
‘When appropriate, consideration be given to a proportion of the investment portfolio
being invested in the LAMIT and Lime Property Funds’. Cabinet agreed the
amendment.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that
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.
21.
DEBT RECOVERY 2011/12
Mr W Northam presented this item. He explained that the collection of Council tax
and Non-Domestic rates had been particularly challenging during this financial year
due to the economic recession and the introduction of 100% rates on empty NonDomestic properties. The collection targets had been adjusted to reflect the potential
impact of the introduction of the replacement revenues system and ongoing
economic difficulties. Despite this, the collection target of 98.6% had been achieved
and the officers involved should be congratulated on their hard work.
Members discussed the report:
Cabinet
16
11 June 2012
1. Mr D Young queried the performance indicators for in-year collection. He said
that there appeared to be a shift from 1.4% of uncollected debt to 1.7% and that
this differed to the figures that were discussed in December 2011 when it was
implied that there would be an improvement in the debt collection rates. Mr W
Northam said the shift reflected the reality of the overall economic situation. The
Chief Executive added that the target for 2012/13 was set 12 months previously
and would be revisited on the outturn.
2. Mr N Lloyd said that it was important that the debt collection target should not be
lowered further.
RESOLVED to
Approve the annual report giving details of the Council’s write-offs in accordance with
the Council’s Debt Write-off Policy and performance in relation to revenues collection
22.
NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-15 (HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE)
Mr K Johnson, Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing introduced this item. He
explained that this strategy was the first in a series of three separate documents
reflecting the key areas supporting the delivery of new housing and infrastructure.
This first document set out the vision for the strategy and contained a detailed action
plan for the period 2012/2015 which would support the delivery of new homes across
the district.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mr G Williams said that he was pleased to see a clear link between the housing
strategy and the corporate plan. He agreed that more flexibility was needed to
ensure the delivery of housing across the district and sought assurance that
developers would not be ‘let off the hook’ regarding affordable housing. Mr K
Johnson said that this would not be the case.
b) Mr J Perry-Warnes asked for information regarding the number of empty homes
that would be ready for occupation this year. Mr K Johnson explained that the
plan to bring empty homes back into use was a target only and that the Council
hoped to influence owners through the threat of compulsory purchase orders. The
aim was to bring 100 empty homes back into occupation over the next 3 years,
with a target of 40 during the first year. He added that the Council did not have
access to a precise list of empty homes only unfurnished second homes. The
issue of empty homes would be covered in the second housing strategy.
c) Mrs L Brettle was concerned about the phrase ‘everyone in North Norfolk should
have the opportunity to buy or rent a decent home at a price they can afford’ –
she felt that the wording could be better. Mr K Johnson explained that the phrase
was taken directly from the Corporate Plan. In response to a further comment that
from Mrs L Brettle that there was no mention of the allocation of affordable
housing, Mr K Johnson said that the allocation policy would form part of the Local
Lettings Agreement and this would be covered by the second housing strategy
document.
d) Mr G Jones asked how many empty homes had been subject to a compulsory
purchase order. The Legal and Democratic Services Manager said that one
property in Weybourne had been brought back into use. A second property was
not yet fit for occupation but work was being carried out to upgrade it and a third
property could be subject to a compulsory purchase order (CPO), following
enforcement action. Mr G Jones asked whether there were any other ideas in the
pipeline, he felt that the use of CPO’s did not seem to be effective. Mr T Ivory
said that it was never envisaged that CPO’s would need to be used on a regular
Cabinet
17
11 June 2012
basis. It had always been intended that the threat of a CPO would indicate the
Council was serious about tackling the problem. Ultimately the Council should be
judged on the number of empty homes that were brought back into use not the
number of CPO’s issued.
e) Mr G Jones suggested that the Council should consider holding a conference to
get ideas from other local authorities and housing organisations on how to deal
with housing problems. Mr K Johnson said that he did not feel that further
discussions would be helpful at this stage. He added that there was a Housing
Strategy workshop arranged for 20th June 2012 and all Members were
encouraged to attend.
f) Mr R Oliver said that even during better economic times it was hard to achieve
targets for housing development. He asked what the Council had put in place to
ensure that a higher target could be achieved. Mr T Ivory explained that the
Council now had allocated sites across the district. He acknowledged that there
was a need for a more radical way of thinking to address the problem and this
would be addressed in the subsequent strategy documents.
g) Mr P W Moore said that Members were often aware of empty properties within
their wards and that they could provide housing officers with the details. It was
agreed that this was a good idea.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
The adoption of the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Housing and Infrastructure)
23.
THE BIG SOCIETY FUND
Mr T Ivory, Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society, introduced this item. He
apologised that local Members had not been notified about applications to the Fund
and said that all Members would be notified in future.
He explained that Full Council had delegated responsibility for determining
applications for up to £10,000 to a newly created Big Society Fund Board. The
inaugural meeting had been held on 21 May and Mr Ivory had been elected as
Chairman and Mr P High as Vice-Chairman. The majority of first round applications
were successful and the Board made total grants of £81,776.
Mr Ivory then outlined the applications that had been received for funding in excess
of £10,000 and requested that Cabinet determined each application in turn. Two of
the applications related to skate parks and he explained that it was important to
ensure that the decisions taken by the Big Society Board were consistent and that as
£10,000 had been awarded to the Skateboarding scheme in Wells, it was proposed
that a grant of £10,000 should also be awarded to the Cromer and Sheringham skate
park organisations. Both awards were subject to conditions.
Two of the applications had been recommended for refusal. In both cases this was
because they did not meet the criteria set out in the Big Society Fund prospectus.
The final application related to the Wells Maltings Trust. It was proposed that this was
deferred to allow further discussion with the Trust and to ensure that an award was
not made without taking into account the support already given to the project by the
Council and the future needs of the scheme. If, following further discussions, it was
felt that an application to the Fund could be supported then the Wells Maltings Trust
would be encouraged to apply again.
Mr Ivory concluded by thanking the Board and officers for their support. He also
thanked the Norfolk Community Foundation for their assistance.
Cabinet
18
11 June 2012
Members discussed the report:
a) Mrs B McGoun said that of the 14 grants awarded, 10 had been north of North
Walsham and she was disappointed that her ward had not been included. Mr T
Ivory said that he also felt some disappointment that there had been no
applications from his own ward. However, this was just the first round and he
encouraged Members to promote the Fund to their local communities. He
referred them to the Big Society Fund Prospectus which was available on the
Council’s website
b) Mr R Oliver was concerned about the size of the grant awarded to the
Sheringham skate park project. It was considerably less than the £30,000
requested. He stressed that the scheme was well supported within the town and
that there was a lack of other sporting facilities for young people to use. He asked
whether the Portfolio Holder would be prepared to meet with the organisers of the
project to discuss it further. Mr Ivory said that there were several skate park
schemes in the pipeline across the district and Wells had set a benchmark. He
added that some communities, such as Mundesley, had raised a substantial
amount of money themselves to fund their skate parks and this should also be
taken into consideration. He agreed to meet with the organisers to discuss it
further if they wished.
c) Ms V Gay commented that it would be useful for Members to be kept informed of
all applications to the Big Society Fund, including those that had been
unsuccessful. Members may be able to signpost them to other sources of
funding.
d) Mr G Jones said that he was very pleased to see that Stalham Brass Band had
received a grant. He felt that more applications would be received if Members
were able to provide assistance. He suggested that a training session could be
provided to councillors on how to help local community groups make an
application to the Fund. It was agreed that this was a good idea.
e) Mr G Williams said that as a member of the Big Society Fund Board, he agreed
that it was important to be consistent when dealing with applications. He was
concerned that the application from Visit North Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd
was allowed to progress as far as it had and that the process should be reassessed. He added that it was important to recognise the impact of the Fund on
equality and diversity across the District and this should be reflected in future
reports to Cabinet.
f) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said she was disappointed that no applications had
been received from Fakenham yet but she was encouraged to see a substantial
amount of funding being awarded to youth projects.
Mr T Ivory thanked Members for their comments. He said that members of the Board
were due to meet with potential providers for the capacity building support shortly. He
added that Voluntary Norfolk would be running workshops on this theme in the near
future.
RESOLVED to
Determine the Big Society Fund grant applications in accordance with the Big Society
Fund Prospectus and having regard to the decisions made by the Big Society Board
at its meeting on 21 May 2012.
a) approve grant funding of £10,000 for the Cromer Skate Park Project (subject to
conditions)
Cabinet
19
11 June 2012
b) approve grant funding of £10,000 for the Sheringham Skate Park project (subject
to conditions)
c) defer a decision on the application for grant funding on the Wells Maltings Trust
pending further discussions with the applicant
d) refuse grant funding for the Fit Together North Norfolk project because it does not
meet the criteria set out in the Big Society Fund Prospectus (as outlined in
Appendix L of the report)
e) refuse grant funding for Visit North Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd because it
does not meet the criteria set out in the Big Society Fund Prospectus (as outlined
in Appendix L of the report)
24.
