Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
18 February 2013
A meeting of the North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 27 February 2013 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 Father Denys Lloyd, Parish Priest, Our Lady and St. Joseph, Sheringham and
Cromer
2.
PRESENTATION – DECLARING INTERESTS
A brief presentation by the Monitoring Officer aimed at bringing Members up to date
with recent changes regarding the declaration of interests.
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
(attached – page 1)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 19 December 2012 and
the special meeting of the Council on 23 January 2013.
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
a) To appoint Mr T FitzPatrick to replace Mr R Oliver on the Joint Staff
Consultative Committee
b) To appoint Mr R Oliver as a substitute on the Joint Staff Consultative
Committee
c) To appoint Mr N Lloyd as a substitute on the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee
d) To appoint Mr R Wright to a vacancy on the Norfolk Skills Partnership
e) To appoint Mr R Oliver to a vacancy on the Norfolk Parking Partnership
Joint Committee
10.
COUNCIL TAX 2013/2014
(attached – p.15)
(Appendix A – p. 35) (Appendix B – p.36) (Appendix C – p.40)
Summary:
Options considered:
This report presents for approval the budget for
2013/14 and to make statutory calculations in
accordance with the Local Government Finance Act
1992 to set the Council Tax for 2013/14. The report
also includes the Chief Financial Officer’s report on
the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of
reserves.
It is a statutory requirement to set the budget each
year, whilst there are options around the content of
the budget presented for approval, the budget now
recommended reflects the recommendations made by
Cabinet at its meeting on 4 February 2013.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of the Council’s Chief Financial Officer
that the budget for 2013/14 has been set within a
robust framework and the impact of this resolution will
maintain an adequate level of financial reserves held
by the Council.
Recommendations:
That having considered the Chief Financial
Officer’s report on the robustness of the estimates
and the adequacy of the proposed financial
reserves, the following be approved:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The General Fund Revenue Budget for
2013/14 (Appendix A) ;
The Policy Framework for the Earmarked
Reserves and the Optimum Level of the
General Reserve 2013/14 to 2016/17
(Appendix B);
The level of the General Reserve
maintained at a minimum of £1.6 million;
The General and Earmarked Reserves are
employed as shown in the Reserves
Statement (Appendix C);
That members undertake the council tax
and statutory calculations set out at
section 4, and set the Council Tax for
2013/14;
The final demand on the Collection Fund
for District purposes (NNDC) for 2013/14 be
£5,082,610;
The final demand on the collection fund for
Parish/Town precepts for 2013/14 be
£1,456,649 (subject to final confirmation of
remaining parishes – to be updated at the
meeting).
To approve the 2013/14 budget for revenue and
capital and to make the statutory calculations in
respect of the 2013/14 Council tax.
11.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer,
telephone number,
and e-mail:
Karen Sly
01263 516243
karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
DRAFT PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS
(attached – p. 43)
(Appendix D – p.45)
Summary:
12.
A draft Programme of Meetings for 2013/14 has been
prepared and circulated for consultation and is attached at
Appendix D.
Recommendations:
That Members adopt the Programme of Meetings for
2013 – 2014
Cabinet member(s):
Wards affected
Mr R Oliver
All
Contact Officer,
telephone number,
and e-mail:
Alison Argent,
01263 516058
alison.argent@north-norfolk.gov.uk
DUNTON PARISH COUNCIL – REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION
(attached – p.46)
13.
Summary:
The report considers a request from Dunton Parish Council for
its own dissolution.
Conclusions:
That Full Council should consider the request.
Recommendation:
That an Order be made under Section 10 of the Local
Government Act 1972 to dissolve Dunton Parish Council
and transfer all assets of the Parish Council to the Parish
meeting.
Contact Officer,
telephone number,
and e-mail:
Emma Duncan,
01263 516045
emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
PAY POLICY STATEMENT
Summary:
Conclusions:
(attached – p.49)
(Appendix E – p.51)
Section 38 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) requires the
Council to produce an annual pay policy statement (“the
statement”) for the start of each financial year. The attached
statement is drawn up in compliance with the Act to cover the
period 2013/14. It is a legal requirement that Full Council
formally signs off this statement and the responsibility cannot
be devolved to any other person or committee.
The attached statement sets out current remuneration
arrangements and is not a change to existing policy/practices.
Recommendations: To adopt the attached Pay Policy Statement and to
publish the statement for 2013/14 on the Council’s
website.
14.
Cabinet Member(s)
Councillor Tom FitzPatrick
Wards affected:
All
Contact Officer,
telephone number
and e-mail:
Julie Cooke
01263 516040
julie.cooke@north-norfolk.gov.uk
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 7 JANUARY 2013
MINUTE 101: DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION (DMO) FOR NORTH
NORFOLK
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL:
That the release of £25,000 per annum over the periods 2012/13, 2013/14 and
2014/15 (£75,000 for three years) from the NNDC Community Fund and £10,000 per
annum over the periods 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 (£30,000 for three years) from
the Economic and Tourism Development Unit budget be authorised as the Council’s
contribution to support Visit North Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd.
15.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 4 FEBRUARY 2013
a) ITEM 8: 2013/14 BASE BUDGET AND PROJECTIONS 2014/15 TO 2016/17
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL:
a) The 2013/14 revenue account budget as outlined at Appendix A and that the
surplus of £240,009 be allocated to the general reserve;
b) The demand on the Collection Fund, subject to any amendments as a result
of final precepts be:
a. £5,082,610 for District purposes
b. £1,450,000 (subject to confirmation of the final precepts) for Parish/Town
precepts;
c)
d)
The fees and charges as included in Appendix D from 1 April 2013;
The statement of and movement on the reserves as detailed at Appendix F;
e) The updated Capital Programme and financing for 2012/13 to 2015/16 as
detailed at Appendix G;
f) The new capital bids as detailed at Appendix H to be financed from capital
receipts;
g)
That Members note the current projections for 2014/15 to 2016/17.
c) ITEM 9: TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND
INVESTMENT STRATEGY 2013/14 TO 2015/16
RECOMMENDATION TO FULL COUNCIL:
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that The Treasury Management Strategy
Statement and Investment Strategy and Prudential Indicators, for 2013/14 to
2015/16, are approved.
16.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 20
FEBRUARY 2012
17.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
(attached – p.61)
To receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
18.
Cabinet – 12 November 2012
Standards Committee – 13 November 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 21 November 2012
Development Committee – 13 December 2012
Overview & Scrutiny Committee – 18 December 2012
Cabinet – 07 January 2013
Development Committee – 10 January 2013
Development Committee – 17 January 2013
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
To receive reports from the Cabinet or Members of the Cabinet.
19.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
To receive questions from Members.
20.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
To receive any opposition business.
21.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received
22.
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.”
23.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Circulation:
All Members of the Council.
Members of the Management Team and other appropriate Officers.
Press and Public
Agenda Item 6
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 19 December 2012 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mr M J M Baker
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr T Ivory
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
Mr B Jarvis
Mr G Jones
Mr J Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr J Punchard
Mr R Price
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr P Terrington
Mrs H Thompson
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr P Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, Corporate Director (Nick Baker), Corporate Director
(Steve Blatch), the Head of Finance, the Communications Manager, the
Scrutiny Officer and the Democratic Services Officer (IV)
Canon D Court, the press.
PRAYERS
Mr P Moore, Vice-Chairman, introduced Canon David Court, who then led the meeting in
prayer and reflection on the lives of Mr Keith Johnson, former Leader, and Mrs Johnson, and
former District and County Councillor Larry Randall.
81. CHAIRMAN
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Ms V Gay and unanimously
RESOLVED
that Mr P Moore be elected Chairman for the remainder of the municipal year.
Mr Moore thanked the Council, but expressed sadness that his predecessor, Mr PerryWarnes, had been forced through ill-health to step down from the office of Chairman.
Mr Perry-Warnes regretted that he had been unable to continue and wished the new
Chairman and Mrs Moore well. He thanked the Chief Executive and her staff for their
assistance during his term and said how much he had appreciated the kind wishes and
support received from Members and Officers. He was responding to physiotherapy and felt
that the goodwill he had received had made a big difference.
The Chairman then presented Mr Perry-Warnes with his former Chairman’s medal and other
gifts.
Full Council
1
1
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
82. CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The Chairman informed the meeting that he had met various engagements on behalf of the
Council, notably the Thursford Christmas Spectacular, which he had attended on the previous
evening. He also drew attention to his Christmas charity, which sought foodbank donations.
83. VICE-CHAIRMAN
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Ms V Gay and unanimously
RESOLVED
That Mrs L Brettle be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Council for the remainder of the
municipal year.
84. TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Mrs A Claussen- 96
Reynolds
Item
Interest
Recommendation from Cabinet
and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee: Empty Homes
Policy
Personal and nonpecuniary – disposal
of an empty property
85. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr B J Hannah, Mr P W High,
Mrs L Walker, Mr J D Savory, Mr S Ward and Mr G Williams.
86. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 24 October 2012 were approved as a
correct record.
87. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
88. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
89. APPOINTMENT OF LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
Expressing great sadness at the circumstances in which the appointment had become
necessary, Mr W Northam proposed that Mr T FitzPatrick be appointed Leader of the Council.
The proposition was seconded by Miss B Palmer.
RESOLVED
That Mr T FitzPatrick be appointed Leader of the Council.
Full Council
2
2
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
90. APPOINTMENTS
Two additional appointments, proposed for substitute members for the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee, were brought forward.
RESOLVED
a) To appoint Mrs P Grove-Jones to replace Mr G Jones on the Planning Policy and Built
Heritage Working Party.
b) To appoint Mr R Oliver to the Joint Staff Consultative Committee.
c) To add Mr R Oliver to the Member Training Development and Support Group.
d) To appoint Mt T FitzPatrick to the Partnership Committee (Revenues and Benefits Shared
Services).
e) To appoint Mr R Shepherd as a substitute to the Audit Committee.
f)
To appoint Mr T FitzPatrick to the Civil Parking Enforcement Committee.
g) To appoint Mr R Oliver to the PATROL Adjudication and Bus Lane Adjudication Joint
Committee.
h) To appoint Mrs A Fitch-Tillett to the Shadow Health and Well Being Board.
i)
To appoint Mr T Ivory to the Strategic Housing Board.
j)
To appoint Miss B Palmer as a substitute to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
k) To appoint Mr G Williams as a substitute to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
91. RECOMMENDATION FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE 24 SEPTEMBER
2012
MINUTE 16: REGULATION OF COSMETIC PIERCING AND SKIN-COLOURING
BUSINESSES
Mr R Price, Chairman of the Licensing and Appeals Committee, moved the recommendation
which was seconded by Mr R Shepherd.
RESOLVED
To adopt provisions under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as
amended to regulate additional treatments, namely cosmetic piercing and semi-permanent
skin colouring, including:
-
adoption and authorisation of new byelaws subject to any consultation responses
received;
a resolution authorising the affixing of the common seal to the byelaws; and
authorising the Head of Legal to carry out the necessary procedure and apply to the
Secretary of State for confirmation.
-
Full Council
3
3
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
92. RECOMMENDATION FROM LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE 19 NOVEMBER
2012
MINUTE 24: GAMBLING ACT 2005 – REVIEW OF GAMBLING POLICY
Mr Price presented the updated version of the Gambling Policy which local authorities were
obliged to adopt and moved the recommendation. This was seconded by Mr R Shepherd.
RESOLVED
To adopt the revised version of the Gambling Policy.
Mrs B McGoun and Mr P Williams asked that their abstention from voting be recorded.
.
93. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 23 OCTOBER
2012
MINUTE 84: REVIEW OF OUTSIDE BODIES
It was proposed by Mr E Seward, seconded by Mr P Terrington and
RESOLVED
-To note that Norfolk Tourism is not a Council appointment and that the District Council
Is represented by the portfolio holder
-To continue to be represented on the Norfolk Skills Partnership
-To remove the North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership, the Norfolk Playing
Fields Association and the Norfolk Rural Community Council from the official list of
Outside Bodies.
94. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 12 NOVEMBER 2012
MINUTE 69: HALF-YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT 2012/13
Mr W Northam moved the recommendation, explaining that the Council was required to
comply with the provision of a mid-year report. Security of investment was the main objective
and the Council would continue to follow LAMIT for the best available rate of return. The
proposition was seconded by Mr N Smith.
RESOLVED that
The first half-yearly Treasury Management Report for 2012/13 be adopted.
MINUTE 71: COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Miss B Palmer and
RESOLVED that
The draft Community Asset Transfer Policy be adopted.
95. RECOMMENDATION FROM CABINET 13 DECEMBER
CABINET AGENDA ITEM 9: RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT
HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Mrs S Arnold and
Full Council
4
4
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
RESOLVED
To apply the approach outlined in the table set out by the Working Party to the re-use of rural
buildings as dwellings in response to the National Policy Framework.
96. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 13 DECEMBER AND OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
18 DECEMBER 2012
MINUTE 113: REVISED BUDGET
In reply to a question, Mr Northam stated that the Government grant settlement figures had
been announced earlier that day. It had not yet been possible to analyse the information and
its effects, but an article would be placed in the next available Members’ Bulletin.
Budget was on target, with a small underspend. He explained why changes had been made to
the recommendations as submitted to Cabinet. It had not been possible in advance of the
grant settlement to confirm the scale of fees, so that item had been withdrawn for the time
being. The recommendation on the refurbishment of the Rocket House had been amended to
require an inspection of the lift mechanism, following consideration by the Asset Management
Board. In moving the recommendation, he thanked the Head of Finance and her team and
other officers whose efforts were directed towards ensuring that the Council lived within its
means.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, confirmed that his
Committee had endorsed the recommendation on the previous day.
The recommendation was put by Mr Northam and seconded by Mr N Smith.
RESOLVED
To agree
1.The revised revenue budget for 2012/13.
2.The revised transfers to and from reserves as detailed within Appendix D of the report.
3. A transfer of £1,398 to the general reserve.
4. The revised capital programme and associated financing as included at Appendix E
including the additional sum of £37,084 to be made available to fund refurbishment works to
the Rocket House as detailed, subject to prior satisfactory inspection of the lift system, and
£21,000 for the replacement scanner and printer for the Planning service, both to be funded
from capital receipts.
MINUTE 115: HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SCHEME
Mr T Ivory proposed the adoption of the new Allocations Scheme, which would provide better
chances for applicants to be housed in their own locality. He cautioned that there remained a
statutory duty to meet a housing need, but the emphasis would be on local connections. The
Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the recommendation at its meeting on 18
December and supported it. Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee,
confirmed this and pointed out that his Committee had asked to see a monitoring report after
the Scheme had been in operation for 12 months.
In reply to a question from Mr M Baker, Mr Ivory said that housing need was defined in the
Housing Acts. Precedence would not be given to outside over local need. Following a question
from Mr G Jones, he added that a person from elsewhere requiring a safe house would not
receive preferential treatment. It was pointed out that there were exceptional circumstances
where a person from outside the District with a local connection could be rehoused.
Full Council
5
5
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
Mr J Perry-Warnes raised a matter concerning a possible exception site, which the Chairman
asked the officers to investigate.
RESOLVED that
The Housing Allocations Scheme be adopted.
MINUTE116: EMPTY HOMES POLICY
Mr T Ivory stated that empty homes were a source of concern to communities across the
District. There was an urgent housing need and it was incumbent upon the authority to do
everything possible to maximise the efficient use of the existing stock of dwellings. The policy
now proposed drew upon the experiences of the pilot scheme. The policy had also been
considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which, in supporting the
recommendation, had requested that a monitoring report be produced after 12 months.
Members noted that there had been discussion at both Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on the definition of an Empty Home, following which the definition as it appeared in
the policy had been amended to read:
“The Council has defined an Empty Home as a property which is empty of people and has
been unoccupied for 6 months or more. There are other definitions of an empty home. Council
Tax legislation identifies a property as a long term empty home when it has been empty of
people and furniture or possessions for 6 months or more. This policy will concentrate on
bringing empty homes which have been empty for at least 6 months back into use, although
some have been empty for significantly longer.”
Mr Ivory proposed the adoption of the scheme, with this amendment, and was seconded by
Mrs S Arnold.
Ms V Gay supported the policy, referring to an earlier strategy which had run between 2006
and 2011.She believed the new scheme had its origins in work on empty homes in 2009.
Mr R Wright was concerned at the possible invocation of compulsory purchase powers in
relation to properties and sought an assurance that the policy would be applied in a positive
and helpful manner, rather than heavy-handedly. He was concerned at the criteria and did not
believe that the aim should be compulsory purchase.
Mr E Seward felt that, because the needs of communities and neighbourhoods had to be
respected and housing was a basic right, the Council had to do all it could to get properties
back into use. He asked whether any of the 887 empty properties identified had been empty
for over two years. The Chief Executive said that an analysis of movement over the last 12
months was under way, which would provide further information on this point. She agreed to
send details to Members via e-mail.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to a family situation where a house, currently empty, was in
the course of being sold and hoped that properties becoming empty in these circumstances
would not be actively pursued under the new policy.
Mr M Baker had concerns as to how a genuine reason for vacancy would be defined and
interpreted.
Mrs H Eales thanked the Corporate Director and his team for the work done in her ward to
deal with empty homes. A graduated approach had been taken to these and there was no
question of compulsory purchase at this stage. A planning approval had been given and this
would allow ample time to bring a property back into use.
Full Council
6
6
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
Mr Ivory assured Mr Wright that the Council was not in the business of heavy-handed
interference in people’s property. However, it was important to accept that a more
interventionist approach would be used to deal with eyesores, health risks or social issues
resulting from empty properties and there was a financial impact too. A graduated approach
would allow a light touch and formal enforcement action would be reserved for severe cases.
The Council was attempting, by way of survey, to establish early identification of cases where
it could help; compulsory purchase would be an absolute last resort and was unlikely to be
used. The Council would be working with people to get the property on the market, which
should alleviate the concern expressed by Mrs Claussen-Reynolds.
Mr Ivory hoped that the new definition of empty properties helped answer Mr Baker’s question.
The Chairman pointed out that Members would be kept informed on cases within their wards
and possible actions.
RESOLVED that
The Empty Homes Policy 2012-15 be adopted, subject to the change of definition referred to
above.
97. RECOMMENDATION FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 18 DECEMBER
2012
MINUTE 114: BIG SOCIETY FUND UPDATE REPORT
In reply to a question from Mr Jones as to details of the allocation of finance from the Fund,
the Chief Executive pointed out that the papers for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
meeting had included such information graphically, in addition to the map showing the location
of recipients.
RESOLVED that
a) A politically balanced working group comprising two Cabinet Members and two Members
appointed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Mr N Smith and Mr G Williams) be
established to work with officers to review the North Norfolk Big Society Fund.
b) A report be presented to Cabinet in March, identifying whether or not the Big Society Fund
should be continued in the next financial year and, if so, the most appropriate way for this
to be implemented.
98. NNDC REVISED CONSTITUTION
The Chairman explained that the Monitoring Officer was unable to be present and suggested
that, should any detailed changes be required, the Chief Executive be authorised to make the
necessary amendments to the final document.
Mrs H Thompson, Chairman of the Constitution Working Party, presented the report.
Revisions proposed took account of legislative changes, amendments needed because of
internal variations, such as job titles, improvements suggested by the officers and decisions of
the Working Party following detailed consideration of the Constitution, which was a living
document needing to be kept under review. She thanked all involved in producing the revised
version, particularly Mary Howard, former Democratic Services Team Leader, and Emma
Denny, Democratic Services Officer, who had seen the process through, following Mrs
Howard’s retirement.
Full Council
7
7
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
Mrs Thompson proposed the adoption of the revised Constitution with effect from 20
December. This was seconded by Ms V Gay, who endorsed Mrs Thompson’s comments,.
RESOLVED
To adopt the revised Constitution with effect from 20 December 2012.
99. TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
to receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
100.
Standards Committee – 11 September 2012
Audit Committee – 18 September 2012
Licensing and Appeals Committee - 24 September 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee - 25 September 2012
Cabinet – 15 October 2012
Development Committee – 18 October 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 23 October 2012
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
Mr T FitzPatrick thanked Members and staff for their support and efforts over the last few
weeks. Within his own portfolio area, he had been particular impressed with “first call” staff,
who had coped with an extremely unusual and sad situation in a dedicated manner. The
Communications team had shown great professionalism. He also praised the Democratic
Services team for their continued efforts in adverse conditions and Electoral Services for the
efficient way in which the recent Police and Crime Commissioner elections had been
managed. The achievements of Information Technology, who had experienced a busy year,
Revenues and Benefits, who had maintained service levels while taking on extra workload,
and Business Enterprise and Economic Development, who had achieved successes, had
been greatly appreciated.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett reported on recent activities within her portfolio, particularly on coastal
defence, A recent meeting with Lord Smith in London had confirmed that there was insufficient
financial support and a shortage of qualified engineers. A part-qualified assistant engineer was
about to be appointed by the authority; it was hoped that this investment would obviate the
need for consultants once he had become fully qualified. Mrs Fitch-Tillett congratulated Mrs
Brettle for her work at Blakeney Marshes. The Environment Agency was shortly to make
available a member of staff to assist with integrated coastal management. Finally, she
mentioned that next month would see the 60th anniversary of the 1953 floods. A Community
Resilience Day was being held at Sea Palling on 28 January to mark the occasion and all
were welcome to attend.
Mr R Oliver reported on aspects of work in planning and corporate assets, He highlighted the
free parking recently agreed for the pre-Christmas period and drew attention to the efforts of
Russell Tanner in looking after Sheringham Market. Other achievements included the
provision of energy efficient lighting and the re-surfacing of car parks in Sheringham. He also
reminded Members of the consultation on Planning Performance.
Mr T Ivory, portfolio holder for strategic housing, localism and the Big Society, informed the
Council that it had been necessary to re-schedule to January a recent meeting of the Big
Society Board, which had been inquorate. Recently he had spent an afternoon on the Housing
Full Council
8
8
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
desk and had come away with a sense of pride. It had been an experience he commended to
other Members and he wanted to record formally the good work being done in an incredibly
difficult situation.
Mr J Lee endorsed the remarks of the other portfolio holders regarding staff efforts and
achievements and wished Members and officers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
101. QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
None received.
102. OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
103. NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
None received.
104. LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED
That the list of sealed documents be received.
105. CHAIRMAN’S CLOSING REMARKS
The Chairman referred to the funeral for Mr and Mrs Johnson, which would take place on
Friday. This would undoubtedly be a difficult day for everybody, but those attending were
being asked to wear something bright.
In closing the meeting, the Chairman added his own best wishes for the season.
The meeting concluded at 7.25 pm.
___________________________
Chairman
Full Council
9
9
19 December 2012
Agenda Item 6
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a special meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 23 January 2013 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs L Brettle
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mrs H Cox
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B J Hannah
Officers in
Attendance:
Mr P W High
Mr T Ivory
Mr G Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Price
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A Sweeney
Mr P Terrington
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr P Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Finance, the
Interim Monitoring Officer and the Scrutiny Officer
106.
PRAYERS
The Chairman, introduced Reverend Derek Earis of St Nicholas Parish Church, North
Walsham who led the meeting in prayers.
107.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Mr R Wright
Item
Interest
Council Tax Discounts and
Level of Charges
Other interest - does
work for second home
owners
Mr R Price
Other interest Second home owner
Mr P Williams
Other interest Business rate payer
108.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr M Baker, Mr B Jarvis, Mr J Punchard, Mr R
Reynolds and Mr S Ward.
Full Council
1
10
23 January 2013
Agenda Item 6
109.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Leader presented Councillor Hilary Cox with a card and gift to celebrate the occasion of
her marriage.
The Leader informed Members of two changes to Cabinet. Councillor Rhodri Oliver was now
Deputy Leader and Councillor Russell Wright was joining the Cabinet. Councillor Wright’s
portfolio responsibilities would be announced shortly.
110.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
111.
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Revenues and Benefits introduced this item. He explained
that the £8.3m paid in Council tax benefits at present would be replaced by Council Tax
Support, a scheme which the Government had required all local authorities to set up. A
Working Party had been established to look at this and had gone to consultation before
making recommendations. Meanwhile, £100m had been made available by the Government to
cover interim arrangements and the option put forward by the Working Party met the criteria
for this transitional funding. The Scheme would now enable a maximum award of 91.5% of a
person’s council tax liability for those currently in receipt of 100% Council Tax Benefit. Mr W
Northam added that the final scheme had been approved by the Working Party with the
reservations of Mr D Young and Ms V Gay.
