Council
Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
19 April 2016
A meeting of the North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 27th April at 6.00 p.m.
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.
PRAYER
Led by Reverend Francis Mason, Fakenham Parish Church
2.
PRESENTATION OF AWARD TO DEMOCRATIC SERVICES
To present the award to Democratic Services for 3rd place in the ‘Civic Team of the
Year’ awards
3.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
To receive the Chairman’s communications, if any.
4.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS 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.
5.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive apologies for absence, if any.
6.
MINUTES
(page 6)
(Minutes Appendix A – p.33)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 February 2016.
7.
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.
8.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To consider any questions received from members of the public.
9.
APPOINTMENTS
To consider any appointments, if any.
10.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 07 MARCH 2016
(page 37)
a) MINUTE NO.119: COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LONG-TERM EMPTY
PROPERTIES
RESOLVED to recommend to Council:
the establishment of a capital budget of £630,000 specifically for financing
compulsory purchase of these properties.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendations at their
meeting held on 20th April 2016.
**Please note that the agenda for this meeting was sent out prior to the Council agenda being
published so the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman will provide an oral update**
11.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 11 APRIL 2016
(page 42)
a) AGENDA ITEM 11: NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND
RESOLVED to recommend to Council
That the Big Society Fund grant scheme should continue at its current level of
funding (£225,000) for another year;
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the recommendation at their
meeting held on 20th April 2016.
**Please note that the agenda for this meeting was sent out prior to the Council agenda being
published so the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman will provide an oral update**
12.
ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
To consider any further recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee meeting held on 20th April 2016.
13.
UPDATE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
To receive an oral update from the Chairman of the Audit Committee on actions
arising from the meeting of 15th March 2016
14.
DEVOLUTION IN EAST ANGLIA
(page 49)
To receive an update from the Leader on the East Anglian Devolution Agreement.
15.
TO RECEIVE THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED
COMMITTEES
Members are requested to note that the minutes of the undermentioned committees
have been approved. Copies of all the minutes are available on the Council’s website
or from Democratic Services.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
16.
Audit Committee – 08 December 2015
Cabinet – 08 February 2016
Cabinet – 07 March 2016
Development Committee – 26 November 2015
Development Committee – 11 February 2016
Development Committee – 10 March 2016
Licensing & Appeals Committee – 25 January 2016
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 13 January 2016
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 17 February 2016
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
To receive reports from the Cabinet or Members of the Cabinet.
17.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
The following question has been submitted by Cllr V Gay:
‘On February 8 2016 Cabinet resolved that the Chief Executive be instructed to
prepare a business case for the establishment of a property company for
consideration by Full Council and, if approved by Full Council, to take steps to
establish a wholly owned property company. In preparing the ground for this decision
North Norfolk District Council has commissioned two consultancy reports. What has
been the fee for each of these reports and what further consultancy may be required
before concluding work on the business case?’
18.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
To receive any opposition business.
19.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
The following Notice of Motion has been submitted by Cllr A. Wells:
This Council:
Notes
1. the significant benefits that could be achieved by giving local communities greater
power over the services they use, provided that any devolution is accompanied by
appropriate governance and financial provisions;
2. that the East Anglia Devolution Agreement published in March lacks the level of
detail that would be necessary to be approved by Members without very substantial
uncertainty as to what it would mean in practice for local residents and services.
Resolves
1. that the Leader of the Council write on behalf of the Council to the appropriate
senior minister and to local Members of Parliament, to request that substantial further
clarification is provided on the following issues before the Council is asked to endorse
any final Devolution Deal:
a. the powers and constitutional limitations of the proposed regional mayor, in
particular to ensure:
i. that sufficient safeguards are introduced to prevent the Mayor acting against the
wishes of a majority of Local Authorities belonging to the Combined Authority;
ii. that all members of Authorities belonging to the Combined Authority are able to
exercise the Member’s "Right to Know” in respect of all the business of the Combined
Authority and the Mayor;
iii. that the Mayor should have a statutory duty to encourage Local Authorities to work
together to cut costs, and take over the functions delegated to the Combined
Authority and the mayor wherever appropriate.
b. the financial structures of the new Combined Authority, in particular to ensure:
i. that details are provided in respect of any function which is to be devolved, setting
out the current level of spending and the formula on the basis of which funding will be
provided by HM Treasury to support that function in future years;
ii. that tax raising powers devolved are sufficient and appropriate considering the
spending liabilities incurred;
iii. that an Authority (including the Combined Authority) delivering a service previously
delivered by Central Government should be able to borrow from HM Treasury in
order to support and improve that service at the same rate as that received by HM
Treasury through the UK government bond market.
2. that the Leader of the Council has regard to this motion in all future negotiations in
respect of any Devolution Deal.
20.
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.”
21.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Circulation:
All Members of the Council.
Members of the Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public
COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 23 February 2016 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs S Butikofer
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N Coppack
Mrs H Cox
Mr N Dixon
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr V FitzPatrick
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Ms V R Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr M Knowles
Officers in
Attendance:
Mr E Seward
Mr S Shaw
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr D Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr A Wells
Mr G Williams
Mr A Yiasimi
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, The Corporate Directors, the Head of Finance, the
Head of Organisational Development, the Monitoring Officer, the
Communications Manager and the Democratic Services Team Leader
in attendance
Press:
123.
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mrs J Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr N Pearce
Mr R Price
Ms M Prior
Mr J Punchard
Mr J Rest
Mr R Reynolds
Mr P Rice
PRAYERS
The Chairman invited Reverend Canon David Roper, Rector of the Poppyland Benefice to
lead prayers.
124.
PRESENTATION ON INVESTORS IN PEOPLE
Caroline Watts, assessor for Investors in People gave a presentation to Members following the
Council’s recent attainment of the Gold standard award.
Mrs Watts briefly outlined the history of Investors In People (IIP) and explained that the
Council had been part of the scheme since 2009. She acknowledged that it could be
challenging for larger organisations such as local authorities but that when NNDC began in
2009 they had achieved a ‘high’ bronze award and had remained at that level for several
years. In 2015 the Council had decided to aim for gold. There were 10 indicators and 165
evidence requirements to achieve gold status and NNDC had achieved 186.
Mrs Watts then outlined the Councils strengths which included flexible working, constructive
feedback, good communication, a sense of social responsibility and a strong Staff Focus
Group which was engaging with staff and helping to inform policy.
There were some opportunities for the Council to improve and these included addressing
inconsistencies in management style, more involvement in planning and strategy and better
overall engagement.
6
Mrs Watts then presented the certificate for the Gold award to Emma Denny, Chairman of the
Staff Focus Group.
The Chairman thanked Mrs Watts, Julie Cooke, Head of Organisational Development and
Emma Denny.
Mr W Northam reiterated the Chairman’s comments and thanked Mrs Watts for confirming that
the Council was an excellent place to work.
125.
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman updated Members on recent events that she had attended including the
opening of the Kings Lynn Mart and a celebration of Chine New Year hosted by Norwich City
Council.
She thanked Members for donating so generously to her Christmas charity collection. A total
of £121.31 had been raised and all of the money would go to young carers.
Finally, the Chairman reminded Members about the tea party to celebrate the Queen’s
birthday on 21st April.
126.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST FROM MEMBERS
None
127.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs J English, Mrs A Green, Mr B Hannah, Mr P W
High, Mr J Lee and Mr S Ward.
128.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015 were approved as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
129.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
130.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mrs J Corless asked a question in relation to Agenda item 10: Report of the Independent
Remuneration Panel. She queried how the proposed 23% increase in the basic allowance for
Members could be justified at a time of reduced public sector spending and asked Members to
search their consciences and refuse the recommendations.
The Chairman said that a response would be provided when the agenda item arose.
131.
APPOINTMENTS
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, said that he had two appointments to propose:
1. Mrs H Cox was standing down as Chairman of the Standards Committee and he
wished to nominate the current Vice-Chairman, Mr Robert Stevens, to replace her.
2. Mr S Ward was standing down from Development Committee and Mrs A ClaussenReynolds was nominated to replace him.
7
Mr FitzPatrick requested Council’s agreement to consult with the Leader of the Opposition
regarding a change of representative to the Wells Maltings Trust.
RESOLVED
To accept the proposed appointments
132.
REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT REMUNERATION PANEL
Before inviting the Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel, Mrs Karen Forster to
introduce this item, the Chairman informed Members that they would be able to ask questions
but that these should not be of a political nature.
Mrs Forster introduced the report of the Panel. She said that the Panel had referenced several
different sources of information to reach their conclusions and she thanked Members for taking
the time to fill out the questionnaire on workload.
Mrs Forster then outlined the recommendations, highlighting the proposed adjustments to the
subsistence allowance and the recognition of co-opted members’ contribution to meetings.
Regarding the setting of the basic allowance for Members, she explained that the Panel felt
that it was important to recognise that councillors used their home to undertake much of their
work and that £500 of the allowance should be allocated to cover any related costs. In
addition, the Panel also wanted to acknowledge the importance of training and development.
They had been very impressed by Members’ attendance at the induction sessions, particularly
as they were voluntary and it was a considerable call on Members’ time. For these reasons it
was proposed that £500 of the basic allowance was allocated to cover training and
development. This left a basic allowance of £3054 to cover approximately 22 hours a week of
work. This was a very low rate for the professional and varied type of work that councillors
were required to undertake. It was therefore considered reasonable to propose an increase in
the basic allowance.
Mrs Forster said that there had been no increase in the basic allowance since 2003 and to
bring the current allowance in line with inflation it would be close to £5000. In addition, North
Norfolk District Council was currently 10th in a table of 14 Norfolk and Suffolk authorities, so
taking these points into consideration and to recognise the personal commitment required, it
was proposed that the basic allowance should be increased to £5000 per annum. Mrs Forster
added that the Panel had been minded to increase it further but had been concerned that
Members would not support anything higher.
Mrs Forster then spoke about increases to the Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs). The
Panel had acknowledged that these roles required extra skills and additional hours. They were
calculated by a multiplier and these were generally in line with neighbouring councils. It was
therefore proposed to maintain the current multipliers as the increase in the basic allowance
would result in an increase in the SRAs. There were three exceptions to this. It was proposed
that the Chairman of the Council and the Chairman of the Development Committee should
receive a small increase in the multiplier in recognition of the additional work that they
undertook. For the same reason, it was also proposed that a multiplier of 0.25% was
introduced for the Vice-Chairman of the Development Committee.
The Chairman thanked Mrs Forster for her report and invited Members to comment:
1. Mr A Wells, Leader of the Opposition Group, said that although he recognised the work of
elected Members, he did not feel that he could accept an increase at a time when there
had been no pay increase for staff.
2. Mr R Shepherd said that many Members relied on small pensions and needed the
increase.
8