NORTH WALSHAM SPORTS CENTRE JOINT USER AGREEMENT
The Chairman proposed that this item be deferred to allow for a meeting of the
governors of North Walsham High School and to enable further consultation with
local Members.
RESOLVED to
Defer the item to allow for further consultation
The Meeting closed at 11.38am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
20
11 June 2012
Agenda Item no.______4_____
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 26 June 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Head of Financial
Services, the Head of Customer Services, the Policy and Performance
Management Officer, the Housing Services Manager, the Planning Policy
and Property Information Manager, the Technical Accountant, the North
Norfolk Learning Skills and Project Manager and the Scrutiny Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P W High, Mr K Johnson, , Mrs
A Moore, Mr W Northam, Ms B Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr R Shepherd, Ms V
Uprichard and Mr D Young.
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
18 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr B Jarvis and Mr R Reynolds.
19 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Price for Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Mr R Shepherd for Mr R Reynolds.
20 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
21 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 May
2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
22 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21
26 June 2012
23 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
24 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
25 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
26 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Chairman said no response had been received in respect of providing a temporary
extra resource to deal with enforcement matters in the Planning Department. He asked
the Scrutiny Officer to follow this up.
27 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
At the meeting between the Leader, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny and Chief
Executive, it had been decided that the Debt Management Annual Report would not be
reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Outturn Report which was on
today’s agenda was integral to it so that any matters which Members wish to bring up
they could do so then.
A further workshop on housing policy would take place before Full Council on 25 July
2012.
28 LEARNING FOR EVERYONE PRESENTATION
John Morgan, the North Norfolk Learning Skills and Project Manager and Julia Knight,
IAG Worker L2 Practitioner made a PowerPoint presentation on ‘Learning for Everyone’
(attached at Minutes Appendix A).
Questions and Discussions
a) John Morgan said there was a need to raise the profile of what the team did and to
engage with more people. The team was launched in 2002 so today’s presentation was
a 10th anniversary celebration.
b) Mrs A Green asked whether the Team went into schools to advise. John Morgan
said that some work was done with schools, but the Team’s main focus was with the
over 19s as this was who access funding was for.
c) Ms V Gay said the Team’s work made a huge difference to people’s lives.
d) Mr P Moore asked whether any help was given with transport to those who lived in
rural areas in order to access training. John Morgan said transport was a major
issue. The Team tried to provide a service in the District and some work had been
carried out in outlying villages as part of the Leader Plus Project. It was a balancing
act to make the best use of resources and this limited what could be achieved. The
focus on market towns and working with children’s centres and Victory Housing Trust
provided some help towards child care costs. A maths course had been run at North
Walsham library and a series of employability classes was also planned for the team.
More work could be done but it was dependant on resources. Julia Knight added that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22
26 June 2012
LEARNING FOR EVERYONE PRESENTATION
(Continued)
transport was a problem but the Team had developed relationships with
organisations, for example, the Job Centre and been able to secure funding for
transport.
e) The Human Resources Team at the Council had been made aware of Learning for
Life services. In the last two years some former employees had found work.
f) In 2011 the Team had dealt with over 600 people, of whom 60-65% were
unemployed of which 90 (25%) had been helped back into work. The Team worked
closely with voluntary services which was the appropriate next step for some people.
They worked with a wide range of clients for all abilities. They also worked with
graduates and helped them to secure employment, although most clients did not
have good qualifications to start with.
g) Mr P Terrington asked whether there was a network of educational providers. John
Morgan replied that the Team dealt with cases as and when they could get resources
and to match need. Their approach was to build up the local network, but there were
not many providers who could consistently provide in North Norfolk. Part of the
Team’s job was to be aware of what was available locally.
The Chairman thanked John Morgan and Julia Knight for their presentation. He asked
Members to reflect on the problems of organisations who were contracted to provide
education services but, for whatever reason, were not delivering in North Norfolk. The
Committee might wish to invite the team back at a later date to discuss this.
29 NORTH NORFOLK
INFRASTRUCTURE)
HOUSING
STRATEGY
2012
–
2015
(HOUSING
AND
a) The Housing Manager said that this was the first of the following three Housing
Strategy documents which was being presented and was in line with the Council’s
objectives:
• Supporting the delivery of new homes and infrastructure
• Making the most effective use of the existing stock
• Supporting independence
This report was the first of the documents and considered the context within which
new housing would be delivered across the District and identified that the Localism
Act 2011 and the new National Planning Policy Framework were enablers which
would support a new more flexible and progressive approach to ensure the delivery
of more market and affordable housing. The document contained a detailed action
plan which set out specific actions to be taken to ensure the delivery of more
homes.
b) The Strategy had resulted in a lot of discussion at the Housing Workshop the
previous week so that only the first two parts of the intended presentation had been
covered. A further workshop would be arranged to cover the third part. This would
happen before Full Council met on 25 July. In response to a question on whether
the Council’s housing policy should be revisited to see if it was still appropriate, the
Planning Policy and Property Information Manager said he was looking to provide
professional advice on this and from there the Council could review its position.
Officers were trying to establish a process for providing flexibility within the existing
framework.
c) In response to a point regarding the need for flexibility regarding housing targets, the
Housing Manager advised that it was subject to viability. Work was being
undertaken on reviewing our approach to viability, including ideas which would give
more value to a developer and the point at which a dwelling was affordable.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23
26 June 2012
NORTH NORFOLK
INFRASTRUCTURE)
HOUSING
STRATEGY
2012
–
2015
(HOUSING AND
(Continued)
d) Mr P Terrington considered that even if the Council built many houses in North
Norfolk, many people would be unable to buy or rent them at present. He was
interested in ideas such as the Council releasing resources for loaning. He was
informed that Officers hoped to present more on this to Members at the workshop
and that detailed discussions had already been held with providers in North Norfolk,
one of whom was very interested in looking at a possible strategy which would
include loan provision.
e) Mr B Smith suggested repeating some exercises which Members had undertaken at
a previous workshop in 2007.
f) The Strategy period was 2012 – 2015 but the work had already started. Detailed
discussions had been held with housing providers in North Norfolk and it was hoped
to bring a paper to Members in the Autumn on using the Council’s own resources to
support delivery.
g) Mrs V Uprichard said there had been some concern expressed at the building of
market houses on exception sites as she considered there was not a shortage of
houses to buy in North Norfolk and exception sites were intended for local people
with housing needs and for affordable housing. The Housing Manager responded
that there was a difference in opinion as to whether market dwellings were desirable.
The means of delivering affordable housing was being looked into but there was a
lack of funding and the Council could no longer give grants. It was considered,
however, that market houses could be provided within the current framework in so
much as that they enabled the affordable housing to be delivered.
h) Mr D Young said people were concerned about the local lettings policy and he
asked what was the timescale for this to be reviewed and how much the Council
was constrained by national rules and regulations. The Housing Manager explained
that it was hoped to take this forward in September as the second part of the
Strategy. Counsel advice had been sought on what flexibility the Localism Act
would give the Council. Officers felt that 10% of lettings could be let through the
Local Lettings Agreement.
i) In response to a question from Mr N Smith regarding S106 money, the Head of
Financial Services said that a developer would sell a property for what he could
achieve, which would certainly not be less than he thought it was worth. The Chair
and Vice-Chair suggested that, for Members to understand this topic better, it would
be worth repeating some exercises which Members had undertaken at a previous
workshop in 2007. The Committee recommended that this should be part of the
next workshop.
j) The Chairman had the following observations to make: firstly, in North Walsham,
where the average salary was £21,000, there was no opportunity to get onto the
housing market – he considered that in the last 40 years, being able to afford a
house had become more difficult; secondly, developers had overpaid for land in
boom times and the Council was using public money to get them out of trouble;
thirdly, many people needed 1-2 bedroom properties, some due to family break-ups
and not in a position to re-enter the housing markets in their 40s and 50s – he
considered that the Council’s Corporate Plan had a wonderful aspiration but it was
not achievable; fourthly, in the 1930s, the Country had got itself out of recession by
a housing programme and he suggested that this was what would need to happen
again as it would create jobs and meet real needs – 4,000 people were on the
Council’s waiting lists and the Council should try to meet it – the Council was not
dealing with reality but theorising on what worked.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
24
26 June 2012
NORTH NORFOLK
INFRASTRUCTURE)
HOUSING
STRATEGY
2012
–
2015
(HOUSING AND
(Continued)
k) Ms V Gay agreed with the Chairman’s observations and added that previously many
houses had been built through local authorities which was not possible nowadays.
Many new houses built were very small.
l) In response to a question from Mr J Perry-Warnes, the Housing Manager said that
the Localism Act gave the Council the possibility of having a closed housing waiting
list. The majority of people on it were living in North Norfolk or had close family
living here. Careful thought needed to be given to this.
m) Mr K Johnson noted that there appeared to be a consensus that everyone regarded
affordable housing as being important and hopefully the proposed strategies would
allow this issue to be addressed.