Mr E Seward confirmed that this item had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and they supported the recommendations.
Ms V Gay thanked Mr W Northam for the manner in which he had chaired the Working Party.
Mr G Jones said that he felt the decision to implement the proposed Scheme was wrong. It
would hit the poorest hard and collection rates would be low. He felt that the Council should
have attempted to work more closely with the County Council on the issue.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Shepherd and
RESOLVED
To adopt the Local Council Tax Support Scheme as set out in the report.
Mr G Jones voted against the proposal.
112.
DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL TAX DISCOUNTS AND LEVEL OF CHARGES FOR
2013/14
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the Local Government Finance Act
2012 included a number of reforms in relation to council tax exemptions, discounts and the
introduction of the empty property premium. The reforms gave the Council the flexibility to vary
council tax on second homes and empty dwellings. It was proposed that the council tax levied
on second homes that fell within the ‘Class B’ category should be 5%. The premium for
properties which had been empty and unfurnished for two years or more would be set at 50%
of the council tax payable to that home – bringing the total charge to 150%.
Full Council
2
11
23 January 2013
Agenda Item 6
Ms V Gay referred to Mr W Northam’s earlier comment regarding her reservations about the
Local Council Tax Support Scheme. She said that she had similar reservations about the
second homes discount. She did not feel that it was fair that people with two homes should
pay less for one of them when people with much less were expected to pay the full amount on
their home. Mr W Northam reminded her that the scheme would be reviewed in a year’s time
and all aspects would be considered including second homes.
Mr G Jones asked why the discount for second homes wasn’t removed completely. The Head
of Finance explained that the County Council currently gave a 50% discretionary element back
to the District Council. The discount gave second home-owners an incentive to notify the
council of their status, if it was removed it would be very hard to keep a record of the number
of second homes. Mr R Oliver added that there was also a possibility that many second homeowners would switch to business rates which would reduce the income for the Council.
Mr E Seward confirmed that this item had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and they supported the recommendations.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED
that under section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and in accordance with the
provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and other enabling powers that:
the council tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘A’ remains at 50% for the
year 2013/14 (report para.3.4);
the council tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘B’ be reduced to 5% for
the year 2013/14 with the exceptions of (report para. 3.4):
those dwellings that are specifically identified under regulation 6 of the Council Tax
(Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003, which will retain the 50%
discount; and
those dwellings described or geographically defined at Appendix D which in the reasonable
opinion of the Head of Finance are judged not to be structurally capable of occupation all year
round and were built before the restrictions of seasonal usage were introduced by the Town
and Country Planning Act 1947, will retain the 50% discount.
The council tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘C’ to be set at 100% for
three months for the year 2013/14 (report para. 3.3)
The council tax discount for Class D properties to act as an incentive to bring them back into
use is recommended to be a discount of 50% for a maximum of 12 months (report para.3.2)
Under section 11B(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and in accordance with the
provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and other enabling powers that:
A premium is charged for properties which have been empty and substantially unfurnished for
two years or more of 50% of the council tax payable in relation to that home.
In accordance with the relevant legislation these determinations shall be published in at least
one newspaper circulating in North Norfolk before the end of the period of 21 days beginning
with the date of the determinations.
Full Council
3
12
23 January 2013
Agenda Item 6
113.
DETERMINATION OF THE COUNCIL TAX BASE FOR 2013/14 AND THE TREATMENT OF
SPECIAL EXPENSES
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the purpose of the report was to
determine the Council’s 2013/14 tax base and the 2013/14 tax base for each parish in
accordance with the legal requirements.
Mr D Young commented that the Council Tax base reflected any decrease in the collection
rate and he queried what assumptions had been built in to the calculations regarding collection
rates for the Local Council Tax Support Scheme. The Head of Finance replied that it had been
reduced by 0.5% - a figure which reflected the new support scheme and the current state of
the economy. She acknowledged that it was a prudent estimate but said that it would be
monitored throughout the year.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr J Lee and
RESOLVED
a) That the calculations set out in this report used to produce the Council’s tax base be
approved, and the tax base for 2013/14 be determined as 36,411;
b) That the tax base for each parish area for the financial year 2013/14 be as set out at
paragraph 2.1.
Mr J Lee thanked Mr W Northam for his hard work on all the financial reports that had been
presented to Council.
114.
NATIONAL NON-DOMESTIC RATES – NNDR1 RETURN
Before Mr W Northam introduced this item, the Chairman proposed a change to the
recommendation. He suggested the following wording:
That delegated authority for approval of the final form and future forms be given to the Section
151 Officer. Mr W Northam agreed and proposed that the Constitution should also be updated
to reflect this.
It was proposed by W Northam, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED
To note the provisional NNDR1 form (Appendix D) and that delegated authority for approval of
the final form and future forms be given to the Section 151 Officer and the Constitution be
updated to reflect this
Mr T FitzPatrick thanked the staff for all their hard work.
115.
COUNCIL TAX SETTING COMMITTEE 2013/14
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the deadlines for setting the combined
council tax for 2013/14 conflicted with the date for Full Council. There was a statutory facility to
enable the combined council tax to be set by a politically-balanced Committee established for
this single purpose and then disbanded. The meeting of the committee would take place on 1
March 2013.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
Full Council
4
13
23 January 2013
Agenda Item 6
RESOLVED that
a) A Combined Council Tax Setting Committee be established with five Members to set the
combined council tax for 2013/14;
b) Delegation be given to the Chief Executive to appoint named members and named
substitutes in consultation with the Group Leaders to the Committee;
c) Full Council delegates to this committee the setting of the Combined Council Tax for
2013/14 for the County Council, the Police, North Norfolk District Council and the Parish and
Town Councils of the billing authority area.
Mr P Terrington abstained.
Mr W Northam requested that the Head of Finance and the Revenues and Benefits Services
Manager convey Members thanks to their staff for all their dedication and hard work over
recent weeks.
The meeting concluded at 6.27pm
_______________________
Chairman
Full Council
5
14
23 January 2013
Agenda Item No____10________
COUNCIL TAX 2013/14
Summary:
Options considered:
This report presents for approval the budget for 2013/14
and to make statutory calculations in accordance with
the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to set the
Council Tax for 2013/14. The report also includes the
Chief Financial Officer’s report on the robustness of the
estimates and adequacy of reserves.
It is a statutory requirement to set the budget each year,
whilst there are options around the content of the
budget presented for approval, the budget now
recommended reflects the recommendations made by
Cabinet at its meeting on 4 February 2013.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of the Council’s Chief Financial Officer
that the budget for 2013/14 has been set within a robust
framework and the impact of this resolution will maintain
an adequate level of financial reserves held by the
Council.
Recommendations:
That having considered the Chief Financial Officer’s
report on the robustness of the estimates and the
adequacy of the proposed financial reserves, the
following be approved:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
The General Fund Revenue Budget for 2013/14
(Appendix A) ;
The Policy Framework for the Earmarked
Reserves and the Optimum Level of the General
Reserve 2013/14 to 2016/17 (Appendix B);
The level of the General Reserve maintained at
a minimum of £1.6 million;
The General and Earmarked Reserves are
employed as shown in the Reserves Statement
(Appendix C);
That members undertake the council tax and
statutory calculations set out at section 4, and
set the Council Tax for 2013/14;
The final demand on the Collection Fund for
District purposes (NNDC) for 2013/14 be
£5,082,610;
The final demand on the collection fund for
Parish/Town
precepts
for
2013/14
be
£1,456,649 (subject to final confirmation of
remaining parishes – to be updated at the
meeting).
15
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To approve the 2013/14 budget for revenue and capital
and to make the statutory calculations in respect of the
2013/14 Council tax.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Budget reports and briefings, precepts (NCC, Police and Parishes)
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected: All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Karen Sly, 01263 516243, Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
This report presents for approval the 2013/14 General Fund revenue and capital
budgets along with the Council Tax for 2013/14. It also presents for information only
the current budget projections for 2014/15 to 2016/17.
1.2
The budget for 2013/14, along with detailed projections for the following three
financial years, was considered by Cabinet on 4 February 2013 and then by
Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20 February 2013.
1.3
This report includes the updated position for the 2013/14 budget and future
projections following the final Local Government Finance Settlement announcement
made on 4 February 2013. Further details on the outcome of this announcement are
included in section 2 of the report.
2.
2013/14 Budget
2.1
The budget report presented to Cabinet and Scrutiny earlier this month included the
provisional Local Government Finance Settlement figures as announced on 19
December 2012. Confirmation of the Councils final finance settlement for 2013/14
was issued on 4 February 2013. The following outlines the main changes in relation
to NNDC’s budget.
2.2
There have been minor changes to the headline figures included in the provisional
settlement in terms of the formula funding. In respect of NNDC there has been a
small reduction of £438 (£7,053,058 reduced to £7,052,620) for 2013/14.
2.3
However, where there is a more significant change (for 2013/14) are the specific and
special grants that have now been confirmed. The following outlines the additional
funding announced within the final settlement:
•
•
New Homes Adjustment Grant – £23,882 (2013/14)
Council Tax Support (New Burdens Funding) £58,167 for 2013/14 (Indicative figure
of £75,618 announced for 2014/15 which is subject to change)
16
•
2.4
Efficiency Support for Services in Sparse Areas Grant £44,544 (see further comment
below)
Within the announcement on the final settlement, the following statement was made
in relation to the efficiency support for Sparse areas:
“Following consultation we have concluded that more needs to be done to further
support rural areas. This statement confirms increases made in the provisional
settlement to the sparsity weighting and top-ups in the calculation of formula funding
to reflect the costs of those services which can be more expensive in highly rural
areas. On top of that, we are providing £8.5 million additional funding in 2013-14 as a
separate new transitional grant to help authorities secure efficiencies in services for
sparsely populated areas."
2.5
No conditions of the use of the grant have been announced and therefore at the time
of writing the report, this has been added to the overall surplus for the year. An
updated general fund summary is included at Appendix A which reflects the final
settlement for 2013/14 and the provisional settlement for 2014/15.
2.6
When the budget was reported to Cabinet on 4 February 2013 a number of final
parish precepts were still to be confirmed. At the time of producing this report 40 final
notifications are outstanding, although the majority of these will meet to set their
revised precept before the date of the Full Council meeting and therefore final figures
will be available for the 27 February. The latest figures included within the report
(section 4) show confirmed parish precepts and also the anticipated precepts for
those outstanding.
2.7
It should be noted that as the billing authority, the setting of the parish precepts will
have an impact on the total billed amount although not on the element which
represents the District Council. This means the total District amount billed for an
average Band D for 2013/14 will be £178.88 (see para 4.7), comprising District
element £138.87 and parish element £40.01 (subject to receiving the final 40 parish
precept forms).
2.8
In making decisions in relation to setting the Council Tax, section 25 of the Local
Government Act 2003 requires the Chief Financial Officer of the Council to report to it
on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the proposed financial
reserves. This is presented in the section 3 of this report.
3.
Chief Financial Officer’s Report
3.1
The Local Government Finance Act 1992 requires Councils to have regard to the
level of reserves needed for meeting estimated future expenditure when calculating
their budget requirement. This is reinforced in Section 25 of the Local Government
Act 2003 whereby the Chief Financial Officer is required to make a statement on the
robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the reserves. The section also goes
on to require “An authority to which a report under this section is made shall have
regard to the report when making decisions about the calculations in connection with
which it is made.”
The Robustness of the Estimates
3.2
This part of the report comments on the robustness of the estimates over the medium
term and provides an analysis of the risks facing the Council related to the control of
17
income and expenditure flows against the budgets that are recommended for
2013/14 and beyond.
3.3
The framework within which the budget for 2013/14 has been constructed takes
account of the following:
a) Previous financial year out-turn position (2011/12) (3.4)
b) Financial Plan Update 2012/13 to 2015/16 (3.5)
c) Regular budget monitoring and associated reports (3.6)
d) Current year revised budgets (3.7)
e) Cash flow monitoring (3.8)
3.4
The final 2011/12 out turn position, following external audit, was reported to Members
in September 2012 and secures the starting position for developing the Council’s
budget. This position is used to update the financial planning process and establishes
the baseline for the current estimates by reflecting significant movements which will
have an on-going impact on the future financial position of the Council.
3.5
The financial planning process is well established and starts each year with the
production of a four year Financial Plan which includes high level financial
projections. During August to November each year the Council critically examines the
proposed expenditure and income on existing services and seeks to identify changed
priorities in service delivery and planned future developments, in response to both
local and national pressures. It also identifies changes to spending plans and income
projections. These are informed by the previous years out-turn position and the
current year’s budget monitoring projections. The financial forecast does aim to
highlight the more significant budget movements as a precursor to producing the full
detailed budget for the forthcoming year. At the same time the anticipated level of
future external Government funding is reviewed along with the impact of a continued
freeze in the level of Council Tax for the same period. There were a significant
number of unknowns in terms of the severity of future government grant reductions
for future years and also the impact of changes to council tax benefits and the
retention of business rates which come into operation from April 2013. By
consolidating the financial forecasts, the Financial Plan seeks to identify future
estimated budget requirements and financing shortfalls at an early stage of the
annual budget process.
3.6
Regular Budget Monitoring – The regular budget monitoring process is carried out
throughout the year with all expenditure and income being monitored on a monthly
basis. Not only does this provide an essential tool for ensuring that the current year’s
budget is achievable, but it is also fundamental in ensuring that the most up to date
information is incorporated into the future budget and projections taking into account
where budget pressures are highlighted during the year. The regular budget
monitoring is used to inform the annual financial planning and budget process of
changes that will have an on-going financial impact in future years, as opposed to
having only a one-off implication in the current financial year. As part of the budget
monitoring process, monthly variance reports are provided to budget managers and
regular reports presented to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Regular
reviews of expenditure and commitments to date, along with income streams, are
carried out to ensure that overspends or shortfalls in income are identified at the
earliest opportunity and reported to Corporate Leadership Team and Members along
with recommended action plans to ensure that the Councils overall budget can be
met.
3.7
Current Year Revised Budgets – The revised budget for the current year is approved
in December each year and is informed by the budget monitoring reports throughout
18
the year. It incorporates a detailed review of the current budget whilst highlighting
future spending pressures and income shortfalls.
3.8
Cash Flow Monitoring – The Council remains debt free. It currently has no long term
borrowing requirement and on the revenue account there have been no cash flow
issues. Sufficient liquidity is generally maintained to cover day to day cash
requirements. The cash flow position of the Council is monitored on a daily basis and
managed within the Treasury Management Strategy which is approved alongside the
budget each year.
3.9
Budgets are prepared using the best information that is available to the Council from
its own sources and from external providers like Arlingclose and the Government’s
Office for Budget Responsibility. However, many budgets are related to factors that
fall outside the control of the Council, for example pay awards, demand led income
levels, inflation and interest rates, and all can have a significant impact on the
Council’s overall budget. Forecasting in these areas requires an examination of
recent trends as well as assimilating future projections from external commentators.
While income streams from building control fees and investments have been falling at
the same time as other service income for example planning and car parking have
seen fluctuations, the Council has rebased these estimates in line with past
experience while at the same time taking account of indicators of economic activity
which might indicate future trends.
3.10
Investment income has been drastically rebased in the light of the prolonged duration
of low interest rates. The current investment strategy is looking for a return of 1.65%
for 2013/14. The income budget assumes the investment portfolio is invested with
counterparties in call accounts and term deposits in line with the Treasury Strategy
2013/14 (4 February 2013 Cabinet), and that existing deposits will continue to their
maturity date. It also assumes the approved investment of £5 million in pooled
property funds will commence in 2013/14 which has been projected to have a
positive impact on the investment returns for the Council.
3.11
There are a number of financial risks facing the authority which are relevant at both
service and corporate levels. In order that these risks are managed, a number of key
areas within the budget need to be closely monitored in the coming financial year,
these include:
a)
Car park income – this area generates significant income for the Council which
in turn supports the delivery of other services across the Council. The 2013/14
budget assumes gross income of just over £2 million from all car parking related
fees and charges. Small reductions in income here will impact on other areas of
the Council’s budget.
b)
Planning and building control fees – while these estimates have been
significantly re-based in recent years it is anticipated that the planning service
will follow that of building control and move towards becoming self-financing in
the future. The 2013/14 base budget includes income totalling approximately
£905,000 from planning and building control fees.
c)
Waste and recycling credits – this is a significant source of income to the
Council and reflects the activity across the District in recycling domestic refuse.
A total of £875,233 is included in the 2013/14 base budget.
d)
The Savings agenda – the Council has a comprehensive savings and
efficiencies agenda which it is relying on to be delivered over the life of the
19
medium term financial plan. The individual elements of this plan are routinely
monitored as part of the financial reporting arrangements to keep the progress
in this important area on track. Ongoing savings from the 2012/13 financial year
totalling £897,096 are included in the base budget, plus an additional £163,097
from 2013/14 means there is a savings programme of £1,060,193 being
delivered.
e)
Council Tax Support costs – the new Local Council Tax Support Scheme
(LCTSS) has been developed to minimise the impact of the change from
Council Tax Benefits on claimants’ incomes. The scheme, developed after
consultation, conforms to the 8.5% threshold used by the Government and
enable the transitional funding to be claimed. Proposals are being developed to
ensure that these changes and their impact become part of the regular financial
monitoring arrangements.
f)
The Council Tax technical changes introduced to the discounts within the
Council Tax scheme are also to be closely monitored to identify areas where the
estimated additional income is not being generated to allow remedial action to
be taken.
g)
Business Rates Retention – this too is an important change in the funding of
local authorities from April 2013 and it will be necessary to establish a robust
monitoring arrangement which focuses on changes in rateable values and the
levels of collection which will impact on this Council, the County Council and
Central Government through the Collection Fund.
h)
Investment Returns – Interest rates have never been so low for such a
sustained period of time in the national economy. The delivery of investment
returns is problematic with the choice of counterparty and period of exposure
being weighed on a daily basis in line with the treasury management strategy.
Security, liquidity and yield remain key principles in determining the investment
decisions. The development of a property led investment portfolio, for example,
seeks to increase investment returns without compromising the security of the
invested funds. However, these returns still provide support to the revenue
budget and changes in economic forecasts, money markets and the stock
market as well as the government’s triple A rating can all impact on the returns
achieved.
3.12
To cushion the withdrawal of central government funding the budget includes the use
of £200k of reserves in 2013/14. This is in line with the proposals outlined in the
budget report for 2012/13. The use of reserves in this way represents one-off funding
which once used is not available for future years.
3.13
Looking forward to 2016/17 the financial projections included in the budget report
indicate that further savings will have to be made based on assumptions about the
future level of funding for 2014/15 onwards. This shows a current forecast budget
gap of £916,799 in 2014/15, increasing to £1,551,721 in 2015/16 and £2,271,637 in
2016/17. This is after allowing for a use of reserves of £200,000 in each of the first
two years of the forecast.
3.14
The capital programme relies on new capital receipts from the sale of assets for nonhousing capital projects, and preserved right to buy receipts and the VAT shelter
arrangements for the housing programme. In both cases prudent estimates are made
of the timing of such receipts and the expenditure profiles within the overall capital
programme.
20
3.15
Budget monitoring throughout the financial year is critical to the robustness of the
estimates. It is through the ability to manage and control the spending within the
approved budgets and, where appropriate, identifying and recommending
appropriate actions, which serves to mitigate the Council’s level of financial risk.
3.16
Throughout the process of preparing the Council’s budget there is involvement of the
Elected Members through Officer/Member meetings and reports to Cabinet and
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
3.17
The Council also takes advice from third party organisations concerning a number of
more technical factors that impact on the budget process, for example external
advice in relation to treasury management, VAT and Insurance. By doing so the
Council is able to monitor the wider implications of changes in interest rates, inflation
and employment and take remedial action to mitigate financial risk.
Adequacy of the Reserves
3.18
An assessment of the adequacy of the reserves estimated to be available to the
Council throughout 2013/14 is based on the possible commitments falling to be
discharged against the following categories of reserves:
• General Reserve
• Earmarked Reserves
3.19
Guidance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)
issued in November 2008 advises that account should be taken of the strategic,
operational and financial risks facing the Council.
3.20
There are three main reasons for holding reserves:
a) as a contingency to cushion the impact of unexpected events or emergencies
b) to cushion against the impact of uneven cash flows and to avoid temporary
borrowing, and
c) as a means of building up funds to meet known or predicted liabilities
(earmarked reserves)
3.21
Reviewing the reserves is well established within the budget setting process and is
informed by the framework as set out in appendix B to this report.
3.22
An updated reserve statement is included at appendix C to this report.
3.23
The unallocated General Reserve has been reviewed in the light of the planned
service delivery costs contained within this budget and against the framework of
assessment at appendix B to this report.
3.24
In particular the risks associated with the changed financial framework from April
2013 relating to the LCTSS, the technical changes to council tax discounts and the
retention of business rate income have been reviewed. There is a shift of risk to the
Council of income and expenditure flows that form a proportionately larger part of the
overall council’s budget than when these risks were part of Central Government’s
budgets. The changes from April 2013 as a result of the LCTSS and the retention of
business rates has increased the financial uncertainty facing local government and
more local authorities are facing challenges to avoid financial difficulties while
meeting their statutory responsibilities.
21
3.25
Other income streams from demand led services remain vulnerable to the
overarching economic activity both locally and nationally. Steps have been taken to
reduce estimates of income from these services as appropriate but the activity that
drives the income remains very difficult to predict.
3.26
The programme of savings identified as part of the medium term financial plan in
2012/13 is set to continue throughout 2013/14 and 2014/15. Progress through
2012/13 has been in line with expectations with only minimal changes and it is
anticipated that this progress will continue to deliver the total savings within the
agreed overall timeframe.
3.27
The revised assessment of the General Reserve for 2013/14 and forward years
shows an increase from the current policy of holding a minimum reserve of £950k to
a establishing revised minimum level of £1,600k which represents 14% of the net
budgeted operating expenditure. The actual level of the General Reserve at the end
of the financial year 2013/14 is estimated to be £2,072,491, although this includes
£400,000 which the current projections assume will be released by 2015/16.
3.28
Earmarked reserves are estimated to total £5,507,278 by the end of the 2013/14
financial year. The main components of this total are the Big Society Fund, Capital
Projects Reserve and the New Homes Bonus Reserve. These reserves, along with
all the other earmarked reserves have been reviewed against the framework in
appendix B, as decisions are made on the utilisation of these reserve the reserves
position and projections will be updated accordingly.
3.29
The use of the Big Society Fund is designed to support projects that communities
identify which will make a difference to the economic and social well-being of their
areas. The annual contribution to this reserve is determined as part of the budget
process.
3.30
The Capital Projects Reserve provides the funds for major asset purchases or other
capital developments. It is supported by the VAT shelter receipts following the Large
Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) of the councils housing stock in 2006.
3.31
A policy for the deployment of the New Homes Bonus Reserve is currently under
discussion. It is an un-ringfenced grant from Central Government predicated on the
development of new dwellings within the district and calculated by reference to a
prescribed formula.
3.32
All of the earmarked reserves follow the protocol at paragraph 2.2 of the Policy
Framework at appendix B to this report
3.33
In the opinion of the Chief Financial Officer the budgeted level of both the General
Reserve and the Earmarked Reserves shown in Appendix D are considered
adequate for the period 2013/14 to 2016/17; however the level of the reserves will
continue to be reviewed during the year as part of the regular budget monitoring and
as part of the forward financial planning process.
4.
COUNCIL TAX SETTING FOR 2013/14
4.1
The following pages represent the information required for Members to set the
Council Tax for the year commencing 1 April 2013.
4.2
Norfolk County Council is scheduled to meet on the 18 February 2013 to set its
Council Tax, and the recommendation is to freeze the council tax at the same level
22
as last year. The Norfolk Police & Crime Commissioner set the Council Tax on the
31 January 2013 with an increase of 1.965%. The figures used in this report are
based on the assumption that there will be no increase for North Norfolk District
Council (excluding town and parish council precepts) and Norfolk County Council,
and a 1.965% increase for the Norfolk Police & Crime Commissioner.
4.3
Not all the parish precepts have been received at the time this report was prepared
and assumptions have been made regarding their amount. If any of these
assumptions prove to be incorrect when the actual precept is received, revised tables
will be made available for members at the meeting. If any local precepts still remain
outstanding at the date of the meeting, the Council has powers to anticipate the
amount of these precepts and the anticipated amount will be included in the revised
tables.