3. Mrs H Cox commented that she had struggled with the recommendations. She referred to
Mrs Corless’ comments earlier and said that she had made a valid point. However, she
had spoken to several people over recent days and she was now supportive of the
proposed increase. For younger people in particular, it might make standing as a
councillor more attractive. She concluded by saying that having heard the views of the
Panel, she felt that she could support the proposals.
4. Mrs M Prior thanked the Panel for their hard work. She said it was a clear report and had
been summarised well by Mrs Forster. She agreed that the level of payment for the hours
worked was very low and said that the lack of increase for 12 years should be considered.
Mrs Prior concluded by saying that Members did not have to accept an allowance if they
did not wish to.
5. Mr R Reynolds said that he agreed with the proposals. He said that the majority of
Members were over 50 and it was important to attract younger Members, some of whom
could not afford to be councillors on the current allowance.
6. Mr G Williams said that it was unfortunate that the percentage increase was so high and
that this was a consequence of the allowance remaining static for so long. He said that the
work that Members did was very different to that undertaken in 2003. Current issues
included business transformation, joint working and devolution – all very complex and
challenging.
7. The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, reminded Members that they had appointed the Panel at the
November meeting of Council and that they should take note of the recommendations. He
agreed with Mr Williams that the role had changed considerably over recent years and
that it was very important that younger people were attracted to the role. He added that
becoming a councillor should not be seen as an opportunity just for retired people to top
up their pensions. Mr FitzPatrick said that there was little doubt that being an elected
Member was not a normal job and as Leader he regularly worked 12-13 hour days. He
concluded by reiterating that he wanted to see more young people standing and that noone should be out of pocket for being a councillor.
8. Mr E Seward said that it was up to Members to make a judgement on the
recommendations. Previous increases had been pegged to staff pay increases and he felt
that this was the fairest approach. He acknowledged that there was a need to attract
younger Members but said that the rescheduling of meetings from day-time to evening
would help more that raising allowances. He said that he agreed with the
recommendations to increase the SRA for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of
Development Committee as their workload was higher than that of other committee
chairmen. He also agreed with the proposed changes to the carer’s allowance. However,
he could not support the proposed increase to the basic allowance and that it would be
more appropriate to review it in 2 years time once the boundary review had been
completed. Mr Seward concluded by saying that reputation mattered and Members could
not talk publicly about the need to cut services and the award themselves an increase in
allowances.
9. Mr V FitzPatrick said that Council had established the Panel and unless Members had
serious concerns about the methodology used to reach the recommendations, then they
should support the proposals. He said that he had read the full report and found the
proposals to be justified and therefore difficult to not accept.
10. Mr A Yiasimi said that he was not a political person but that he had struggled with the
recommendations in light of the current financial climate.
11. Mrs B McGoun said that she had been a councillor for 11 years and that she gave up a
well paid job to do it. She said that it was essentially a vocation and that money alone
would not attract younger people. Mrs McGoun said that she had listened carefully to the
public speaker, Mrs Corless’ comments and that public perception was very important.
12. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett commented that she was mystified by earlier references to cutting
services. She said that the Council was in a strong financial position and was not
‘strapped for cash’.
13. Mr N Lloyd said that he felt very uneasy voting for a pay rise for himself.
9
The Chairman asked the public speaker, Mrs Corless whether she would like to follow up on
her earlier question.
Mrs Corless said that it was important to remember that local residents and visitors would be
paying increased parking charges and that Members should examine their consciences.
Before moving to the vote, the Chief Executive said that there were two additional
recommendations to consider:
q) That a further review should be undertaken during 2017/18 with any changes coming into
effect from the 2018/19 financial year
r) That the Budget for 2016/17 should be amended to reflect any changes to Members’
allowances
Mr A Wells requested that Recommendation A should be voted on separately with the rest
being taken en bloc. This was put to the vote and was not supported with seven members
voting in favour, the rest against.
The Chairman confirmed that a recorded vote would be taken en bloc.
Mr P W Moore asked whether abstentions would be recorded. The Chairman clarified the
process and asked the Monitoring Officer to confirm. The Monitoring Officer said that there
were two ways to vote – a show of hands or a recorded vote. A recorded vote would record
votes for, against and abstentions.
A recorded vote was then taken (see Minutes Appendix A) and it was
RESOLVED
a) the Basic Allowance should increase to £5,000 pa;
b) the Scheme should remain index linked to officers’ pay awards
c) the broadband allowance should remain at £180 pa
d) the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Leader of the Council should remain
calculated by way of a multiplier of x2 the basic allowance;
e) the SRA for Cabinet Members with Portfolio should remain calculated by way of a multiplier
of x1.33 the basic allowance;
f) the SRA for Chairmen of Regulatory Committees of the Council (except Development
Committee) should remain calculated by way of a multiplier of x0.67 the basic allowance;
g) the SRA for the Chairman of the Development Committee should be increased to x0.75 the
basic allowance to reflect the workload and demands of the role
h) a new SRA of x0.25 the basic allowance for the Vice-Chairman of the Development
Committee be introduced to reflect the workload and demands of the role
i) the SRA for the Chairman of the Council should be increased to a multiplier of x0.5 the
basic allowance to reflect the demands of the role
j) the SRA for the Leader of the main opposition group should remain calculated by way of a
multiplier of x0.33 the basic allowance;
k) payment of £30 - £50 per meeting attended should be made to co-opted members of
committees, with the specific amount to be agreed by a resolution of the Committee when
co-opted members are appointed
10
l) the carers’ allowance should be set at £10 per hour wage for child care and £20 per hour
wage for specialist care.
m) the existing travelling expenses scheme should be maintained, and it should be subject to
amendment in accordance with prevailing national agreements;
n) the subsistence expenses scheme should be adjusted with the allowance for tea being
removed, the allowance for lunch reduced to £8.00 and the allowance for dinner increased
to £20
o) the changes proposed by the Panel are not backdated, but should take effect from the
beginning of the municipal year, in 2016;
p) Members’ Allowances should remain ineligible for admission to the Norfolk Local
Government Scheme;
q) That a further review should be undertaken during 2017/18 with any changes coming into
effect from the 2018/19 financial year
r) That the Budget for 2016/17 should be amended to reflect any changes to Members’
allowances
133.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 05 JANUARY 2016
a) MINUTE NO.101: CROMER WEST PROMENADE REVITALISATION PROGRAMME
Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for Assets introduced this item. He said that the programme of
works was to help revitalise Cromer’s West promenade following the devastation caused by
the tidal surge of December 2013.
Mr P W Moore, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, said that the Committee
had not proposed any changes to the recommendations.
RESOLVED
to approve a further capital budget of £650,000 to support delivery of the phase 2 works.
b) MINUTE NO. 102 EGMERE BUSINESS ZONE PROJECT
Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for Assets, introduced this item. He said that proposals would
enable the Council to take a lead role in facilitating development of land at the Egmere
Business Zone by opening up an area of land for business use through the provision of road
and utility infrastructure and the development of a workshop/office unit for lease as a catalyst
for future development.
Mr P W Moore, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, said that there had been
plenty of discussion on this item but that Committee had not proposed any changes to the
recommendations.
RESOLVED
that subject to any necessary revision to the budget and policy framework, to the
establishment of a capital budget of up to £1.445 million (£450k from external resources and
£995k from NNDC capital resources) to support delivery of project.
134.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 08 FEBRUARY 2016
a) AGENDA ITEM 14: CAR PARK FEES AND CHARGES
11
Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for Assets introduced this item. He said that parking charges in the
Council’s car parks were good value for money compared to many areas. He emphasised that
season tickets in particular were very well priced.
The Chairman invited Members to comment:
1. Mrs S Arnold said that it was only an additional 30 pence an hour. She acknowledged that
no-one wanted an increase but it was important that all of the costs associated with
running and maintaining the Council’s car parks were covered. She added that car park
fees were often the only money spent by visitors to the area.
2. Mr V FitzPatrick said that the town of Wells in his ward was a very popular tourist
destination and the Council’s car parks were essential and that even with the increase
they still provided good value for money.
3. Mrs S Butikofer said that she was concerned about the impact of the increase on the
smaller resort car parks. She said that they didn’t offer the facilities of the larger coastal
towns and could suffer as a consequence.
4. Mrs H Cox said that had struggled with the proposed increase as 30 pence was quite
high. However, she was very supportive of the season tickets that were available and she
was pleased to see that they would not be increasing in price.
5. Mr A Wells said a lot of context had been provided about the financial pressure that the
Council was under but that it should be acknowledged that it was running a surplus this
year and for that reason it was hard to justify an increase in parking charges at this time.
He said that only 3000 people had season tickets which was a very small amount and that
an increase in charges may force people to park elsewhere which would then impact on
local businesses. He concluded by saying that a decrease in charges out of season would
reduce the impact on local residents. Mr J Rest replied that it cost £9k to change the
pricing on the ticket machines so this was not an option.
6. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett reminded Members that the charges for standard inland car parks were
being frozen. She said that a strong marketing campaign was required to push the sales
of season tickets but that it should be remembered that for many visitors buying a car
parking ticket was often the only time that they spent money in the District.
7. Mrs J Oliver commented that the Council needed to fund services and address the deficit.
If it chose to spend the current surplus there would not be the opportunity to use that
money for commercialisation and investment. She said that the Blue Flag scheme alone
cost £95k and there was also the cost of litter picking to cover.
8. Mr B Smith commented that the proposals would have an unfair impact on his ward of
Mundesley. He felt that visitors would go elsewhere as there was not as much on offer as
some of the larger coastal resorts.
9. Mr R Price said that it should be remembered that the cost of a season ticket was
equivalent to 55 pence a day or £3.85 a week.
10. Mr T FitzPatrick reminded Members that this was the first increase in car parking charges
for 4 years and that the Council wanted to maximise its investments as it needed to be
self-funding by 2020. In response to Mr Wells concerns that people would go elsewhere,
he said that parking in Norwich was much more expensive and that his own ward of
Walsingham would welcome a car park run by the District Council.
11. Mr W Northam said that the previous administration had introduced the higher charges for
resorts in 2009. He said that he had spent a lot of time speaking to people who used the
council car park in Mundesley and they all said it was a good car park with access to a
play area and the beach. No-one had any complaints. He concluded by saying that the
Council had spent £1m on refurbishing its car parks in recent years.
Speaking on behalf of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Mr P W Moore said that there
had been a suggestion that an ‘assessment of fairness’ should be carried out. He said that
not everyone used the car parks so it was agreed that it was fair to charge those that did.
The Committee also agreed that season tickets should be promoted.
12
RESOLVED
1. To increase charges in coastal and resort car parks by 30 pence an hour as per Option 3
within the Cabinet report, resulting in the following changes;
Coastal car parks – 60p for 30 minutes, £1.50 per hour, £7.00 for 24 hours
Resort car parks - 60p for 30 minutes, £1.30 per hour for the first hour and £1.00
thereafter, £7.00 for 24 hours
2. To freeze charges in standard car parks
3. To freeze charges for annual season tickets, introducing a monthly direct debit option
b) AGENDA ITEM 15 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced this item. He explained that the
Council prepared a Treasury Management Strategy each year in accordance with the
requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management.
This report set out the proposed strategy for the financial year beginning 1st April 2016, and
the anticipated results from treasury activities have been incorporated into the Budget for
2016/17. At the 31st December 2015, 22% of all investments were held in secure financial
instruments. The Council’s strategy of investing on a secured basis whenever possible would
continue in 2016/17. Mr Northam concluded by saying that although interest rates are
anticipated to rise at some point during 2016/17, it looked increasingly likely that this would be
pushed back to later in the year.