RESOLVED
a) To continue monitoring the development and implementation of the Strategy.
b) To support Cabinet’s RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL:
The adoption of the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Housing and Infrastructure)
30 REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES
a) No officers were available so it was decided to defer the report until July.
b) It was noted that the policy would have to be reviewed because of a change in
legislation.
c) It was important that this report came to Scrutiny to ensure that surveillance was
used properly.
d) Members expressed concern that there were no officers available. The Scrutiny
Officer would find out the reason and report back to Members.
e) The Head of Environmental Health would be asked to provide a briefing on the policy
before the report was presented in July.
31 2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
a) Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services, introduced this item. He
explained that the report presented the outturn position for the revenue account and
capital programme for the 2011/12 financial year. Details were provided of the more
significant year-end variance and of recommended contributions to earmarked
reserves for future spending commitments. An update to the current capital
programme was also included.
The outturn position on the revenue account as at 31 March 2012 showed an
underspend for the year of £241,601. The general fund balance remained within the
current recommended level.
b) It was the last year of the current 2-year financial settlement. Later this year there
would be an announcement regarding financial settlements for local authorities from
Central Government.
c) Capital Programme 2012/13 Update, 6.3: this referred to capital receipts which had
been generated in previous years.
d) The restructuring fund was currently being used. The balance stood at just over
£468k.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
25
26 June 2012
2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
(Continued)
e) Ms V R Gay asked why the playground project for Sadler’s Wood had been delayed
again. The Head of Financial Services would get a written answer for her. Mr P W
Moore said that the delay in starting this work was a reputational risk for the Council.
f) A review was being carried out on the Splash at Sheringham and a report would be
brought to Members as soon as possible.
g) Reserves were reviewed annually when the Budget was set. Officer guidance was
necessary on the level of reserves which should be held.
h) Mr P Terrington suggested that some of the reserves be used for Affordable Housing.
The Head of Financial services said that work was being done on financial products,
e.g. mortgages.
i) The Vice Chairman reminded the Committee that there would be significant changes
to the way that local authorities would be funded and, in view of this, it was prudent to
keep our reserves.
RESOLVED
To support Cabinet’s RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2011/12;
The transfers to and from reserves as detailed in the report;
Transfer the surplus to the restructuring reserve;
The financing of the 2011/12 capital programme as detailed within the report;
The balance on the general reserve of £1,948,590 at 31 March 2012;
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.
32 ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12 AND STRATEGY
UPDATE FOR 2012/13
a) This report had not originally been on the agenda but, it was noted that the Council’s
Constitution stated that the Annual Treasury Management report should be reported
to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A Member wondered whether it should
instead be reported to the Audit Committee.
b) Mr D Young referred to the second recommendation in the report (That a proportion
of the investment portfolio is invested in the LAMIT and Lime Property Funds) and
said that no reference had been made to a minimum or maximum investment.
Some careful calculations would need to be done before figures could be included.
This recommendation would then have to go back to Cabinet.
c) Money invested with Santander on a fixed term deposit had been re-invested with
them when it matured. It was held in a business reserve account and could be
repaid at any time, should this be necessary.
RESOLVED
a) To ask the Constitution Working Party to consider whether Treasury reports should
be scrutinised by Overview and Scrutiny or the Audit Committee.
b) To support the RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL that the Treasury
Management Annual Report for 2011/12 is approved.
c) 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.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26
26 June 2012
33 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT 2011/12
a) Members expressed concern over worsening performance in the following areas:
• Processing of planning applications
• Fly-tipping investigated within 2 working days
• Percentage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting
The Scrutiny Officer would contact the relevant service managers to ask their
comments.
b) Members commented on improved performance in the following areas:
• Sickness absence
• Improved street and environmental cleanliness
• Number of economically active people assisted into work
• Number of unemployed people receiving advice and guidance
The 2 latter points were due to the work of Learning for Everyone.
c) When the Annual Plan was produced assurance would have to be given on how the
shortfall on timescales for processing of Planning applications would be met. Cabinet
was aware of this.
d) Concern was expressed about the number of empty properties brought back into
use. However, at the Housing workshop it had been explained that some empty
properties were not within the influence of the Council.
e) Some suggestions were made regarding improving performance in processing of
Planning applications. However it would be more appropriate to raise them at the
Development Committee.
f) The subject of Planning Performance should come back to Overview and Scrutiny.
RESOLVED
a) To note the report
b) To receive an update on Planning Performance
34 COMPLIMENTS, COMPLAINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
a) A review of the Work Programme had changed the frequency of this report from
quarterly to annual. Eleven new or improved processes had resulted from the
receipt of compliments, complaints and suggestions. A couple of changes had been
made, for example, the wording on a direct debit form sent to customers had been
amended.
b) Year on year complaints had increased by 10%, although there were still very few
complaints (124) in proportion to the number of customer contacts. 10,000 calls per
month were made to the Council. There had also been 40 compliments.
c) The Chairman said that complaints about Revenues and Benefits were inevitable
because of the nature of it. The way Officers said things could trigger a complaint,
rather than the content of what they said.
d) Complaints concerning Property Services tended to focus around public
conveniences.
e) Customer Services had been working closely with Kier and there had been no
significant increase in complaints.
f) There was a difference between a complaint and a request for service, e.g. a missed
bin collection. Information from requests for service was used to reduce the
likelihood of future complaints. The Committee was due to receive an update on the
Waste Contract in July. Information on how requests for service were logged would
be requested.
g) Mr R Price referred to meetings with the Taxi Association regarding contacting
licencing officers. The Head of Customer Services explained that the complaints
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
27
26 June 2012
COMPLIMENTS, COMPLAINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
(Continued)
process only dealt with official complaints. The Chairman suggested that Mr Price
should discuss his concern at the Licensing and Appeals Committee.
h) The Chairman said it was important to differentiate between complaints and formal
complaints.
i) The public appreciated being able to talk to Officers at the Council.
j) The Chairman thanked the Head of Customer Services and her team for the work
they did and noted that the number of formal complaints was low in relation to the
number of enquiries received.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
35 FINAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT TIME AND TASK LIMITED PANEL
a) The Scrutiny Officer reported that the recommendations had gone to Cabinet at
Broadland District Council. Cabinet had referred the report back to Broadland’s
Overview and Scrutiny Committee to fine-tune their recommendations.
b) Mr P Terrington said that the proposals seemed very much based in Broadland and
East Norfolk rather than in the West. The Scrutiny Officer said 2 of the 4 members
on the Panel were from the West, but perhaps Broadland District Council were trying
to keep to the Broadland area.
c) Ms V Gay said the Coasthopper service had been discussed by the Panel. Most
people were in favour of the service and wanted to see it retained. However, there
had been some bias towards the Broadland and Greater Norwich area and the topic
had not been looked at as holistically as it could have been. However, all Members
had been committeed to public transport and the membership of the Panel had been
very representative. It had been good to go out and gather information from key
stakeholders.
d) Ms V R Gay said that the importance of community transport as a way forward had
been recognised by the Panel. There had also been concern regarding hospital
transport. The Council part-funded community transport. Members should meet
with providers and discuss services. It was unlikely that commercial operators
would provide for rural transport.
e) Ms V Gay said she had spoken to NWACTA. Rural transport was of great
importance and one bus per day in a village did not allow people to get out. Some
information gathering was taking place with community transport groups.
f) The Chairman highlighted various issues including the increasing importance of
community transport, ringfencing grant aid, the difficulties with younger people
getting to work and whether a late night service should be provided.
g) Mr J Perry-Warnes said Blakeney might be interested in having a dial-a-ride bus.
h) Mrs A Green informed Members that Great Ryburgh ran a taxi service which was
subsidised by the parish precept.
i) Ms V Gay said that some bus pass users would rather pay a small charge than have
no service. The Scrutiny Officer said that bus passes were now administered by
Norfolk County Council. Mr P Moore suggested a similar system be operated for
young people as was operated with the Council’s car park season tickets.
j) Some Members suggested more thought should be given to the service provided by
the taxi service.
k) Mr R Price said it had been unanimously agreed by the Licensing and Appeals
Committee that once credentials had been verified, the Taxi Association be invited
to send a representative to the Taxi Licensing Group.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28
26 June 2012
FINAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT TIME AND TASK LIMITED PANEL
(Continued)
RESOLVED
a) To convey comments to the Scrutiny Committee at Broadland District Council.
b) To discuss the report further after it has been given further consideration by the
Scrutiny Committee at Broadland District Council.