4.4
The Localism Act 2011 makes provision for council tax referendums to be held if an
authority increases its basic amount of council tax in excess of principles determined
by the Secretary of State. These excessiveness principles are set each year and the
Secretary of State has proposed that for 2013/14 a 2% referendum principle will
apply to all principal local authorities, Police & Crime Commissioners and Fire &
Rescue Authorities. There are some exceptions to this principle, and for shire district
councils who’s 2012/13 Band D council tax was is in the lower quartile, the
referendum principle applies if there is an increase of more than 2% together with a
cash increase of more than £5 in the 2013/14 council tax. For North Norfolk District
Council therefore a referendum will be triggered if it sets a council tax which is more
than 2% and £5 above the basic amount of tax compared to 2012/13, and if the
Norfolk Police & Crime Commissioner sets a council tax which exceeds 2.0%
compared to 2012/13.
4.5
The Secretary of State does not propose to determine excessiveness principles for
local precepting authorities (town and parish councils) for 2013-14, but does intend to
revisit this issue in the following year, having considered the extent to which they
have exercised restraint in relation to council tax in 2013/14.
4.6
That it be NOTED that at its meeting on 23 January 2013, Full Council calculated the
following Council Tax bases for the year 2013/14 in accordance with regulations
made under Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended: a) for the whole Council area as 36,411 (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)
COUNCIL PART OF THE
COUNCIL
PART OF THE
TAX BASE COUNCIL’S AREA
TAX BASE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Alby with Thwaite
93.05 Little Barningham
37.24
Aldborough
208.51 Little Snoring
203.36
Antingham
115.08 Ludham
467.30
Ashmanhaugh
65.32 Matlaske
60.42
Aylmerton
186.10 Melton Constable
172.58
Baconsthorpe
76.30 Morston
57.88
Bacton
455.98 Mundesley
1032.89
Barsham
93.91 Neatishead
224.87
Barton Turf
237.01 North Walsham
3543.15
Beckham East/West
108.64 Northrepps
301.95
23
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Beeston Regis
Binham
Blakeney
Bodham
Briningham
Brinton
Briston
Brumstead
Catfield
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
COUNCIL PART OF THE
TAX BASE COUNCIL’S AREA
356.83 Overstrand
165.01 Paston
505.35 Plumstead
146.65 Potter Heigham
61.01 Pudding Norton
117.06 Raynham
778.76 Roughton
25.50 Runton
295.78 Ryburgh
303.94 Salthouse
177.50 Scottow
252.43 Sculthorpe
2652.62 Sea Palling
130.60 Sheringham
50.83 Sidestrand
175.20 Skeyton
167.65 Sloley
226.77 Smallburgh
2280.37 Southrepps
65.01 Stalham
176.88 Stibbard
133.08 Stiffkey
166.28 Stody
137.45 Suffield
76.39 Sustead
161.29 Sutton
138.53 Swafield
96.40 Swanton Abbott
286.91 Swanton Novers
115.70 Tattersett
70.90 Thornage
175.29 Thorpe Market
383.36 Thurning
262.01 Thursford
189.65 Trimingham
227.25 Trunch
84.78 Tunstead
1473.54 Upper Sheringham
116.74 Walcott
575.07 Walsingham
27.67 Warham
703.68 Wells-next-the-Sea
143.10 Westwick
39.94 Weybourne
57.41 Wickmere
80.82 Wighton
86.76 Witton
140.32 Wiveton
188.74 Wood Norton
24
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
402.95
75.63
48.21
383.11
69.12
123.07
311.39
679.64
210.85
110.07
267.12
265.23
194.44
2924.32
44.05
83.56
81.73
169.34
301.30
928.23
128.37
123.98
88.79
49.65
82.58
359.70
105.53
140.35
78.56
260.63
88.87
103.14
29.11
101.73
127.14
325.06
243.36
90.84
198.36
327.79
73.02
995.12
27.93
306.88
56.19
102.78
116.63
82.91
96.77
PART OF THE
COUNCIL'S AREA
Lessingham
Letheringsett with
Glandford
COUNCIL PART OF THE
TAX BASE COUNCIL’S AREA
215.06 Worstead
COUNCIL
TAX BASE
297.52
120.94
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.
4.7
That the following amounts be now CALCULATED by the Council for the year
2013/14 in accordance with Sections 31A to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act
1992 and the relevant regulations and directions as follows:a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
£56,714,083 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the expenditure items set out in Section
31A(2) (a) to (f) of the Act.
£50,201,040 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council
estimates for the income items set out in Section 31A(3) (a)
to (d) of the Act. This includes the amount the Council
estimates will be transferred in the year from its collection
fund to its general fund in accordance with Section 97 (3) of
the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (council tax
surplus of £26,216).
£6,513,043 being the amount by which the aggregate at (a) above
exceeds the aggregate at (b) above, calculated by the
Council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act, to be
its council tax requirement for the year.
£178.8757 being the amount at (c) above divided by the amount at
4.6(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.
£1,456,649 being the aggregate amount of all special items (parish
precepts) referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act.
£138.8700 being the amount at (d) above less the result given by
dividing the amount at (e) above by the amount at 4.6 (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
Antingham
Ashmanhaugh
Aylmerton
Baconsthorpe
Bacton
BASIC
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AMOUNT AREA
£
164.6625 Little Barningham
159.9960 Little Snoring
156.4490 Ludham
182.3023 Matlaske
170.4605 Melton Constable
155.0036 Morston
167.4370 Mundesley
25
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
159.7078
168.3644
155.2427
143.3718
188.2673
155.5424
183.4226
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
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
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
BASIC
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AMOUNT AREA
£
156.4400 Neatishead
157.2574 North Walsham
158.6325 Northrepps
172.8385 Overstrand
166.1410 Paston
190.4263 Plumstead
180.5679 Potter Heigham
158.0909 Pudding Norton
166.8208 Raynham
168.5812 Roughton
163.3090 Runton
219.8277 Ryburgh
171.5760 Salthouse
199.0859 Scottow
169.3677 Sculthorpe
155.9932 Sea Palling
174.6588 Sheringham
165.9282 Sidestrand
193.2445 Skeyton
168.5885 Sloley
146.5249 Smallburgh
159.8573 Southrepps
163.5753 Stalham
167.7168 Stibbard
173.4949 Stiffkey
167.5946 Stody
151.8635 Suffield
158.2268 Sustead
160.9082 Sutton
168.4551 Swafield
160.8022 Swanton Abbott
174.5594 Swanton Novers
227.8490 Tattersett
159.0600 Thornage
167.8813 Thorpe Market
163.2924 Thursford
168.3580 Trimingham
191.9449 Trunch
154.4088 Tunstead
161.0359 Upper Sheringham
172.9140 Walcott
191.2347 Walsingham
147.1509 Warham
196.2060 Wells-next-the-Sea
170.2756 Weybourne
173.2550 Wickmere
174.6353 Wighton
165.8583 Witton
26
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
163.3508
175.2791
180.5855
174.4724
189.5112
170.4194
167.8590
185.0794
181.9511
162.7307
152.3344
172.0974
172.2760
162.5784
158.6641
186.0362
199.6701
165.6123
151.1605
166.5464
171.2073
174.2898
192.7359
175.9425
176.0937
165.1905
165.6172
154.9755
158.3529
173.1256
168.7666
169.8145
149.3369
154.0944
173.2989
166.7968
186.1879
183.9139
162.9659
189.4204
171.0085
175.0150
207.3443
198.7693
201.3146
194.5026
169.5666
146.5781
PART OF THE COUNCIL'S
AREA
BASIC
PART OF THE COUNCIL’S
AMOUNT AREA
£
170.9511 Wiveton
152.7823 Wood Norton
154.5720 Worstead
Langham
Lessingham
Letheringsett with Glandford
BASIC
AMOUNT
£
191.1073
162.9063
165.9841
being the amounts given by adding to the amount at 4.7(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 4.6(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
Aldborough
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
Fulmodestone
Gimingham
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
109.77
106.66
104.29
121.53
113.64
103.33
111.62
104.29
104.83
105.75
115.22
110.76
126.95
120.37
105.39
111.21
112.38
108.87
146.55
128.07
124.44
121.68
141.79
132.58
120.55
130.22
121.67
122.31
123.38
134.42
129.22
148.10
140.44
122.95
129.74
131.11
127.01
170.97
146.36
142.21
139.06
162.04
151.52
137.78
148.83
139.05
139.78
141.00
153.63
147.68
169.26
160.50
140.52
148.28
149.84
145.16
195.40
164.66
159.99
156.44
182.30
170.46
155.00
167.43
156.44
157.25
158.63
172.83
166.14
190.42
180.56
158.09
166.82
168.58
163.30
219.82
201.25
195.55
191.21
222.81
208.34
189.44
204.64
191.20
192.20
193.88
211.24
203.06
232.74
220.69
193.22
203.89
206.04
199.59
268.67
237.84
231.10
225.98
263.32
246.22
223.89
241.85
225.96
227.14
229.13
249.65
239.98
275.06
260.82
228.35
240.96
243.50
235.89
317.52
274.43
266.66
260.74
303.83
284.10
258.33
279.06
260.73
262.09
264.38
288.06
276.90
317.37
300.94
263.48
278.03
280.96
272.18
366.37
329.32
319.99
312.89
364.60
340.92
310.00
334.87
312.88
314.51
317.26
345.67
332.28
380.85
361.13
316.18
333.64
337.16
326.61
439.65
114.38
132.72
112.91
103.99
116.43
110.61
128.82
112.39
97.68
106.57
109.05
111.81
133.44
154.84
131.73
121.32
135.84
129.05
150.30
131.12
113.96
124.33
127.22
130.44
152.51
176.96
150.54
138.66
155.25
147.49
171.77
149.85
130.24
142.09
145.40
149.08
171.57
199.08
169.36
155.99
174.65
165.92
193.24
168.58
146.52
159.85
163.57
167.71
209.70
243.32
207.00
190.65
213.47
202.80
236.18
206.05
179.08
195.38
199.92
204.98
247.83
287.56
244.64
225.32
252.28
239.67
279.13
243.51
211.64
230.90
236.27
242.25
285.96
331.80
282.27
259.98
291.09
276.54
322.07
280.98
244.20
266.42
272.62
279.52
343.15
398.17
338.73
311.98
349.31
331.85
386.48
337.17
293.04
319.71
327.15
335.43
27
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
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
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
Matlaske
Melton Constable
Morston
Mundesley
Neatishead
North Walsham
Northrepps
Overstrand
Paston
Plumstead
Potter Heigham
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Roughton
Runton
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
115.66
111.72
101.24
105.48
107.27
112.30
107.20
116.37
151.89
106.04
111.92
108.86
112.23
127.96
102.93
107.35
115.27
127.48
98.10
130.80
113.51
115.50
116.42
110.57
113.96
101.85
134.94
130.35
118.11
123.06
125.15
131.02
125.06
135.76
177.21
123.71
130.57
127.00
130.94
149.29
120.09
125.25
134.48
148.73
114.45
152.60
132.43
134.75
135.82
129.00
132.96
118.83
154.21
148.97
134.98
140.64
143.02
149.73
142.93
155.16
202.53
141.38
149.22
145.14
149.65
170.61
137.25
143.14
153.70
169.98
130.80
174.40
151.35
154.00
155.23
147.42
151.95
135.80
173.49
167.59
151.86
158.22
160.90
168.45
160.80
174.55
227.84
159.06
167.88
163.29
168.35
191.94
154.40
161.03
172.91
191.23
147.15
196.20
170.27
173.25
174.63
165.85
170.95
152.78
212.04
204.83
185.61
193.38
196.66
205.88
196.53
213.35
278.48
194.40
205.18
199.57
205.77
234.59
188.72
196.82
211.33
233.73
179.85
239.80
208.11
211.75
213.44
202.71
208.94
186.73
250.60
242.08
219.35
228.54
232.42
243.32
232.26
252.14
329.11
229.75
242.49
235.86
243.18
277.25
223.03
232.60
249.76
276.22
212.55
283.40
245.95
250.25
252.25
239.57
246.92
220.68
289.15
279.32
253.10
263.71
268.18
280.75
268.00
290.93
379.74
265.10
279.80
272.15
280.59
319.90
257.34
268.39
288.19
318.72
245.25
327.01
283.79
288.75
291.05
276.43
284.91
254.63
346.98
335.18
303.72
316.45
321.81
336.91
321.60
349.11
455.69
318.12
335.76
326.58
336.71
383.88
308.81
322.07
345.82
382.46
294.30
392.41
340.55
346.51
349.27
331.71
341.90
305.56
103.04
106.47
112.24
103.49
95.58
125.51
103.69
122.28
108.90
116.85
120.39
116.31
126.34
113.61
111.90
123.38
121.30
108.48
101.55
120.22
124.21
130.95
120.74
111.51
146.43
120.97
142.66
127.05
136.32
140.45
135.70
147.39
132.54
130.55
143.95
141.51
126.56
118.48
137.39
141.96
149.65
137.99
127.44
167.34
138.25
163.04
145.20
155.80
160.52
155.08
168.45
151.48
149.20
164.51
161.73
144.64
135.40
154.57
159.70
168.36
155.24
143.37
188.26
155.54
183.42
163.35
175.27
180.58
174.47
189.51
170.41
167.85
185.07
181.95
162.73
152.33
188.92
195.19
205.77
189.74
175.23
230.10
190.10
224.18
199.65
214.23
220.71
213.24
231.62
208.29
205.16
226.20
222.38
198.89
186.18
223.27
230.68
243.19
224.23
207.09
271.94
224.67
264.94
235.95
253.18
260.84
252.01
273.73
246.16
242.46
267.33
262.81
235.05
220.03
257.62
266.17
280.60
258.73
238.95
313.77
259.23
305.70
272.25
292.13
300.97
290.78
315.85
284.03
279.76
308.46
303.25
271.21
253.89
309.14
319.41
336.72
310.48
286.74
376.53
311.08
366.84
326.70
350.55
361.17
348.94
379.02
340.83
335.71
370.15
363.90
325.46
304.66
28
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Ryburgh
Salthouse
Scottow
Sculthorpe
Sea Palling
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-the-Sea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
All Other Parts of the
Council’s Area
114.73
114.85
108.38
105.77
124.02
133.11
110.40
100.77
111.03
114.13
116.19
128.49
117.29
117.39
110.12
110.41
103.31
105.56
115.41
112.51
113.20
99.55
102.72
115.53
111.19
124.12
122.60
108.64
126.28
114.00
116.67
138.22
132.51
134.20
129.66
113.04
97.71
127.40
108.60
110.65
B
£
133.85
133.99
126.44
123.40
144.69
155.29
128.80
117.56
129.53
133.16
135.55
149.90
136.84
136.96
128.48
128.81
120.53
123.16
134.65
131.26
132.07
116.15
119.85
134.78
129.73
144.81
143.04
126.75
147.32
133.00
136.12
161.26
154.59
156.57
151.27
131.88
114.00
148.63
126.70
129.09
C
£
152.97
153.13
144.51
141.03
165.36
177.48
147.21
134.36
148.04
152.18
154.92
171.32
156.39
156.52
146.83
147.21
137.75
140.75
153.88
150.01
150.94
132.74
136.97
154.04
148.26
165.50
163.47
144.85
168.37
152.00
155.56
184.30
176.68
178.94
172.89
150.72
130.29
169.87
144.80
147.54
D
£
172.09
172.27
162.57
158.66
186.03
199.67
165.61
151.16
166.54
171.20
174.28
192.73
175.94
176.09
165.19
165.61
154.97
158.35
173.12
168.76
169.81
149.33
154.09
173.29
166.79
186.18
183.91
162.96
189.42
171.00
175.01
207.34
198.76
201.31
194.50
169.56
146.57
191.10
162.90
165.98
E
£
210.34
210.55
198.70
193.92
227.37
244.04
202.41
184.75
203.55
209.25
213.02
235.56
215.04
215.22
201.89
202.42
189.41
193.54
211.59
206.27
207.55
182.52
188.33
211.80
203.86
227.56
224.78
199.18
231.51
209.01
213.90
253.42
242.94
246.05
237.72
207.24
179.15
233.57
199.10
202.86
F
£
248.58
248.84
234.83
229.18
268.71
288.41
239.21
218.34
240.56
247.29
251.75
278.39
254.13
254.35
238.60
239.22
223.85
228.73
250.07
243.77
245.28
215.70
222.58
250.32
240.92
268.93
265.65
235.39
273.60
247.01
252.79
299.49
287.11
290.78
280.94
244.92
211.72
276.04
235.30
239.75
G
£
286.82
287.12
270.96
264.44
310.06
332.78
276.02
251.93
277.57
285.34
290.48
321.22
293.23
293.48
275.31
276.02
258.29
263.92
288.54
281.27
283.02
248.89
256.82
288.83
277.99
310.31
306.52
271.60
315.70
285.01
291.69
345.57
331.28
335.52
324.17
282.61
244.29
318.51
271.51
276.64
H
£
344.19
344.55
325.15
317.32
372.07
399.34
331.22
302.32
333.09
342.41
348.57
385.47
351.88
352.18
330.38
331.23
309.95
316.70
346.25
337.53
339.62
298.67
308.18
346.59
333.59
372.37
367.82
325.93
378.84
342.01
350.03
414.68
397.53
402.62
389.00
339.13
293.15
382.21
325.81
331.96
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 4.7(f) or
4.7(g) above by the number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act,
29
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.