The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee said that he had no comments to add.
RESOLVED
To approve the Treasury Management Strategy Statement.
135.
ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OVERVIEW
COMMITTEE
AND SCRUTINY
The Chairman, Mr P W Moore said that although there had not been any further
recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at their meeting on 18 February
2016, Members should be aware that there had been two public speakers in attendance who
had spoken against the proposed increase in beach hut charges.
136.
BUDGET AND COUNCIL TAX SETTING 2016/2017
The Chairman outlined the process to Members. She said that an amendment to the Budget
had been submitted by Mr A Wells, Leader of the opposition. She advised Members that a
vote would be taken on the amendment first. A recorded vote was not required for the
amendment. Depending on the outcome of this vote, a recorded vote would then be taken on
the recommendation in three parts: recommendations 1-7, recommendation 8 and then
recommendations 9 and 10.
The Chairman then invited the Chief Financial Officer to explain the robustness of the
estimates, as required to do by statute. The Chief Financial Officer referred to the
commentary on the adequacy of the reserves and to the assessment of the General Fund
reserve, as set out in Appendix B to the report. Risks and fluctuations had been taken into
account in a robust budgetary framework, which would be subject to review. She explained
that a holistic approach had been taken, which considered the general reserve, earmarked
reserves and also the identified risks in relation to the revenue and capital budgets presented.
13
Following this assessment, in the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer the overall budgeted
level of both the General Reserve and the Earmarked Reserves were considered to be
adequate in the short term.
The Chairman then invited Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance to introduce the Budget
for 2016/17.
Mr Northam began by saying that the report recommended for approval, the base budgets for
both revenue and capital for the 2016/17 financial year and also provided forecasts for the
following 3 financial years. The budget for 2016/17 and future financial forecasts reflect the
Local Government Finance Settlement which was finalised and announced on 9 February.
The final settlement announcement confirmed the allocation of additional funding for rural
services for which North Norfolk was allocated a further £540,000 over the next two years,
taking the funding for rural services to £481,000 in 2016/17 and £388,000 in 2017/18. Mr
Northam said that the content of the report and recommendations reflected detailed work
carried out over a number of months by both officers and Members of Cabinet and was
considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the previous week.
Mr Northam then referred to the financial strategy which had been presented to Members in
September 2015 highlighting a number of work streams to be developed over the short to
medium term that would start to deliver future savings and additional income for the Council.
These work streams included:
 Maximising income to the Council from business rates, Council Tax and New Homes
Bonus,
 Identifying opportunities for creating efficiencies including those from the digital
transformation programme
 Generating an increased return from the Councils assets.
Savings and additional income from a number of these areas had been factored into the
budget and future projections as presented and would continue to be a priority for the Council
as included in the medium term financial strategy.
Mr Northam explained that the finance settlement announcement included figures for a four
year period, a longer term settlement was very welcome as it allowed some certainty over the
Authority’s financial planning process albeit greater certainty over the forecast funding
reductions to allow time to plan for the reductions. The four year settlement included
assumptions around future New Homes Bonus and the allocations from 2017/18 onwards
would be influenced by the outcome of the consultation which ends in March. The acceptance
of the four year settlement is dependent upon the production of an efficiency plan which the
Council has until October to consider.
The government’s assumptions of spending power showed a reduction in revenue resources
over the four years of approximately £1.1 million, equating to 9% compared to 2015/16. Most
significant was the planned year on year reductions of Revenue Support Grant to
approximately £88,000 by 2019/20, and it was assumed that there would be no RSG from
2020/21. Overall funding from RSG and retained business rates as included in the settlement
is expected to reduce by just over £2million (38%) compared to the 2015/16 financial year.
Mr Northam then spoke about other key issues that impacted on the setting of the budget for
2016/17 such as the removal of the Council Tax Freeze Grant, the additional income raised by
the New Homes Bonus and the inclusion of savings and additional income of £517,000 for
2016/17 which was expected to increase to £995,000 in the following year, together with an
updated capital programme.
14
In conclusion, Mr Northam said that he was pleased to be in the position of recommending a
budget for 2016/17 which recommended a surplus of just over £1.2 million be transferred to
the Invest to Save and Business rates earmarked reserve. The invest to save reserve would
provide funding for one-off costs that would assist in delivering future efficiencies and the
business rates reserve would smooth the impact of emerging appeals and the impact of
fluctuations to the business rates income. He said that overall the report showed a healthy
financial position with a level of reserves that would provide funding to deliver future savings
and efficiencies for the Council that would help with delivery of a continued sustainable budget
in the future. He thanked the Head of Finance and her team and the Corporate Leadership
Team and Heads of Service for their continued commitment and support.
The Chairman then invited Mr A Wells, Leader of the Opposition to respond. Mr Wells began
by thanking Mr Northam for his continued hard work. He said that councillors were there to
serve their communities and he believed that the Council should provide high quality services
and cover the cost of these. He said that dealing with littering and dog fouling, maintaining
toilets and providing beach huts were all important as tourism was vital to the District’s
economy. He agreed that there should be investment to modernise the Council’s toilets but
said that none should be closed. Mr Wells then referred members to his proposed
amendments to the Budget, which had been circulated, highlighting the processing of Disabled
Facilities Grants as an example of inefficiency that could be resolved by taking a joined-up
approach by working with Norfolk County Council.
Mr Wells then referred to the Council’s finances in general. He said that there were negligible
levels of return on investments and that the reserves were still very high – with almost £13m
held – money that the Council should be putting back into the pockets of local taxpayers. He
concluded by saying that he acknowledged the need for compromise and therefore had
proposed several amendments that would protect the environment and the most vulnerable in
the community.
Mr E Seward seconded Mr Wells’ amendments. The Chairman said that each amendment
would be debated and then voted on in turn.
Amendment 1:
That recommendation (1) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
‘and additionally allocating a budget of £35,000 to fund additional assessment
resources to support the processing of claims for Disabled Facilities Grants in
North Norfolk, to be used at the discretion of the Chief Executive if they are not
confident that the average time (in respect of successful applications) from receipt
of an application to a decision being made will be reduced to under three months
by the final quarter of the 2016/17 budget year’
Speaking about Amendment 1, Mr Seward said that as a County Councillor he was aware of
the Norfolk County Council Social Services Committee and that it was vitally important that
older residents remained in their own homes in their later years but to do this the system for
processing Disabled Facilities Grants needed to work efficiently and anything that the Council
could do to help this should be welcomed.
Ms V Gay said that there was capital slippage on these grants of £145k and that the request to
allocate a small budget to assist in the processing of DFGs was not unreasonable.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that a review was being undertaken in conjunction with Norfolk County
Council. He said he was not unsympathetic but that it needed tackling in a coherent way and
that early dialogue was the best way forward at this stage.
15
The Chief Executive added that the issue was complicated because it sat outside other
processes. She said that the Council would undertake a business process review and consider
a redesign of the system. She said that she supported the recommendation in principle but
that the proposal for additional funding should wait until the outcome of any review.
The amendment was put to the vote and was not supported.
Amendment 2:
That recommendation (1) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
‘allocating a one-off budget of £20,000 to support the redesign and modernisation
of environmental enforcement services, where appropriate adopting best practice
from the successful Environmental Rangers programme in Great Yarmouth, to
patrol our towns and other hotspots, tackling dog fouling, littering, and other
problems as appropriate; and allocating a budget of up to £50,000 to be used for
any additional cuts under the grounds maintenance contract required to address
seasonal growth during the year’
1. Mrs S Arnold said that the Council was currently in a shared services arrangement with
Great Yarmouth BC and she would anticipate that officers at both Councils would learn
and benefit from best practice across all service areas. She said that the Environmental
Enforcement Team at the Council already did an excellent job.
2. Mr T FitzPatrick said that the proposal was suggesting a piecemeal approach.
Enforcement was already under review and lots of work was underway.
3. Mr G Williams commented that it was difficult to determine whether this was the best way
for the Council to proceed and that it would be a suitable subject for the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee to consider. Mr Seward replied that once again it was a very modest
proposal and that the issue of grounds maintenance had already been considered by the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He went onto say that in the previous three years there
had not been any enforcement action for littering or dog fouling.
The amendment was put to the vote and was not supported.
Amendment 3:
That recommendation (1) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
‘deferring the saving included in this Budget in respect of the withdrawal of public
litter bins across the Broads for one year, giving the community the chance to
explore ways of preserving this facility for the future;’
Mr T FitzPatrick said that it had already been agreed that the Council would subsidise the cost
to Ludham and Horning parish councils as they had missed the opportunity to pick up the
costs via their precepts, due to no fault of their own. Mr P Rice. Local Member for Waterside,
said that he welcomed this and that there were ongoing discussions with the Broads Authority
about boat waste collection.
Mr Wells agreed to withdraw amendment 3 as it was no longer applicable
Amendment 4:
That recommendation (1) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
16
‘revising the proposed increase in rent to be charged on beach huts to the level of
inflation (RPI), cancelling the proposal to introduce a £25 charge to join the
waiting list for beach huts and instead limiting the number of locations in respect
of which a person may join the waiting list to two;’
Mr J Rest said that there 500 people were on the waiting list for a beach hut. They would all be
contacted and asked if the wished to re-register. He said that even with the increase, the
charges remained well below that of other areas. Mr T FitzPatrick said that in Wells, people
were willing to pay £60k for a beach hut and had to pay a further £1k a year for site rental. He
said that beach huts were an asset and these should be maximised. Mrs J Oliver added that
beach huts were a luxury not a necessity.
The amendment was put to the vote and was not supported.
Amendment 5:
That recommendation (3) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
‘but requests a revised Statement of Reserves be presented for approval at the
next meeting of the Full Council, to reflect the good practice recommendations of
the Local Authority Accounting Panel of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance
and Accountancy (Bulletin 99, Paragraph 30) to ensure complete transparency in
respect of the purpose of each reserve, how and when each reserve can be used,
procedures for the management and control of each reserve, and the process and
timescale for review of each reserve to ensure continuing relevance and
adequacy;’
The amendment was put to the vote and was not supported.
Amendment 6:
That recommendation (5) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
‘but requesting that Cabinet should not take a decision to close (except for
maintenance and improvement works) or dispose of any specific public
conveniences in the District without first consulting Full Council;’
Mr T FitzPatrick said that any decision regarding the provision of public conveniences was
reserved to Cabinet and could not be dealt with by Full Council as proposed. The Monitoring
Officer agreed adding that a consultation would need to be carried out anyway. He confirmed
that decisions must be taken by the respective bodies and could not be interchanged. In
response to a question from Mr Wells as to whether this would be illegal, the Monitoring
Officer replied that it was inadvisable and could be open to legal challenge.
The amendment was put to the vote and was not supported.
Amendment 7:
That recommendation (5) of item 14 of the Agenda for Full Council be amended to
insert at the end of the existing recommendation:
‘but deferring any works in respect of the creation of a car park at North Lodge
Park until a clear plan for the future of the Park as a whole has been approved in
consultation with the local community including the Friends of North Lodge Park;’
Mrs H Cox said that there was a lot of work going on in this area and she didn’t feel that the
proposals would help at this time as a lot more discussion was needed. Mr Wells said that the
17
amendment was aimed at safeguarding local communities and ensuring they had a say in the