36 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Scrutiny Officer informed the meeting that a presentation from Norfolk Credit
Union would take place next month. She asked that questions be sent to her in
advance.
b) Members agreed that the review of outside bodies should be moved to July on the
Work Programme.
c) The Scrutiny Officer had attended the Norfolk Scrutiny Network meeting at which
there had been a presentation by the Health Scrutiny Manager of Norfolk County
Council. She would attach copies of the presentation as an appendix to her July
report.
d) The Cabinet would probably meet in August instead of July, which would impact on
the timing of the next meeting of this Committee. (This was later moved back in
July, but the date of this Committee did not need to be moved).
e) The Chief Executive considered that referrals and reports from the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee should be a standing item on the Cabinet agenda, and this
would be actioned by Democratic Services.
f) Members had already agreed to defer the item on the Review of Surveillance
Policies and Authorisations to July.
g) Some work was to be carried out on planning performance and would be reported
back to the Committee.
h) At the Cabinet meeting on 16 April 2012, Mr P Terrington said Steve Blatch had
made a report on renewable energy. He had requested a report on outcomes and
asked that this be added to the Work Programme.
RESOLVED
a) To begin the review of Outside Bodies, referred to the Committee by Full Council, in
July.
b) That the report on Coastal issues be deferred to September.
The meeting concluded at 1.05pm.
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
29
26 June 2012
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 16 July 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr J Lee
Mr T FitzPatrick (Chairman) Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Eales
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mr G Jones
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
25.
Ms B Palmer
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mrs H Thompson
Mr G Williams
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, Corporate Director (N. Baker), Corporate
Director (S. Blatch) the Coastal Engineer (for item 31) the Revenues
and Benefits Manager (for item 32)
The press
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr T Ivory and Mr K Johnson
26.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2012 were confirmed as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman after the following amendments had been agreed:
a) Minute 20 Annual Treasury Management Report for 2011/12 and Strategy
Update for 2012/13, item 3, page 4, to change to: ‘Mr P W Moore asked for
clarification on the figure invested of £105,410’ to ‘Mr P W Moore asked for
clarification on the figure invested of £105,410 million’
b) Minute 23 The Big Society Fund, item e, page 7, to change ‘Mr G Williams said
that as a member of the Big Society Fund Board, he agreed that it was important
to be consistent with applications’ to ‘Mr G Williams said that he agreed that it
was important to be consistent with applications’.
Mr P W Moore referred to Minute 24, North Walsham Sports Centre Joint User
Agreement which explained that the item was deferred to allow further consultation
with local members. He asked for an update regarding progress. Mr J Lee, Portfolio
Holder for Leisure and Cultural Services explained that at a recent meeting of the
school governors there had been agreement to move forward with the proposal. Mr
N Baker, Corporate Director, added that local Members had been copied into a letter
that had been sent out prior to that meeting. It was agreed that they would be kept
Cabinet
30
16 July 2012
informed of further developments as they happened. Mr G Jones asked that
Members in adjacent wards should also be included in the consultation process.
The Chief Executive advised Members that the process would be outlined in terms of
key stakeholders and local members. There was a clear direction now and they
would be kept fully informed of progress.
27.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
28.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were two items of urgent business relating to the Sheringham Skate Park and
the Wells Maltings Trust.:
Sheringham Skate Park
Mr W J Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services explained that the
Sheringham Skate Club had recently been awarded a £10,000 grant from the Big
Society Fund towards phase 2 of the project. Funding from Sport England had been
secured but was dependent on match funding from other sources. There remained a
funding gap of £20,000 and in order to enable the project to come to fruition, it was
recommended that the Council made a capital contribution to the scheme of £20,000,
to be funded from the reserved capital receipts held from the disposal of the
Lockerbie flats. The contribution would be dependent on upon securing match
funding from Sport England.
This item was urgent as it was dependent on securing match funding and the next
scheduled Cabinet meeting would not take place until September 2012.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mr R Oliver spoke on behalf of local members and said that the scheme had the
full support of the Town Council and local residents.
2. Mr G Jones asked what had prompted Cabinet to make the decision to offer
additional funding for the scheme. The Deputy Leader said that the initial
application to the Big Society Fund had been for £30,000 and despite a grant of
£10,000 from the Fund, there was still a considerable shortfall. The level of
support for the scheme within the town had indicated that it was a much needed
local resource.
3. Mr G Williams welcomed the additional funding but said that he felt it could have
been dealt with more efficiently.
RESOLVED
To approve funding of £20,000 for the Sheringham Skate Park from capital receipts
(subject to conditions)
Wells Maltings Trust
The Deputy Leader introduced this item. He explained that at the Cabinet meeting
held on 11th June 2012, it was agreed to defer an application to the Big Society Fund
from the Wells Maltings Trust to allow further discussion with the Trust and to ensure
that any award would take into account the support already provided by the Council
and the future needs of the scheme. An urgent decision regarding funding was now
Cabinet
31
16 July 2012
required in order for the match funding from other sources to be secured (some of
which required a decision by the end of July 2012).
Ms V Gay said that she supported the additional funding for the scheme but was
concerned that a similar situation could occur in the future. She sought clarification
regarding an appeals process for applications to the Big Society Fund. The Chief
Executive said that there was no appeals process for grants made by the Big Society
Fund. In this particular case, as the award was in excess of £10,000 it was a Cabinet
decision and could be subject to call-in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
RESOLVED
To approve grant funding of £38,000 to the Wells Maltings Trust from the Big Society
Fund (subject to conditions)
29.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
30.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 26
March 2012 be received.
31.
CROMER COAST PROTECTION STRATEGY
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coastal issues introduced this item. She
explained that the Cromer Coast Protection Strategy had now reached the stage
where there was a need to appoint a consultant to draw up the scheme and the
appointment process for the main contractors. The appointment would be subject to
securing all statutory consents and the final approval of the Environment Agency.
Once this was in place, the Council would instruct URS Consultants to implement a
procurement process for the main contractor.
RESOLVED
1. To delegate the appointment of URS Consultants to the Chief Executive subject to
a) the approval by the Environment Agency of the Project Appraisal Report;
b) the approval by the Environment Agency of Flood Defence Grant in Aid;
c) securing all statutory consents.
2. Subject to 1 above to instruct URS to implement a procurement process for the
main contractor in accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders and European
tendering procedures
32.
LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services, introduced this item. He
explained that the Government required councils to consult on their draft scheme for
council tax support during the summer so that a final scheme could be adopted by
Council by January 2013, and in operation from April 2013.
Cabinet
32
16 July 2012
Mr W Northam warned that the scheme would be required to replicate as far as
possible the existing provisions under which pensioner eligibility for council tax
benefit was assessed. Based on current claimant data it was estimated that
approximately 62% of the total benefit entitlement was to those of pension age. He
stressed that it was very important to get the scheme right as a lot of people would
be affected by the changes and there would be an impact on staff and their workload.
It was recommended that a politically balanced working party was established to
consider options for a local scheme.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mr G Jones asked whether alternative sources of funding had been considered.
He was concerned that the most vulnerable residents would be hit. He urged the
Working Party to approach the Government and emphasise that North Norfolk
was being unfairly penalised due to demographics. Mr W Northam replied that the
scheme was intended to incentivise people to find work and that despite being a
government initiative; the council would have to deal with any problems arising
from the scheme. The Deputy Leader added that a briefing paper had been
prepared for local MPs and this indicated the level of concern about the
proposals.
b) Ms V Gay referred to the consultation response from the Norfolk councils. She
said that the objectives appeared to be at odds in that the scheme would remove
people from the economy whilst aiming to incentivise work. She added that the
timescales appeared to be inadequate and asked if the Council still agreed with
this view. The Chief Executive said that the timescales were not ideal and there
were concerns but there was no choice regarding implementation. She added
that there were some changes relating to additional funding and the Working
Party would be allowed some discretion regarding the criteria for council tax
discounts.
c) Mr E Seward asked whether it would be possible for the Working Party to
consider whether the scheme would incentivise work. The Chief Executive replied
that the rationale was that it was no longer a benefit and that it would be classed
as a discount in future and consequently, there was the discretion to set up a
localised scheme. However, this meant that it was possible that the Council could
operate a scheme that was different to those of the other Norfolk councils.
d) Mr G Jones said that he was concerned that government ministers believed that
the introduction of a localised scheme would have a positive impact on North
Norfolk due to second homes income.
e) Ms V Gay informed Members that the Revenues and Benefits Services manager
would provide figures on current claimants for Council tax Benefit for individual
wards.
The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager reiterated that the scheme would
have to be implemented within the proposed timescale. The Council would work with
other local authorities to ensure that the process for modelling was not duplicated.
RESOLVED
1. To establish a politically balanced working party to consider options for a local
scheme and to delegate appointments to the working party to the Group Leaders.
2. That the Chief Financial Officer in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder
and Leader be given Delegated Authority to determine the consultation process and
draft scheme.
Cabinet
33
16 July 2012
3. To publish a draft council tax support scheme for consultation, in order to meet the
statutory timetable to approve a final scheme before the end of January 2013 and to
model the affordability as part of the Councils medium term financial planning.
4. That delegated authority be given to the Chief Financial Officer (as outlined at 4.8)
to release funding from the benefits earmarked reserve up to £30,000 for the
implementation.