4.8
That it be NOTED that for the year 2013/14 the Norfolk County Council and the
Norfolk Police & Crime Commissioner 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
Authority
4.9
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
763.38
890.61
1,017.84
1,145.07
1,399.53
1,653.99
1,908.45
2,290.14
133.86
156.17
178.48
200.79
245.41
290.03
334.65
401.58
That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 4.7(h) and 4.8
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 2013/14 for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:-
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
Brinton
Briston
Catfield
Cley
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,007.01
1,003.90
1,001.53
1,018.77
1,010.88
1,000.57
1,008.86
1,001.53
1,002.07
1,174.85
1,171.22
1,168.46
1,188.57
1,179.36
1,167.33
1,177.00
1,168.45
1,169.09
1,342.68
1,338.53
1,335.38
1,358.36
1,347.84
1,334.10
1,345.15
1,335.37
1,336.10
1,510.52
1,505.85
1,502.30
1,528.16
1,516.32
1,500.86
1,513.29
1,502.30
1,503.11
1,846.19
1,840.49
1,836.15
1,867.75
1,853.28
1,834.38
1,849.58
1,836.14
1,837.14
2,181.86
2,175.12
2,170.00
2,207.34
2,190.24
2,167.91
2,185.87
2,169.98
2,171.16
2,517.53
2,509.76
2,503.84
2,546.93
2,527.20
2,501.43
2,522.16
2,503.83
2,505.19
3,021.04
3,011.71
3,004.61
3,056.32
3,032.64
3,001.72
3,026.59
3,004.60
3,006.23
1,002.99
1,012.46
1,008.00
1,024.19
1,017.61
1,002.63
1,008.45
1,009.62
1,006.11
1,170.16
1,181.20
1,176.00
1,194.88
1,187.22
1,169.73
1,176.52
1,177.89
1,173.79
1,337.32
1,349.95
1,344.00
1,365.58
1,356.82
1,336.84
1,344.60
1,346.16
1,341.48
1,504.49
1,518.69
1,512.00
1,536.28
1,526.42
1,503.95
1,512.68
1,514.44
1,509.16
1,838.82
1,856.18
1,848.00
1,877.68
1,865.63
1,838.16
1,848.83
1,850.98
1,844.53
2,173.15
2,193.67
2,184.00
2,219.08
2,204.84
2,172.37
2,184.98
2,187.52
2,179.91
2,507.48
2,531.16
2,520.00
2,560.47
2,544.04
2,506.58
2,521.13
2,524.06
2,515.28
3,008.98
3,037.39
3,024.00
3,072.57
3,052.85
3,007.90
3,025.36
3,028.88
3,018.33
30
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S
AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Colby
Corpusty and
Saxthorpe
Cromer
Dilham
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
Little Barningham
Little Snoring
Ludham
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,043.79 1,217.75 1,391.72 1,565.68 1,913.61 2,261.54 2,609.47 3,131.37
1,011.62
1,029.96
1,010.15
1,001.23
1,013.67
1,007.85
1,026.06
1,009.63
994.92
1,003.81
1,006.29
1,009.05
1,012.90
1,008.96
998.48
1,002.72
1,004.51
1,009.54
1,004.44
1,013.61
1,049.13
1,003.28
1,009.16
1,006.10
1,009.47
1,025.20
1,000.17
1,004.59
1,012.51
1,024.72
995.34
1,028.04
1,010.75
1,012.74
1,013.66
1,007.81
1,011.20
999.09
1,180.22
1,201.62
1,178.51
1,168.10
1,182.62
1,175.83
1,197.08
1,177.90
1,160.74
1,171.11
1,174.00
1,177.22
1,181.72
1,177.13
1,164.89
1,169.84
1,171.93
1,177.80
1,171.84
1,182.54
1,223.99
1,170.49
1,177.35
1,173.78
1,177.72
1,196.07
1,166.87
1,172.03
1,181.26
1,195.51
1,161.23
1,199.38
1,179.21
1,181.53
1,182.60
1,175.78
1,179.74
1,165.61
1,348.83
1,373.28
1,346.86
1,334.98
1,351.57
1,343.81
1,368.09
1,346.17
1,326.56
1,338.41
1,341.72
1,345.40
1,350.53
1,345.29
1,331.30
1,336.96
1,339.34
1,346.05
1,339.25
1,351.48
1,398.85
1,337.70
1,345.54
1,341.46
1,345.97
1,366.93
1,333.57
1,339.46
1,350.02
1,366.30
1,327.12
1,370.72
1,347.67
1,350.32
1,351.55
1,343.74
1,348.27
1,332.12
1,517.43
1,544.94
1,515.22
1,501.85
1,520.51
1,511.78
1,539.10
1,514.44
1,492.38
1,505.71
1,509.43
1,513.57
1,519.35
1,513.45
1,497.72
1,504.08
1,506.76
1,514.31
1,506.66
1,520.41
1,573.70
1,504.92
1,513.74
1,509.15
1,514.21
1,537.80
1,500.26
1,506.89
1,518.77
1,537.09
1,493.01
1,542.06
1,516.13
1,519.11
1,520.49
1,511.71
1,516.81
1,498.64
1,854.64
1,888.26
1,851.94
1,835.59
1,858.41
1,847.74
1,881.12
1,850.99
1,824.02
1,840.32
1,844.86
1,849.92
1,856.98
1,849.77
1,830.55
1,838.32
1,841.60
1,850.82
1,841.47
1,858.29
1,923.42
1,839.34
1,850.12
1,844.51
1,850.71
1,879.53
1,833.66
1,841.76
1,856.27
1,878.67
1,824.79
1,884.74
1,853.05
1,856.69
1,858.38
1,847.65
1,853.88
1,831.67
2,191.85
2,231.58
2,188.66
2,169.34
2,196.30
2,183.69
2,223.15
2,187.53
2,155.66
2,174.92
2,180.29
2,186.27
2,194.62
2,186.10
2,163.37
2,172.56
2,176.44
2,187.34
2,176.28
2,196.16
2,273.13
2,173.77
2,186.51
2,179.88
2,187.20
2,221.27
2,167.05
2,176.62
2,193.78
2,220.24
2,156.57
2,227.42
2,189.97
2,194.27
2,196.27
2,183.59
2,190.94
2,164.70
2,529.06
2,574.90
2,525.37
2,503.08
2,534.19
2,519.64
2,565.17
2,524.08
2,487.30
2,509.52
2,515.72
2,522.62
2,532.25
2,522.42
2,496.20
2,506.81
2,511.28
2,523.85
2,511.10
2,534.03
2,622.84
2,508.20
2,522.90
2,515.25
2,523.69
2,563.00
2,500.44
2,511.49
2,531.29
2,561.82
2,488.35
2,570.11
2,526.89
2,531.85
2,534.15
2,519.53
2,528.01
2,497.73
3,034.87
3,089.89
3,030.45
3,003.70
3,041.03
3,023.57
3,078.20
3,028.89
2,984.76
3,011.43
3,018.87
3,027.15
3,038.70
3,026.90
2,995.44
3,008.17
3,013.53
3,028.63
3,013.32
3,040.83
3,147.41
3,009.84
3,027.48
3,018.30
3,028.43
3,075.60
3,000.53
3,013.79
3,037.54
3,074.18
2,986.02
3,084.13
3,032.27
3,038.23
3,040.99
3,023.43
3,033.62
2,997.28
1,000.28
1,003.71
1,009.48
1,000.73
1,167.00
1,170.99
1,177.73
1,167.52
1,333.71
1,338.28
1,345.97
1,334.31
1,500.43
1,505.56
1,514.22
1,501.10
1,833.86
1,840.13
1,850.71
1,834.68
2,167.29
2,174.70
2,187.21
2,168.25
2,500.72
2,509.27
2,523.70
2,501.83
3,000.86
3,011.13
3,028.44
3,002.20
31
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S
AREA
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
Swafield
Swanton Abbott
Swanton Novers
Tattersett
Thornage
Thorpe Market
Thursford
Trimingham
Trunch
Tunstead
Upper
Sheringham
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
992.82
1,022.75
1,000.93
1,019.52
1,006.14
1,014.09
1,017.63
1,013.55
1,023.58
1,010.85
1,009.14
1,020.62
1,018.54
1,005.72
998.79
1,011.97
1,012.09
1,005.62
1,003.01
1,021.26
1,030.35
1,007.64
998.01
1,008.27
1,011.37
1,013.43
1,025.73
1,014.53
1,014.63
1,007.36
1,007.65
1,000.55
1,002.80
1,012.65
1,009.75
1,010.44
996.79
999.96
1,012.77
1,008.43
1,021.36
1,019.84
1,005.88
1,158.29
1,193.21
1,167.75
1,189.44
1,173.83
1,183.10
1,187.23
1,182.48
1,194.17
1,179.32
1,177.33
1,190.73
1,188.29
1,173.34
1,165.26
1,180.63
1,180.77
1,173.22
1,170.18
1,191.47
1,202.07
1,175.58
1,164.34
1,176.31
1,179.94
1,182.33
1,196.68
1,183.62
1,183.74
1,175.26
1,175.59
1,167.31
1,169.94
1,181.43
1,178.04
1,178.85
1,162.93
1,166.63
1,181.56
1,176.51
1,191.59
1,189.82
1,173.53
1,323.76
1,363.66
1,334.57
1,359.36
1,341.52
1,352.12
1,356.84
1,351.40
1,364.77
1,347.80
1,345.52
1,360.83
1,358.05
1,340.96
1,331.72
1,349.29
1,349.45
1,340.83
1,337.35
1,361.68
1,373.80
1,343.53
1,330.68
1,344.36
1,348.50
1,351.24
1,367.64
1,352.71
1,352.84
1,343.15
1,343.53
1,334.07
1,337.07
1,350.20
1,346.33
1,347.26
1,329.06
1,333.29
1,350.36
1,344.58
1,361.82
1,359.79
1,341.17
1,489.23
1,534.12
1,501.40
1,529.28
1,509.21
1,521.13
1,526.44
1,520.33
1,535.37
1,516.27
1,513.71
1,530.93
1,527.81
1,508.59
1,498.19
1,517.95
1,518.13
1,508.43
1,504.52
1,531.89
1,545.53
1,511.47
1,497.02
1,512.40
1,517.06
1,520.14
1,538.59
1,521.80
1,521.95
1,511.05
1,511.47
1,500.83
1,504.21
1,518.98
1,514.62
1,515.67
1,495.19
1,499.95
1,519.15
1,512.65
1,532.04
1,529.77
1,508.82
1,820.17
1,875.04
1,835.04
1,869.12
1,844.59
1,859.17
1,865.65
1,858.18
1,876.56
1,853.23
1,850.10
1,871.14
1,867.32
1,843.83
1,831.12
1,855.28
1,855.49
1,843.64
1,838.86
1,872.31
1,888.98
1,847.35
1,829.69
1,848.49
1,854.19
1,857.96
1,880.50
1,859.98
1,860.16
1,846.83
1,847.36
1,834.35
1,838.48
1,856.53
1,851.21
1,852.49
1,827.46
1,833.27
1,856.74
1,848.80
1,872.50
1,869.72
1,844.12
2,151.11
2,215.96
2,168.69
2,208.96
2,179.97
2,197.20
2,204.86
2,196.03
2,217.75
2,190.18
2,186.48
2,211.35
2,206.83
2,179.07
2,164.05
2,192.60
2,192.86
2,178.85
2,173.20
2,212.73
2,232.43
2,183.23
2,162.36
2,184.58
2,191.31
2,195.77
2,222.41
2,198.15
2,198.37
2,182.62
2,183.24
2,167.87
2,172.75
2,194.09
2,187.79
2,189.30
2,159.72
2,166.60
2,194.34
2,184.94
2,212.95
2,209.67
2,179.41
2,482.05
2,556.87
2,502.33
2,548.80
2,515.35
2,535.23
2,544.07
2,533.88
2,558.95
2,527.13
2,522.86
2,551.56
2,546.35
2,514.31
2,496.99
2,529.92
2,530.22
2,514.06
2,507.54
2,553.16
2,575.88
2,519.12
2,495.03
2,520.67
2,528.44
2,533.58
2,564.32
2,536.33
2,536.58
2,518.41
2,519.12
2,501.39
2,507.02
2,531.64
2,524.37
2,526.12
2,491.99
2,499.92
2,531.93
2,521.09
2,553.41
2,549.62
2,514.70
2,978.46
3,068.25
3,002.80
3,058.56
3,018.42
3,042.27
3,052.89
3,040.66
3,070.74
3,032.55
3,027.43
3,061.87
3,055.62
3,017.18
2,996.38
3,035.91
3,036.27
3,016.87
3,009.04
3,063.79
3,091.06
3,022.94
2,994.04
3,024.81
3,034.13
3,040.29
3,077.19
3,043.60
3,043.90
3,022.10
3,022.95
3,001.67
3,008.42
3,037.97
3,029.25
3,031.34
2,990.39
2,999.90
3,038.31
3,025.31
3,064.09
3,059.54
3,017.65
1,023.52 1,194.10 1,364.69 1,535.28 1,876.45 2,217.62 2,558.80 3,070.56
32
PART OF THE
COUNCIL’S
AREA
VALUATION BANDS
A
£
Walcott
Walsingham
Warham
Wells-next-theSea
Weybourne
Wickmere
Wighton
Witton
Wiveton
Wood Norton
Worstead
All Other Parts of
the Council’s
Area
4.10
B
£
C
£
D
£
E
£
F
£
G
£
H
£
1,011.24 1,179.78 1,348.32 1,516.86 1,853.95 2,191.03 2,528.11 3,033.73
1,013.91 1,182.90 1,351.88 1,520.87 1,858.84 2,196.81 2,534.79 3,041.75
1,035.46 1,208.04 1,380.62 1,553.20 1,898.36 2,243.51 2,588.67 3,106.40
1,029.75
1,031.44
1,026.90
1,010.28
994.95
1,024.64
1,005.84
1,007.89
1,201.37
1,203.35
1,198.05
1,178.66
1,160.78
1,195.41
1,173.48
1,175.87
1,373.00
1,375.26
1,369.21
1,347.04
1,326.61
1,366.19
1,341.12
1,343.86
1,544.62
1,547.17
1,540.36
1,515.42
1,492.43
1,536.96
1,508.76
1,511.84
1,887.88
1,890.99
1,882.66
1,852.18
1,824.09
1,878.51
1,844.04
1,847.80
2,231.13
2,234.80
2,224.96
2,188.94
2,155.74
2,220.06
2,179.32
2,183.77
2,574.38
2,578.62
2,567.27
2,525.71
2,487.39
2,561.61
2,514.61
2,519.74
3,089.25
3,094.34
3,080.72
3,030.85
2,984.87
3,073.93
3,017.53
3,023.68
989.82 1,154.79 1,319.76 1,484.73 1,814.67 2,144.61 2,474.55 2,969.46
Excessiveness Determination
4.10.1 The Council’s basic amount of council tax as calculated in paragraph 4.7 (f) above is
the same as that calculated for 2012/13, and therefore within the 2.0% increase limit
above which a referendum would be required.
4.10.2 The Council has determined that its relevant basic amount of Council Tax for
2013/14 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 2013/14 is excessive and that the billing authority is not required to hold a
referendum in accordance with Section 52ZK Local Government Finance Act 1992.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
The Council is required to set the Council Tax each year in accordance with the
legislation set out above in this report. If this is not done, there is a risk that the
council will be unable to bill in a timely manner with a consequential loss of revenue,
and this may prevent the prudent management of the Council’s financial affairs. By
maintaining the council tax at the same level as 2012/13, the Council will receive a
council tax freeze grant of £57,616 payable in 2013/14 and 2014/15.
5.2
The overall budget for 2013/14 is balanced and delivers a surplus of £300,915 which
has been transferred to the General Reserve. Section 3 of the report presents the
Chief Financial Officers statement on the robustness of the estimates and the
adequacy of reserves. This statement is informed by a number of risks that are
facing the authority, in particular those detailed at 3.10. In the light of the increased
financial risks that the Council is facing it is proposed that the level of the General
Reserve is increased to £1.6 million.
33
6. Sustainability – None as a direct consequence of this report.
7. Equality and Diversity
7.1
The Council is legally required to consider the equality duty in its decision-making
and this includes the budget process. As part of any savings or investments the
Council must consider how it can:
•
•
•
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation;
Advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and
Foster good relations between different groups by tackling prejudice and
promoting understanding.
7.2
As part of the 2013/14 budget process savings papers were issued during October,
Heads of Service and Senior Managers were asked to explore service savings and
options for additional income. As part of the proposals Heads of Service were asked
to identify any equality issues affecting a number of protected groups that needed to
be considered as part of accepting the savings/additional income proposals, and
where any negative affect was identified, how this could be minimised or removed. A
cumulative assessment has been undertaken in relation to the equality forms and the
savings proposals and no negative impact has been highlighted as a result of this
exercise.
7.3
It is not considered that the budget presented for 2013/14 will have any significant
impact on equality and diversity issues.
8. Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations – None as a direct consequence of the
report.
34
Appendix A
General Fund Summary 2013/14 Base Budget - Full Council 27/02/13
2013/14 Base
Budget
£
2,325,691
558,987
313,906
4,384,526
934,948
4,226,832
2,783,143
316,703
(23,000)
2014/15
Projection
£
2,168,811
561,717
441,279
3,214,221
938,807
4,182,977
2,819,952
317,763
(46,000)
2015/16
Projection
£
2,175,345
562,727
675,305
2,918,676
912,803
4,062,064
2,873,367
409,651
(46,000)
2016/17
Projection
£
2,164,433
559,987
668,146
2,379,446
906,206
4,064,786
2,913,498
318,751
(46,000)
Net Cost of Services
15,821,736
14,599,527
14,543,938
13,929,253
Parish Precepts (Estimate from 13/14 onwards)
Capital Charges
LCTS - Grants to Parishes
Reffcus
Interest Receivable
Revenue Financing for Capital
IAS 19 Pension Adjustment
1,429,824
(2,292,529)
191,702
(2,511,401)
(392,490)
400,000
266,577
1,429,824
(2,445,397)
142,000
(650,000)
(382,401)
0
266,577
1,429,824
(2,197,010)
124,000
(427,578)
(379,223)
0
266,577
1,429,824
(2,007,145)
108,000
0
(374,045)
0
266,577
Net Operating Expenditure
12,913,419
12,960,130
13,360,528
13,352,464
Contributions to/(from) Earmarked Reserves:
Contribution from Capital Projects Reserve (VAT Shelter)
Contribution to Capital Projects Reserve (VAT Shelter)
Big Society Fund
Carbon Management
Elections
Housing
New Homes Bonus Reserve
Pathfinder
Planning Revenue
Restructuring/Invest to save
The Pier
Whistleblowing
Contribution to general rsv (Reallocation)
Smoothing - Use of General Reserve
Contribution to Reserves - Surplus
(400,000)
390,551
169,735
(21,180)
30,000
(142,000)
628,496
(68,358)
(43,304)
(31,500)
(15,000)
(10,000)
188,180
(200,000)
300,915
0
255,600
0
0
30,000
0
666,458
(36,813)
(8,000)
0
0
0
0
(200,000)
0
0
0
0
0
(60,000)
0
705,536
(28,426)
0
0
0
0
0
(200,000)
0
0
0
0
0
30,000
0
705,536
(18,126)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Amount to be met from Government Grant and Local
Taxpayers
13,689,954
13,667,375
13,777,638
14,069,874
Collection Fund – Parishes
Collection Fund – District
Retained Business Rates
Revenue Support Grant
Formula Funding
LCTS Transitional funding
Efficiency Support for Services in sparse areas
Council Tax Freeze (2013/14)
(1,429,824)
(5,082,610)
(2,817,506)
(4,235,114)
0
(22,740)
(44,544)
(57,616)
(1,429,824)
(5,112,600)
(2,903,922)
(3,246,614)
0
0
0
(57,616)
(1,429,824)
(5,137,600)
0
0
(5,658,493)
0
0
0
(1,429,824)
(5,162,600)
0
0
(5,205,814)
0
0
0
(13,689,954)
(12,750,576)
(12,225,917)
(11,798,238)
0
916,799
1,551,721
2,271,637
Service Area
Assets & Leisure
Corporate Leadership Team/Corporate
Customer Services
Community & Economic Development
Development Management
Environmental Health
Finance
Organisational Development
Management Structures
Income from Government Grant and Taxpayers
(Surplus)/Deficit
35
Appendix B
Policy Framework for the Earmarked Reserves and Assessing the Optimum Level of
the General Reserve for the period 2013/14 to 2016/17
1
Background
1.1
In accordance with statute (principally the Local Government Finance Act 2002) and
following the Guidance Note on Local Authority Reserves and Balances (LAAP
Bulletin No. 77 – November 2008), North Norfolk District Council maintains a range of
reserves.
1.2
Two types of reserves are discussed in this policy framework:
• Earmarked Reserves
• The General Reserve
1.3
There are also a number of other reserves which local authorities hold in relation to
legislation and proper accounting practices, these are not resource-backed reserves
and therefore are not considered as part of this policy framework.
1.4
Sections 31 (a) and 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 require billing and
precepting authorities to have regard to the level of reserves needed for meeting
estimated future expenditure when calculating the council tax requirement.
1.5
This Policy framework has been informed by both the LAAP Bulletin No. 77 and the
Audit Commissions report published in December 2012 ‘Striking a Balance’ Improving
Councils’ Decision Making on Reserves’.
2
Earmarked Reserves
2.1
Purpose
2.1.1
Earmarked reserves are a means of building up funds to meet known or predicted
liabilities.
2.1.2
Typically earmarked reserves are used to set aside sums for major schemes, such as
capital developments or asset purchases, or to fund major reorganisations. Reserves
can also be held for trading and business units built up from surpluses to cover
potential losses in future years, or to finance capital expenditure. In certain
circumstances, if expenditure is delayed on specific budgets, it may be agreed that
the underspending at a year end is carried forward for future use in an earmarked
reserve.
2.2
Earmarked Reserves Protocol
2.2.1
For each reserve the following arrangements have been established:
• the reasons for / purpose of the reserve
• how and when the reserve can be used
• procedures for the reserve’s management and control
• a process and timetable for review of the reserve to ensure continuing relevance
and adequacy.
2.2.2
In North Norfolk, the establishment and use of earmarked reserves is reviewed at the
time of budget setting and then controlled through the year as part of the regular
budget monitoring processes.
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2013
36
Appendix B
2.3
Review of Earmarked Reserves
2.3.1
The Reserves Statement in Appendix D gives full details of the earmarked reserves.
Each earmarked reserve has been assessed by the Chief Financial Officer whose
judgement is that they are properly established in accordance with the protocol and
that their level and proposed use is appropriate.
2.3.2
It is considered that sufficient provision for the Council’s capital programme (as
recommended) has been included in the capital estimates and capital reserves, and
that nothing further is required.
3
The General Reserve
3.1
Purpose
3.1.1
The general reserve is held for two main purposes:
• a working balance to help cushion the impact of uneven cashflows and avoid
temporary borrowing;
• a contingency to help cushion the impact of unexpected events or emergencies
3.2
The Optimum Level of the General Reserve
3.2.1
There are two recommended approaches for deciding the optimum level of the
general reserve:
a)
A risk assessment of the budget which takes full account of the context within
which the budget has been prepared. The budget report itself provides this
contextual information.
b)
To set the reserve at a percentage of expenditure. Too low a level puts the
council at unacceptable risk of failing to meet its obligations, too high a level
unnecessarily ties up resources.
3.2.2
This appendix sets out the framework for considering a risk assessment approach
and validating the result against a percentage calculation. At the end of the day, the
level of reserves is a matter of opinion informed by the judgement of the Council’s
Chief Financial Officer.
3.3
Assessment Framework
3.3.1
The issues to be considered include the following:
The Council continues to operate on an ongoing basis.
The robustness of the budget process including recognition of the linkages with
the corporate plan, the strategic risk register and the financial plan update.
The adequacy of the earmarked reserves and the movements on the general
reserves both in the past and planned.
The extent to which efficiency savings and planned service reductions are
required and can be relied upon to support corporate plan targets.
The risk of major litigation and legal claims, both currently and in the future.
The impact of future Government funding reductions.
From April 2013 there are significant changes to the financial arrangements
covering Council Tax benefits and Business Rates income. As well as the
continued reductions in central government financial support to local authorities
the new arrangements shift the burden of financial risk from Central to Local
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2013
37
Appendix B
Government. In addition the further grant reduction for 2014/15 is provisionally
assessed to be £903k.
Uncertainty around some income streams and grants, for example planning and
building control fee income, land charges, car parking and investment income.
Unplanned volume increases in major demand led budgets, particularly in the
context of the current economic climate for example housing benefits, council tax
support and homelessness.
The need to retain a general contingency to provide for any unforeseen
circumstances that may arise including inadequately funded Government
initiatives.
The Government’s Bellwin scheme does provide financial assistance to local
authorities in the event of an emergency. However, assistance is only available
above a threshold, is normally limited to 85% of eligible costs and relates to
events that are exceptional resulting in damage to local authority infrastructure or
local communities. In the short term all costs have to be met pending
Government reimbursement.
The implications of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 in relation to the
implementation of the new business rates retention system and the localisation of
council tax support, which will be implemented from April 2013/14.
The move in local authorities to do less by direct service provision (either through
the Localism Agenda or through third parties, including outsourcing) is increasing
the risks borne by authorities. There is a risk that these arrangements fail and
there are many circumstances when a statutory liability remains with the local
authority. Such risks may not be insurable at an economic level and demand
rigorous risk minimisation strategies and this is an area that will be considered in
more detail if the Council pursues these arrangements in future years.
The need to retain reserves for general day to day cash flow needs.
3.3.2
All these issues interlink and any one incident is likely to span across many of the
issues. Risks change over time and the general reserve needs to be considered
across the four budget/projection years. What might be an adequate level of
reserves in year one could be inadequate in years two to four.
3.4
The Assessment of the General Fund Reserve
3.4.1
When undertaking the assessment it must be remembered that the items considered
are merely guides to assessing the overall level of the reserve. In no way is it a
budget for any of the items being created since by its nature a general reserve is
designed to protect against the unexpected and unquantifiable for whatever reason.
3.4.2
Having considered the relevant risks and the mitigation measures already in place, it
is felt that the following indicative items should be taken into account in the budget
risk assessment:
Item
1 Pay and Price Inflation
(0.5% above budget assumption)
2 Interest Rates
(0.25% below budget prediction on
non-fixed investments)
3 Failure to Achieve Planned
Savings and Cost Pressures
from Corporate Plan Targets
(to ensure core services are
maintained)
2013/14
56,500
2014/15
56,500
2015/16
56,500
2016/17
56,500
45,000
45,000
45,000
45,000
56,396
61,935
62,535
62,535
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2013
38
Appendix B
Item
4 Major Litigation and Legal
Claims
(to provide additional comfort
above earmarked reserves)
5 Emergencies and Other
Unknowns
(to recognise the risks associated
with unpredictable events)
6 Treatment of Demand Led
Pressures
(recognising the impact of increase
or reduction in demand and
compensating increase or
reduction in expenditure or income)
7 Cash Flow
(it is felt that in relation to the new
statutory obligations in paying set
amounts to the major preceptors
and central government as part of
the new funding arrangements, an
amount needs to be included for
the impact on the short term cash
flow needs)
8 Future Funding Fluctuations
(due to the changes in the future
funding regime an allowance
should be made within the general
reserve to mitigate the impact
within and between financial years)
Total Indicated General Fund
Reserve Recommended
% of Net Budgeted Operating
Expenditure (excluding parish
precepts)
Budgeted General Fund Reserve
(at year-end, after taking account
of planned use)
% of Net Budgeted Operating
Expenditure (excluding parish
precepts)
2013/14
335,000
2014/15
300,000
2015/16
300,000
2016/17
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
590,000
590,000
590,000
590,000
1,632,896
1,603,435
1,604,035
1,604,035
14.2%
13.9%
13.4%
13.5%
1,672,491
1,672,491
1,672,491
1,672,491
14.6%
14.5%
14.0%
14.0%
4
Chief Financial Officer’s Opinion
4.1
The Earmarked Reserves detailed in Appendix C are proper and appropriate with
regard to purpose, level and proposed use.
4.2
Based on the assessment detailed above it is recommended that the level of the
general reserve should be set at £1.6 million. The budgeted General Fund Reserve
shown in Appendix C is considered adequate for the period 2013/14 to 2016/17;
however the level of the general reserve should be reviewed during the year as part
of the financial planning process taking into account where applicable items identified
within the assessment framework at 3.3.
Reserves Policy Framework, February 2013
39
Appendix C
Reserves Statement - 2013/14 Base Budget
Reserve
Purpose and Use of Reserve
Balance at
1/4/2012
£
General Fund General Reserve
A working balance and contingency, current recommended
balance is £950,000. This also includes the rellocation of a
number of previously earmarked reserves to be used over the
next three years.
Budgeted
Budgeted
Revised Budget
Balance at
Balance at
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
31/3/2013
1/4/2014
Movement
Movement
Movement
£
£
£
2,049,920
(266,524) 1,783,396
(486,940) 1,332,529
£
£
289,095 2,072,491 (200,000)
Balance at
1/4/2015
Budgeted
2015/16
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2016
£
£
£
Budgeted
Balance at
Movement
1/4/2017
2016/17
£
£
1,872,491 (200,000)
1,672,491
0 1,672,491
255,600
1,578,680
0
1,578,680
0 1,578,680
Earmarked Reserves:
Capital Projects
To provide funding for capital developments and purchase of
major assets. This includes the VAT Shelter Receipt.
1,819,469
Asset Management
To support improvements to our existing assets as identified
through the Asset Management Plan.
26,669
(15,000)
11,669
0
11,669
0
11,669
0
11,669
0
11,669
Benefits
To be used to mitigate any claw back by the Department of
Works and Pensions following final subsidy determination.
Timing of the use will depend on audited subsidy claims.
640,242
(99,100)
541,142
0
541,142
0
541,142
0
541,142
0
541,142
Big Society Fund
To support projects that communities identify where they will
make a difference to the economic and social wellbeing of the
area. Funded by a proportion of NCC element of second
homes council tax. Annual contributions to and from the
reserve will be determined as part of the budget process.
0
639,625
639,625
169,735
809,360
0
809,360
0
809,360
0
809,360
Carbon
Management
To fund revenue invest to save initiatives and projects within
the Carbon Management Plan.
21,180
0
21,180
(21,180)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coast Protection
To support the ongoing coast protection maintenance
programme.
208,000
(208,000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Common Training
To deliver the corporate training programme. Training and
development programmes are sometimes not completed in
the year but are committed and therefore funding is carried
forward in an earmarked reserve.
32,000
(4,000)
28,000
0
28,000
0
28,000
0
28,000
0
28,000
Economic
Development and
Tourism
Earmarked from previous underspends on Economic
Development and Tourism Budgets along with funding
earmarked for Learning for Everyone.
55,072
(26,233)
28,839
0
28,839
0
28,839
0
28,839
0
28,839
Election Reserve
Established to meet costs associated with district council
elections, to smooth the impact between financial years.
1,500
28,500
30,000
30,000
60,000
30,000
90,000
(60,000)
30,000
30,000
60,000
Environmental
Policy
Earmarking of a previous underspend to meet future costs of
environmental policy initiatives.
20,090
(20,090)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
(9,449) 1,323,080
Appendix C
Reserves Statement - 2013/14 Base Budget
Reserve
Purpose and Use of Reserve
Balance at
1/4/2012
£
Housing
Previously earmarked for stock condition survey and housing
needs assessment.
Treasury (Property)
Property Investment (Treasury)
Reserve
Land Charges
To Mitigate the impact of potential income reductions.