future of North Lodge Park. Mr A Yiasimi said that North Lodge Park was very important to him
and he would like to see it restored to its former glory. Mrs Cox replied that lots of people
wanted different things from the park and that the proposals for a car park needed to be
considered as part of these discussions.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that a car park was not going to happen overnight. The Friends of North
Lodge Park would be consulted as they were with the cafe but it was important that all
stakeholders were asked for their views. He added that it was the only public park paid for by
residents of North Norfolk.
Mr R Price said that he had been visiting the park for over 60 years and that it was important
to get it right and that things must not be rushed.
The amendment was put to the vote and was not supported.
The Chairman asked Mr Northam whether he wished to reply. Mr Northam said that he did not.
Mr Wells said that a Liberal Democrat budget would be very different from the one put forward
by the Administration and that it would include provision for more affordable housing.
The Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Mr P W Moore said that the Committee
had raised concerns about the disposal of public conveniences and the removal of funding for
Cromer Museum but had not made any formal recommendations.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that he was happy to second the Budget for 2016/17. He said that the
funding for the museum had been removed last year and that £10k had been set aside for
specific projects.
He thanked all the officers for their hard work and for living within their budgets. He said that
he was proud that council tax would be frozen for a fifth year running and thanked Mr Northam
for his continued hard work. He said that going back over several years, car park charges and
council tax were increased on a regular basis. He had become a councillor to help make the
Council more efficient and he was pleased to say that it was now well run and a good place to
work – as demonstrated by the IIP Gold award. Mr FitzPatrick referred to the Corporate Plan
which outlined the Council’s priorities including tackling empty properties. He was pleased to
live in a district where people helped themselves as demonstrated by the success of the Big
Society Fund. A lot of residents were on fixed incomes and they needed to know what they
were spending. North Norfolk District Council was one of only three councils not to raise
council tax. He concluded by saying that it was easy for the Opposition to say what they would
do but this had not been the case when they were in control of the Council.
The Chairman then outlined the voting procedure. The recommendations would be taken en
bloc with a recorded vote (Minutes Appendix B)
RESOLVED to approve
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The 2016/17 revenue budget as outlined at Appendix A within this report;
The surplus of £1,260,206 be allocated to the business rate reserve (£500,000)
and restructuring and invest to save reserve (£760,206);
The statement of and movement on the reserves as detailed at Appendix C within
this report;
The updated Capital Programme and financing for 2015/16 to 2018/19 (as
detailed at Appendix G within the February 2016 Cabinet Agenda);
The new capital bids (as detailed at Appendix H within the February 2016 Cabinet
Agenda);
The prudential indicators for 2016/17 (as detailed at Appendix I within the
18
7)
8)
February 2016 Cabinet Agenda);
That members note the current financial projections for the period 2017/18 to
2019/20;
The Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves and the Optimum Level of the
General Reserve 2016/17 to 2019/20 (Appendix B within this report);
and the Fees and Charges for 2016/17 as set out in Appendix D
The Chairman then asked the Chief Financial Officer to outline the different elements of
the Council tax recommendations. She explained that section 4.5 of the report set out the
statutory calculations for the council tax bases. Section 4.6 gave details of the parish
precepts, and section 4.7 provided details of the County Council and Norfolk Police and
Crime Commissioner’s precepts. She concluded by stating that the basic amount of
Council tax calculated was the same as for the previous year. A recorded vote was taken
for both recommendations and is attached at Minutes Appendix C.
RESOLVED
9) That members undertake the Council Tax and statutory calculations set out at
section 4, and set the Council Tax for 2016/17;
4.5 That it be NOTED that at its meeting on 16 December 2015, Full Council calculated the
following Council Tax bases for the year 2016/17 in accordance with regulations made
under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended: a) for the whole Council area as 37,940 (Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local
Government Finance Act 1992) being calculated by the Council, in accordance with
Regulation 3 of The Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England)
Regulations 2012, as its Council Tax base for the year;
b)
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham East/West
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Briningham
Brinton
Briston
Brumstead
Catfield
COUNCIL
PART OF THE
TAX BASE
COUNCIL’S AREA
96.34 Little Barningham
219.27 Little Snoring
117.02 Ludham
63.09 Matlaske
200.14 Melton Constable
84.46 Morston
472.49 Mundesley
97.96 Neatishead
239.48 North Walsham
108.29 Northrepps
376.10 Overstrand
166.20 Paston
524.51 Plumstead
155.82 Potter Heigham
62.16 Pudding Norton
120.31 Raynham
818.81 Roughton
25.29 Runton
302.97 Ryburgh
19
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
39.29
211.06
467.73
62.37
182.46
50.09
1,063.50
234.22
3,727.61
352.84
423.13
81.40
47.32
395.69
72.35
124.13
317.04
691.30
217.66
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
Dunton
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodestone
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Glandford
COUNCIL
PART OF THE
TAX BASE
COUNCIL’S AREA
307.86 Salthouse
181.56 Scottow
262.61 Sculthorpe
2,799.07 Sea Palling
132.46 Sheringham
53.41 Sidestrand
181.82 Skeyton
176.14 Sloley
228.78 Smallburgh
2,378.35 Southrepps
66.62 Stalham
189.27 Stibbard
134.26 Stiffkey
177.67 Stody
147.24 Suffield
76.83 Sustead
165.40 Sutton
141.08 Swafield
91.38 Swanton Abbott
294.95 Swanton Novers
126.36 Tattersett
71.20 Thornage
177.55 Thorpe Market
390.58 Thurning
266.90 Thursford
196.77 Trimingham
227.68 Trunch
84.22 Tunstead
1,525.91 Upper Sheringham
116.87 Walcott
589.42 Walsingham
29.82 Warham
813.88 Wells-next-the-Sea
141.64 Westwick
41.25 Weybourne
58.01 Wickmere
87.56 Wighton
92.07 Witton
142.98 Wiveton
203.39 Wood Norton
214.91 Worstead
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
111.15
273.90
265.97
205.50
2,998.38
43.41
85.86
89.09
181.21
318.66
1,025.25
130.48
127.45
85.09
51.90
88.76
377.97
110.11
140.77
75.70
269.86
92.46
111.69
31.64
104.46
132.66
329.46
245.36
94.57
205.27
340.91
75.61
1,069.17
29.30
315.46
56.40
105.34
123.51
84.17
99.80
310.36
128.30
being the amounts calculated by the Council, in accordance with Regulation 6 of The Local
Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) (England) Regulations 2012, as the amounts of
its Council Tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which special items
(parish precepts) may relate.
20
4.6
That the following amounts be now CALCULATED by the Council for the year 2016/17 in
accordance with Sections 31A to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the
relevant regulations and directions as follows:a)
£57,078,189
b)
£49,921,654
c)
£7,156,535
d)
£188.6277
e)
£1,887,805.86
f)
£138.8700
being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the expenditure items set out in Section
31A(2) of the Act.
being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the income items set out in Section 31A(3) of
the Act.
being the amount by which the aggregate at (a) above
exceeds the aggregate at (b) above, calculated by the
Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, as
its Council Tax requirement for the year.
being the amount at (c) above divided by the amount at
4.5(a) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with
Section 31B(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its
Council Tax for the year (including Parish precepts).
being the aggregate amount of all special items (Parish
precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act.
being the amount at (d) above less the result given by
dividing the amount at (e) above by the amount at 4.5 (a)
above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with
Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council
Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to
which no special item (Parish precept) relates.
g)
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough and Thurgarton
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham East/West
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
BASIC
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AMOUNT
AREA
£
163.7817 Little Barningham
173.0744 Little Snoring
156.8925 Ludham
194.3463 Matlaske
174.1602 Melton Constable
156.6298 Morston
169.7150 Mundesley
158.2656 Neatishead
159.7485 North Walsham
164.7264 Northrepps
170.8641 Overstrand
165.9458 Paston
207.5054 Plumstead
187.0024 Potter Heigham
159.6496 Pudding Norton
181.0214 Raynham
174.9692 Roughton
164.8558 Runton (East & West)
221.2284 Ryburgh
197.3597 Salthouse
214.8223 Scottow
168.9319 Sculthorpe
21
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
160.5040
177.7215
155.4094
151.6966
202.3578
158.8340
188.7054
170.8911
205.4233
176.5641
200.2530
192.7152
180.0787
168.6812
194.1568
180.7615
162.0058
154.7820
177.9217
179.3558
189.9835
163.6848
BASIC
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AMOUNT
AREA
£
163.6197 Sea Palling
144.5473 Sheringham
171.7880 Sidestrand
205.7613 Skeyton
182.4004 Sloley
146.7951 Smallburgh
161.2147 Southrepps
169.3872 Stalham
176.3122 Stibbard
181.8219 Stiffkey
173.3319 Stody
156.5904 Suffield
159.8373 Sustead
151.5840 Sutton
171.6493 Swafield
165.5553 Swanton Abbott
159.5394 Swanton Novers
160.7169 Tattersett
148.2368 Thornage
174.9527 Thorpe Market
170.4933 Thursford
168.5541 Trimingham
192.3462 Trunch
155.9830 Tunstead
165.7879 Upper Sheringham
172.3039 Walcott
190.8432 Walsingham
147.5469 Warham
196.8093 Wells-next-the-Sea
180.2421 Weybourne
174.5369 Wickmere
176.8845 Wighton
166.5801 Witton
170.5480 Wiveton
153.7087 Wood Norton
154.4584 Worstead
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodeston
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with Glandford
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
191.5123
232.9184
168.8170
151.1574
165.3600
169.0890
178.6427
197.3923
180.2786
175.9825
167.9215
163.8025
159.4873
176.9259
180.2740
175.0993
218.1302
150.7057
155.4176
181.1477
167.5891
197.7046
190.4695
164.7136
195.6004
171.6609
197.5365
204.9988
197.5940
186.4196
200.9267
174.4690
148.4805
186.3928
165.9241
164.8623
being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4.6(f) above to the amounts of the special item or
items relating to dwellings in those parts of the Council’s area mentioned above divided in each case
by the amount at 4.5(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 34(3) of the Act,
as the basic amounts of its Council Tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which
one or more special items relate.
h)
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Alby with Thwaite
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
109.18 127.38 145.58 163.78 200.17 236.57 272.96 327.56
22
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Aldborough and
Thurgarton
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham East/West
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodeston
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
Honing
Horning
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
115.38
104.59
129.56
116.10
104.41
113.14
105.51
106.49
109.81
113.90
110.63
138.33
124.66
106.43
120.68
116.64
109.90
147.48
134.61
122.02
151.15
135.45
121.82
132.00
123.09
124.24
128.12
132.89
129.06
161.39
145.44
124.17
140.79
136.08
128.22
172.06
153.84
139.46
172.75
154.80
139.22
150.85
140.68
141.99
146.42
151.87
147.50
184.44
166.22
141.91
160.90
155.52
146.53
196.64
173.07
156.89
194.34
174.16
156.62
169.71
158.26
159.74
164.72
170.86
165.94
207.50
187.00
159.64
181.02
174.96
164.85
221.22
211.53
191.75
237.53
212.86
191.43
207.42
193.43
195.24
201.33
208.83
202.82
253.61
228.55
195.12
221.24
213.85
201.49
270.39
249.99
226.62
280.72
251.56
226.24
245.14
228.60
230.74
237.93
246.80
239.69
299.73
270.11
230.60
261.47
252.73
238.12
319.55
288.45
261.48
323.91
290.26
261.04
282.85
263.77
266.24
274.54
284.77
276.57
345.84
311.67
266.08
301.70
291.61
274.75
368.71
346.14
313.78
388.69
348.32
313.25
339.43
316.53
319.49
329.45
341.72
331.89
415.01
374.00
319.29
362.04
349.93
329.71
442.45
131.57
143.21
112.62
109.07
96.36
114.52
137.17
121.60
97.86
107.47
112.92
117.54
121.21
115.55
104.39
106.55
101.05
114.43
110.37
106.35
107.14
98.82
116.63
113.66
112.36
128.23
103.98
110.52
153.50
167.08
131.39
127.25
112.42
133.61
160.03
141.86
114.17
125.38
131.74
137.13
141.41
134.81
121.79
124.31
117.89
133.50
128.76
124.08
125.00
115.29
136.07
132.60
131.09
149.60
121.32
128.94
175.43
190.95
150.16
145.43
128.48
152.70
182.89
162.13
130.48
143.30
150.56
156.72
161.61
154.07
139.19
142.07
134.74
152.57
147.16
141.81
142.85
131.76
155.51
151.54
149.82
170.97
138.65
147.36
197.35
214.82
168.93
163.61
144.54
171.78
205.76
182.40
146.79
161.21
169.38
176.31
181.82
173.33
156.59
159.83
151.58
171.64
165.55
159.53
160.71
148.23
174.95
170.49
168.55
192.34
155.98
165.78
241.21
262.56
206.47
199.97
176.66
209.96
251.48
222.93
179.41
197.04
207.02
215.49
222.22
211.85
191.38
195.35
185.26
209.79
202.34
194.99
196.43
181.17
213.83
208.38
206.01
235.08
190.64
202.62
285.07
310.29
244.01
236.33
208.79
248.13
297.21
263.46
212.03
232.86
244.67
254.67
262.63
250.36
226.18
230.87
218.95
247.93
239.13
230.44
232.14
214.11
252.70
246.26
243.46
277.83
225.30
239.47
328.93
358.03
281.55
272.69
240.91
286.31
342.93
304.00
244.65
268.69
282.31
293.85
303.03
288.88
260.98
266.39
252.64
286.08
275.92
265.89
267.86
247.06
291.58
284.15
280.92
320.57
259.97
276.31
394.71
429.64
337.86
327.23
289.09
343.57
411.52
364.80
293.59
322.42
338.77
352.62
363.64
346.66
313.18
319.67
303.16
343.29
331.11
319.07
321.43
296.47
349.90
340.98
337.10
384.69
311.96
331.57
23
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Glandford
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
Matlaske
Melton Constable
Morston
Mundesley
Neatishead
North Walsham
Northrepps
Overstrand
Paston
Plumstead
Potter Heigham
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Roughton
Runton
Ryburgh
Salthouse
Scottow
Sculthorpe
Sea Palling
Sheringham
Sidestrand
Skeyton
Sloley
Smallburgh
Southrepps
Stalham
Stibbard
Stiffkey
Stody
Suffield
Sustead
Sutton
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
114.86
127.22