33.
POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FORMER RAF COLTISHALL SITE
The Deputy Leader introduced this item. He informed Members that the report
outlined Norfolk County Council’s proposed purchase of the former RAF Coltishall
site and detailed the current position of the District Council regarding the future use
of the asset and the designation of the asset as a conservation area. The report
concluded by welcoming the proposal by the County Council to establish a
Community Liaison Reference Group to support the development of a new
masterplan for the future use of the site.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mr G Williams was concerned that parishes to the north of the site were excluded
from having an input into the Community Liaison Reference Group. When the
County Council had been challenged on this they had refused to explain why. He
requested that the Leader formally write to the County Council to express
concern that these parishes were excluded. The Deputy Leader agreed that the
matter would be pursued.
b) Mr G Jones said that County Council had no business plan in place for the site
and this should be taken into consideration during any discussions.
c) Mr P W Moore commented that he was very concerned about the possibility of
under-representation on the Community Liaison Reference Group.
RESOLVED to
Confirm the current position of the District Council with respect to the asset
in terms of the prevailing planning policies covering the site and outline the
engagement it wishes to have with the County Council in the future
development of plans for the site.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
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
The Meeting closed at 10.48am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
34
16 July 2012
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 17 July 2012 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members present:
1.
District
Councillors:
Mr B Hannah
Mr P W Moore
Ms B Palmer
Mr J Savory
Mrs H Thompson
Mr P Williams
Independent
Members:
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mrs A Shirley
Parish Members:
Mr R Barr
Mr M Coates
Officers in
Attendance:
The Interim Monitoring Officer
The Democratic Services Team leader (MH)
The Democratic Services Officer (ED)
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr G Allen, Mr A Bullen and Mr A Nash
2.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE –CHAIRMAN
The Interim Monitoring Officer explained that as this was the first meeting of
the Standards Committee under the new regime, Members were requested to
elect a Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year. It was proposed
by Ms B Palmer and seconded by Mr P W Moore that Mrs H Thompson be
elected Chairman. As there were no other nominations it was unanimously
RESOLVED that
Mrs H Thompson be elected Chairman for the ensuing year
It was proposed by Mr J Savory and seconded by Mr B Hannah that Mr P W
Moore be elected Vice-Chairman of the Committee. There being no other
nominations it was unanimously
Standards Committee
35
17 July 2012
RESOLVED that
Mr P W Moore be elected Vice-Chairman for the ensuing year.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
4.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 08 May 2012
and the Hearing held on 26th June were approved as a correct record.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
6.
CO-OPTED MEMBERS
The Monitoring Officer explained that there was no specific provision under
current legislation for a Standards Committee and therefore, any
appointments of elected members should be made in accordance with the
requirements of proportionality. The Committee had the right to co-opt
members to advise and assist and they could take part in the debate but they
had no voting rights. `
The Chairman asked whether the appointment of an Independent Person
would detract from the role of co-opted members. The Monitoring Officer
responded that the role of the Independent Person was specifically to assist
and give views on complaints. They could attend meetings to report and
answer questions. It was anticipated that they would work closely with the
Monitoring Officer.
Mr H Gupta asked whether there was a bar to an Independent Person
appointed by another local authority becoming a co-opted member of this
committee. The Monitoring Officer assured him there was no restriction.
Mrs A Shirley, former Independent Chairman of the Committee was
concerned that there could be more co-opted members than elected
members and suggested that it might be preferable to defer co-option until
after the appointment of an Independent Person. The Monitoring Officer said
that the Committee had the option to do this but if they did wish to co-opt
members today then the appointments could be ratified at Full Council on 25th
July 2012. Mrs Shirley added that the number of independent members had
increased significantly over recent years to deal with the assessment of
complaints and that the new committee may wish to reflect on whether such a
large number was still necessary.
Mr B Hannah said that there should not be a restriction on the number of coopted members. Mr J Savory agreed and said that the experience and
knowledge that co-opted members could bring to the new committee should
be welcomed.
Standards Committee
36
17 July 2012
RESOLVED that
the following members be co-opted onto the committee for the ensuing year:
Mr G Allen
Mr R Barr
Mr A Bullen
Mr M Coates
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mr A Nash
Mrs A Shirley
7.
8.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr P Williams
10
Local Assessment Framework
Cases
Personal and nonpecuniary - is referred
to within the Local
Assessment
Framework cases
PARISH AND DISTRICT MEMBERS’ REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND
OFFICER REGISTER OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY
The Registers were open to display and were available for inspection in the
Legal Services area.
9.
NEW STANDARDS REGIME
The Interim Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on progress in
implementing the new regime. He said that the Council was at a similar stage
to other local authorities in the region. The government had acknowledged
that the duty to register interests applied only to the 28 day period following
an election. Despite this, Members were advised to update their register of
interests to include any disclosable pecuniary interests. It was possible that
there would be further amendments to the regime as the Localism Act 2011
gave the Secretary of State extensive powers to make changes. The Interim
Monitoring Officer concluded by saying that a report would be presented to
Full Council on 25th July 2012 addressing the disclosure of interests.
Members discussed the update:
1. The minutes of a recent Standards Hearing were referred to. They
highlighted conflicting advice from two senior officers and a Member
asked whether officers would be covered by the new Code of Conduct.
The Interim Monitoring Officer said that there was nothing in the new
regime that would cover staff conduct. He explained that the reason for
this may be due to the different sanctions that could be applied. Members
would be subject to judgement by their peers, whereas officers’
misconduct would be dealt with through the Council’s disciplinary process.
2. Mr H Gupta requested that the minutes should record the Committee’s
thanks to the former Monitoring Officer, Mr T Ing.
Standards Committee
37
17 July 2012
10.
LOCAL ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK CASES
The Interim Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of
complaints received. He explained that from 1st July 2012 the process had
switched to the new system. He had sought advice from the Department for
Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and had been informed that
complaints prior to that date remained a breach of the old Code of Conduct
but would be dealt with under the new arrangements. He had written to each
complainant to advise them of the process and warn them of a possible delay.
The Monitoring Officer would filter and assess all complaints received and
could consult with the Independent Person on any complaint if he wished.
Complaints subject to an investigation would be referred to the Standards
Committee with a recommendation from the Monitoring Officer.
Members discussed the report:
1. Mr P Moore asked whether the Committee would continue to deal with
complaints about parish councillors under the new regime. The Interim
Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was the case. He explained that
each parish council had to adopt a Code of Conduct and every allegation
can then only be dealt with under the district council’s arrangements. The
complaint once dealt with will be sent back to the parish council with a
recommendation as to whether the complaint is upheld and what sanction
might be applied to the subject member but ultimately it was up to the
parish council to decide how to respond. The Standards Committee of the
district council no longer had any power of sanction over parish members.
He added that each parish council involved in a complaints case would
receive the views of the Standards Committee and these would be made
public.
2. Mr B Hannah asked whether parish councils were fully aware of the
situation. The Interim Monitoring Officer said that they had been sent
documentation and briefings from NALC. It was not clear whether they
were fully aware of the process. Some parish councils were intending to
oversee their own investigations into complaints; however, it was not clear
whether this was in accordance with the regulations.
3. Mr P Moore commented that many parish councils believed that they had
now opted out of the complaints process, particularly those that had opted
for a different Code of Conduct to the District Council. The Interim
Monitoring Officer said that he envisaged training and possibly briefing
sessions on the procedures as the new system settled in. The Chairman
agreed that training was very important and should be one of the first
things that the new Committee should focus on.
4. Mrs M Evans commented that having chaired a number of Standards
Committee hearings in the past, it was clear that it was important to
provide the right information at the right time to parish councils. The new
Standards Committee could provide an opportunity to provide training for
all parish councils. The Chairman agreed that this was something she
would like to do and that she was prepared to attend parish council
meetings to brief them on the changes. Mr P Williams added that he
thought it was important that a full training regime was open to all parish
councillors, clerks and district councillors.
5. Mrs M Evans said that a recent hearing had highlighted that Development
Committee meetings recorded declarations of interest differently to other
Standards Committee
38
17 July 2012
meetings and stressed that it was important that they were recorded
clearly and in a standard format.
AGREED
To note the report
The meeting concluded at 14.58 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
39
17 July 2012
26 JULY 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
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – Lancaster North Ward
K E Johnson – Cromer Town Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
(38)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology was received from Mr J D Savory as local Member for item 5.
(39)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 29 June 2012 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(40)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(41)
REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED ON THIS AGENDA
None.
(42)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
40
(43)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0584 - Erection of single-storey extension; Green
Barn, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Hartley
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ report.
The application was for the erection of a single-storey extension to create a bedroom.
Amended plans had been received to include a parapet wall and incorporate a grass
roof. It had been referred to Committee at the request of the local Member, Councillor
D Young.