Legal & Democratic One off funding for Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) work
and to undertake a review of the Constitution.
Services
Budgeted
Budgeted
Revised Budget
Balance at
Balance at
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
31/3/2013
1/4/2014
Movement
Movement
Movement
£
£
£
£
242,000 (142,000)
£
100,000
0
Balance at
1/4/2015
Budgeted
2015/16
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2016
£
£
£
242,000
0
100,000
116,068
(84,494)
31,574
0
31,574
31,574
50,356
(1,380)
48,976
0
48,976
48,976
46,599
(3,506)
43,093
0
43,093
0
0
Budgeted
Balance at
Movement
1/4/2017
2016/17
£
£
100,000
0
100,000
31,574
0
31,574
0
48,976
0
48,976
43,093
0
43,093
0
43,093
Local Strategic
Partnership
Earmarked underspends on the LSP for outstanding
commitments and liabilities.
671,958
(615,230)
56,728
0
56,728
0
56,728
0
56,728
0
56,728
LSVT Reserve
To meet the cost of successful warranty claims not covered by
bonds and insurance following the housing stock transfer.
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
0
435,000
New Homes Bonus
Established for supporting communities with future growth
and development.
0
611,678
611,678
628,496 1,240,174
666,458
1,906,632
705,536
2,612,168
Organisational
Development
To provide funding for organisation development to create
capacity within the organisation and address anomalies within
the pay structure.
494,488
(394,911)
99,577
0
99,577
0
99,577
0
99,577
0
99,577
196,036
(196,036)
0
0
0
0
0
0
404,000
(198,175)
205,825
(68,358)
137,467
(36,813)
100,654
(28,426)
72,228
(18,126)
54,102
110,835
(56,196)
54,639
(43,304)
11,335
(8,000)
3,335
0
3,335
0
3,335
37,837
0
37,837
0
37,837
37,837
0
37,837
468,216
9,872
478,088
(31,500)
446,588
446,588
0
446,588
705,536 3,317,704
This reflects the balance of Funding as at 31/03/12 on the
Partnership Budgets Revenues and Benefits Partnership project. This will be
0
utilised in 2012/13
Pathfinder
To help Coastal Communities adapt to coastal changes.
Previously unspent HPDG for use on related revenue
Planning - Revenue
projects, timing to be confirmed.
Regeneration
Projects
Carry forward of underspends relating to
Regeneration Projects.
Restructuring &
Invest to Save
Proposals
To fund one-off redundancy and pension strain costs and
invest to save initiatives. Transfers from this reserve will be
allocated against savings proposals as business cases are
approved. Timing of the use of this resrve will depend on
when business cases are approved.
41
37,837
0
446,588
0
Appendix C
Reserves Statement - 2013/14 Base Budget
Reserve
Purpose and Use of Reserve
Balance at
1/4/2012
Budgeted
Budgeted
Revised Budget
Balance at
Balance at
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
31/3/2013
1/4/2014
Movement
Movement
Movement
£
£
Sports Hall
To support renewals for sports hall equipment. Amount
Equipment & Sports transferred in the year represents over or under achievement
of income target.
Facilities
23,339
(6,500)
16,839
0
16,839
The pier
To be used to support the costs of works to Cromer pier.
15,000
0
15,000
(15,000)
0
Whistle blowing
Commissioning investigation activity as required.
10,000
0
10,000
(10,000)
0
776,535 7,579,769
Total Reserves
8,195,874
£
£
(1,392,640) 6,803,234
42
£
£
0
Balance at
1/4/2015
Budgeted
2015/16
Movement
Balance at
1/4/2016
£
£
£
Budgeted
Balance at
Movement
1/4/2017
2016/17
£
£
16,839
0
16,839
0
16,839
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
707,245
8,287,014
417,110
8,704,124
717,410 9,421,534
Agenda Item No____11________
DRAFT PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS 2013 - 2014
Summary:
A draft Programme of Meetings for 2013/14 has been
prepared and circulated for consultation and is attached at
Appendix D.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
That Members adopt the Programme of Meetings for 2013
- 2014
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Mr T FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Alison Argent, Tel: 01263 516058, Email:
alison.argent@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Preparation of a Programme of Meetings for 2013/14
1.1
A draft programme of meetings for 2013/14 has been prepared and circulated for
consultation. The following issues should also be noted:
a)
It has been assumed that, with the exception of Joint Staff Consultative
Committee, the times of the meetings will be as they are currently, so all
meetings will be held in the day, with the exception of Full Council.
b)
Most standing committees meet on set cycles and this has been kept to as
closely as possible within this Programme. However, some variations have been
made to avoid clashes with other meetings and, where possible, August and halfterms have been kept free from meetings, particularly of Council, Cabinet and
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
c)
In response to Members and the Task and Finish Group, Meetings of Overview
and Scrutiny Committee and Full Council have been scheduled so that there is a
gap of at least one week between them, with the exception of the meetings in
May.
43
2.
d)
The Judicial Board has been removed from the Programme due to a lack of
business.
e)
The Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party meetings have been
scheduled to meet every other month instead of every month.
Financial Implications and Risks to the Council
If we did not have an agreed schedule of meetings, the Council would not be able to
adequately carry out its business which would have wide-ranging financial implications
and make it difficult to plan and agree a budget.
An agreed programme of meetings is essential to the management of the Council’s
business to ensure that it is carried out in a timely manner in accordance with legislation.
Failure to do so could result in financial penalty and litigation. Furthermore if the
programme of meetings was not published in the public domain the Council would not be
complying with legislation and would be open to challenge.
3.
Equality and Diversity
The process of preparing the programme of meetings has included reference to the
Multi-faith calendar. The times of the meetings reflects the preference of the majority of
Members in the current Council.
44
Appendix D
DRAFT PROGRAMME OF MEETINGS 2013/2014 DRAFT
MEETING
FULL COUNCIL
CABINET
DAY
Wed
Mon
TIME
18.00
10.00
MAY
22
13
JUN
10
JUL
24
8
2013
AUG SEPT
18
2
OCT
23
7
NOV
4
DEC
18
2
JAN
7
2014
FEB
MAR
26
3
3
APR
30
14
(Tues)
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wed
9.30
Thurs
9.30
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
(RESERVE)
Site Meetings**
Site Meetings (Reserve)**
AUDIT COMMITTEE
LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE
Thurs
9.30
21
19
17
11
16
13
11
15
12
12
23
9
6
4
1/29
26
24
21
19
23
20
20
17
23
20
18
15
12
10
7
5
9
6
6
3
2/30
16
28
13
18
25
11
22
8
19
5
17
16
17
3/31
14
28
12
16
2/30
13
27
13
27
17
10
10
24
25
26
(Tues)
Thurs
Thurs
Tues 14.00
Mon
10.00
8
22
10
11
13
(Weds)
LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEES
Weds
5
3/31
28
25
22
20
(Tues)
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
STANDARDS COMMITTEE (RESERVE)
General reserve days (for possible
extra meetings)
Members’ Training, Development
and Support Group**
Coastal Issues Forum**
Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party
Joint Staff Consultative
Committee*
Tues
Tues
14.00
14
10/15
Tues
11.00
14
Tues
Mon
10.00
10.00
7
20
Mon
14.30
9
11
3/25
10/23
10
6
7/21
6/24
5
8
9/25
20
6/26
22
(Tues)
14
10
6/13
8
13
23
12
18
17
16
9
25
(Fri)
(Tues)
Notes:Committees marked * are occasional Committees and will not meet unless express notification is given.
Meetings marked ** are not formal meetings and are recorded here for convenience.
29
(Tues)
11
11
5/14
19
15
45
17
(Tues)
5/18
8
2/25
4
4
20
24
10
28
Agenda Item No_____12_______
DUNTON PARISH COUNCIL – REQUEST FOR DISSOLUTION
Summary:
The report considers a request from Dunton Parish
Council for its own dissolution.
Conclusions:
That Full Council should consider the request.
Recommendations:
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Becky Palmer
The Raynhams
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Emma Duncan, 01263 516045, emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1
Dunton Parish lies within the Raynhams’ ward on the western border of the
District Council’s area. The current electorate (January 2013) is 94.
1.2
Dunton Parish Council has 7 Members and currently meets approximately 4
times per year, the last election being held in May 2011.
1.3
Dunton has no assets.
1.4
Dunton precepted £400 in 2011/12 and nil in 2012/2013.
1.5
At the full parish review carried out by the District Council and completed in
2006, the future of Dunton Parish was considered but no changes were made
at that time.
Request for Dissolution and Consultation
1.6
The Parish Council have contacted the Council asking for the Parish Council
to be dissolved as the Parish Council felt that since they had no assets and
their meetings were poorly attended that there was little purpose in
continuing.
1.7
Advice was given to the Parish Council that consultation needed to be
undertaken with residents before the District Council would consider
exercising its powers to dissolve the Parish Council.
1.8
The Parish Council subsequently wrote to all households in Dunton during
April/May 2012 outlining the proposal to dissolve the Parish Council and
replace it with a Parish meeting. Out of 46 households, 41 indicated their view
that the Parish Council should be dissolved.
46
1.9
At the Annual Parish Meeting on 24 May 2012 a vote was taken on a show of
hands as follows;
“At this Annual Parish Meeting of Dunton Parish Council requests North
Norfolk District Council to undertake the proper exercise to determine if this
Parish Council may be dissolved and the authority of a Parish Meeting
without a Parish Council applied to this Parish”.
1.10
26 people attended the meeting, 19 voting in favour of the proposition, 4
against and 2 abstaining. Following this meeting the District Council
undertook a further consultation exercise at the request of the Parish Council.
The District Council wrote to 92 parishioners and received 39 responses. 29
were in favour of dissolving the Parish Council, 8 were opposed and 2
parishioners had no view either way.
Legal Position
1.11
Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972) allows the Council
to dissolve parish councils in parishes with less than 150 electors at the
request of the parish meeting. Parish governance would then be exercised
by the parish meeting.
1.12
The 1972 Act requires all parishes, whether or not they have a parish council,
to have at least one annual parish meeting consisting of all the local
government electors for the parish. Where there is no parish council, a parish
meeting must be held at least twice a year to discuss parish affairs.
1.13
The chairman of the parish meeting and the proper office of the District
Council become Parish Trustees and act in accordance with the directions of
the parish meeting (Section 13 of the 1972 Act).
1.14
Thurning (52 electors) and Westwick (65 electors) are currently the only
Parishes without a Parish Council in the Council’s area.
Statutory Guidance
1.15
There is no statutory guidance available to the Section 10 of the LGA 1972,
however, there is statutory guidance issued by the Department for
Communities and Local Government on undertaking Community Governance
Reviews in relation to the exercise of the District Council’s powers to create
and make changes to parishes under the Local Government and Public
Involvement in Health Act 2007. This provides useful pointers to the factors
to be taken into account when considering changes to parish arrangements.
1.16
The guidance reiterates that community governance should reflect the
identities and interests of the community and be effective and convenient.
The factors to be taken into account should include the impact of governance
arrangements on community cohesion and the size, population and
boundaries of the parish.
47
1.10
The guidance also points out that where new parishes are being created
following a Community Governance Review, the statutory minimum size of a
parish to have a parish council is now 150 electors. (Previously a district
council could agree to the creation of parish councils in parishes of this size.)
So, although existing parishes having a parish council but fewer than 150
electors can continue to have a parish council, Dunton would no longer meet
the criteria to have its own parish council if it were being created under the
new statutory provisions.
Financial Comments
1.17
Dunton does levy a precept, its expenses, as described above, were relatively
modest. The most recent precept was levied in 2011/2012 was £400.
1.18
The parish meeting, assuming that this means the governance is agreed, will
still retain the power to levy a precept. The parish will, therefore, have to
ensure that if it wishes to do so, that it makes arrangements to hold one of its
meetings at a time that will dovetail with the District’s own budget setting
process.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That Members consider whether an Order be made under Section 10 of the Local
Government Act 1972 to dissolve Dunton Parish Council and transfer all assets of
the Parish Council to the Parish meeting.
48
Agenda Item No____13________
Pay Policy Statement 2013/14
Summary:
Section 38 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) requires
the Council to produce an annual pay policy statement
(“the statement”) for the start of each financial year. The
attached statement is drawn up in compliance with the
Act to cover the period 2013/14. It is a legal requirement
that Full Council formally signs off this statement and
the responsibility cannot be devolved to any other
person or committee.
Conclusions:
The attached statement sets out current remuneration
arrangements and is not a change to existing
policy/practices.
Recommendations:
To adopt the attached Pay Policy Statement and to
publish the statement for 2013/14 on the Council’s
website.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Councillor Tom FitzPatrick All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
1.
Introduction
1.1
Section 38 (1) of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) requires English and
Welsh local authorities to produce a pay policy statement (“the statement”) for
each financial year. The first statement went to Full Council on 22 February
2012 to cover the period 2012/13.
2.
The Statement
2.1
The statement must set out:
•
•
•
•
A local authority’s policy on the level and elements of remuneration for
each chief officer
A local authority’s policy on the remuneration of its lowest-paid
employees (together with its definition of “lowest-paid employees” and
its reasons for adopting that definition)
A local authority’s policy on the relationship between the remuneration
of its chief officers and other officers
A local authority’s policy on other specific aspects of chief officers’
remuneration: remuneration on recruitment, increases and additions to
remuneration, use of performance related pay and bonuses,
termination payments, and transparency.
49
2.2
With regard to the process for approving the statement, it must:•
•
•
•
2.3
Be approved formally by Full Council and cannot be delegated to any sub
committee. This includes any amendments in each financial year
Be approved by the end of March each year
Be published on the authority’s website and in any other manner that the
Council thinks appropriate as soon as it is reasonably practicable after it is
approved or amended
Be complied with when the authority sets the terms and conditions for a
Chief Officer
For the purpose of the statement the term ‘Chief Officer’ in a local authority
context is defined as set out in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989
as:
•
•
•
•
The Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive)
The Monitoring Officer
A statutory Chief Officer and non statutory Chief Officer (section 2 of
that Act)
A deputy Chief Officer (section 2 of that Act)
2.4
This definition of Chief Officer is wider than that contained within the
Constitution where the term ‘chief officer’ indicates the senior posts which sit
on Corporate LeadershipTeam i.e. the Chief Executive and Directors.
3
Conclusion
3.1
The statement meets the statutory requirements of the Localism Act and it is
therefore recommended that the statement be approved.
4
Financial Implications and Risks
4.1
There are no increased risks or resource implications as a result of setting
and publishing this statement. The report and the statement outline current
arrangements. This statement builds on the publication of senior officer salary
information
which
is
already
available
on
the
website
at
http://www.northnorfolk.org/council/8105.asp
5
Equality and Diversity
5.1
The Equality act 2010 places requirements upon all public sector bodies to
ensure that its policies and procedures promote equality, this document
supports that requirement.
50
Appendix E
PAY POLICY STATEMENT 2013/14
Context
This policy statement has been produced in accordance with Sections 38 to 43 of the
Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”), which, from 2012 onwards, requires all local
authorities to publish an annual statement of their policy for the relevant financial
year in relation to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The remuneration of their most senior employees (which the Act
defines as the Head of Paid Service (Chief Executive),
the Monitoring Officer,
the Chief Officers (or Directors), and
the Deputy Chief Officers (i.e. managers who report directly to a Chief
Officer));
The remuneration of their lowest-paid employees; and
The relationship between the remuneration of their most senior
employees and that of other employees.
The Secretary of State has produced guidance on the provisions in the Act relating to
transparency and accountability in local pay, which local authorities must have regard
to in preparing and approving their annual pay policy statements. This Pay Policy
Statement takes full account of this guidance as well as the provisions of the Act.
Additionally it takes account of:
•
•
•
The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data
Transparency, issued by the Department for Communities and Local
Government in September 2011
Guidance issued by the Joint National Council (JNC) for Local
Authority Chief Executives on pay policy statements which was
published in November 2011
Employment and equalities legislation which impacts on local authority
employers
The policy statement also refers to information which the Council already publishes
under other legislation:
•
•
•
Information on the level of remuneration paid to senior managers, as
required by The Accounts and Audit (Amendment No. 2) (England)
Regulations 2009
Policies on the exercise of its discretions over payments upon
termination of employment under the Local Government Pension
Scheme, as required by Regulation 66 of the Local Government
Pension Scheme (Administration) Regulations 2008
Policies on the exercise of its discretions over payments upon
termination of employment under the Local Government (Early
Termination of Employment) (Discretionary Compensation) (England
and Wales) Regulations 2006, as required by Regulation 7 of those
regulations.
51
Appendix E
This Pay Policy Statement must be reviewed on an annual basis and a new version
of the policy will be submitted to Full Council for approval by 31 March immediately
preceding the financial year to which it relates.
The pay policy statement can also be amended during the course of the financial
year, but only by a resolution of the Full Council. If it is amended during the year to
which it relates, the revised version of the statement must be published as soon as
possible after the amendment is approved by Full Council.
This policy statement was considered by Full Council on 27 February 2013. It is
available on the Council’s website. The Council’s website also includes separately
published data on salary information relating to Senior Officers and this can be
viewed at http://www.northnorfolk.org/council/8105.asp
For the purpose of the pay policy statement the term ‘Chief Officer’ in a local
authority context is defined as set out in the Local Government and Housing Act
1989:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The Head of Paid Service (i.e. the Chief Executive) as designated under
section 4 of that Act;
The Monitoring Officer designated under section 5(1) of that Act;
A statutory Chief Officer and non statutory Chief Officer under section 2 of
that Act;
A deputy Chief Officer mentioned in section 2 of that Act.
Remunerating Chief Officers/Senior Management
The remuneration for Chief Officers/Senior Management within the Council can be
found at Appendix A.
The Monitoring Officer service is contracted through Norfolk County Council and as
such, the Council does not directly remunerate the Monitoring Officer.
Remunerating the Lowest Paid in the Workforce
The Council applies terms and conditions of employment that have been negotiated
and agreed through appropriate collective bargaining mechanisms (national or local)
or as a consequence of Council decisions, these are then incorporated into contracts
of employment. The lowest pay point in use by the Council for employees is spinal
column point (SCP) 4. This relates to an annual salary of £12,145 (full time
equivalent (FTE) and can be expressed as an hourly rate of pay of £6.2951 as at 31
March 2013. Employees on this pay point are defined as our lowest paid employees.
This pay point and salary were determined by the National Joint Council (NJC) on 1
April 2009 and there has been no annual pay award to any group of staff since that
time.
The Relationship between Chief Officer Remuneration and that of other
employees
The highest paid salary in the Council is that of the Chief Executive at £99,771 as at
31 March 2013. The median for Chief Officers is £50,818 and for non-Chief Officers
is £19,125. This gives a ratio of 1:2.657. The Council does not have a policy on
maintaining, reaching or applying a specific pay multiple. However the Council is
conscious that remuneration at all levels needs to be adequate to secure and retain
high-quality employees but not be seen as excessive.
52
Appendix E
Other Aspects of Chief Officer Remuneration
Other aspects of Chief Officer remuneration are appropriate to be covered by this
policy statement, these other aspects are defined as remuneration on recruitment,
pay increases, additions to pay, performance related pay, earn back, enhancements
of pension entitlements and termination payments. These elements are shown in
Appendix A and B.
Review
The Localism Act 2011 requires relevant authorities to prepare a Pay Policy
Statement for each subsequent financial year. The next statement will be submitted
to Full Council for approval by 31 March 2014.
As necessary, the Council may by resolution amend the pay policy statement at
times other than that of the prescribed annual statement.
53
Appendix E
Post
Chief Executive
Basic Salary
Range (as @ 31
March 2013)
£99,771 pa
Expenses / car
allowances
Travel and other
expenses are
reimbursed through
normal Council
procedures.
Car allowances are
paid in accordance
with the rates set
out in Council’s
Travel Policy (see
Appendix C)
Bonuses /
PRP / Earn
Back
The current
terms and
conditions of
employment
does not
provide for any
of the above
elements
Honoraria
Acting Up
/
Honoraria and
acting up
payments for any
increased duties
and
responsibilities do
not apply
Market/Salary
Supplements
Election Fees
Severance
Arrangements
A salary/market
supplement has
not been applied
to this post
As the Returning Officer, the Chief
Executive will receive a fee,
locally in respect of County,
District and Parish Elections. The
fee for undertaking this role in
Norfolk is determined by an
independent panel made up of the
Chairs of Norfolk Local Authority
Member Remuneration Panels.
Fees for conducting Parliamentary
and European Parliamentary
Elections, National Referendums
and other Elections such as for
the Police and Crime
Commissioner. etc. are
determined by Government. The
Returning Officer is a separate
appointment and therefore not
factored into the salary range
shown.
The Council’s
normal policies
regarding
redundancy and
early/flexible
retirement apply
to the postholder
The fees will be published on the
Council’s website (once agreed)
As above (where applicable)
As above
Corporate
Directors x 2
Head of
Finance/s151
Officer
£77,307 pa
As above
As above
As above
As above
£52,806 pa
As above
As above
£4464 pa (s151
responsibilities)
As above (where applicable)
As above
Head of Service
x7
£42,494
£52,806 pa
As above
As above
Could be applied
where appropriate
on authorisation of
Corporate
Leadership Team
Could be applied
where appropriate
on authorisation of
Corporate
Leadership Team
Could be applied
where appropriate
on authorisation of
Corporate
Leadership Team
As above (where applicable)
As above
-
54
Appendix E
Appendix B
Aspect of Chief
Officer Remuneration
Recruitment
Council Policy
The post will be advertised and appointed to at the appropriate approved
salary for the post in question and individuals will be placed on the
appropriate SCP within the pay grade for the post that they are appointed
to.
Employees will receive an annual increment (and in some cases, 6 months
after starting work with the Council), subject to the top of their grade not
being exceeded.
Where the Council is unable to recruit to a post at its designated grade, it
will consider the use of temporary market supplements.
Access to appropriate elements of the Council’s relocation Scheme may
also be granted in certain circumstances, when new starters move to the
area.
Pay Increases
Additions to Pay
Professional
Subscriptions
Employee Assistance
Programme (EAP)
(includes access to
advice and
counselling)
Contract for Services
Redundancy and
payments on
termination
The above applies to all employees.
The Council will apply any pay increases that are agreed by the relevant
national negotiating bodies. The Council will also apply any pay increases
that are as a result of Council decisions to significantly increase the duties
and responsibilities of the post in question beyond the normal flexing of
duties and responsibilities that are expected in senior posts.
This applies to all employees.
The Council would not make additional payments beyond those specified
in the terms and conditions of employment.
This applies to all employees.
These are payable where they are required for the post and should be
limited to one subscription per Officer.
This applies to all employees.
Access to the EAP scheme is available to all employees and Elected
Members.
Where the Council remains unable to appoint chief officers on recruitment,
or there is a need to provide interim support to cover for a vacant
substantive chief officer post, the Council will, where necessary, consider
engaging individuals under ‘contracts for service’. These will be sourced
through a relevant procurement process ensuring the Council is able to
demonstrate value for money from competition in securing the relevant
service.
The Council has a single policy which applies to all employees.
Where termination of employment is subject to a compromise agreement
that agreement may include a negotiated payment in exchange for which
the employee undertakes not to pursue claims against the Council. This is
always subject to the completion of a business case and appropriate
authorisation as laid out in the above policy.
55
Appendix E
Appendix C
TRAVEL POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this policy is to set out North Norfolk District Council’s policy on travel
arrangements that employees are eligible to claim in reimbursement for journeys made in
carrying out their duties.
GENERAL TRAVEL PRINCIPLES
Employees will be required to ensure that:-
the use of public transport is prioritised above a car where the journey time is
comparable to that of a car
-
the choice of travel mode should always be the most cost effective to the
Authority, taking into account both claim costs and staff time
-
they ensure that journeys are planned to do the least number of miles possible,
through good route planning and car sharing
-
a full record of their journey is kept including the reason for travelling and the
names of official passengers carried
-
they do not use their own vehicle on journeys where there is room in the car of
another officer making the same journey on the same business. In this situation,
an essential car user should drive in preference to a casual user, if possible
-
they have included and maintain in their policy of insurance a clause indemnifying
the Authority against all third party claims (including those concerning
passengers) arising out of the use of the vehicle on official business
-
all claims exclude home to work mileage (and vice versa) if the journey starts or
ends from the officers home i.e. they should only claim for excess business
mileage over and above their normal daily commute mileage
-
all claims must be made using the appropriate claim form (these can be obtained
from the intranet or HR)
-
VAT receipts are obtained and attached to the travel claim form to enable the
Authority to reclaim VAT
-
they are familiar with and comply with the Driver Policy and Handbook
CAR ALLOWANCES
North Norfolk District Council recognises that employees will be required to use their own
motor vehicle for the efficient performance of their duties and that it is appropriate to
reimburse for additional authorised expenditure.