98.36
131.20
120.16
116.35
117.92
111.05
113.69
102.47
134.01
148.43
114.75
153.07
140.18
135.75
137.57
129.56
132.64
119.55
153.15
169.63
131.15
174.94
160.21
155.14
157.23
148.07
151.59
136.62
172.30
190.84
147.54
196.80
180.24
174.53
176.88
166.58
170.54
153.70
210.59
233.25
180.33
240.54
220.29
213.32
216.19
203.59
208.44
187.86
248.88
275.66
213.12
284.28
260.34
252.10
255.49
240.61
246.34
222.02
287.17
318.07
245.91
328.01
300.40
290.89
294.80
277.63
284.24
256.18
344.60
381.68
295.09
393.61
360.48
349.07
353.76
333.16
341.09
307.41
102.97
107.00
118.48
103.60
101.13
134.90
105.88
125.80
113.92
136.94
117.70
133.50
128.47
120.05
112.45
129.43
120.50
108.00
103.18
118.61
119.57
126.65
109.12
127.67
155.27
112.54
100.77
110.24
112.72
119.09
131.59
120.18
117.32
111.94
109.20
106.32
117.95
120.13
124.83
138.22
120.87
117.98
157.38
123.53
146.77
132.91
159.77
137.32
155.75
149.88
140.06
131.19
151.01
140.59
126.00
120.38
138.38
139.49
147.76
127.31
148.95
181.15
131.30
117.56
128.61
131.51
138.94
153.52
140.21
136.87
130.60
127.40
124.04
137.60
137.29
142.67
157.97
138.14
134.84
179.87
141.18
167.73
151.90
182.59
156.94
178.00
171.30
160.06
149.93
172.58
160.67
144.00
137.58
158.15
159.42
168.87
145.49
170.23
207.03
150.05
134.36
146.98
150.30
158.79
175.45
160.24
156.42
149.26
145.60
141.76
157.26
154.45
160.50
177.72
155.40
151.69
202.35
158.83
188.70
170.89
205.42
176.56
200.25
192.71
180.07
168.68
194.15
180.76
162.00
154.78
177.92
179.35
189.98
163.68
191.51
232.91
168.81
151.15
165.36
169.08
178.64
197.39
180.27
175.98
167.92
163.80
159.48
176.92
188.78
196.17
217.21
189.94
185.40
247.32
194.13
230.63
208.86
251.07
215.80
244.75
235.54
220.09
206.16
237.30
220.93
198.00
189.17
217.45
219.21
232.20
200.05
234.07
284.67
206.33
184.74
202.10
206.66
218.34
241.25
220.34
215.08
205.23
200.20
194.92
216.24
223.10
231.83
256.70
224.48
219.11
292.29
229.42
272.57
246.84
296.72
255.03
289.25
278.36
260.11
243.65
280.44
261.09
234.00
223.57
256.99
259.06
274.42
236.43
276.62
336.43
243.84
218.33
238.85
244.23
258.03
285.12
260.40
254.19
242.55
236.60
230.37
255.55
257.43
267.50
296.20
259.01
252.82
337.26
264.72
314.50
284.81
342.37
294.27
333.75
321.19
300.13
281.13
323.59
301.26
270.00
257.97
296.53
298.92
316.63
272.80
319.18
388.19
281.36
251.92
275.60
281.81
297.73
328.98
300.46
293.30
279.86
273.00
265.81
294.87
308.91
321.00
355.44
310.81
303.39
404.71
317.66
377.41
341.78
410.84
353.12
400.50
385.43
360.15
337.36
388.31
361.52
324.01
309.56
355.84
358.71
379.96
327.36
383.02
465.83
337.63
302.31
330.72
338.17
357.28
394.78
360.55
351.96
335.84
327.60
318.97
353.85
24
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Swafield
Swanton Abbott
Swanton Novers
Tattersett
Thornage
Thorpe Market
Thursford
Trimingham
Trunch
Tunstead
Upper Sheringham
Walcott
Walsingham
Warham
Wells-next-the-Sea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
120.18
116.73
145.42
100.47
103.61
120.76
111.72
131.80
126.97
109.80
130.40
114.44
131.69
136.66
131.72
124.27
133.95
116.31
98.98
124.26
110.61
109.90
All Other Parts of the
Council’s Area
B
£
C
£
140.21
136.18
169.65
117.21
120.88
140.89
130.34
153.77
148.14
128.11
152.13
133.51
153.63
159.44
153.68
144.99
156.27
135.69
115.48
144.97
129.05
128.22
D
£
160.24
155.64
193.89
133.96
138.14
161.02
148.96
175.73
169.30
146.41
173.86
152.58
175.58
182.22
175.63
165.70
178.60
155.08
131.98
165.68
147.48
146.54
E
£
180.27
175.09
218.13
150.70
155.41
181.14
167.58
197.70
190.46
164.71
195.60
171.66
197.53
204.99
197.59
186.41
200.92
174.46
148.48
186.39
165.92
164.86
F
£
220.33
214.01
266.60
184.19
189.95
221.40
204.83
241.63
232.79
201.31
239.06
209.80
241.43
250.55
241.50
227.84
245.57
213.23
181.47
227.81
202.79
201.49
G
£
260.39
252.92
315.07
217.68
224.49
261.65
242.07
285.57
275.12
237.91
282.53
247.95
285.33
296.10
285.41
269.27
290.22
252.01
214.47
269.23
239.66
238.13
300.45
291.83
363.55
251.17
259.02
301.91
279.31
329.50
317.44
274.52
326.00
286.10
329.22
341.66
329.32
310.69
334.87
290.78
247.46
310.65
276.54
274.77
H
£
360.54
350.19
436.26
301.41
310.83
362.29
335.17
395.40
380.93
329.42
391.20
343.32
395.07
409.99
395.18
372.83
401.85
348.93
296.96
372.78
331.84
329.72
92.58 108.01 123.44 138.87 169.73 200.59 231.45 277.74
being the amounts given by multiplying (as appropriate) the amounts at 4.6(f) or 4.6(g) above by the
number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a
particular valuation band divided by the number which in that proportion is applicable to dwellings
listed in valuation Band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as
the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in
different valuation bands.
4.7
That it be NOTED that for the year 2016/17 the Norfolk County Council and the Office of the
Police & Crime Commissioner for Norfolk have stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the
Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the
categories of dwellings shown below:-
VALUATION BANDS
Norfolk County
Council
Norfolk Police
and Crime
Commissioner
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
793.86
926.17
1,058.48
1,190.79
1,455.41
1,720.03
1,984.65
2,381.58
141.96
165.62
189.28
212.94
260.26
307.58
354.90
425.88
25
4.8
That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 4.6(h) and 4.7 above,
the Council, in accordance with Section 30 and 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992,
HEREBY SETS the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2016/17 for each of
the categories of dwellings shown below:-
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S
AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Alby with Thwaite
Aldborough and
Thurgarton
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
Barsham
Barton Turf
Beckham
East/West
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
Colby
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
East Ruston
Edgefield
Erpingham
Fakenham
Felbrigg
Felmingham
Field Dalling
Fulmodeston
Gimingham
Great Snoring
Gresham
Gunthorpe
Hanworth
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,045.00 1,219.17 1,393.34 1,567.51 1,915.84 2,264.18 2,612.51 3,135.02
1,051.20
1,040.41
1,065.38
1,051.92
1,040.23
1,048.96
1,041.33
1,042.31
1,226.40
1,213.81
1,242.94
1,227.24
1,213.61
1,223.79
1,214.88
1,216.03
1,401.60
1,387.22
1,420.51
1,402.56
1,386.98
1,398.61
1,388.44
1,389.75
1,576.80
1,560.62
1,598.07
1,577.89
1,560.35
1,573.44
1,561.99
1,563.47
1,927.20
1,907.42
1,953.20
1,928.53
1,907.10
1,923.09
1,909.10
1,910.91
2,277.60
2,254.23
2,308.33
2,279.17
2,253.85
2,272.75
2,256.21
2,258.35
2,628.00
2,601.03
2,663.46
2,629.81
2,600.59
2,622.40
2,603.32
2,605.79
3,153.60
3,121.24
3,196.15
3,155.78
3,120.71
3,146.89
3,123.99
3,126.95
1,045.63
1,049.72
1,046.45
1,074.15
1,060.48
1,042.25
1,056.50
1,052.46
1,045.72
1,083.30
1,219.91
1,224.68
1,220.85
1,253.18
1,237.23
1,215.96
1,232.58
1,227.87
1,220.01
1,263.85
1,394.18
1,399.63
1,395.26
1,432.20
1,413.98
1,389.67
1,408.66
1,403.28
1,394.29
1,444.40
1,568.45
1,574.59
1,569.67
1,611.23
1,590.73
1,563.37
1,584.75
1,578.69
1,568.58
1,624.95
1,917.00
1,924.50
1,918.49
1,969.28
1,944.22
1,910.79
1,936.91
1,929.52
1,917.16
1,986.06
2,265.54
2,274.41
2,267.30
2,327.34
2,297.72
2,258.21
2,289.08
2,280.34
2,265.73
2,347.16
2,614.09
2,624.32
2,616.12
2,685.39
2,651.22
2,605.63
2,641.25
2,631.16
2,614.30
2,708.26
3,136.91
3,149.18
3,139.35
3,222.47
3,181.46
3,126.75
3,169.50
3,157.39
3,137.17
3,249.91
1,067.39
1,079.03
1,048.44
1,044.89
1,032.18
1,050.34
1,072.99
1,057.42
1,033.68
1,043.29
1,048.74
1,053.36
1,057.03
1,051.37
1,040.21
1,042.37
1,245.29
1,258.87
1,223.18
1,219.04
1,204.21
1,225.40
1,251.82
1,233.65
1,205.96
1,217.17
1,223.53
1,228.92
1,233.20
1,226.60
1,213.58
1,216.10
1,423.19
1,438.71
1,397.92
1,393.19
1,376.24
1,400.46
1,430.65
1,409.89
1,378.24
1,391.06
1,398.32
1,404.48
1,409.37
1,401.83
1,386.95
1,389.83
1,601.08
1,618.55
1,572.66
1,567.34
1,548.27
1,575.51
1,609.49
1,586.13
1,550.52
1,564.94
1,573.11
1,580.04
1,585.55
1,577.06
1,560.32
1,563.56
1,956.88
1,978.23
1,922.14
1,915.64
1,892.33
1,925.63
1,967.15
1,938.60
1,895.08
1,912.71
1,922.69
1,931.16
1,937.89
1,927.52
1,907.05
1,911.02
2,312.68
2,337.90
2,271.62
2,263.94
2,236.40
2,275.74
2,324.82
2,291.07
2,239.64
2,260.47
2,272.28
2,282.28
2,290.24
2,277.97
2,253.79
2,258.48
2,668.48
2,697.58
2,621.10
2,612.24
2,580.46
2,625.86
2,682.48
2,643.55
2,584.20
2,608.24
2,621.86
2,633.40
2,642.58
2,628.43
2,600.53
2,605.94
3,202.17
3,237.10
3,145.32
3,134.69
3,096.55
3,151.03
3,218.98
3,172.26
3,101.05
3,129.88
3,146.23
3,160.08
3,171.10
3,154.12
3,120.64
3,127.13
26
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S
AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
Happisburgh
Helhoughton
Hempstead
Hempton
Hickling
High Kelling
Hindolveston
Hindringham
Holkham
Holt
1,036.87
1,050.25
1,046.19
1,042.17
1,042.96
1,034.64
1,052.45
1,049.48
1,048.18
1,064.05
1,209.68
1,225.29
1,220.55
1,215.87
1,216.79
1,207.08
1,227.86
1,224.39
1,222.88
1,241.39
1,382.50
1,400.33
1,394.92
1,389.57
1,390.61
1,379.52
1,403.27
1,399.30
1,397.58
1,418.73
1,555.31
1,575.37
1,569.28
1,563.26
1,564.44
1,551.96
1,578.68
1,574.22
1,572.28
1,596.07
1,900.93
1,925.46
1,918.01
1,910.66
1,912.10
1,896.84
1,929.50
1,924.05
1,921.68
1,950.75
2,246.56
2,275.54
2,266.74
2,258.05
2,259.75
2,241.72
2,280.31
2,273.87
2,271.07
2,305.44
2,592.19
2,625.63
2,615.47
2,605.44
2,607.41
2,586.61
2,631.13
2,623.70
2,620.47
2,660.12
3,110.62
3,150.75
3,138.57
3,126.53
3,128.89
3,103.93
3,157.36
3,148.44
3,144.56
3,192.15
Honing
Horning
Horsey
Hoveton
Ingham
Ingworth
Itteringham
Kelling
Kettlestone
Knapton
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Glandford
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
Matlaske
Melton Constable
Morston
Mundesley
Neatishead
North Walsham
Northrepps
Overstrand
Paston
Plumstead
Potter Heigham
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Roughton
Runton
Ryburgh
Salthouse
Scottow
Sculthorpe
Sea Palling
1,039.80
1,046.34
1,050.68
1,063.04
1,034.18
1,067.02
1,055.98
1,052.17
1,053.74
1,046.87
1,049.51
1,038.29
1,213.11
1,220.73
1,225.80
1,240.22
1,206.54
1,244.86
1,231.97
1,227.54
1,229.36
1,221.35
1,224.43
1,211.34
1,386.41
1,395.12
1,400.91
1,417.39
1,378.91
1,422.70
1,407.97
1,402.90
1,404.99
1,395.83
1,399.35
1,384.38
1,559.71
1,569.51
1,576.03
1,594.57
1,551.27
1,600.53
1,583.97
1,578.26
1,580.61
1,570.31
1,574.27
1,557.43
1,906.31
1,918.29
1,926.26
1,948.92
1,896.00
1,956.21
1,935.96
1,928.99
1,931.86
1,919.26
1,924.11
1,903.53
2,252.91
2,267.08
2,276.49
2,303.27
2,240.73
2,311.89
2,287.95
2,279.71
2,283.10
2,268.22
2,273.95
2,249.63
2,599.52
2,615.86
2,626.72
2,657.62
2,585.46
2,667.56
2,639.95
2,630.44
2,634.35
2,617.18
2,623.79
2,595.73
3,119.42
3,139.03
3,152.06
3,189.14
3,102.55
3,201.07
3,167.94
3,156.53
3,161.22
3,140.62
3,148.55
3,114.87
1,038.79
1,042.82
1,054.30
1,039.42
1,036.95
1,070.72
1,041.70
1,061.62
1,049.74
1,072.76
1,053.52
1,069.32
1,064.29
1,055.87
1,048.27
1,065.25
1,056.32
1,043.82
1,039.00
1,054.43
1,055.39
1,062.47
1,044.94
1,063.49
1,211.92
1,216.62
1,230.01
1,212.66
1,209.77
1,249.17
1,215.32
1,238.56
1,224.70
1,251.56
1,229.11
1,247.54
1,241.67
1,231.85
1,222.98
1,242.80
1,232.38
1,217.79
1,212.17
1,230.17
1,231.28
1,239.55
1,219.10
1,240.74
1,385.05
1,390.43
1,405.73
1,385.90
1,382.60
1,427.63
1,388.94
1,415.49
1,399.66
1,430.35
1,404.70
1,425.76
1,419.06
1,407.82
1,397.69
1,420.34
1,408.43
1,391.76
1,385.34
1,405.91
1,407.18
1,416.63
1,393.25
1,417.99
1,558.18
1,564.23
1,581.45
1,559.13
1,555.42
1,606.08
1,562.56
1,592.43
1,574.62
1,609.15
1,580.29
1,603.98
1,596.44
1,583.80
1,572.41
1,597.88
1,584.49
1,565.73
1,558.51
1,581.65
1,583.08
1,593.71
1,567.41
1,595.24
1,904.45
1,911.84
1,932.88
1,905.61
1,901.07
1,962.99
1,909.80
1,946.30
1,924.53
1,966.74
1,931.47
1,960.42
1,951.21
1,935.76
1,921.83
1,952.97
1,936.60
1,913.67
1,904.84
1,933.12
1,934.88
1,947.87
1,915.72
1,949.74
2,250.71
2,259.44
2,284.31
2,252.09
2,246.72
2,319.90
2,257.03
2,300.18
2,274.45
2,324.33
2,282.64
2,316.86
2,305.97
2,287.72
2,271.26
2,308.05
2,288.70
2,261.61
2,251.18
2,284.60
2,286.67
2,302.03
2,264.04
2,304.23
2,596.98
2,607.05
2,635.75
2,598.56
2,592.37
2,676.81
2,604.27
2,654.05
2,624.36
2,681.92
2,633.82
2,673.30
2,660.74
2,639.68
2,620.68
2,663.14
2,640.81
2,609.55
2,597.52
2,636.08
2,638.47
2,656.18
2,612.35
2,658.73
3,116.37
3,128.46
3,162.90
3,118.27
3,110.85
3,212.17
3,125.12
3,184.87
3,149.24
3,218.30
3,160.58
3,207.96
3,192.89
3,167.61
3,144.82
3,195.77
3,168.98
3,131.47
3,117.02
3,163.30
3,166.17
3,187.42
3,134.82
3,190.48
27
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S
AREA
Sheringham
Sidestrand
Skeyton
Sloley
Smallburgh
Southrepps
Stalham
Stibbard
Stiffkey
Stody
Suffield
Sustead
Sutton
Swafield
Swanton Abbott
Swanton Novers
Tattersett
Thornage
Thorpe Market
Thursford
Trimingham
Trunch
Tunstead
Upper
Sheringham
Walcott
Walsingham
Warham
Wells-next-theSea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,091.09
1,048.36
1,036.59
1,046.06
1,048.54
1,054.91
1,067.41
1,056.00
1,053.14
1,047.76
1,045.02
1,042.14
1,053.77
1,056.00
1,052.55
1,081.24
1,036.29
1,039.43
1,056.58
1,047.54
1,067.62
1,062.79
1,045.62
1,272.94
1,223.09
1,209.35
1,220.40
1,223.30
1,230.73
1,245.31
1,232.00
1,228.66
1,222.39
1,219.19
1,215.83
1,229.39
1,232.00
1,227.97
1,261.44
1,209.00
1,212.67
1,232.68
1,222.13
1,245.56
1,239.93
1,219.90
1,454.79
1,397.81
1,382.12
1,394.74
1,398.06
1,406.55
1,423.21
1,408.00
1,404.18
1,397.02
1,393.36
1,389.52
1,405.02
1,408.00
1,403.40
1,441.65
1,381.72
1,385.90
1,408.78
1,396.72
1,423.49
1,417.06
1,394.17
1,636.64
1,572.54
1,554.88
1,569.09
1,572.81
1,582.37
1,601.12
1,584.00
1,579.71
1,571.65
1,567.53
1,563.21
1,580.65
1,584.00
1,578.82
1,621.86
1,554.43
1,559.14
1,584.87
1,571.31
1,601.43
1,594.19
1,568.44
2,000.34
1,922.00
1,900.41
1,917.77
1,922.33
1,934.01
1,956.92
1,936.01
1,930.75
1,920.90
1,915.87
1,910.59
1,931.91
1,936.00
1,929.68
1,982.27
1,899.86
1,905.62
1,937.07
1,920.50
1,957.30
1,948.46
1,916.98
2,364.04
2,271.45
2,245.94
2,266.46
2,271.84
2,285.64
2,312.73
2,288.01
2,281.80
2,270.16
2,264.21
2,257.98
2,283.16
2,288.00
2,280.53
2,342.68
2,245.29
2,252.10
2,289.26
2,269.68
2,313.18
2,302.73
2,265.52
2,727.74
2,620.91
2,591.47
2,615.15
2,621.36
2,637.28
2,668.53
2,640.01
2,632.85
2,619.41
2,612.55
2,605.36
2,634.42
2,640.00
2,631.38
2,703.10
2,590.72
2,598.57
2,641.46
2,618.86
2,669.05
2,656.99
2,614.07
3,273.29
3,145.09
3,109.77
3,138.18
3,145.63
3,164.74
3,202.24
3,168.01
3,159.42
3,143.30
3,135.06
3,126.43
3,161.31
3,168.00
3,157.65
3,243.72
3,108.87
3,118.29
3,169.75
3,142.63
3,202.86
3,188.39
3,136.88
1,066.22
1,050.26
1,067.51
1,072.48
1,243.92
1,225.30
1,245.42
1,251.23
1,421.62
1,400.34
1,423.34
1,429.98
1,599.33
1,575.39
1,601.26
1,608.72
1,954.73
1,925.47
1,957.10
1,966.22
2,310.14
2,275.56
2,312.94
2,323.71
2,665.55
2,625.65
2,668.77
2,681.21
3,198.66
3,150.78
3,202.53
3,217.45
1,067.54
1,060.09
1,069.77
1,052.13
1,034.80
1,060.08
1,046.43
1,045.72
1,245.47
1,236.78
1,248.06
1,227.48
1,207.27
1,236.76
1,220.84
1,220.01
1,423.39
1,413.46
1,426.36
1,402.84
1,379.74
1,413.44
1,395.24
1,394.30
1,601.32
1,590.14
1,604.65
1,578.19