Councillor Young told the Committee that he had visited the site. He believed that the
extension would be low on the ground and would be screened by foliage. It was not
overlooked. However he requested a site visit. Councillor B Cabbell Manners said
that if the extension was not clearly visible it was unreasonable to turn down the
application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs P
Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED
That the application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(44)
CROMER - PF/12/0532 - Construction of skatepark facility; Land at The
Meadow, Meadow Way/Hall Road for Cromer Skate Park
Public Speakers
Mr Eastwood (supporting)
Miss Gee (supporting)
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ report.
Since the original application had been submitted a meeting had taken place with the
Applicant and officers, including the County Public Rights of Way Officer. As
submitted it looked like the proposed plan would obstruct a public right of way that
was part of the Weavers Way. The Applicant had agreed to amend the plan
accordingly pending information from Norfolk County Council showing the exact
location of the footpath.
Environmental Health had no objections to the application, which had the full support
of Cromer Town Council. Once amended plans had been received there would be a
full reconsultation including the Architectural Liaison Officer regarding crime and
disorder issues and readvertisement. There had been some objections from local
residents but the application was considered to be acceptable in principle. The
Planning Legal Manager advised that any Human Rights issues could be addressed
by conditions imposed.
Councillor K E Johnson, as local Member, said that he fully supported the principle of
the Skatepark. The Council also supported it and had awarded the project a Big
Society Grant. He expressed concern about the proposed site and its proximity to
sheltered housing at Meadow Close. He fully supported the use of the Skatepark by
responsible children but there had been complaints by residents about noise
problems arising from use of the Skatepark facilities in North Lodge Park. The
Council was exploring the setting up of a community trust to run North Lodge Park
and it was possible that the project could be sited there.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
41
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, as local Member, also supported the provision of a
Skatepark in Cromer but emphasised that it must be in the right location. There was
significant use of the public footpath and the area of the proposal was in daily use by
children playing informal sports and he was concerned about where they would play
games if this area was not available. He also had concerns about the proximity to
sheltered housing and proposed that the application should be deferred and that the
Skatepark should be moved to another site east of the ditch.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones said that, in her ward, there was a similar project
within close proximity of a sheltered housing scheme and other housing. No
significant complaints were received and the park was locked at sundown. She
understood the concerns of Councillor Cabbell Manners but supported the
application. She asked if it was possible to negotiate regarding a different site, rather
than deferring consideration. The Development Manager explained that the facility
could be designed in such a way as to be clear of the footpath, rather than resiting it.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard said that she was not aware of any anti-social behaviour
issues regarding the North Walsham Skatepark. She supported Councillor Cabbell
Manners’ proposal, feeling it would be a shame to lose the flat area for the children to
play on.
Councillor R Shepherd approved of the project but believed, because Cromer was a
large town and this was a sizable project, that it would be larger and therefore noisier
than North Walsham or Stalham. He supported the proposal to defer.
Councillor r B Smith, referring to the Skatepark at Mundesley, said that it was good
for the children, encouraging them to develop sporting and social skills. The use of
concrete was effective in reducing noise. He supported the officer’s recommendation.
In reply to a question from Councillor J A Wyatt the Senior Planning Officer said there
had been no comments from the Ramblers’ Association or the Wildlife Trust.
Councillor M J M Baker supported the Skatepark but expressed concern about what
he perceived as a lack of information about the application and how the project would
be financed. The Development Manager advised that the application had been made
by Mr Harrison Robertshaw on behalf of Cromer Skatepark, which he understood
was a collection of local people. The land was owned by Norfolk County Council and
the District Council had a lease arrangement. Finance of the project was not a
planning consideration. There were issues about whether the specific site was right
for the project but it was recreational use of recreational land in accordance with
policy.
The Development Manager asked Members to indicate if the principle of having the
skatepark on the Meadow was acceptable so that the project could be moved
forward.
He suggested that if Members wished to have it re-sited as discussed rather than
defer, Members may wish to give officers delegated power to approve the
application, subject to receipt of details proposing the re-siting (including being clear
of the footpath). This would involve full reconsultation and readvertisement and
provided there were no new grounds for objection this could speed up the process.
Having considered this suggestion, Councillor B Cabbell Manners withdrew his
proposal to defer and Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones withdrew her proposal to accept
the officer’s original recommendation.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
42
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED, by 10 votes to 2
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to relocation of the site to the east of the current
position, full reconsultation and readvertisement, no new grounds of
objection being received, and to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(45)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0342 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D2 (amusement
arcade); 16 Norwich Street for Mr Aygun
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ report.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds spoke on behalf of the local Member, Councillor
S Ward. He did not consider the change of use in this location to be in keeping with
the core strategy and was concerned about the loss of retail space. He was also
concerned about the potentially detrimental effect to neighbouring businesses and
residential properties. The target group for this business was young people who
would be encouraged to spend money on gambling. There was also a potential for
anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.
Councillor R Reynolds said that, although he was sympathetic to the provision of
more shops, there were already retail units in Fakenham which had been empty for a
significant period of time. This development would provide jobs but he asked that
restrictions should be imposed including preservation of the façade, type of lighting,
earlier closure of premises, noise control and management structure. He
acknowledged that town centres were changing because of the impact of out-of-town
retail outlets and online shopping.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, proposing the recommendation, said that town
centres needed to move with the times if they were to remain vibrant. Councillor R
Shepherd seconded the recommendation. He told the Committee that there had
been two large amusement arcades in Sheringham for many years and that they had
caused no problems.
Officers advised that conditions could only be imposed when they were relevant to
planning objectives it was not considered appropriate to require a management
arrangement condition. The amusement arcade would require a licence and any
noise issues would be addressed by Licensing and Environmental Health. Officers
would attempt to negotiate an earlier closing time with the Applicant but if this was
not possible the application would not be reported back to Committee. Any human
rights issues could be addressed by the conditions.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the local Member who had called in
the application was not present to put his case.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
43
RESOLVED
That this application be approved, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including requiring all external doors and
windows to the building to be kept shut at all times during working
hours apart from when providing access for personnel and visitors and
deliveries and, if possible, opening hours to members of the public will
be restricted to between the hours of 9am and 8pm (subject to
negotiation with the Applicant) weekdays and Saturdays, and not at all
on Sundays and Bank or Public holidays.
(46)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0278 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection
of two-storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms G Elwood
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Carratu (supporting)
Mr Johnson, High Kelling Parish Council (objecting)
Mr Woodland (objecting)
The site was not in a Conservation Area but the Conservation Design and Landscape
Manager had been consulted and had raised no objections and the Landscape
Officer was satisfied with the details of the proposal as now submitted.
Six further letters of objection had been received, plus a letter of support and a letter
commenting on the scheme.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, said that the Parish Council objection had not
been unanimous and that the contemporary design created opposing views. The
development would be at the far end of the road and was tucked away.
Consideration should be given to screening if the application was approved.
Councillor P W High said that he did not consider the design to be out of keeping with
High Kelling and would support the application. Councillor B Smith seconded this,
considering the design innovative. Modern designs were refreshing and settled in
with their surroundings.
In response to a question about the colouring of the materials, the Senior Planning
Officer said that conditions would be imposed on the materials used, which would be
timber cladding. Landscaping conditions would also be imposed.
In reply to a question from the Chairman, the Applicant confirmed that she had
negotiated with her neighbour regarding planting a hedge, as an alternative to a
fence.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
44
(47)
LANGHAM - PF/12/0721 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/0770 to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3-7, 10-12, 13
& 14 and variation of condition 3 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Former site of Langham Glass, North Street for Avada Country Homes
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Johnson (supporting)
Mr Hope, Langham Parish Council (objecting)
The Applicant was seeking permission to vary conditions 2 and 3 of planning
permission ref: PF/06/0770 to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3 – 7, 10
– 12, 13 and 14 (including some re-siting) and to permit permanent residential
occupation of the units previously restricted to holiday accommodation. The Applicant
proposed to provide a commuted lump sum of £500,000 to pay for off-site affordable
housing provision to be used in the village of Langham.
The application had been referred to Committee at the request of the Head of
Planning and Building Control because the proposal was contrary to the
Development Plan.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objections to the
proposal.
A response had been received from Langham Parish Council expressing concerns
regarding affordable housing provision for hotel workers. The Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) indicated that this was not part of the proposal.
The offer was for the provision of affordable housing in the village of Langham. A
letter of objection had also recently been received from a former member of the
Parish Council who expressed general concern at the proposal.
The Sustainability Coordinator had suggested that a Code level 3 condition be
imposed on the cottages. The Applicant was in agreement.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) indicated that the application
posed a challenge to planning policy. The development was originally approved in
2006 but had not been completed because of the economic conditions. The
application approved in May 2012 would make the development just about
economically viable. If the variation was approved it would increase viability.