All employees are designated as casual users unless their post attracts an essential car user
allowance or they are currently in receipt of either a lease car or cash equivalent payment.
ESSENTIAL USER ALLOWANCES
Essential users are those whose duties are of such a nature that it is essential for them to
have a motor car at their disposal whenever required. If the employee uses a private car in
56
Appendix E
carrying out those official duties then they shall be entitled to receive the lump sum
allowance and mileage rates set out in this policy.
To determine eligibility to an essential car user allowance, the Essential Car User
Assessment Form (obtained from HR) must be completed by either the line manager (for
vacant posts) or the postholder. The assessment form will be scored by HR and eligibility will
be confirmed or declined based on that assessment. If the postholder is not satisfied with the
outcome, they can request an assessment by their Strategic Director in consultation with
UNISON. A record of the request and scoring will be kept on the post file and where
appropriate, the personnel file.
The essential car user allowance will be paid to all employees whose eligibility is confirmed
and they will receive a lump sum in accordance with their terms and conditions of
employment along with the approved mileage rate for claimed business miles undertaken.
Eligibility for essential car user status will be checked annually via completion of the car
allowance scheme assessment form and if the post does not meet the criteria for this
allowance, it will be removed immediately and the employee will be re-designated as a
casual user. Transitional arrangements apply for the period of April 2011 to March 2012.
Where staff are assessed as no longer being eligible to receive an essential car user
allowance in March 2011 (and they currently receive this allowance) they will be protected as
an essential car user until 31 March 2012 provided they remain in their current post. The
employee will be entitled to appeal this decision and eligibility will be rechecked and the
decision confirmed by the Strategic Director in consultation with UNISON.
CASUAL USER ALLOWANCES
Casual users are those for whom it is desirable that a car should be made available when
required and as such are eligible to receive the appropriate mileage rate set out in this
policy.
TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING STAFF
See above and Appendix A.
ALLOWANCES AND MILEAGE RATES
See Appendix A – please note these rates are reviewed and where appropriate, updated
and published annually.
CAR LOAN SCHEME
Employees may apply to the Authority for a loan to purchase a vehicle if it is deemed
necessary by their Strategic Director for them to use a vehicle for work purposes. Details of
the scheme can be obtained from the Payroll Officer.
LEASE CAR SCHEME/CASH EQUIVALENT LUMP SUM
Lease cars and cash equivalent lump sums will be phased out for individual employees who
currently have a lease car or receive a cash equivalent payment. Protection periods set out
in Appendix A apply.
57
Appendix E
OTHER MILEAGE RATES
Lease car scheme
Training1
Motorcycle
Cycle
Car sharing-
-
15.47 pence per mile
15.47 pence per mile
24 pence per mile
20 pence per mile
5 pence per mile (not per person(s) carried)
MILEAGE CLAIMS
All claims must be submitted on the appropriate claim form and passed to Payroll for
payment within 3 months of undertaking the journey/expenditure. All claim forms are to be
authorised by the appropriate authorised line manager according to the ‘authorised
signatories list’. See Appendix B for details of what can be included in a mileage claim.
Failure to submit a claim within 3 months of undertaking the journey would mean that,
except under exceptional circumstances, the claim would not be met.
OTHER ALLOWANCES
SUBSISTENCE2
Subsistence will be paid to employees who necessarily incur additional expense in the
course of their work. Reimbursement will be on the actual cost incurred up to the maximum
amount shown below. This is subject to producing a receipt which shows the actual cost of
the meal. Maximums are:Breakfast
Lunch
Tea
Evening meal
-
£6.88 (Where work/travel commences before 7.30 am)
£9.50 (When away for entire lunch period 12.00 – 14.00)
£3.76
£11.77 (When work/absence extends beyond 7.30 pm)
OVERNIGHT ALLOWANCES
Overnight
£3.63
Max per week
£14.55
Any exceptions to the above (subsistence and overnight allowances) would need to be
agreed in advance with the relevant Strategic Director.
LINK TO OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES
1.
Driver Policy and Handbook – employees are required to comply with the
requirements of this policy.
2.
Environmental Policy – found within the Environmental Sustainability Strategy and
Implementation Plan.
3.
Green travel Plan.
MONITORING
This policy will be reviewed, updated and published on an annual basis by the
Organisational Development Manager in line with the national agreement or as required by
the Authority.
1
2
There is a specific claim form for qualification based training – speak to HR for details
Rates are updated annually and are correct with effect from April 2010
58
Appendix E
APPENDIX A
TRAVEL RATES3
Casual User Rate
Mileage:Per mile first 8,500
Per mile after 8,500
52.2p
14.4p
New staff or those with new contracts
Essential User (based on NJC rates for 1000-1199cc band)
Lump sum
£963 per annum (paid pro-rata on a monthly basis)
Mileage:Per mile first 8,500
Per mile after 8,500
40.9p
14.4p
Existing staff (with confirmed protection until 31 March 2013)
Essential User
Lump sum
£1239.00
*The lump sum for this level of cc will stay fixed at this amount until the end of the pay protection period unless
the NJC rate for 1000-1199cc exceeds this within the period set out above.
Mileage:Per mile first 8,500
Per mile after 8,500
40.9p
14.4p
Lease car users and cash equivalent lump sums (Existing staff with confirmed
protection until 31 March 2013)
Individual lease cars and cash equivalent payments will be phased out. Employees who are
currently in receipt of either an individual lease car or cash equivalent payment will be
protected until 31 March 2013 as long as they remain in their current post. The lump sum will
be protected at the current rate (2009/10).
If a lease car agreement is due to expire before the above date, employees will be given the
option to either extend the current lease agreement (where this is possible) or revert to the
cash equivalent lump sum until 31 March 2013.
3
Rates are updated annually and are correct with effect from April 2010
59
Appendix E
APPENDIX B
MILEAGE CLAIMS
Mileage claims can be made as follows:1.
Journeys from home to first visit:
a) If the mileage is less than that from home to work base then no claim is made
b) If the mileage is more than that from home to work base then excess mileage
can be claimed
2.
Journeys from last visit to home:
a) If the mileage is less than work base to home then no claim is made
b) If the mileage is more than that from work base to home then the excess
mileage can be claimed
3.
Extra journeys out of hours:
When work is undertaken that results in additional journeys out of normal hours
then the extra mileage may be claimed
60
Agenda Item 17
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 12 November 2012 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr K Johnson (Chairman)
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Mr R Oliver
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mr N Lloyd
Ms B Palmer
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
61.
The Chief Executive, the Head of Finance, the Technical Accountant,
the Estates and Valuation Manager, the Policy & performance
Management Officer, the Coast and Community Partnerships
Manager and the Sports and Leisure Services Manager
The press
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
62.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 October 2012 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
63.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
64.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Leader informed Members that there was one item of urgent business. A request
had been received from Holt Chamber of Trade asking the Council to consider the
introduction of concessionary parking in the run-up to Christmas. The Chamber of
Trade was encouraging traders to open on Sunday during December. Cabinet had
discussed the request and it was proposed that 3 hours free parking was introduced
on the 4 Sundays prior to Christmas. It was hoped that this would encourage local
businesses to open on these Sundays and that residents would then shop locally. Mr
T FitzPatrick, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development explained that 3 hours was
considered to be a reasonable amount of time as it gave plenty of time for shoppers
Cabinet
1
12 November 2012
61
Agenda Item 17
to access local stores but did not provide enough time for people to park and then
catch the train to Norwich. In response to a question from Mrs P Grove-Jones, he
confirmed that the proposal would apply to all Council car parks across the District.
65.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
66.
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT WORKING PARTY
Mr G Jones, a former member of the Council Tax Support Working Party had made a
request to amend the minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2012. The Leader
invited Mr W Northam, Chairman of the Working Party to comment on the
amendment. He said that the minutes had been approved at the last meeting on 24th
October. He explained that the proposal that Mr G Jones referred to in his
amendment had not been dismissed as alleged but that they had agreed to defer
consideration of it until after the consultation. Mr R Oliver and Mrs A ClaussenReynolds, members of the Council Tax Working Party agreed.
RESOLVED that
the minutes of the meeting of the Council Tax Support Working Party held on 15th
August 2012 be received.
67.
PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
Mr R Oliver, Portfolio Holder for Planning proposed that all the recommendations,
except for Minute 24, Recommendation 5 be adopted. He proposed that
recommendation 5 ‘ That a further report on potential buildings to be added to the
Local List for Cromer be prepared’ be deferred until the peer review of the planning
service had been completed.
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party
held on 8th October 2012 be received and the following recommendations contained
therein adopted as follows:
MINUTE 24: CROMER CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.
2.
3.
4.
Cabinet
To adopt the Cromer Conservation Area Management Plan for statutory
planning purposes and for it to be a ‘material consideration’ in the planning
process.
To adopt the proposed boundary changes as recommended in the draft
Appraisal document, with the exception of the former railhead (Morrison’s car
park) and area around the Old Chapel, which should be retained within the
Conservation Area, and that the resultant changes be publicised in
accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act
1990.
To endorse the preparation of a further report relating to the introduction of
Article 4 Directions as and where necessary.
That the buildings identified for Local Listing be formally recognised and
recorded.
2
12 November 2012
62
Agenda Item 17
To defer the following recommendation:
5.
That a further report on potential buildings to be added to the Local List for
Cromer be prepared
MINUTE 25: WALSINGHAM CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS
1.
2.
68.
To approve the Draft Walsingham Conservation Area Character Appraisal
and Management Proposals for public consultation purposes.
That following consultation, the amended Walsingham Conservation Area
Character Appraisal and Management Proposals be brought back to the
Working Party for consideration and subsequent adoption by Cabinet.
FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2013-14
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the report presented the
current financial forecast for the period 2013/14 to 2015/16 and provided a summary
of the key issues facing the Council in relation to Local Government finance. The
current forecast presented a funding gap for the next 3 years of up to £1.7 million.
Estimates had been made on the level of future funding, although there was still a
great deal of uncertainty on the level of grant reductions that local authorities would
be facing.
Mr W Northam outlined three key areas that could have significant financial
implications for the Council:
1.
2.
3.
Changes to the financing of local government as the formula grant
arrangements are dismantled
The imminent introduction of a localised council tax support scheme
The introduction of council tax reforms – which would give authorities new
flexibilities on the level of discounts on second homes and empty dwellings
Mr W Northam concluded by stating that the Strategy highlighted the necessity that
the efficiency savings and adjustments identified in the various workstreams needed
to be fully delivered.
Members discussed the Financial Strategy:
a) Ms V Gay sought clarification on the rules for vacant dwellings. The Chief
Executive explained that currently vacant dwellings were exempt from council tax
for 6 months. This would no longer be statutory and billing authorities would be
allowed to charge up to 100% for such dwellings from day one.
b) Mr E Seward commented that the real financial challenges for the Council were
likely to occur the year after next. Mr W Northam agreed. He said that 2015-16
would be very difficult for the Council financially.
c) Ms V Gay asked if the Council had made representations to central government
regarding the challenges facing rural councils. The Leader replied that concerns
had been raised with the local MP and central government. He added that he had
mentioned the unfair impact of the localisation of council tax support on North
Norfolk at a recent meeting at Downing Street. In response to a further question
from Ms V Gay regarding whether a response had been received from Keith
Simpson MP on the impact of council tax support, he said that he had not seen
one. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds confirmed that she had seen a letter from Keith
Simpson on this matter. The Chief Executive reminded members that the Council
were members of SPARSE (Spending Power Analysis for Rural Councils) and
Cabinet
3
12 November 2012
63
Agenda Item 17
they were working with other local authorities on producing evidential work
around the rural premium. She added that the £196,000 indicative sum from the
£100m transitional grant for council tax support had not been included within the
Financial Strategy.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED
To note:
1) the current financial forecast for the period 2013/14 to 2015/16;
2) the current capital programme and capital funding forecasts;
3) the revised reserves statement as included at Appendix C to the report.
Reason for the Decision:
To ensure that Members are updated with the current financial position of the
authority as further work on the detailed budget for 2013/14 is completed over the
coming months.
69.
HALF YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2012/13
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that in compliance with the CIPFA
Code of Practice, the report provided information on the Treasury Management
activities undertaken in the first six months of 2012/13. None of the Prudential
Indicators had been breached and a prudent approach had been taken in relation to
investment activity with priority being given to security and liquidity over yield.
Mr W Northam thanked the Technical Accountant for his hard work and support
during the year.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
That the Half Yearly Treasury Management Report for 2012/13 be approved.
Reasons for the decision:
The recommendation was made in compliance with the CIPFA Code.
70.
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2012/13 – PERIOD 6
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the report summarised the
budget monitoring position for the revenue account and capital programme to the end
of September 2012. The overall position at the end of period 6 showed a forecast
underspend of £23,552 for the current financial year on the revenue account.
Mr W Northam thanked the Head of Finance for her support and hard work
throughout the year.
Members discussed the report:
1. Ms V Gay sought further information on the removal of the budget for community
transport. She was particularly concerned about the future of this budget. The
Chief Executive said that it had been funded by the Big Society Fund for the
Cabinet
4
12 November 2012
64
Agenda Item 17
current year, from second homes income. This funding was for one year only and
the intention was to wait for the outcome of a review of community transport
schemes which was being undertaken by a small working party which would
report back to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Chairman of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee added that it was important that the working
party met as soon as possible. He added that Broadland District Council had
recommended that funding for community transport should be ring-fenced.
2. Mr D Young commented on the amount of £30,000 net received for car parking
penalty notices. He asked what the gross figure was and how it compared to
previous years. The Head of Finance agreed to respond in writing. Mr W Northam
added that the car parking contract with Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West
Norfolk began in September 2010 – under the previous administration and would
run for 5 years.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED
1. To note the contents of the report and the current budget monitoring
position
2. That new homes bonus of £40,000 be used to fund a Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Planning Policy Officer as outlined at section
2.3 of the report.
Reasons for the decision:
To update Members on the current budget monitoring position for the
Council and approve additional capital budget as outlined in the report.
71.
COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY
Mr R Oliver introduced this item. He explained that following a consultation period on
the draft policy and feedback from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, an
amended version had been reported to the Asset Management Board (AMB) and the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September 2012. It was now being returned to
Cabinet for approval to recommend the matter to Full Council for adoption.
Members discussed the report:
Mr D Young queried why unincorporated associations which were not registered as
charities were excluded from longer leases. Mr T Ivory said that it was a legal issue.
The assets of an unincorporated association belonged to its members. In the case of
a charity, if it was dissolved then the assets would not revert to individual members
as charitable law would apply. A shorter lease for unincorporated charities would
ensure that the asset could quickly revert to the Council.
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL that
Council adopts the Community Asset Transfer Policy.
Reasons for the decision:
To provide the Council with a clear framework and procedural guide to assist in it
achieving a Corporate Plan ambition.
Cabinet
5
12 November 2012
65
Agenda Item 17
72.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
2012/13 QUARTER 2
The Leader introduced this item. He said that the report provided a mid-year review
of the progress in delivering the Annual Action Plan 2012-13. He explained that the
delivery of the Annual Action Plan was progressing well and that areas of concern
were outlined within the report and details were given where action was being taken.
Members discussed the report:
1. Ms V Gay asked why no loans or grants had been provided under the Coastal
Pathfinder scheme as they had been made available to 90 businesses which had
signed to the Pathfinder Business Advice project. The Portfolio Holder for coastal
issues, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that some applications had been processed by the
Norfolk Community Foundation (NCF) but the take-up was disappointing. From
January 2013 the loans would become available to all businesses across the
district so it was anticipated that the number of applications would increase. The
Chief Executive added that the scheme would be reviewed to find out why it had
not been attractive initially, particularly as take-up for the business health check
was so popular.
2. Ms V Gay requested further information about £2.4m of funding which had been
secured from the Local Economic Partnership Growing Places Fund for
infrastructure investment at a site in North Walsham. She was interested in
whether the funding was a loan and if so, what the terms were.. Mr S Blatch,
Corporate Director, said that the New Anglia Partnership, with Suffolk County
Council in the lead, had taken over from the previous Local Enterprise
Partnership and no formal guidance had been issued regarding the terms of
loans. A meeting was scheduled for the following week with Hopkins Homes and
representatives from the LEP. Further consideration would need to be given as to
whether the Council’s Planning Policy team should lead on the development brief.
It was anticipated that a full report would be presented in January 2013. In
answer to a further question from Ms V Gay on why an additional meeting was
required, the Chief Executive said that the £2.4m loan was an incentive to bring
the scheme forward and the meeting with the LEP was to explore ways to draw
down the funding more quickly. It was important that the criteria to access the
fund were discussed and that the scheme was attractive to potential partners. Ms
V Gay requested that local members should be included in any future
discussions. Mr E Seward agreed and asked that Hopkins Homes was made
aware that the site was an eyesore within the town.
3. Mr E Seward commented on the schedule of stalled sites that was mentioned
within the report. He requested that given the large number of such sites in North
Walsham, that the schedule should be shared with Members. He also pointed out
that there were very few developments in the district where s106 agreements had
been secured. The Leader said that an agreement had recently been signed with
Victory Housing Trust for a development on a brownfield site in North Walsham.
It was proposed by Mr K Johnson, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RESOLVED
1. to note the contents of the report
2. that the rate of take-up of new designated employment land (indicator J005) be
reported on an annual basis instead of quarterly as originally agreed at Cabinet in
May 2012.
Cabinet
6
12 November 2012
66
Agenda Item 17
73.
NORTH WALSHAM DUAL USE SPORTS CENTRE
Mr J Lee introduced the report. He explained that there had been a long-drawn out
process in getting to this stage but he felt that there was now a way forward for the
Dual Use Sports Centre (DUSC) in North Walsham and that the proposals would
provide better value for money for the Council as they would only pay the school the
additional costs incurred in having the school buildings open for community use. He
said that the proposed improvement to the facilities, including the provision of a multiuse games area (MUGA) were an exciting opportunity for the town. He concluded by
saying that the contracts for all the dual use sports centres were signed in 1986 and
had not been reviewed since. Things had changed considerably in the intervening
years and there was a need to review the leases for all three sports centres.
Members discussed the proposals:
a) Mr N Lloyd, local member for North Walsham North said that the proposals had
upset many people in the town and that a lot of trust had been lost, which could
make subsequent negotiations difficult. He added that the voluntary management
committee had worked in partnership with the school for 25 years and had always
exceeded their targets. He asked whether he could propose amendments to the
recommendations. The Leader said that only Cabinet Members could do this but
he agreed that Mr N Lloyd could outline his proposals. Mr N Lloyd said that North
Walsham DUSC was one of three and should not be singled out. Any proposals
should include all three sports centres and they should be considered together. If
they were treated on an equal basis then there could be lower charges in the first
year. He queried what would happen if the Council served notice on the school to
end the current Dual Use Agreement and suggested that it would be preferable to
give officers the power to vary the agreement rather than serve notice. He
concluded by saying it was not clear what the future funding level would be.
b) Mr E Seward. Local member for North Walsham North said that a key point in
moving forward was the level of support that the sports centre would receive from
the Council in the future in running the centre.
c) Mr D Young queried the incentive to the school for keeping the facility open as
they would only be receiving the actual running costs in the future.
d) Mrs P Grove-Jones said that in Stalham, public use of the Dual Use Sports
Centre was not promoted at all and this was something that could be reviewed.
e) Ms V Gay said that a petition with over 1000 signatures had been submitted in
relation to the Dual Use Sports Centre in North Walsham. There was general
disquiet within the town about the way the proposals had been brought forward
and the failure to consult with local people.
The Leader invited Mr T Ivory to respond to all the comments. Mr Ivory said that the
process had been very thorough and had included discussions with the voluntary
management committee, school governors and local members. It had taken a long
time to get to this stage and that was because the Council wanted to ensure that they
had made the right decision. The report highlighted the difference between the
charges levied at the three dual use sports centres and the premium paid by the
Council to North Walsham High school in particular. He stressed that the proposals
were not just about North Walsham but that this was the first to be addressed as the
costs were disproportionately high but also because it had a very strong voluntary
management committee in place and this was lacking in Cromer and Stalham. The
opportunity for change had originally been presented when the school completed the
Atrium and there were obvious synergies in combining its management with the dual
use sports centre.
Cabinet
7
12 November 2012
67
Agenda Item 17
In response to the concern about serving notice on the school, Mr T Ivory said that
this was not the intention. The Council were seeking constructive discussions with
the school on how the public access to the DUSC could be maintained and they were
hopeful of reaching an agreement. There was a need to reserve the right to serve
notice but he was confident that it would not be necessary.
Regarding future funding, Mr Ivory said that all options were on the table. It was in
the interests of the school to reach an agreement as the funding would not continue
on the current level.
Mr Ivory concluded by saying that discussions and negotiations were moving forward
and there needed to be a settlement that would work for everyone.
It was proposed by Mr J Lee, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RESOLVED
1. That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual
Use Agreement with the North Walsham High School to ensure that:
a. The Council pays the school only for the additional costs incurred in having
the school buildings open for community use
b. The Council assumes overall responsibility for setting all fees and charges
relating to the Dual Use Centre, in consultation with the Voluntary Management
Committee
2. That, should it be necessary to serve Notice to vary the existing or enter into a new
Agreement to be implemented by 1 April 2013, officers, with the agreement of the
relevant portfolio members, are authorised to serve the required notice on the school
to end the current Dual Use Agreement.
3. That officers are authorised to work with the Voluntary Management Committee to
improve local management of the Dual Use Centre, including the setting up of a
Community Sports Trust if this is feasible.
4. That improvements to the facilities, such as the provision of a MUGA at the Dual
Use Centre, are explored further with the school.
5. That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreements with Cromer Academy and Stalham High School as per
recommendation 1 above.
Reasons for the decision:
To review the current arrangements for delivery of community sports facilities at this
site and ensure that the Council’s future funding of the facility will deliver a wider
package of community leisure activities within the school environment as well as
affording the a financial saving for the Council.
The Meeting closed at 11.01 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
8
12 November 2012
68
Agenda Item 17
Agenda Item 3
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Standards Committee held on 13 November
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00
pm.
Members present:
District
Councillors:
Mr B Hannah
Mr P W Moore
Ms B Palmer
Mrs H Thompson
Mr P Williams
Co-opted
Members:
Mr G Allen
Mr A Bullen
Mrs M Evans
Mr H Gupta
Mrs A Shirley
Mr M Coates
Officers in
Attendance:
The Monitoring Officer
The Democratic Services Officer (ED)
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr R Barr, Mr A Nash and Mrs A Shirley
2.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
.
3.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Standards Committee held on 11
September 2012 were approved as a correct record.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
Standards Committee
1
69
13 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
6.
PARISH AND DISTRICT MEMBERS’ REGISTER OF INTERESTS AND
OFFICER REGISTER OF GIFTS AND HOSPITALITY
The Registers were open to display and were available for inspection in the
Legal Services area.
7.
NEW STANDARDS REGIME
The Monitoring Officer informed the Committee that the new regime was now
implemented in full. The Committee was meeting regularly and the
Independent Person was assessing cases. The Monitoring Officer was
working through the backlog of transitional cases and screening new cases.
There were still some grey areas regarding the application of the DCLG Code
of Conduct and there was ongoing correspondence to try and clarify the
situation. The Monitoring Officer had recently attended a workshop for
Independent Persons at Broadland District Council and it was intended that
there would be more collaboration between Independent Persons across the
region in the future and they would work together to establish the role.
The Monitoring Officer suggested that it was time for the Committee to start
focusing on standards training for district and parish councillors. There was
still a lot of confusion regarding the type of complaint that could be dealt with
by the District Council and it would be helpful if the Monitoring Officer and
members of the Standards Committee could attend parish and town council
meetings to explain the role of the Committee and provide further information
on standards and conduct issues.
Members discussed the update:
1. Mr G Allen commented that the previous standards regime had focused
more on monitoring poor behaviour. From what he understood, the new
regime seemed to place more emphasis on improving standards. The
Monitoring Officer agreed. He said that the Localism Act stressed the
importance of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct for
district and parish councillors.
2. Mr A Bullen sought clarification on the role of co-opted members of the
committee. The Monitoring Officer explained that they were full members
of the committee and were able to participate in debates but were not able
to vote. It was intended that they would represent an external, non-council
approach to standards issues. The Chairman added that she believed that
co-opted members played a valuable part in the committee as they were
able to provide a wider view on issues. Their participation would ensure
that the committee was not just inward-looking.