1,552.21
1,590.12
1,569.65
1,568.59
1,957.17
1,943.51
1,961.24
1,928.90
1,897.14
1,943.48
1,918.46
1,917.16
2,313.02
2,296.88
2,317.83
2,279.62
2,242.08
2,296.84
2,267.27
2,265.74
2,668.87
2,650.24
2,674.42
2,630.33
2,587.01
2,650.20
2,616.09
2,614.32
3,202.64
3,180.29
3,209.31
3,156.39
3,104.42
3,180.24
3,139.30
3,137.18
All Other Parts of
the Council's Area 1,028.40 1,199.80 1,371.20 1,542.60 1,885.40 2,228.20 2,571.00 3,085.20
4.9
Excessiveness Determination
4.9.1 The Council’s basic amount of council tax as calculated in paragraph 4.6 (f) above is
the same as that calculated for 2015/16, and therefore within the 2.0% and £5 increase limit at
which a referendum would be required.
28
4.9.2 The Council has determined that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2016/17
is not excessive in accordance with principles approved under Section 52ZB Local
Government Finance Act 1992. As the billing authority, the Council has not been notified by a
major precepting authority that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for 2016/17 is
excessive and that the billing authority is not required to hold a referendum in accordance with
Section 52ZK of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
10)
The demand on the Collection Fund for 2016/17,
subject to any amendments as a result of final precepts still to be received be:
a. £5,473,605 for District purposes
b. £1,887,805.86 for Parish/Town Precepts;
137.
PAY REPORT COVERING THE PAY POLICY STATEMENT 2016/17 AND THE LIVING
WAGE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr T FitzPatrick, Portfolio Holder for HR, introduced this item. He explained that Section 38 of
the Localism Act 2011 required the Council to produce an annual pay policy statement for the
start of each financial year.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr J Rest and
RESOLVED
To adopt the attached Pay Policy Statement and to publish the statement for 2016/17 on the
Council’s website.
138.
BOUNDARY REVIEW
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, introduced this item. He explained that the Local Government
Boundary Commission for England had notified the Council that they would be undertaking a
review of ward boundaries during 2016. He advised Members that the Council could not opt
out of the process and all Members were encouraged to get involved and attend the upcoming
briefing by the Lead Commissioner.
139.
DEVOLUTION IN EAST ANGLIA
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick updated Members on the ongoing negotiations regarding the
devolution bid for the region. He explained that at the Government’s request the bid had now
been widened to include Cambridgeshire. Mr FitzPatrick said that he was committed to
pushing for double-devolution and had met with Norfolk MPs to ensure that they were fully
supportive of this approach. He concluded by saying that it was a very short timescale and
was fast-moving but reassured Members that everything would come back to Council for
approval.
Mr A Wells said that there was not much detail on the financial aspects of the proposed deal
and he asked what accountability mechanisms were in place. The Chief Executive replied that
she had recently received a document that provided some information on this but that there
was very little detail on the financial element. She agreed to circulate it to all Members.
Mr FitzPatrick said that the population size of the region was similar to that of Greater
Manchester and so there was a determination to fight for as much funding as possible.
Regarding governance, Mr FitzPatrick explained that the Leaders of each Council and the
Local Enterprise Partnership would form the new combined authority with one vote for each
seat.
29
140.
TO RECEIVE THE APPROVED MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
The minutes from the following meetings were received:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
141.
Audit Committee – 15 September 2015
Cabinet – 30 November 2015
Cabinet – 05 January 2016
Development Committee – 26 November 2015
Development Committee – 14 January 2016
Licensing & Appeals Committee – 16 November 2015
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 11 November 2015
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 09 December 2015
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
None
142.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
None
143.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None
144.
NOTICE OF MOTION
The following Notice of Motion had been proposed by Councillor S Butikofer and seconded by
Councillor D Young:
This Council Was concerned and saddened to learn of the death of another North Norfolk resident following
a road traffic accident on the A148 near Holt on New Year's Eve.
Notes that whilst important progress in reducing road casualties in Norfolk had previously been
made, this progress has ceased in recent years and numbers of casualties killed or seriously
injured have been increasing since December 2013.(Source www.think.norfolk.gov.uk)
Notes further that in the year to end December 2014 North Norfolk had the highest number of
road traffic casualties involving a car (75%) anywhere in Norfolk, and the highest percentage
of pedestrian casualties 12.5% against county averages of 70 and 9.7% respectively. (Source
http://www.norfolkinsight.org.uk)
Recognises the concerns of local residents that the A148 between the Holt roundabout and
Cromer is becoming more of an accident blackspot, with a steady increase in the number of
deaths and serious accidents along this stretch of the highway, tragically including three
deaths here in as many years.
Welcomes and applauds the work already undertaken by several campaign groups to raise
awareness of the dangers to pedestrians along this stretch of the road.
Recognises that the A148 between Holt and Cromer is a distance of just 10 miles but is
subject to 13 speed regulation changes, and that perhaps a more consistent and standardised
30
approach to speed regulation particularly at dangerous junctions and where people live may
provide some of the solution in this area.
Resolves to
1. request that Norfolk County Highways reconsider carrying out a road safety survey of the
A148 between Holt (Thornage road roundabout) and Cromer (Morrisons Junction) as a matter
of urgency.
2. request that the Chief Constable of Norfolk provide a report to the Council detailing action
currently being taken to enforce speed limits in the area, and the steps that the proposed new
Road Casualty Reduction Team will take in North Norfolk to address concerns regarding
highway safety.
Mrs S Butikofer introduced the Motion. She said that the issue had been raised with the Police
and Crime Commissioner when he recently attended the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
He had provided a written response, which would be circulated to Members. Mrs Butikofer
said that the A148 was considered to be the main arterial route in North Norfolk despite being
classed as a rural road and it was time for a joined up approach to tackle the rising accident
rate.
Mr J Punchard said that he wished to propose an amendment to the first recommendation. He
felt that the road safety survey should be extended as far the Tattersett junction just past
Fakenham as in his experience as a retained fireman, there were often accidents along this
stretch of road as well as along the Fakenham bypass. Mr P Rice seconded the amendment.
Mrs Butikofer said that she was happy to include the amendment.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that he was pleased that the amendment had been accepted and he was
familiar with the stretch of road referred to by Mr Punchard as it was in his County Council
ward. He added that adjustments to the speed limits between Fakenham and Swaffham so
that they were consistent had led to a reduction in the number of accidents.
Mrs M Prior, local Member for Holt, said that she was not aware of any accidents at the
Thornage Road roundabout. She acknowledged that the number of changes in the speed limit
together with a proliferation of advertisement hoardings could be causing an increase in
accidents. She concluded by saying that she did not accept that the accident numbers that
were being quoted.
Mr N Smith said that the A140 was also a dangerous road.
Mr D Young seconded the amended motion. He said that the junction at West Beckham was
very dangerous and his own ward of High Kelling had raised concerns about speeding. He
agreed that the constant change in speed limits – 13 in total – exacerbated the problem but it
was also worth noting that both of the deaths that had occurred along the A148 had involved
people getting off buses.
Mr A Wells read out a statement from the local member for Holt, Mr P W High in support pf the
motion. Mr High singled out the speed limit on Letheringsett Hill and the junction between
Kelling and High Kelling as being particular areas of concerns.
It was proposed by Mrs S Butikofer, seconded by Mr D Young and
RESOLVED to
31
1. request that Norfolk County Highways reconsider carrying out a road safety survey of the
A148 between Cromer (Morrisons Junction) and Fakenham (Tattersett junction) as a matter of
urgency.
2. request that the Chief Constable of Norfolk provide a report to the Council detailing action
currently being taken to enforce speed limits in the area, and the steps that the proposed new
Road Casualty Reduction Team will take in North Norfolk to address concerns regarding
highway safety.
145.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
None
The meeting concluded at 9.15 pm.
_________________________
Chairman
32
Minutes Appendix A
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: Agenda Item 10 – Independent Remuneration Panel
Date: 23 February 2016
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
X
Oliver, J
X
Butikofer, S
X
Palmer, B
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
X
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
Punchard, J
X
English. J
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
X
Rice, P
X
Gay, V R
X
Green, A R
Seward, E
Against
Abst
X
Shaw, S
X
Shepherd, R
X
Hannah, B J
Smith, B
X
Hester, S
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
X
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
X
Uprichard, V
X
Grove-Jones, P
Knowles, M
X
X
Lee, J H A
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
Moore, A
Moore, P W
Northam, W J
Williams, G
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yiasimi, A
Young, D
X
X
recorded votes form
33
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: Agenda Item 14 – Budget – recommendations 1-7
Date: 23 February 2016
For
Arnold, S
Against
X
Butikofer, S
X
Abst
For
Oliver, J
X
Palmer, B
X
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
X
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
Punchard, J
X
English. J
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
X
Rice, P
X
Gay, V R
X
Green, A R
Seward, E
X
Shepherd, R
X
Hannah, B J
Smith, B
X
Hester, S
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
X
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
Knowles, M
X
Uprichard, V
X
Lee, J H A
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
Moore, A
X
Williams, G
Moore, P W
X
Yiasimi, A
X
Young, D
X
Northam, W J
Abst
X
Shaw, S
Grove-Jones, P
Against
X
X
X
recorded votes form
34
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: Agenda Item 14 – Budget – recommendation 8
Date: 23 February 2016
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
X
Oliver, J
X
Butikofer, S
X
Palmer, B
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
X
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
Punchard, J
X
English. J
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
X
Rice, P
X
Gay, V R
X
Seward, E
X
Shaw, S
X
Shepherd, R
X
Hannah, B J
Smith, B
X
Hester, S
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
X
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
Green, A R
Grove-Jones, P
Knowles, M
X
X
Lee, J H A
Against
Abst
Uprichard, V
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
Moore, A
X
Williams, G
X
Moore, P W
X
Yiasimi, A
X
Northam, W J
X
Young, D
X
recorded votes form
35
COUNCIL
RECORDED VOTE FORM
Motion: Agenda Item 14 – Council Tax setting – recommendations 9 & 10
Date: 23 February 2016
For
Against
Abst
For
Arnold, S
X
Oliver, J
X
Butikofer, S
x
Palmer, B
X
ClaussenReynolds, A
Coppack, N
X
Pearce, N
X
X
Perry-Warnes, G
Cox, H
X
Price, R
X
Dixon, N
X
Prior, M
X
Punchard, J
X
English. J
Fitch-Tillett, A
X
Rest, J
X
FitzPatrick, T
X
Reynolds, R
X
FitzPatrick, V
X
Rice, P
X
Gay, V R
X
Seward, E
X
Shaw, S
X
Shepherd, R
X
Hannah, B J
Smith, B
X
Hester, S
Smith, D
X
High, P W
Smith, N
X
Jarvis, B
Stevens, R
Green, A R
Grove-Jones, P
Knowles, M
X
X
Lee, J H A
Against
Abst
Uprichard, V
Walker, L
Lloyd, N
X
Ward, S
McGoun, B M
X
Wells, A
X
Moore, A
X
Williams, G
X
Moore, P W
X
Yiasimi, A
X
Northam, W J
X
Young, D
X
recorded votes form
36
Agenda Item No____10________
Compulsory Purchase of long-term empty properties
Summary:
This report makes the case for compulsory purchase of
a number of long-term empty houses that have been
considered by the Enforcement Board, where it was felt
that without this action the properties are unlikely to be
returned to use in the near future.
Options
The Enforcement Board has discussed all properties
identified in this report in detail and various options
have been considered. Throughout the process
owners, or their representatives, have been given every
opportunity to progress their properties and return them
to use but, in the opinion of the Board, have failed to
take decisive action likely to achieve the desired end
result of bringing them back into use.
All properties in this report have been empty in excess
of 5 years and two of the properties have never been
occupied since they were built in 1999.
Owners have either proved difficult to engage or have
made promises to the Council that have not been kept,
which is why the Board considers that the properties
will not be returned to use without more direct
intervention by the Council.
Prior to seeking an order for compulsory purchase from
the secretary of state, the Council would be expected to
have attempted to reach a voluntary agreement for sale
with the current owners, which would be based on an
independent market valuation.
It may be possible to enter into an arrangement with a
purchaser for a back-to-back sale following compulsory
purchase. If not, then once acquired, the properties
would be sold on the open market by the method likely
to attract greatest interest from potential developers.
37
Recommendations:
1. That officers are authorised to seek a voluntary
agreement from the owners of the properties to
sell them to the Council and to complete the
sale within agreed timescales.
2. If no such agreement is reached, and in the case
of the Beeston Common properties, no valid
planning application is received for the site by
the agreed date, that officers are authorised to
proceed with applications to the Secretary of
State for Compulsory Purchase of the following