Councillor P Terrington, the local Member, noted the objection of the Parish Council
and the lack of support for affordable housing in the village. He also noted the
employment opportunities which the development would provide, but had concerns
about parking and the 20 mph limit. He was in favour of the affordable housing but
thought that it was essential that the planning and the site were appropriate for
Langham.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) said that there had always been
some issues regarding parking but Highways said they couldn’t support a refusal on
those grounds because the impact was not severe. The Applicant had submitted a
plan showing which spaces would be allocated to which property and this would be
the subject of a condition if the application were approved. The Highways Authority
had agreed to a 20 mph limit which would include a Traffic Regulation Order which
the Applicant would have to pay for.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
45
Councillor M J M Baker asked if officers were satisfied that the original aims of the
2006 application had not been eroded. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special
Cases) said that, in 2006, the Committee might not have been minded to approve the
variation. However the economic climate had worsened since then and banks were
reluctant to lend against restricted property. This posed a challenge to policy but the
alternative was that the development, and its economic benefits, would not be
delivered. Central government had instructed local authorities to be flexible.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones said that the site looked terrible and needed to be
developed. It was an appropriate location for second homes and would bring benefits
to local people. She proposed acceptance of the recommendation. Councillor P W
High seconded this, saying that it was time the matter was resolved and that the
likelihood was that the affordable housing would be built on a rural exception site.
Councillor P Terrington asked if the Committee could agree a change to Policy HO3
but he was advised that this would be a matter for the Planning Policy and Built
Heritage Working Party.
Regarding concerns about pressure on the village school, the Development Manager
said that there would be an additional consultation with County Planning. The
Developer had also been in discussion with the County Council and was due to meet
the school governors later that day.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED with 11 votes to 1
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to no further objections from consultees,
including County Planning, and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions and the completion of an amended S106 obligation to
include the payment of £500,000 for the provision of affordable housing
and changes to phasing in respect of the delivery of the hotel.
(48)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ report.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Members and Chairman of the Town Council be invited to
attend:
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0418 - Erection of retail store and
associated parking; Polka Road Caravans, Polka Road for Anglia
Regional Co-Op Society and Lindum Group
Members agreed to include 2 other sites in Wells-next-the-Sea – a site for which the
Harbour Commissioners had applied for retrospective Planning Permission
(PF/12/0623) and the Ark Royal site in connection with application PF/12/0418. The
Town Council and local Members would be invited to attend the site inspections.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
46
(49)
APPEAL AGAINST NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE TOWN AND
COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: LAND ADJACENT TO HOLT ROAD,
WEYBOURNE
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officer’s report in respect of the outcome of a
recent Court case.
The Committee asked that the minutes should record thanks to Kate Steventon, the
Enforcement Officer, for a very positive result.
(50)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ report.
(51)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ report.
(52)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ report.
(53)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ report.
In response to a Member’s question, the Planning Legal Manager stated that the
Crisp Maltings legal challenge had not yet been listed for hearing in the High Court.
(54)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ report.
(55)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ report and the Officers updated the
Committee in respect of the appeals at Langham (where a partial award of costs had
been made against the District Council) and at Stiffkey where the Inspector had
approved some elements of the proposed development but rejected others.
The meeting closed at 12.17 pm.
Development Committee
26 July 2012
47
23 AUGUST 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 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 Mrs A R Green
K Johnson – observer
R Oliver – observer
N Smith – observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Mrs K Batchelar – Landscape Officer
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
(56)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs A R Green. There was
one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(57)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 26 July 2012 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(58)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(59)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Mrs A C Sweeney and P Terrington declared interests,
the details of which are given under the minute of the items concerned.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
48
(60)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - NNDC TPO (UPPER SHERINGHAM) 2012 No. 1 – The
Old Chapel, Chapel Yard
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order(TPO) at the above site.
Public Speaker
Mr Yardley (objecting)
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to the
current tenant of the property who considered that the tree caused no problems and
was indifferent as to whether or not it should be felled. The neighbour considered
that the tree was no longer a problem since the reduction works had been carried out.
She proposed the Officer’s recommendation to confirm the Tree Preservation Order.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the presence of the tree made it difficult for
the Trustees to manage the property. He proposed that the Order be not confirmed.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he had spoken to the Estate Manager who
had requested a delay in confirmation of the Order for a period of six months to
assess whether or not the works carried out to the tree had been satisfactory. He
therefore considered that the Order should not be confirmed but that it be reassessed
in six months’ time.
The Landscape Officer explained that in terms of Officer time it would be preferable
to confirm the Order now and any future problems could be assessed under the
Order. If the tree impacted adversely on the property it may be appropriate to
remove it.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners seconded Councillor Sweeney’s proposal to confirm
the Order. It was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (Upper
Sheringham) 2012 No. 1 be confirmed.
(61)
NORTH WALSHAM - NNDC TPO (NORTH WALSHAM) 2012 No.11 - Land at
Muckle Hill Farm, Anchor Road, Spa Common
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect a group of five oak trees at the above
site.
The Landscape Officer presented photographs to demonstrate the amenity value of
the trees and explained that a Tree Preservation Order would not prevent appropriate
management.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the legal issues which had been raised by
an objector. The Council’s Solicitor had advised that, in his opinion, the Council had
the authority to confirm the Tree Preservation Order in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
49
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones reported that Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local
Member, was in favour of confirmation of the Order but had had to leave the meeting
prior to consideration of this matter.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (North
Walsham) 2012 No. 11 be confirmed.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(62)
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind-turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney declared a personal interest in this application as she
had attended public meetings at Bodham but had not taken part in those meetings,
and had visited Barningham Hall to explain the planning process but had not
discussed this application.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a personal interest in this application as he
had been acquainted with the Mack family, who were directly involved with Genatec
Ltd, for many years.
The Chairman stated that all Members had received a considerable amount of
correspondence in respect of this application.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr H Bruford (Bodham Parish Council)
Mrs Powell (East and West Beckham Parish Council)
Dr I Shepherd, Mr S Grewcock and Mr M McMahon (objecting)
Mr D Roe and Mr A Presslee (supporting)
Development Committee
23 August 2012
50
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a number of
representations had been received since publication of the report which re-stated
concerns already set out in the report to Committee. He highlighted the key issues
relating to this application, as set out in the Officer’s report, relating to policy,
landscape and visual impacts, impacts on the AONB, heritage assets, residential
amenity, television and communications, infrastructure, wildlife/ecology, aviation,
highway safety and public rights of way, tourism and other sectors, and the benefits
of the proposed development in terms of renewable energy and other economic
benefits. He presented a series of photomontages produced by the applicant’s agent
to demonstrate the impact of the proposed turbines from a number of viewpoints and
in relation to residential dwellings and heritage assets.
The Landscape Officer explained the issues relating to landscape and heritage
assets.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) summarised the issues, in
particular those in respect of landscape and visual impacts and impact on heritage
assets, and stated that the Committee needed to weigh the identified harm against
the benefits of the proposal. In the opinion of Officers, the benefits of the proposal
would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm and refusal of this application was
therefore recommended as set out in the report.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, stated that he understood the
majority of residents in his Ward did not support this application. He was concerned
that it would set a precedent for similar development. He considered that one turbine
would produce insufficient energy to justify the damage to the landscape. He
considered that elected Members had a duty to take care of the area and its
landscape, which would be permanently damaged by the proposal. He referred to
the objections which had been received from surrounding Parishes. He proposed the
Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that the proposed turbine would be closer to
West Beckham and Baconsthorpe, which she represented, than Bodham and it
would therefore have an impact on a larger number of people.
Councillor Mrs Sweeney stated that the environment and wildlife which was vital for
the tourist industry would be permanently changed. She considered that approval of
this application would make it impossible to refuse others nearby. She was aware
that other landowners had expressed an interest in siting additional turbines close to
this site. She considered that there would be no community benefits arising from the
proposal. Given the current and proposed offshore windfarm development she
considered that there was no need to jeopardise the local economy by siting wind
turbines on land.
Councillor Mrs Sweeney referred to the views expressed by the closest Parish
Councils, which reflected the views of local residents.
She referred to evidence
which, in her opinion, demonstrated that there would be an impact on local property
values. Possible noise, flicker and visual pollution were relevant. She considered
that the proposed turbine and any subsequent turbines would have an impact on the
size and activity at the substation in West Beckham. She referred to the Landscape
Character Assessment relating to wind turbine development, which advised against
siting them close to the Cromer Ridge. She seconded the proposal to refuse this
application.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
51
Councillor P W High stated that he did not object to the principle of using natural
resources but expressed concern with regard to the siting of the proposed turbine in
terms of its visual impact, both on the wider landscape and local residents.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he was a resident of West Beckham and Member
for Holt Ward. He expressed concern at the impact of the proposal on the tourist
industry. He referred to a recent survey which indicated that 20% of those surveyed
would choose not to take a holiday in an area where wind turbines were situated,
which would put at risk £60m of income from tourism per year.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the comments made by Councillor Perry-Warnes.