3. Mr H Gupta queried his role as a co-opted member. He wasn’t sure how
effective his contributions at meetings would be if he could not participate
in the voting process and his views could therefore effectively be overruled. The Chairman reminded Members that there had been a full
discussion about the role and value of co-opted members at the last
meeting of the committee. Mr B Hannah added that he valued the input of
the co-opted members. Mr P Williams agreed, he said that the co-opted
members had been selected for their knowledge and skills. He felt that
their neutrality was very important and the elected members should listen
to their views and take them into account.
4. Mr A Bullen suggested that the co-opted members of the committee could
undertake an assessment of the Standards Committee at some point to
Standards Committee
2
70
13 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
check that it was performing well. The Chairman replied that she had no
problem with this. She felt that it was important for the committee to set a
high standard and be prepared to take this forward on a wider basis.
5. The Chairman suggested that a panel of committee members could
attend parish and town council meetings and offer help and advice on
standards and conduct issues. Mr P Williams agreed that training was
necessary but some parish councils may require more support than
others. Mr P W Moore commented that he had attended the training
session for Briston Parish Council and he felt that it had not been very
productive. It was important that the Committee agreed on their role in
advance so they could ensure that their input was effective. Mrs M Evans
endorsed this approach. She said that the objectives of the committee
should be robust and delivered in the right way. Mr M Coates added that it
could be helpful to use scenarios to illustrate particular problems that
could arise. Mrs M Evans added that although there were some councils
that may need assistance quite soon, it should be offered to everyone.
6. Mr G Allen commented that it was important to remember that the
Standards Committee was different to other committees. They could have
an effect on the decisions being made regarding complaints and the input
of co-opted members was vital. In many cases they had more knowledge
and experience than elected members.
The Chairman suggested that herself, the Monitoring Officer and the
Independent Person worked together to come up with a training programme
which they would then bring back to the committee for consideration. She
asked members to contact her if they had any ideas that they would like to
see incorporated.
8.
COMPLAINT REFERENCES 148, 150 AND 153
The Monitoring Officer explained that the three cases all shared common
characteristics – they all pre-dated the new regime and they had all been
assessed and referred for investigation. In each case the Investigating Officer
had not found a breach of the Code of Conduct. The Monitoring Officer had
considered them in conjunction with the Independent Person and they agreed
with the Investigating Officer’s findings. They were now coming before the
Standards Committee for a final decision.
The Monitoring Office advised the Committee that they were unlikely to
receive cases in this form again. These were all transitional cases that
predated July 2012.
Members discussed the cases:
1. Mr P Moore asked whether the Monitoring Officer believed that the
outcome would have been the same under the previous regime. He
confirmed that they would have because although the current Code of
Conduct was different, the process was the same.
2. Mr G Allen said that he agreed with the Monitoring Officer’s and
Independent Person’s assessment of the cases. He was concerned that
only a summary of each case was presented to the committee and felt
that there may not be sufficient evidence for Members to make a decision.
3. Mrs M Evans said that one of the cases would make a good scenario to
be used in training parish councils as it demonstrated how charities could
Standards Committee
3
71
13 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
cause issues for parish councils and how they had tried several different
avenues to deal with the problem.
AGREED
To accept the findings of the Investigating Officer for each of the three cases.
9.
STANDARDS COMPLAINTS
The Monitoring Officer updated the Committee on the status of complaints
received. He explained that the list provided information on all the ‘live’ cases.
Members discussed the update:
1. Mr G Allen commented that Members needed to remain aware that the
Committee could be used for other purposes such as resolving a personal
dispute or grievance. The Monitoring Officer replied that there was a
screening process in place that aimed to weed out such cases.
2. Mr A Bullen asked when cases were referred to the Independent Person
for his input. The Monitoring Officer replied that he asked for his input
when he felt that he needed an additional view. He explained that when
no view was included with the case summary it indicated that the
Independent Person concurred with the Monitoring Officer’s assessment.
He said that he would ask the Independent Person to include a summary
paragraph for all cases in the future.
3. Mr G Allen said that he felt it would be useful if complainants could
provide information regarding their interest in making the complaint. The
Monitoring Officer replied that this was potentially a difficult area as a
complaint was not the ‘property’ of someone. He added that as part of the
screening process he could ask for an explanation if he had any concerns
regarding their motive for making the complaint.
The meeting concluded at 15.17 pm
___________
Chairman
Standards Committee
4
72
13 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 21 November
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr D Young
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Price
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Head of Finance, the
Health Improvement Officer , the Head of Organisational Development, the
Sports and Leisure Services Manager and the Scrutiny Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mr P W High, Mr K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mrs B McGoun,
Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam, Mr R Oliver, Mrs A Sweeney, Ms V
Uprichard and Mr J Wyatt
Democratic Services Officer (ITV)
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman informed Members that Mrs Alison Argent, Democratic Services Officer, was
absent through a family bereavement. Members asked that their sympathies be conveyed
to Mrs Argent.
The Chairman also reported on Mr B Smith’s absence through ill health. It was agreed that
the Committee’s best wishes be sent to Mr Smith.
Finally the Chairman referred to an e-mail message which had been circulated following Mr
Perry-Warnes’ notification of his decision to relinquish Chairmanship of the Council for
health reasons. Members were sorry to hear this news and passed on their best wishes to
Mr Perry-Warnes.
87 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr B Smith and Mr P Terrington..
88 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Price for Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd for Mr J Perry-Warnes and Mr D Young
for Mr P Terrington.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
73
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
89 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
90 MINUTES
On Minute No 84 – Review of Outside Bodies - Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds pointed out
that her remark in (a) that none of the outside bodies (apart from NHOSC) was reported
to Council would more accurately refer to not many outside bodies. Members agreed
and, subject to that amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 23 October 2012 were approved as a correct record and
signed by the Chairman.
91 ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS
Call-in: Cabinet: 12 November 2012: Item 15: North Walsham Dual Use Sports
Centre
A call-in had been received from Mr P Moore in accordance with the Council’s
Constitution in respect of the Cabinet’s decision on the management of the North
Walsham DUSC. To comply with the constitutional requirement to deal with the call-in
as expeditiously as possible, the Chairman had agreed to take the matter as an item of
urgent business at this meeting. The Chief Executive summarised the advice of the
Monitoring Officer on this point. The Leader queried whether the call-in was valid as he
felt that it challenged the decisions of Cabinet rather than the process to reach those
decisions. The Chairman responded that the Monitoring Officer had confirmed that the
call-in was valid and that it was appropriate to call-in a Cabinet decision.
A note of the Cabinet decision, together with a summary of the grounds of Mr Moore’s
call-in, had been circulated to Committee Members. Mr Moore explained why he had
called in the decision with the aid of a longer written statement tabled at the meeting.
The resolution of the Cabinet was as follows:
1) That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreement with North Walsham High School to ensure that:
a) The Council pays the school only for the additional costs incurred in having the
school buildings open for community use.
b) The Council assumes overall responsibility for setting all fees and charges
relating to the Dual Use Centre, in consultation with the Voluntary Management
Committee
2) That, should it be necessary to serve notice to vary the existing agreement or enter
into a new agreement to be implemented by 1 April 2013 officers, with the
agreement of the relevant portfolio members, are authorised to serve the required
notice on the school to end the current Dual Use Agreement.
3) That officers are authorised to work with the Voluntary Management Committee to
improve local Management of the Dual Use Centre, including the setting up of a
Community Sports Trust if this is feasible.
4) That improvements to the facilities, such as the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area
at the Dual Use Centre, are explored further with the school.
5) That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreements with Cromer Academy and Stalham High School as per
recommendation (1) above.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
74
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
Mr Moore sought equality of treatment across all such centres by committing the
Council to negotiate simultaneously with the Cromer and Stalham facilities with a view
to a comprehensive package of revised costs and prices being brought forward for
consideration. He felt that the proposal was not clear as to how funding for the North
Walsham facility would continue; that the recommendation potentially harmed the
Council’s negotiations with North Walsham High School on future rents and that, in
the absence of discussion with the High School thus far, a more conciliatory
approach, setting out options on future rents, needed to be taken. In his view, the
proposed course provided insufficient clarity on the setting of fees and charges,
omitting reference to any mechanism for dealing with disputes and disagreements
with the Voluntary Management Committee.
Mr Moore proposed that the matter be referred back to Cabinet with a request that
a) All three DUSCs are reviewed simultaneously, so that a comprehensive total package
of revised costs and prices can be brought forward for consideration as part of the
Council’s budget setting process. Part (5) of the resolution should state that
negotiations and variations to the dual use agreements with Cromer Academy and
Stalham High School will be conducted simultaneously with those relating to North
Walsham High School.
b) Part (2) of the resolution should be amended to read: “That the Council enters into
negotiations with the School(s) with a view to securing a new or varied Agreement(s);
that officers should be authorised to vary the Agreement(s) or if necessary negotiate a
new Agreement(s); if the officers are not successful, the matter will be referred back
to Cabinet for resolution.”
c) It would be inappropriate for Cabinet to finalise its position regarding the future
finances of the DUSC(s) unless and until accurate financial data is provided.
The proposal was seconded by Ms Gay, who commented that the matter had suffered
from confusion and undue confidentiality.
The final part of Mr Moore’s proposal was based on the premise that three different
figures were in use. Following a question from the Chief Executive, when it became
became apparent that the figures being queried comprised an initial budget figure plus
projections for the next two years, Mr Moore agreed, with the consent of his seconder,
to withdraw part (d) above from his proposal.
Mr Lee wondered how this call-in had come about, as the way in which Cabinet had
reached its decision was not being called into question. Furthermore, the questions
asked by Mr Moore had been dealt with by Cabinet and previously at Council and
elsewhere. The Cabinet was not picking on North Walsham – all three agreements
were different. The North Walsham agreement had not been looked at since 1986,
since when the Council had effectively been subsidising the school. The report to
Cabinet had been perfectly clear on finances and on officer support to the facility.
Consultation with the Voluntary Management Committee had taken place and the
Council would continue to work with that body.
Ms Uprichard stated that a petition signed by over a thousand North Walsham residents
was being presented, expressing opposition to the Council’s proposal to withdraw
funding and transfer management of the Dual Use facility. Mr Johnson pointed out that
this was now outdated, negotiations having moved on since the signatures had been
collected.
Following discussion on the issue and service of notice, Mr Oliver commented that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
75
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
failure to take account of these matters in the formal agreement would mean that there
would be no incentive for the school to renegotiate. This was a professional approach
with the aim of achieving the best value for money for the local taxpayer. Mr Johnson
informed the meeting that he had been to the North Walsham Town Council last week,
when there had been no dissention to what was being proposed by Cabinet.
On being put to the Committee initially, the proposal, as amended, received 5 votes in
favour and 5 against and the motion was carried on the Chairman’s casting vote.
RESOLVED
That the decision of Cabinet be referred back in accordance with (a) and, (b) above.
92 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 15 –
Presentation: East of England Ambulance Service Trust – as the Council’s
representative on the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
93 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
A petition initiated by the North Walsham Sports Centre and bearing 1023 signatures
was handed in by Ms V Uprichard.
Minute No 91 above refers.
94 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
95 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
96 THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
Noted.
97 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2012/13 – PERIOD 6
Mr W Northam, portfolio holder, presented the report, drawing attention to the forecast
underspend of £23,552 on the revenue account.
The Chairman commented on the General Fund Capital Programme, where actual
expenditure fell well short of the updated budget. This appeared to be a regular feature
and was presumably a situation which had to be accepted due to commitments and
projects yet to come to fruition.
In reply to a query from Ms Gay, the Head of Finance clarified the outlined
savings/additional income shown for court costs by pointing out that the word
“recovered” had been omitted from the relevant column at Appendix G of the report.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
76
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
Mr R Smith drew Members’ attention to a service variance in Development Management
(page 63 of the report) where a shortfall had occurred in the projected budget for
planning income.
The report was noted.
98 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13
QUARTER 2
The Head of Organisational Development presented the report.
The Chairman pointed out that the interim report on The Big Society Fund would now be
considered at the December meeting of the Committee.
In reply to a question from the Chairman on the Business Manager appointment for
Democratic Services, the Chief Executive said that the initial response had prompted
another look at the structuring of the post.
Ms Gay enquired as to progress on Cabinet consideration of the proposed business
plan for the new Destination Management Organisation for the North Norfolk coast and
countryside. Mr K Johnson confirmed that this was on schedule for a Cabinet decision at
the December meeting.
The Chairman asked whether there was anything further to report on the development of
the key site at North Walsham referred to in paragraph 2.23 of the report to Cabinet and
where £2.4m had been secured from the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) Growing
Places Fund for infrastructure investment. The Chief Executive stated that officers from
the LEP were happy with progress, although slightly behind the original timetable. A
further meeting of the LEP was to take place on the following day and Members were
reassured that the funding remained secure.
In noting that 4 out of 5 major planning applications had been determined outside the
thirteen week target in the second quarter (paragraph 2.36 of the Cabinet report), the
Chairman assumed that the fifth application had been that for the Waitrose development
at North Walsham. Things were moving quickly on this project, which was good news for
the town.
Mr P Moore, in moving the recommendation, made the point that, although the proposed
annual reporting on the rate of take up of new designated employment land was
sensible, this or indeed any other frequency of reporting would not increase take up.
The motion was seconded by Mrs A Green.
RESOLVED
(a) That the report be accepted.
(b) That the rate of take up of new designated employment land (indicator J 005) be
reported annually instead of quarterly as originally agreed at Cabinet in May 2012.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.05am and reconvened at 11.25am.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
77
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
99 SHARED SERVICES
Deferred.
100 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Noted.
The meeting was adjourned at 10.40am and reconvened at 11.10am.
101 PRESENTATION – EASTOF ENGLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE TRUST
The Chairman introduced Paul Leaman – Assistant Director, Chris Hartley – Assistant
Director and Teresa Church – General Manager, in attendance to make a presentation
on the background, services and challenges facing the East of England Ambulance
Service NHS Trust. The presentation took account of questions forwarded to the Trust
prior to the meeting.
Mr Leaman, in commencing the presentation, welcomed the opportunity to share the
challenges and issues facing the Trust and to discuss how the service could be moved
forward in the quest for improved patient care. The Trust served nearly 6 million people
in six counties in the East, comprising a diverse mix of urban and rural areas. Some
4,000 staff and 2,000 volunteers, whose activities were managed by three control
rooms, worked towards the achievement of a regional target. Mr Leaman explained that
80% of the Trust’s work revolved around the Emergency 999 service. The challenges
ahead were to deal with an increasing level of 999 calls, to save £50m over 5 years and
to seek continual improvement in quality of service provision, all within the wider
changes being implemented in the National Health Service. The Chairman sought
clarification on when this programme of efficiency savings had begun. Mr Leaman
informed the meeting that the process had commenced in April 2010 and that the
savings were required to be made by the NHS commissioning authorities.
Mr Hartley informed the meeting that the Trust had been set a cost improvement target
of £10.6m, out of a total budget of £227m. He agreed to supply more detailed figures for
Members.
A new service model was needed to replace the existing one, which was unsustainable.
A more responsive service would be achievable through having the right resources,
putting them where patients needed them and deploying resources in the most efficient
way. This could mean, for example, identifying where patients could be handed over to
local nursing teams or surgeries, rather than being taken to hospital and, where they
were taken to hospital, ensuring that patients were seen by hospital staff in a timely
manner, rather than kept waiting in ambulances.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr David Russell, Vice-Chairman of the Norfolk
Involvement Network (LINK) and lead on ambulance matters, asked a question
regarding lost off road hours and whether these were contributing to waiting times at the
Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
Mr Leaman replied that achieving the target time of 15 minutes for patients to be
transferred from the ambulance on arrival and a further 15 minutes for preparation for
the ambulance’s departure was a particular issue at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
78
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
Anecdotal evidence of delays in getting patients into hospital attributed to the
ambulance service showed these were often caused by deficiencies in the hospital’s
processes; the ambulance service sympathised with this, often to the extent of crews
actually assisting inside the hospital with duties beyond their remit, but this did
adversely, and unfairly, affect their performance against targets. 166 hours had been
lost at the hospital within the last week. A possible interim solution would be to provide
another vehicle at the hospital into which the patient could be temporarily transferred,
allowing the speedier release of ambulance and crew, but this would still involve the
Trust’s resources. The hospital was working very hard to rectify the problem, which was
not an issue to the same extent at any other hospital in the region. In reply to a question
as to whether the Trust could charge the hospital, Mr Leaman said there was no
mechanism for this and that commissioning was a matter for the PCT.
Following a comment from Mr R Price on a suggestion that another consultant was
being procured by the hospital, Mr Leaman agreed that a suitably trained person, not
necessarily a consultant, could improve things considerably for patients.
Mr W Northam had heard that problems were exacerbated by the referral of immigrant
patients from the Peterborough area to Norwich rather than their local hospital.
Mr Leaman explained that the two response targets for the most urgent 999 calls were
to achieve a 75% response time of 8 minutes to emergencies determined as life
threatening and a 95% response of 19 minutes to the next category. In 2008, the figures
achieved were, respectively, 57.25% and 84.87%. Figures for 2010/11 were an 48.51%
success rate for the 8 minute responses and 84.95% for the 19 minute target. More
detailed figures by local area would be provided for Members. Mrs A Sweeney asked
whether lives were being lost through waiting for a response to a 999 call, with particular
reference to an example where a patient waited for 60 minutes. Mr Leaman said that
any wait was too long and 8 minutes was a challenge. He referred to the availability, in
life threatening circumstances, of an excellent Air Ambulance, run by a charitable body,
with whom the ambulance service had a very good relationship. For clarification, he
mentioned that there were 4 other categories of response and, in certain circumstances,
a 60 minute wait would be within target. He would be happy to look into an individual
case on request.
Mr Leaman confirmed that 999 calls were increasing year on year, partly because
people were living longer, with a greater dependency on the health service, partly
through misuse and to a degree because of the decision of general practitioners to
decline an out of hours service. There was scope for some reduction in demand through
a preventative approach, such as that adopted by the Fire Service, where basic safety
measures introduced in the home had been very effective in reducing demand. The use
of the new 111 number would also help, as well as further measures to educate the
public. On the last point, Mr Hartley stressed that the service needed to be better at
setting out what it did and how it was funded, to prioritise different patients and do more
to explain this.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds agreed that an approach that included educating the public
was necessary, recalling an experience, on a shift with an ambulance crew as a
Member of the Norfolk Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee. This had involved a
physically impossible response time to reach a patient in the care of the Police, which
could have been handled differently. Mr R Shepherd, speaking as a former Police driver,
felt that an 8 minute response time was generally impractical and could, depending
upon conditions and time of day, be dangerous. He wondered to what extent stress
affected staffing sickness levels. Mr Leaman confirmed that a very good employee
assistance programme was available. Ms Church said that 25% of sickness absence
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
79
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
was due to stress and, until recently, would not have been recorded as such. Managers
were now trained in stress assessment and picking up the signs early.
In reply to a question on vacancy rates, Ms Church revealed that there were currently 62
technician and paramedic jobs available in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Teresa Church outlined the changes taking place locally, referring to details of present
and proposed cover at Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham ambulance stations, as
circulated. Following an anecdote from Mrs Claussen-Reynolds concerning the
difficulties of an ambulance crew from Ipswich in travelling between Stiffkey and North
Walsham, Ms Church , in agreeing to look into this incident, explained that once an
ambulance had arrived in Norwich from Cromer, it could be re-routed to any emergency.
An ambulance from Ipswich would not normally find itself in North Norfolk, but this
showed how crews could become displaced.
Mr R Oliver, thanking the representatives for an excellent presentation, said that the 999
response times were not good enough for the people of North Norfolk who, he hoped,
were not losing out through preferential treatment in more urban areas in order to
maximise target compliance. Mr Leaman assured Members that this was not the case.
He mentioned more ways in which the local community could help improve the service
in North Norfolk, for example through the appointment of more community first
responders, or even through sponsorship. More local commissioning presented a
greater opportunity to become involved.
Mrs A Green referred to discussions at parish councils on the merits of acquiring a
defibrillator and sought advice on this. Mr Leaman felt that the purchase of such a piece
of equipment, at a cost of around a thousand pounds, was an excellent investment. The
equipment was simple to use, cost effective and an asset to any community.
Mrs Claussen-Reynolds asked how the service’s objective of a paperless office was
progressing. Mr Leaman said that this was some way off, but would eventually lead to
much easier maintenance and transfer of records.
The Chairman mentioned recent publicity on a review of rural services. Mr Hartley
explained that the terms of reference for a capacity review were currently being
formulated and agreed to forward details to the Council as soon as they were available.
Mr Leaman suggested that he and his colleagues come back, once the review was
under way, to enlist the Council’s support.
The Committee agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion that an update be considered at
the meeting on18 December, in the light of the further financial and response time
details promised and any more information on the capacity review.
Members expressed their appreciation to Ms Church, Mr Hartley and Mr Leaman for a
very helpful and candid presentation and the Chairman thanked the representatives for
their attendance.
The meeting concluded at 12.54pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
80
21 November 2012
Agenda Item 17
13 DECEMBER 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer – substitute for R Reynolds
E Seward – substitute for P W High
N Smith – substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
B J Hannah – Sheringham North Ward
Mrs A M Moore – North Walsham West Ward
P W Moore – North Walsham East Ward
R Smith – Sheringham North Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Coleman – Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(142) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, P W High,
J H Perry-Warnes and Councillor R Reynolds. Three substitutes were in attendance
as listed above.
(143) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 November 2012 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(144) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(145) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members had received many representations on a number of applications on the
agenda.
Development Committee
1
81
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
(146) CROMER – ENF/10/0002 – Unauthorised installation of a shopfront and roller
shutter and display of illuminated advertisements within Cromer Conservation
Area at 57 Church Street by Iceland Foods Ltd
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which gave an update on
the current situation with regard to unauthorised works at the premises and
requested instructions with regard to further action.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that an agent acting for
Iceland Foods Ltd had indicated that a proposal for an amended shopfront design
would be submitted before Christmas. He requested the Committee’s views as to
how it wished to proceed in this matter.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, the local Member, stated that Iceland had had ample
opportunity to negotiate with regard to the shopfront and had failed to do so. He
considered that prosecution proceedings should be commenced if an amended
scheme had not been submitted by 10 January 2013 and requested that a report be
submitted to the Committee meeting on that date to endorse the action.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the Council’s Solicitor would be instructed to
commence proceedings but it was then for the Court to decide when the case would
be listed.
The Head of Development Management advised that this matter could be raised as
urgent business at the meeting on 10 January if it were necessary.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor N Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Committee is minded to commence prosecution proceedings
for non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice in the event of Iceland
Foods Ltd failing to submit an amended proposal for the shopfront by
10 January 2013.
(147) SHERINGHAM – Enforcement enquiry ENQ/12/0141 – Construction of singlestorey extension in materials not in accordance with planning permission
reference PF/11/0204, 34 Augusta Street
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports which sought agreement
not to take action in respect of a breach of conditions in relation to materials used to
construct a two-storey/single-storey extension.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that this matter related to 34 Augusta Street
and not 24 as stated in the report.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, considered that the flints would weather and
be less obtrusive in a short period of time. He expressed concern that Officer time
had been wasted by an unnecessary complaint.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED unanimously
That no further action be taken in this case.
Development Committee
2
82
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(148) HOLT - PF/12/0604 - Erection of side, front and rear extensions; 16 Cromer
Road for Mrs Hill
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs S Hill (supporting)
Councillor M J M Baker stated that both he and Councillor P W High, as local
Members, had been approached by a number of people who were concerned that
the proposal was overdevelopment. However, there were no objectors present at the
meeting. He considered that this was a borderline case. He stated that whilst the
amenity area met current standards for new buildings, this was an older part of Holt.
He was concerned that the proposal would set a precedent for similar development in
this area and erode its character.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that there was no reason to refuse this
application and proposed approval in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the scheme would bring a derelict property back
into use which was an objective of the Council. He seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(149) HOLT - PF/12/0999 - Siting of freezer and condensing units; 39 Hempstead
Road for Wilson Hotel Group
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the condenser unit would be located away
from the neighbouring property and the freezer itself would not create noise.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, asked if planning permission had ever been
given for change of use from distribution to manufacturing. The current application
now proposed intensification of the manufacturing use. He expressed concern
regarding possible noise disturbance.