properties:
a. 37 Beeston Road, Sheringham
b. 2 and 2A Stirling Road, Sculthorpe
c. 55 and 56 Beeston Common, Sheringham
Note: these addresses are taken from the Land
Registry records and may differ from postal
addresses for service of documents, Parishes
and Council wards.
3. That officers are authorised to take necessary
steps for the acquired properties to be sold on
at the earliest opportunity with binding
conditions that will make clear the Council’s
expectation for the properties be returned to
use as soon as realistically achievable.
4. That the purchases will be funded from capital
resources from which virement of the necessary
funds is authorised.
5. To cap the costs of compulsory purchase at the
valuation plus CPO costs at the upper limit
identified in this report.
6. To
recommend
to
Full
Council
the
establishment of a capital budget of £630,000
specifically for financing compulsory purchase
of these properties.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
1. There is an expectation by the Secretary of State
that Councils will seek to reach voluntary
agreement on purchases prior to a Compulsory
Purchase being authorised.
2. To enable the properties to be brought back into
use, thus reducing the number of long-term empty
properties in the area and increasing housing
provision.
3. As for 2 above.
4. To make the necessary financial provision for
purchase
5. To ensure CPO remains a cost effective option.
6. To provide the necessary finance for CPO to be
completed.
38
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
North Norfolk Empty Homes Policy
Enforcement Board Briefing Note (Exempt Appendix A)
Section 17 Housing Act 1985
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Judy Oliver
Sheringham, The Raynhams
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Will Abë, 01263 516080,
william.abe@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Council’s Empty Homes Policy states that effective use of existing
housing stock is key to achieving the stated ambition that ‘Everyone in North
Norfolk should have the opportunity to buy or rent a decent home at a price
they can afford, in a community where they want to live and work.’
1.2
There are currently more than 500 long-term empty properties within North
Norfolk. Long-term empty properties are defined as those empty for 6
months or more.
1.3
The following properties are proposed for CPO:
1.3.1 37 Beeston Road, Sheringham. This mid-terraced property has been empty
in excess of 10 years following the death of the owner. Officers have
attended the property to deal with rats, building structure concerns and
neglect. The family solicitor has made repeated assurances to the council
that the property would be put up for sale when probate was obtained. In
April 2015, we were informed that probate had been granted but the property
is still not being marketed for sale. See Exempt Appendix A for a breakdown
of costs
1.3.2 2 Stirling Road, Sculthorpe. In the parish of Tattersett, this property is the
middle of three terraced link houses built in 1999. The properties were all
granted planning permission in the mid-1990s. The first property was
completed and occupied from 1999 but this property was only partially
completed and has been left waiting for the kitchen and bathrooms to be
installed along with other minor works. Officers have made several attempts
to engage the owner but apart from one site meeting in 2015 the owner has
ignored all correspondence. A warrant of entry was granted by magistrates to
allow officers to inspect the property and consider options. After being unable
to secure a Registered Housing partner, required in legislation to apply for an
Empty Dwelling Management Order (EDMO) the Enforcement Board
considers that Compulsory Purchase of the property is the only viable option.
See Exempt Appendix A for a breakdown of costs.
1.3.3 2A Stirling Road, Sculthorpe. The history for this property is as per the
property above, but has only been completed to external shell and first floor
joists stage. It has hitherto only been used for storing building materials for
the site. See Exempt Appendix A for a breakdown of costs.
1.3.4 55 Beeston Common, Sheringham. One of a pair of semi-detached, flint
and brick cottage, that is overgrown and poorly maintained. Empty since
2010. The current owners inherited the properties in 2010. The family solicitor
39
has repeatedly told the Council that the properties are to be sold but a
protracted boundary dispute has prevented them offering the properties for
sale.
In December 2015, after the owners were told that direct action by the
Council could force a change in ownership, the solicitor informed the Council
that the boundary dispute had been officially resolved. Subsequently, the
owners made officers aware of the intention to submit a planning application
to develop the site which had not previously been discussed. Because of the
extended delays the Council has now informed the Solicitor that only a valid
planning application received by the end of February 2016 would delay direct
intervention. See Exempt Appendix A for a breakdown of costs.
1.3.5 56 Beeston Common, Sheringham. As above, but has been empty at least
since the Council Tax records were uploaded onto the current record system
in 2005. See Exempt Appendix A for a breakdown of costs.
2.
The Case for Compulsory Purchase (CPO)
2.1
Section 17 of the 1985 Housing Act states:
A local authority can acquire:
 A house, or houses (and land), for the provision or improvement of
housing accommodation (whether by itself or someone else),
but the action must achieve a quantitative or qualitative housing gain
2.2
There is a quantitative gain in compulsorily acquiring these properties in
North Norfolk, where it is widely accepted that there is a shortage of housing.
2.3
The long-term nature of a property’s empty status, along with the reticent
nature of the owners and a lack of viable cost effective alternatives, mean a
CPO is the approach most likely to deliver the Councils preferred outcome.
2.4
CPO can take a significant amount of time to progress to approval stage by
the Secretary of State but if approved gives Council a greater influence on
the outcome than other approaches.
3
Financial Implications and Risks
3.1
There will be costs attributable to a CPO. The level of costs will depend on
relevant objections to the Secretary of State once we have submitted our
CPO and obviously, any Public Inquiry would make CPOs more expensive
and extend the process. The costs in Exempt Appendix A assume a worstcase scenario.
3.2
Some or all costs may be recoverable if we have a back-to-back purchaser
on board e.g. Housing Association or a developer, with an indemnity for them
to cover our CPO costs. Any revenue costs that are not recoverable will be
funded from the Enforcement Board reserve. Associated revenue costs could
include a Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) charge from the funding of the
capital purchase (through internal borrowing) should the property remain with
the Council for a year or more.
3.3
The law states that owners whose properties are the subject of a CPO are
entitled to a Basic Home loss payment, which is typically 7.5% of the sale
value. Recent changes to CPO guidance states that an owner should still be
paid the compensation they would be entitled to under CPO, even where
purchase of land (or property) is by agreement. In the case of the owners
accepting a voluntary offer, the Council will only incur the normal costs of
purchase.
3.4
Compulsory purchase of these properties will see them being sold to replace
the capital resources used for this scheme. The return to use of these
40
properties will also accrue New Homes Bonus to the Council under the
current scheme.
3.5
The resale of these properties will be dependent on the housing market and
the timescale for such will have cost liability implications should there be any
delays.
3.6
Currently, the Council has not allocated a capital budget for CPO activity and
a recommendation is contained within this this report for budget of £630,000
to be allocated for this purpose.
4
Sustainability
4.1
The bringing back of empty properties represents a far more sustainable use
of resources and land.
4.2
These properties occupy a prominent locations and taking action that will
lead to them being refurbished and reoccupied, making a significant
regeneration contribution to the area.
5
Equality and Diversity
5.1
CPO interferes with human rights, notably Article 1 of Protocol 1 and Article
8, but a CPO process, where used correctly, constitutes a lawful interference
by the State.
5.2
Empty homes are a wasted resource and have the potential to adversely
affect local housing markets. This proposed course of action will bring
several long-term empty properties on to the market and will create a
housing opportunity that has been denied to households seeking housing.
6
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
6.1
Empty homes have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the
neighbourhood and can attract vandalism; fly tipping and other forms of antisocial behaviour as well as reducing the value of the adjoining properties.
This proposed course of action will reduce the possibility of unauthorised
entry, the risk of injury and criminal damage and general unsightliness.
7
Conclusions
7.1
The Council has made significant efforts to engage the owners of these
properties and to encourage them to take action to bring their properties
back into use. These efforts have proved unsuccessful and after considering
and discounting all other options, officers believe a Compulsory Purchase
Order is the most likely way to ensure these long-term empty properties are
returned to use.
41
Agenda Item No____11________
North Norfolk Big Society Fund
Summary:
This report provides an update on the operation of the
Big Society Fund during the last financial year. It also
proposes that a review of the grant process in relation to
Arts development and Community Transport is
undertaken to align it more closely to the Big Society
Fund grant application process.
Conclusions:
The North Norfolk Big Society Fund has successfully
achieved its expected outcomes following its fourth year
of operation. The current management arrangements,
administrative and decision making process are
considered effective. The Fund has enabled a wide
variety of projects to be implemented for the benefit of
communities across North Norfolk.
The value of Arts development and need for Community
Transport services is recognised. A review of the
application process for applying for an Arts development
or community transport grant will be undertaken to
consider whether it should be aligned more closely to
the Big Society Fund application process.
Recommendations:
Cabinet are requested to note the success of the Big
Society Fund and to recommend to Council:
1. That the Big Society Fund grant scheme should
continue at its current level of funding (£225,000)
for another year;
2. That a review of the grant process in relation to
Arts and Community Transport is undertaken to
align it more closely to the Big Society Fund
grant application process;
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To ensure Cabinet are informed about the operation of
the Big Society Fund during its fourth year.
To ensure that NNDC offers a consistent and equitable
application process for all community grants.
42
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not
published elsewhere)
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr. Tom FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Sonia Shuter 01263 516173, sonia.shuter@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
North Norfolk Big Society Fund
A district with vibrant communities and where healthy lifestyles are accessible
to all is identified as a key priority in North Norfolk District Council’s (NNDC’s)
Corporate Plan 2015 – 2019. The Corporate Plan confirms our commitment to
support local residents and their communities by continuing to operate the Big
Society Fund to meet local needs and aspirations
The North Norfolk Big Society Fund was established in 2012 to help build
strong communities in North Norfolk. Its aim is to help communities to develop
new and innovative projects which will improve their social and economic
wellbeing.
A review of the third year of operation of the North Norfolk Big Society Fund
was presented to Cabinet in March 2015. It concluded that the Fund was
achieving its purpose and has helped a wide variety of valuable community
projects to be implemented, helping to establish and nurture the ethos of ‘the
Big Society’ in North Norfolk.
It was recommended and agreed by Cabinet to continue the Big Society Fund
grant scheme at the current level of funding (£225,000) for another year
The purpose of this annual report is to provide an overview of how the grant
fund has been used and to review its effectiveness.
Arts Development and Community Transport
NNDC’s art development budget of £36,510 is used to make funding awards
to a number of strategic arts organisations that provide arts and cultural
services in North Norfolk. These organisations often use this funding as
leverage to secure funds from a variety of external sources ensuring the value
of the District Council investment is increased significantly.
Unlike the Big Society Fund there is currently no formal publicly advertised
application process for applying for arts development funding. The decision as
to which organisations receive a funding award is made by officers and
notified to the Portfolio Member. The majority of the funding awards have
43
historically been given to the same strategic arts organisations. Requests for
one off arts development grants are submitted throughout the year by a range
of organisations and are funded subject to budget and identified outcomes. A
monitored Investment Agreement with identified outputs and outcomes is put
in place for any organisations in receipt of arts development funding.
NNDC’s community transport budget of £17,000 is used to make funding
awards to a number of community transport providers that provide community
transport services in North Norfolk
Currently there is no formal publicly advertised application process for
applying for a community transport grant. The decision as to which
organisations receive a funding award is made by officers. Funding awards
are given each year to the same community transport organisations upon
receipt of agreed monitoring information.
Whilst the main focus of this report is the annual review of the Big Society
Fund. Information about arts development and community transport funding
has been included to enable Cabinet to recommend to Council that a review
of the process for awarding this funding is undertaken. If agreed a subsequent
report with recommendations would be presented to Cabinet in October.
2.
North Norfolk Big Society Fund Grant Scheme
During its fourth year of operation the Fund has continued to be managed and
administered internally. The grant process includes:

Publicity and promotion of the Big Society Fund

Advising and supporting organisations throughout the application process

Effective communication with Members at all stages of the grant process

Preparing and presenting reports to the BSF Grant Panel

Monitoring of applications awarded funding to ensure projects are
completed in accordance with Fund Terms and Conditions

Managing on going PR and media interest, supporting projects with
publicity and promotion, new releases, opening events etc.
The continued internal management and administration of the fund has
enabled the Council to:

Proactively promote the Big Society Fund as an NNDC initiative

Significantly increase NNDC’s engagement with Town and Parish
Councils, as well voluntary and community groups throughout the whole
of the grant process from pre-application to project implementation and
completion

Provide officers with a greater understanding of the need for projects, the
challenges encountered by applicants and offer appropriate advice and
support
44

Increase local Councillors’ opportunities for engagement in community
initiatives operating in their wards

Maintain effective and regular contact with community organisations
awarded a grants, ensuring their projects progress in accordance with
grant Terms and Conditions

Increase the Council’s role in publicising community projects supported by
the Fund – helping to raise the profile of the community organisation and
the grant-funded project. This helps reinforce NNDC’s role as a
community leader and is a highly effective way of promoting the grant
scheme to attract appropriate future applications.
Overview of proposals submitted / approved 2015/16
The politically balanced, Panel that considers the BSF grant applications is
appointed annually by Full Council and is chaired by the Portfolio holder for
the Big Society. Four Panel meetings have been held so far this financial year
(in June 2015, September 2015, November 2015 and March 2016). This year
35 organisations have made grant applications, totalling £279,013.85, 3
applications were ineligible to be presented by the Panel, 3 applications were
not awarded a grant, 2 applications were deferred pending further information
and 27 were approved (amounting to grant awards totalling £154,438.42)
Last year 61 organisations made BSF grant applications, 16 applications
were ineligible to be presented to the Panel, 8 applications were not awarded
a grant, 1 application was deferred and 36 were approved.
Whilst the number of applications to the Big Society Fund has reduced in the
last year this is predominantly due to a significant reduction in the number of
ineligible applications being made. Organisations are requested to contact
NNDC and discuss their potential project prior to submitting an application.
This has resulted in a reduction in the time spent processing ineligible
applications. In 2014 / 15 26% of applications submitted were ineligible to be
presented to the Panel. In 2015 / 16 this has reduced to 8%. Similarly the
support and advice given to eligible applications prior to submission has
reduced the number of unsuccessful applications. In 2014 / 15 only 59% of
applications were successful. In 2015 / 16 this increased to 77%.
Since the Fund started in 2012, 67 parishes have received at least one BSF
grant. Proactive work has been undertaken in the last year to encourage
Parishes that have not previously been awarded a BSF to apply. In the last
year 5 Parishes who had not previously received funding made a successful
grant application.
45
Type of Organisation Applying to Big Society Fund 2015-2016
Village
Hall/Playing
Field
8%
Voluntary
Organisation
3%
Community Club
11%
Community
Group
17%
Parish Council
26%
Company
Interest
Company
3%
Parish/
Community
Church
3%
Not for profit
Company
Limited by
Local Charity Guarantee
3%
23%
National Charity
3%
The vast majority of successful grant applications continue to relate to improvements
to village halls or other community buildings, play equipment, sport and recreational
facilities. These generally match the purpose of the fund as they are able to clearly
demonstrate benefit to the wider community.
Number of Successful Applications (by Theme Supported by
the Big Society Grant Fund 2015-16
Sports &
Recreation
13
Facilities &
Services
10
Cultural
Initiatives
4
46
Value of Grants Awarded 2015-16
£10,000 £15,000
6
Totalling
£77,999.00
Less than £5,000
14
Totalling
£32,787.49
£5,000 - £9,999
7
Totalling
£46,651.93
Review of the application process and procedures
A number of applications were being submitted for projects whose aim met
the objectives of the BSF but the purpose for which the grant would be used
e.g. staff salaries, core revenue costs was not supported. With the agreement
of the Chair of the Big Society Fund minor amendments have been made to
the Prospectus in the last year to help clarify eligibility.
In response to feedback from grant applicants the BSF application and end of
grant forms are now available electronically.
The Big Society Fund was examined as part of an internal audit of
Community support activities in November 2014 resulting in an “adequate
assurance”. The internal audit did however give rise to one recommendation:
“A detailed policy should be produced and approved that supports the
monitoring of grant expenditure that allows the Council to reclaim
grants in situations where the terms and conditions of the grants have
been breached. If the grant is spent in breach of the terms and
conditions agreed, there is a risk that the Council is unable to recover
the grant already spent.”
In response to this, in August 2015 a Big Society Fund Grant Recovery Policy
was written which has been approved by Internal Audit and is now being used
for all approved grants.
3.
Summary
The Big Society Fund is widely promoted across North Norfolk through a range of
medium and continues to achieve its aim of helping build strong communities in
North Norfolk and demonstrates NNDC’s priority in the Corporate Plan for a
district with vibrant communities and where healthy lifestyles are accessible to all.
47
Feedback from Members who attend project opening events and the End of
Grant reports submitted when a project has been completed clearly demonstrate
the value and benefit of the BSF and the difference funded projects are making to
their local communities.
The importance of the BSF is highlighted by many organisations who continue to
report that access to grant funding has reduced both locally and nationally. As an
example the Norfolk Community Foundation manages thirty seven grants
applicable to the North Norfolk area but currently only nine are open for
applications. Therefore the BSF which offers grants of up to £15,000 is probably
the most significant generic fund available within North Norfolk.
4.
.Financial Implications and Risks
Funding to implement the recommendations set out in this report is already
accounted for in the Budget.
5.
Sustainability
The provision set out in this report take account of sustainability and are
aimed around supporting the overall sustainability of local communities.
6.
Equality and Diversity
The recommendation to review the application process for arts development
and community transport grants to bring it in line with the BSF would result in
a more equitable, open and transparent process.
7.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
There are no crime and disorder implications
48
Agenda Item 14
SUBJECT MATTER
To provide an update to Members regarding the Devolution agenda.
1.
Introduction
1.1.
As Members will be aware, since the autumn of last year Norfolk and Suffolk
have been working collectively on a devolution proposal which culminated in a
draft submission to government in November 2015. The Leader of the Council
was authorised by this Council to work collaboratively on a devolution
submission. This formed the basis of subsequent negotiations although no
formal feedback was received from central government.
1.2.
The geography of the devolution discussion then changed following a meeting
between representatives of Norfolk and Suffolk, together with the Leaders of
the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Authorities, the Secretary of State and
Lord Heseltine on Monday 15th February 2016. An outcome of this meeting
was that Cambridge, Norfolk, Peterborough and Suffolk were encouraged to
develop their collective ‘big and ambitious asks’ of Government for one
combined devolution deal.
1.3.
In the subsequent weeks a number of meetings were held between Treasury
Officials and Chief Executives as well as Leaders meeting with the
Commercial Secretary to the Treasury on 8 March with a final submission
deadline for a Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough proposal of
10 March 2016.
2.
Background - current national picture of development
2.1.
Following introduction of the Bill in May 2015, local areas were invited to
submit proposals for devolution as part of central government’s consultation
on the Spending Review (that closed on 4 September 2015). Government
received 38 responses from local government areas on devolution that varied
from detailed to high-level expressions of interest.
2.2.
Since the announcement of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority
devolution deal in the 2014 Autumn Statement, Government has announced
completion of six additional deals, which are:

Cornwall (16 July 2015)

Sheffield City Region (2 October 2015)

North East Combined Authority (23 October 2015)

Tees Valley (23 October 2015)

West Midlands (17 November 2015)
49

Liverpool City Region (17 November 2015)
2.3.
The announced deals were subject to the Cities and Local Government
Devolution Bill gaining Royal Assent, which it did in March 2016. They are
similar in content, with a focus on economic growth. Cornwall is currently the
only non-metropolitan area to have a deal announced.
2.4.
The budget on March 16th saw further deal announcements (subject to
ratification by Councils) with the requirement for each to have a directly
elected mayor for the following areas:
 East Anglia
 West of England
 Greater Lincolnshire
2.5
These announcements are subject to further work and require ratification by
each of the individual Councils. The East Anglia Devolution Agreement is
available to view at (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/east-angliadevolution-deal) but each of the 22 Councils forming part of the deal must now
decide as to whether it wishes to be part of the Combined Authority by the end
of June 2016.
2.6
The introduction to the devolution document explains that this is an enabling
document for a proposed agreement between Government, the 22 local
authorities covering Cambridgeshire, Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk and
the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership to devolve a range of funding,
powers and responsibilities. Building on but separate to the Greater Ipswich
City Deal, Greater Norwich City Deals agreed in 2013 and the Greater
Cambridge City Deal agreed in 2014 and the New Anglia and Greater
Cambridge Greater Peterborough Growth Deals agreed in 2014 and 2015.
2.7
The Devolution Agreement sets out the transfer of resources, powers and
accountability from central Government to local partners; but requires each
Leader to take this proposal to their Council for full debate and consultation
with relevant local stakeholders.
2.8
In preparing the secondary legislation, to which all Councils to which it applies
must consent, and through which the deal will be implemented, the
Government will have regard both to the agreement and to any resolutions the
Councils concerned may pass when considering the agreement. In return for
this level of devolution and local control, and subject to the requirement for
each Council to individually agree to join, Cambridgeshire, Peterborough,
Norfolk and Suffolk will establish a Combined Authority, with a directly Elected
Mayor in place by 2017 with interim arrangements in place in 2016/17.
3.0
What powers, responsibilities and freedoms are Norfolk, Suffolk,
Peterborough and Cambridgeshire asking for through their devolution
deal and what is the ambition for the region?
3.1
The purpose of the agreement is to accelerate growth in the local and national
economy whilst improving the life chances and quality of life for every resident
50
in each of the three counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Unitary. Collectively these areas represent East Anglia, a
geography that is known locally, nationally and abroad by business, residents
& visitors alike. It is a diverse and dynamic area including cities, rural and
coastal communities with a globally significant economic offer.
3.2
A summary of the proposed devolution agreement is provided on page 10 of
the document and is replicated below.
A new, directly elected Mayor will act as Chair to The East Anglia Combined
Authority and will exercise the following powers and functions devolved from
central Government:
 Responsibility for a multi-year, consolidated and, devolved local
transport budget
 Responsibility for a new Key Route Network of local authority roads
that will be managed and maintained by the Combined Authority on
behalf of the Mayor
 Powers over strategic planning and housing, including £175m (out to
20/21) ringfenced funding to deliver an ambitious target of new homes,
the responsibility to create a non-statutory spatial framework for East
Anglia and to develop with government a Land Commission and to
chair The East Anglia Joint Assets Board for economic assets
The new East Combined Authority, working with the Mayor, will receive the
following powers:
 Control of a new additional £30 million a year funding allocation over 30
years, to be invested to The East Anglia Single Investment Fund, to
boost growth
 Responsibility for chairing an area-based review of 16+ skills provision,
the outcomes of which will be taken forward in line with the principles of
the devolved arrangements, and devolved 19+ adult skills funding from
2018/19.
 Joint responsibility with the government to co-design the new National
Work and Health Programme designed to focus on those with a health
condition or disability and the very long term unemployed.
3.3
Further powers may be agreed over time and included in future legislation.
3.4
In summary, the deal represents an invitation to local Councils and Business
to come together and set out a compelling Business Plan of Connected
Growth for how this programme can be implemented and identify further
reforms and mechanisms for unlocking new avenues of investment. A
comprehensive business plan for East Anglia is to be drawn up over the next
six months. It is intended that this business plan would also form the basis of
a second devolution proposal from East Anglia in the Autumn.
4.0
Next steps
4.1
The Deal document is non-binding and requires full debate and consultation
with local stakeholders before a final decision can be taken by each individual
51
Council including North Norfolk District Council. Therefore, despite a
commitment to work on a second devolution proposal, the timetable to agree
the current document is as follows:
• March – June – undertake governance review with stakeholder
engagement
• June – July – agreement of participating authorities
• Early July – publish scheme for consultation
• Beginning Sept – publish consultation summary
• Sept – draft order shared with participating Authorities
• October – approval process for draft Order and final decision
4.2
In addition there are a number of workstreams which need to be fully
developed to inform a decision, of which the most important relates to the
governance of the Combined Authority and the role of a Directly Elected
Mayor. Each Council needs to be able to input to the shaping of the
governance and constitutional arrangements of a Combined Authority.
4.3
This Council is therefore not currently being asked to agree to the devolution
proposal, but rather to agree that there should be full consultation with
stakeholders as part of a sound democratic process. This will be a two step
process with some awareness raising between now and the end of June and
then the second stage following June requires us, as a minimum, to consult
with statutory partners (ie Police, Health) and others who the Council defines
as key stakeholders, such as businesses, voluntary sector, parishes and the
general public. Only after this has taken place is the Council asked to come to
a view as to whether this deal is in the best interests of the residents of North
Norfolk. The governance work is also critical to understanding whether this
Council wishes to form part of the Combined Authority. There are further legal
questions which also require clarifying in relation to the joining of a Combined
Authority and the withdrawal from such a body.
5.0
Conclusion
5.1
Due to the tight timescales which were imposed to take this process forward,
it was not possible to bring a report to Council ahead of the need to sign the
non-binding document prior to the Budget. However it was made clear by this
Council when it signed the proposal document, subject to caveats, its
dissatisfaction with the process and timeframes. Council is being updated as
to the current position and it is recommended that it continues to input to the
work being progressed to allow a full and proper debate to take place in June
prior to any formal consultation.
52