He stated that the environment was precious and people should not be bullied into
accepting development they did not want.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported the principle of farm diversification, but
stated that applicants should consider the impact on other local industries when
putting forward proposals. He considered that there were other ways of diversifying
into the green energy business, such as photovoltaics or biomass, which the
applicants could consider.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused for the following reasons:
The proposed turbine would be sited within a prominent location and in
a landscape setting which has previously been identified as being
sensitive to change from large scale wind farm development and which
also includes a number of heritage assets, some of which are of the
highest designated category. The proposed turbine would be relatively
small compared to national schemes and the amount of electricity
generation is also relatively small such that, on balance, it is considered
that the electricity generation benefits would be outweighed by the
identified harm to the wider landscape and a number of heritage assets.
In particular it is considered that views of the turbine in the wider
landscape and especially those views set against the scale of
designated historic assets would result in significant change to the
character and scale of the landscape and the way in which it would be
understood by different receptors and the way in which historic assets
would be understood within their setting.
In particular these adverse/harmful impacts are evidenced in views of
All Saints Church, Bodham from locations between High Kelling and
Bodham on the A148, from certain locations at Baconsthorpe Castle, in
wider landscape views south of St Peters Church North Barningham
and, to some extent, on the setting of Barningham Hall.
The cumulative effect of these impacts on heritage assets and impacts
on the wider landscape is such that, notwithstanding the benefits that
can be attributed to the turbine including the renewable energy benefits,
proposed heritage asset fund and landscape enhancements, it is
considered that the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the
identified harm and there are no other identified material considerations
in support of the proposal which would justify a departure from
Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
52
(63)
BRININGHAM - PF/12/0165 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 91/0344 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
occupancy restriction; Miresfield, Melton Road for Mr D Barkway
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Committee noted that no comments had been received from Councillor R J
Wright, the local Member, who had called in this application. The Chairman
requested that an article be included in the Members’ Bulletin to remind Members
that they should either attend the meeting or send in their comments to be read out if
they call in an application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor P
Terrington and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(64)
HOLT - PF/12/0667 - Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail)/tattoo studio; 20 High Street for The Tonsorial Artist
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Whybrow (supporting)
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had called in the application to allow residents
of Holt to comment on this application. He referred to the location of the premises in
the core retail area of the historic Georgian market town and stated that it was for the
Committee to decide if the proposed use was appropriate.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners
and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved.
(65)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Cushing (objecting)
Mr J Milton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the objector’s shooting rights were not
relevant in determining this application as this was a civil matter. The comments of
the Police Architectural Liaison Officer were still awaited.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
53
Councillor P Terrington reported that Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member,
for whom he was substituting had concerns regarding access to the highway. He
proposed refusal of this application on highway safety grounds.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the application should not be
discussed without the views of the Police.
Councillor M J M Baker was surprised that the Highway Authority had not objected to
an additional access onto the corridor of movement. This was a stretch of road
where traffic speeds were high. He also expressed concern regarding disturbance to
wildlife and danger arising from the exercise of shooting rights.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes reiterated the concerns expressed by the previous
speakers and also expressed concern regarding possible anti-social behaviour.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that he understood that the public already had
access to the wood through the applicant’s lease. However, rights were a civil
matter. There was an existing gateway into the wood and vehicles currently parked
in the entrance adjacent to the carriageway. The Highway Authority did not object to
this application on the basis that vehicles would be removed from the verge without
intensifying the use of the access.
Several Members expressed concern regarding traffic speeds along this stretch of
road and referred to fatalities which had occurred nearby. Councillor R Shepherd
considered that a properly constructed lay by would be the safest option as it would
be difficult to judge speeds properly from the proposed entrance. Councillor B Smith
considered that statistical evidence regarding accidents should be obtained prior to
making a decision on this application.
The Development Manager suggested that in view of Members’ comments it would
be preferable to await the views of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer, and seek
information from the Highway Authority in respect of accidents and any further
comments in respect of traffic speeds and visibility.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that whilst there would be a barrier to prevent vehicular access beyond the car
parking area, there was nothing to stop vehicles parking along the access track.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed deferral of this application to await the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and to seek the further
comments of the Highway Authority in respect of accidents, and Members’ concerns
in respect of traffic speeds and visibility.
Councillor P Terrington withdrew his proposal.
Councillor B Smith seconded the proposal to defer this application.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to await the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and to seek the
further comments of the Highway Authority in respect of accidents,
traffic speeds and visibility.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
54
(66)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0429 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 10/0639 to permit extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays (excluding religious bank holidays); Zahras, 8A Station
Approach for Mr M Miah
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer stated that he
understood that the applicant’s staff cleared up any litter outside the premises but
could not be responsible for litter deposited elsewhere.
Neither of the local Members, who had called in the application, were present at the
meeting.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones questioned why the business required an extension of
hours when other takeaway businesses closed at 11pm. She was concerned that
approval of this application would set a precedent.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he lived close to these premises and there had
been no problems. There was a neighbouring takeaway business which had
unrestricted hours so a precedent had already been set.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that planning permission had been given for
redevelopment of the adjacent premises subject to a condition to require the
business to close no later than 11pm. However, this permission had not yet been
implemented and the existing business was currently unrestricted.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones withdrew her objection.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved for a temporary period of 12 months.
One Member abstained from voting.
(67)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0623 - Retention of lighting column; Walkway,
Outer Harbour, Beach Road for Wells Harbour Commissioners
Councillor P Terrington declared a personal interest in this application as he had
raised concerns over associated developments. He would speak on this application
as local Member but abstain from voting.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicants had confirmed that the light
was a health and safety requirement and also for security. It had been in situ for a
year without complaint.
Councillor P Terrington, the local Member, referred to the planning history of the jetty
and relevant policies. He considered that the recommendations of the Environmental
Statement in respect of application 20090581 which required low level, low wattage
lighting should be considered in this case. He considered there was no justification
Development Committee
23 August 2012
55
for the lighting column if health and safety concerns had been met by the low level
lighting He stated that the Norfolk Coast Partnership had not been consulted in
respect of the current application. He considered that the lighting column was
unsuitable for a rural setting, did not enhance the landscape and could set a
precedent for additional lighting columns towards the town. He requested deferral of
this application pending finalisation of the Council’s Integrated Coastal Zone
Management policy, consultation with Norfolk Coast Partnership and to request the
applicant to consider low level lighting solutions as recommended by the
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he was an electrician involved in health and safety
work. He considered that low level lighting might not be satisfactory from a health
and safety viewpoint. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor B Smith referred to the lighting on the nearby football pitch which bore no
comparison to the lighting column now under consideration. He considered that the
light was a beacon for vessels entering the harbour at night. He seconded the
proposal.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved.
(68)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That site visits be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0681 - Erection of 24 dwellings (of which 50%
affordable dwellings) and associated garages, carports, boundary wall
and fences and creation of 2 accesses; Land west of Langham Road for
Hillside Residential Ltd
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0478 - Erection of two 18m high wind turbines
(height to hub); Old Manor Farm, Long Common for Mr J McLeod
(69)
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 10 in respect of the quarterly report on planning
applications and appeals for the period from April to June 2012, covering the
turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes. Figures were also
included for land charge searches.
The Chairman congratulated the Development Management team on keeping up with
the current workload.
The Committee noted that the year out student, Gillian Lipinski, would shortly be
leaving the authority to resume her studies. The Committee requested that its thanks
and best wishes for the future be passed on to Mrs Lipinski.
Development Committee
23 August 2012
56
(70)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(71)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(72)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(73)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(74)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(75)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(76)
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.
(77)
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 17 of the Officers’ exempt report updates the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of current enforcement cases
and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 June 2012.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) informed the Committee that
efforts were being made to deal with the backlog of cases. However, he had not
been able to give as much support to the Enforcement team as he would like given
the number of large ‘special case’ applications that had recently been submitted.
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.
CHAIRMAN
20 September 2012
Development Committee
23 August 2012
57
SEALED DOCUMENTS
ORDER
AGREEMENT
Loan Agreement between Mrs Nicola Dixon (Borrower) and North Norfolk District Council
(Lender).
Loan Agreement between Emily McLeod (Borrower) and North Norfolk District Council
(Lender).
Loan Agreement between Sarah-Jane Duffill (Borrower) and North Norfolk District Council
(Lender).
Agreement between North Norfolk District Council (1) and Victory Housing Trust (2) relating
to 24 Dwellings at Land at Holt Road, Fakenham and Choice Based Lettings Policy Letter.
CHARGE
Legal Charge relating to 10 Pine Grove, Sheringham, Norfolk NR29 8QG between North
Norfolk District Council (1), Great Yarmouth Borough Council (2) and Peter Jackson (3).
DEED
TRANSFERS
LEASES
Lease relating to Unit 1, Lyngate Industrial Estate, Cornish Way, North Walsham between
North Norfolk District Council (1) and Ronald Cyril Upton and Ryan Thornton (2).
Full Council
58
26 September 2012