Development Committee
3
83
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
The Head of Development Management stated that it appeared that no permission
had been granted for change of use. He asked if the Committee wanted to pursue
this matter.
In response to concerns raised by Members regarding noise, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that Environmental Health had no objection subject to the condenser
being installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s details.
In response to a question from Councillor R Shepherd regarding monitoring of noise
by Environmental Health, Councillor Baker considered that it would not be necessary
as noise nuisance would be reported to him or Environmental Health by the local
residents.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED
That the Committee considers that it is not expedient to take action in
respect of the change of use of the premises.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of a noise
control condition as set out in the report.
(150) HOVETON - PF/12/1166 - Extension to boat building workshop; Landamores,
Tilia Business Park, Tunstead Road for Tilia Business Park
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr C Hovey (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Environmental Health had no objection
subject to the imposition of conditions in respect of hours of operation of plant and
machinery, delivery times, noise and pollution control measures and external lighting.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter and email had been received from
the agent in response to a request for further information, including clarification of
land ownership issues, confirmation that there is an option to purchase additional
land to enable the creation of an alternative access and information regarding boat
movements and staffing.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee an email received from Councillor
N D Dixon, the local Member, who had no objection to the principle of the
development and had requested the imposition of a number of conditions in respect
of noise, dust and odour control to mitigate the impact of the development on nearby
residents.
Development Committee
4
84
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
The Senior Planning Officer summarised the contents of an email which had been
received from the Highway Authority clarifying its objection to the application on the
basis of the number of large vehicle movements into and out of the site. An
alternative access on Belaugh Road would negate these objections and the Highway
Authority had requested that no development take place until an alternative access
was in place.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended that this application be approved subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include those required by the
Environmental Health Officer and the Sustainability Co-ordinator. The reason for this
recommendation was that whilst the views of the Highway Authority had been
carefully considered, the proposed extension would result in a limited number of
supervised boat movements and there would be overwhelming economic
development benefits as a direct result of approval of the application which were
considered to outweigh the Highway Authority’s objection.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that this application would create jobs, was
located in a business park, and only eight additional large vehicles per year would
access the site. He proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the boat builder should be applauded for
investing during the current recession. He seconded the proposal.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that, in his opinion, there were no Human Rights
issues that would prevent approval of this application as recommended.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include those required by the Environmental
Health Officer and the Sustainability Co-ordinator.
(151) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0931 - Erection of replacement single-storey/twostorey rear extensions and insertion of windows to front elevation; 21 Station
Road for Mr & Mrs N Dyke
Councillor E Seward stated that he was a member of North Walsham Town Council
and had come to the meeting with an open mind.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs J van Larwick (objecting)
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, considered that the proposed extension
would be overbearing on the neighbouring dwellings. She also considered that the
proposed wooden cladding was out of keeping and requested that, if the Committee
were minded to approve the application, negotiations take place on this matter.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Local Planning Authority had no
control over the cladding. Whilst it might be possible to negotiate an alternative
finish, the applicant could withdraw the cladding from the scheme and install it under
permitted development rights at a later date.
Development Committee
5
85
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, considered that the proposal would be
overbearing and result in loss of light to the neighbouring dwelling. She also
considered that the proposed front elevation was not in keeping with the architecture
of Station Road. She requested refusal of this application, or negotiations in respect
of the cladding to the front elevation and overbearing nature of the proposed
extension.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to negotiations for the removal of the cladding
to the front elevation.
(152) NORTH WALSHAM - PO/12/0962 - Erection of one and a half storey
replacement dwelling and building for storage and repair of plant and
machinery; Land opposite Orchard Farm, Marshgate, Spa Common for Mr &
Mrs Cushion
Councillor E Seward stated that he was a member of North Walsham Town Council
and had come to the meeting with an open mind.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant would be willing to agree to
restricted hours of work.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, stated that he knew the agent and lived close
to the site. He had called in the application as concerns had been raised by a
neighbour. However, he was happy to support the application subject to the
imposition of conditions to restrict the permission to the applicant and his family.
The Head of Development Management explained that the imposition of a personal
condition was possible, although it was unusual. He suggested limiting the
occupancy of the dwelling to the operators of the business. At the request of
Councillor P Moore, he explained that the Environmental Protection Officer was
happy with an hours of use condition and would provide noise control conditions if
required.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor E Seward
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include restrictions on hours of use and
occupation of the dwelling being limited to the operators of the
business.
Development Committee
6
86
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
(153) RYBURGH - PF/12/0904 - Change of use from residential to mixed use of
residential and A5 (hot food takeaway); 19 Station Road, Great Ryburgh, for Mr
Buxton
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs N Felmingham (objecting)
Mr C Buxton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the reference to “unclassified road” in the
report should read “classified road”.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, stated that she understood the Parish
Council had withdrawn its objection to this application. She considered that
customers would park on a straight section of the road where there had been
commercial premises. She stated that the main opening hours would be from 4pm to
9.30 pm when there would not be a problem with lorries. She considered that the
business would help the continued sustainability of the village. For these reasons
she proposed approval of this application but requested that the Highway Authority
install zigzag lines on the bend.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) confirmed that there was an opportunity
to introduce waiting restrictions in this area.
In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Buxton stated that he understood the
Highway Authority would repaint the zigzag lines outside the school.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners seconded the proposal.
In answer to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Senior Planning Officer
explained that the applicant had requested flexible opening hours between 11 am
and 9.30 pm on Tuesdays to Sundays.
Mr Buxton clarified that preparation time would be throughout the day, with opening
times being 12 noon to 2pm and 4pm to 9.30 pm.
Councillor E Seward expressed concern that customers would park on the bend.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that customers would park on the straight part
of the road.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include opening hours between 11 am and
9.30 pm on Tuesdays to Sundays.
Development Committee
7
87
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
(154) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1105 - Variation of Condition 21 of planning permission:
10/0920 to delete reference to 'playing pitch'; Land at Cromer Road for Tesco
Stores Ltd
Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, declared a personal interest in this
application as he was a governor of Sheringham High School.
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Hewitt (Sheringham Town Council)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) drew the Committee’s attention
to the options which had been put forward by the applicant. He reported that
Sheringham Town Council had agreed to withdraw its objection subject to the
completion of a Section 106 Obligation to require the sum of £60,000 to be paid to
North Norfolk District Council prior to demolition of the community centre taking
place, which will be passed on to the Town Council for improvements to existing
sports facilities in Sheringham. The Town Council would decide how the money
would be spent.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to
secure a contribution of £60,000 payable prior to demolition of the community centre.
In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Hewitt stated that a requirement to
spend the money within a reasonable timescale would be acceptable to the Town
Council.
Councillor R Smith, a local Member, supported the Officer’s recommendation and
urged the Committee to agree.
Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, supported the proposed approach and
requested a speedy conclusion to this matter.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that the proposed Section 106
Obligation met the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. He suggested
that the obligation be worded to provide for the contribution to be used for provision
or improvement of sport or recreation facilities in Sheringham with a three-year time
limit for expenditure following receipt. He stated that, in his opinion, there were no
Human Rights issues that would prevent delegated approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the proposed option would result in a
net loss of a significant playing area. He considered that the applicants should
provide a playing area rather than a contribution which could be used for lighting or
equipment.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that the provision of a
play area would place an additional burden of maintenance on the Town Council.
The proposed contribution would widen the Town Council’s scope to improve sports
facilities in the town.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that if the Town Council wished to use the funds
to install floodlighting it would allow the existing facilities to be available for an
extended period.
Development Committee
8
88
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to
secure a contribution of £60,000 payable prior to demolition of the
community centre, the funds to be payable to North Norfolk District
Council and transferred to Sheringham Town Council for the provision
or improvement of sport or recreation facilities in Sheringham, subject
to expenditure within three years of receipt.
(155) THORPE MARKET - PF/12/0936 - Retention and conversion of garage/store to
one unit of holiday accommodation; Nursery Farm, Cromer Road for Mr Barr
and Ms Black
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
The Chairman stated that she had no comment to make as local Member for this
application.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the Highway Authority’s concerns regarding
the sign and reported that the applicant had stated that the sign had now been set
back, although this had not been confirmed.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions to include the provision of visibility splays, holiday use only,
the accommodation to be available to let for a minimum of 140 days, the
keeping of a register of lettings, removal of permitted development
rights for extensions, the sign to be set back or removed and conditions
required by the Highway Authority.
(156) WORSTEAD - PF/12/1049 - Erection of replacement garage with games room in
roof space and the retention and conversion of cart shed to one unit of holiday
accommodation; Bengate Barn, Yarmouth Road, Bengate for Mr K Jeffries
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs D Wilkinson (supporting)
Councillor E Seward considered that this proposal was a legitimate use of a building
for a holiday business. The building had to be fit for purpose if it were to be let. He
proposed approval of this application.
The Head of Development Management explained that the original cart shed had
been rebuilt, which required planning permission which this application sought to
address. However, the adopted policy in respect of conversion of buildings in the
Countryside required that buildings had to be suitable for conversion without
substantial rebuilding.
Development Committee
9
89
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Head of Development Management
stated that there was no defined period of time before a building could be considered
for conversion. However, there was an assumption that the policy related to
traditional buildings which had stood for at least 50 years. In this case the
Committee was being asked to consider a building which had recently been rebuilt.
Councillor M J M Baker seconded the proposal for approval. He considered that this
type of development was needed in North Norfolk.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that, whilst the sequence of events had
been wrong and policy was not therefore complied with, permission would have been
given for conversion of the original building.
At the request of Councillor Mrs A R Green, a photograph of the original building was
displayed.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle referred to a recent case where planning permission had
been refused. She supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.
Councillor R Shepherd also supported the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor N Smith considered that there was no reason to refuse this application as
the replacement building was no larger than the original.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to its reasons for
departing from policy.
It was proposed by Councillor E Seward, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reason: It is considered that the original traditional cart shed building
would have been considered suitable for conversion to holiday use and
that the economic benefits which flow from this application would
contribute to the economic enhancement of the District and outweigh
the policy issues in this case.
(157) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That site visits be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish/Town Councils be
invited to attend:
CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE – PF/12/1113 – Installation of a 5.7mw
solar farm; land at Strawberry Lane, Saxthorpe for Saxthorpe Solar
Farm Limited
Development Committee
10
90
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
HOLT – PF/12/0929 - Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings
and erection of A1 (retail) food store, associated accesses, car parking
and servicing area; Thaxters of Holt Ltd, Old Station Way for Norwood
Homes (Westgate) LLP
HOVETON – PF/12/1142 – Installation of 12mw solar farm; land at
Belaugh Road for Trafford Estate Solar Park Ltd
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/12/1046 – Change of use from B1 (business) to
D1 (place of worship/church hall) at 1A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage
Street for New Life Church North Walsham
POTTER HEIGHAM – PF/12/1141 – Change of use of building to B2
(General Industrial) and B8 (Storage) at Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S
Hill
SCOTTOW – PF/12/1094 – Installation of a 12.7mw solar farm; land off
Scottow Road for Shaw Coltishall Solar Park Limited
WALSINGHAM – PF/12/1256 - Construction of biomass renewable
energy facility with associated landscaping and vehicular access; North
Creake Airfield, Holkham Estate, Egmere for Egmere Energy Ltd
WALSINGHAM – PF/12/1318 - Construction of 22 MW solar photovoltaic
farm and associated works including inverter housing, landscaping and
security measures; Land at North Creake Airfield, Egmere for Solar
Power Generation Limited
(158) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(159) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(160) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(161) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(162) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(163) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.25 pm.
Development Committee
11
91
13 December 2012
Agenda Item 17
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 18 December
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
The Chief Executive, Head of Economic and Community Development, the
Head of Finance, the Housing Team Leader - Strategy, Coast and
Community Partnerships Manager, the Health Improvement Officer and the
Scrutiny Officer.
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mrs B McGoun, Mrs A Moore, Ms B
Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr R Shepherd and Mr D Young
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
102 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds and Mr R Smith.
103 SUBSTITUTES
Mrs B McGoun for Mr R Smith, Mr R Shepherd for Mr J H Perry-Warnes and Mr R Price
for Mr R Reynolds.
104 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mr B Elliott, Chairman of North Walsham Hospital League of Friends wished to speak on
item 11 – Presentation – North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group – Commissioning
Strategy – 2012-2016.
105 MINUTES
Minute 101 Presentation – East of England Ambulance Service Trust
The Chairman asked that the first sentence of the third paragraph be amended to read:
“Mr Hartley informed the meeting that the Trust had been set a cost improvement target
of £10.6m, out of a total budget of £227m for the current financial year.”
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
92
Agenda Item 17
Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on
21 November 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
106 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
107 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mr R Price
Minute
No.
114
Item
Interest
Big Society Fund Update
Report
Personal – is
assisting
organisation with
their application to
the fund
108 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
109 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
110 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
It was noted that Cabinet had decided not to accept the Committee’s recommendation
to call in its decision on North Walsham Dual Use Sports Centre.
111 THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
Noted.
112 PRESENTATION – NORTH NORFOLK CLINICAL COMMISIONING GROUP –
COMMISSIONING STRATEGY – 2012-2016
Rebecca Champion – Engagement Manager and Ellis Laywood - Clinical Programme
Manager both of North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group made a presentation to
the meeting with the aid of powerpoint. The presentation was to look at how North
Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group and North Norfolk District Council could work in
partnership to bridge the gap between health and well-being.. They then answered
Members questions:
a) Mr Brian Elliott, Chairman of North Walsham Hospital League of Friends, who was
attending the meeting for this item, commented that the Strategy’s ideals were very
laudable with a few exceptions. The literature was the same as that used by NHS
Norfolk a few years ago. He could not see how it was going to save money. There
seemed to be more discussion groups. The ideas were not new and he queried why
changes had to be made. There was a desperate shortage of carers. The Strategy
contained many wonderful ideas but how would they be financed? Ellis Laywood
replied that the initiative was imposed by the Government. The cap on management
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
93
Agenda Item 17
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
costs was much lower than the Primary Care Trust (PCT) The Strategy had been led
by local clinicians who knew their community. Services would be better located.
They were a commission-led organisation. In terms of the Community Trust, they
would work very closely with them and improve community hospital services.
Mr N Smith expressed concern about mental health issues. He considered there
was a lack of cohesion between mental health and doctors. Mentally ill people did
not want to speak to volunteers. Ellis Laywood said they were working as hard as
they could to build bridges with the Mental Health Trust. They were going through a
radical redesign of their programme. GPs shared concerns on links between
primary care and the community to access public health. Rebecca Champion added
that previously it was not possible to get access to consultants. It would mean a
quicker response.
Mrs B McGoun said she would like to see a pro-active service. We lived in a ‘Tescoised’ world where people expected services 24/7. She asked whether GPs
surgeries would be open at the weekend and whether there would be the
opportunity to do something different. Ellis Laywood replied that they had to provide
the activities most needed at the time. They were trying to ensure all GP practices
had standard opening times but would look at whether there could be additional
benefit from increasing services. They could only offer what they could afford.
The Chairman said that up to 50% of ambulance calls were not an emergency. At
weekends, there was no-one else people could contact. Rebecca Champion said
that Norfolk had launched a ‘111’ service for anything urgent which was not an
emergency. Advice would be given on what to do, ending up with contacting a GP.
Mrs A Green considered that there should be a GP on duty at night in order to reduce
the number of 999 calls made. Ellis Laywood replied that out of hours services were
provided by a contract. They were moving to 111 calls and the person you would
speak to would most likely be a GP.
Mr P Terrington said Wells Community Hospital was trying to expand services. He
asked how community hospitals were represented on the Board and whether local
community groups could help and introduce services for local people. Ellis Laywood
said they didn’t have a place on the Board as they were potential local providers.
There was going to be a difficult transition period. They were fortunate to have so
many community hospitals.
Ellis Laywood responded to Mr P Moore’s questions. The Group was working to try
and resolve problems on ambulance waiting times. No decision had yet been made
on which clinical commissioning group was to have responsibility for the ambulance
service. Performance was being monitored. Funding for the Ambulance Services
for the East of England was currently held by Bedfordshire.
Ms V Gay said diabetes was a significant problem in North Norfolk and asked
whether there were any other illnesses which we should be aware of. Ellis Laywood
said cardiovascular conditions and respiratory diseases were also of great concern,
although diabetes was of the greatest concern. Other less crippling issues were
also on the rise. They were working with local authorities to monitor this and keep
people in the best possible health.
Mr B Smith referred to Mr Brian Elliott’s comment about the lack of carers in the
District. There were many elderly and infirm people here who were moved around
and had little contact. He asked how the Group would remedy this. Out of hours
GPs seemed reluctant to come out. Patients preferred to have contact with their
own GPs. Rebecca Champion said that she had referred to informal carers such as
family. The NHS realised how important that was and that they needed support. A
unified service was planned. To recruit and train formal carers was a problem which
had been around a long time. It was about giving value to that work. It was a huge
role for the voluntary sector.
Mr N Smith said that the day before, two organisations at national level had found
that voluntary help for mentally ill people was second to none. This needed to be
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
94
Agenda Item 17
recognised. Rebecca Champion said that the care of support workers was being
piloted in GPs’ surgeries. Hopefully, this would be rolled out more widely.
k) The Chairman referred to the role of patient groups and the concerns expressed in
the strategy about orthopaedics. In the past, concerns had been raised about
physiotherapy. Rebecca Champion said that patient groups based around surgeries
were in existence. Every practice in North Norfolk had a group. They helped the
practice to look at day to day matters such as parking and accessibility for the old
and young. Practice-based commissioners had looked at this area in a more
strategic way and it had been well received. Lay members had been appointed by
the NHS framework and had a role to make sure the Group evolved appropriately in
these areas.
l) Ellis Laywood said that the local trust and Norfolk and Norwich Hospital were
struggling to meet targets for orthopaedics but hoped to do so by February 2013.
They had identified patients in North Norfolk who had been waiting a long time and
were offered other providers. Physiotherapy was part of that pathway. They were
working to improve that and would recommission that service next year to achieve
acceptable waiting times.
m) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said she had taken over as Shadow Member on the Health and
Wellbeing Board at Norfolk County Council. There were 12 emergent priorities, all
of which would be part of everyday work at Norfolk County Council. She would
circulate details later.
n) The Chairman thanked Ellis Laywood and Rebecca Champion for their presentation.
Perhaps they could come back in 12 months to show what progress was being
made.
o) Mr P Moore thanked Brian Elliott for the work which he and the Friends of North
Walsham Hospital did.
113 2012/13 REVISED BUDGET
The base budget for 2012/13 was approved by Full Council on 22 February 2012. The
budget was updated as part of the 2011/12 final accounts report for the carry forward of
funding from the year end process. The budget had continued to be monitored
throughout the year to date and reported to Members accordingly. The report was now
being presented for approval the 2012/13 revised budgets for revenue and capital.
a) The Chairman asked why earmarked reserves had to be kept at certain levels. He
was informed that earmarked reserves were for known items of expenditure coming
up.
b) Ms V Gay queried the difference in figures shown for the original budget. The Head
of Finance explained that this was due to fluctuations over the year.
c) Mr D Young asked whether the underspend on the Big Society related to expenditure
on Community and Localism. The Head of Finance explained that £101,000 was
the amount of variance. This amount would be transferred to reserves if it was not
used in a year.
d) Ms V Gay queried the sum of money in reserves for North Norfolk Enterprise
Innovation Centre. Officers confirmed this was part of the Leadership of Place
budget for North Walsham.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) The revised revenue budget for 2012/13;
b) The revised transfers to and from reserves as detailed within Appendix D;
c) A transfer of £1,398 to the general reserve;
d) The revised capital programme and associated financing as included at Appendix E
including the additional sum of £37,084, subject to a lift engineer’s report, be made
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
95
Agenda Item 17
available to fund refurbishment works to the Rocket House, to include the full renewal
and upgrade of the lift system and £21,000 for the replacement scanner and printer
for the Planning service, both to be funded from capital receipts.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.05 am and reconvened at 11.20 am.
114 BIG SOCIETY FUND UPDATE REPORT
a) Mr T Ivory thanked the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager and his team
for compiling the report. Members had worked together in a cross-party way and
there had been no split decisions.
b) The Chairman referred to the minutes of the Committee meeting on 31 January 2012
where the two Members nominated to review the workings of the Big Society Fund
were Mr N Smith and Mr G Williams.
c) Mrs B McGoun commented that there appeared to be many nominations from village
halls and very few innovative projects. She had been involved with the Horning Boat
Show. She asked whether enough was being done to look for opportunities in the
area. Mr Ivory confirmed that while many applications had been received from
village halls, the Board was keen to see applications which innovate and would lead
to others. He asked Members to encourage local groups to apply.
d) Mr N Smith was concerned that filling out application forms was an art form and that
some groups may have been turned down because they had not made their case
well. Mr Ivory advised that Voluntary Norfolk provided support for this on behalf of
the Council. He was not aware, however, that any group had been turned down
because of that.
e) Mr P Terrington was very grateful for the grants approved for Wells.
f) Mr P Moore suggested that groups could also be encouraged to apply to other
organisations for funding before applying to the Big Society. He asked how
Members could assist in promoting applications as he considered that the Council’s
Outlook magazine was perhaps not the right place to do this. Mr Ivory replied that
groups could contact Norfolk Community Foundation and they would advise on the
most appropriate fund for a project.the Big Society Fund and it would be up to them
to say whether they would be able to help. Members’ suggestions about how the
Fund was promoted could be taken on board.
g) Ms V Gay asked whether there was an explicit definition of what type of applications
would be ineligible for funding, for example if a group’s goals were not in line with
those of the District Council. Mr Ivory explained that bodies already receiving
funding from the Council would not normally be considered unless it was for a new
and different project. If a group was in receipt of regular Council funding, the group
would need to look at other ways rather than applying straight to the Big Society
Fund. He added that it was a great opportunity for local communities.
h) Mr B Jarvis, a Member of the Board, said he would like to see funding made more
accessible for smaller groups.
i) In response to questions, it was explained that match-funding was taken into account
with some applications, although it was not a requirement. Perhaps successful
applications could be monitored to see whether the total amount of funding achieved
was being maximised. North Norfolk Community Foundation was monitoring
applications and the Council would evaluate whether the funding had achieved its
purpose. A report would be made to Cabinet in March.
j) Mrs B McGoun hoped that any changes to funding would not adversely affect
community transport. She was assured that this should not happen as it was
separately funded and a separate review of this was taking place.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
96
Agenda Item 17
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) A politically balanced working group comprising two Cabinet Members and two
Members appointed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Mr N Smith and
Mr G Williams) is established to work with Officers to review the North Norfolk
Big Society Fund.
b) A report is presented to Cabinet in March, identifying whether or not the Big
Society Fund should be continued in the next financial year and, if so, the most
appropriate way for this to be implemented.
115 HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SCHEME
a) In response to a query over whether more homes would be allocated to those who
had connections to towns and villages in North Norfolk, the Housing Team Leader –
Strategy advised that modelling had shown it would increase the number of
properties which did, but it was not possible to give figures now as the Scheme was
not yet in operation.
b) The Council had reviewed its Allocations Scheme to reflect the changes in legislation
introduced by the Localism Act and statutory instruments. The changes ensured
that the Council’s Allocation Scheme complied with all statutory requirements whilst
also ensuring that it maximised the number of affordable dwellings which would be
occupied by households with connections to towns and villages in North Norfolk.
The new Allocations Scheme would be delivered through the Your Choice Your
Home scheme which was a partnership between the Council and 8 Housing
Associations. Once adopted, the new Allocation Scheme would be used to allocate
properties from April 2013.
c) The Housing Team Leader - Strategy was thanked for preparing the report.
d) The Chairman highlighted the difficulty which the Council had in providing allocations
for a limited amount of social housing and in trying to match housing need against
local preferences on where people wanted to live.
e) Mr B Smith reported that Blakeney Parish Council was in favour of the proposed
Housing Allocation Scheme.
f) Mr D Young wondered whether it was clear that ‘local connection’ meant North
Norfolk. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained the approach which the
Council would be taking following the adoption of the Scheme and that the Scheme
reflected the requirements of legislation which set out the definition of local
connection.
g) Mr P Moore asked whether the Council was open to challenge with the new policy.
Mr T Ivory responded that the new system completely protected statutory housing
need and complied with statutory requirements.
h) Mr B Jarvis referred to someone in his ward being evicted because his housing need
was not strong enough. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that the
homelessness legislation set out a range of duties to a homeless household and the
Council did not have a duty in all cases to house them, so for example, if someone
was homeless but not vulnerable, the Council would only have a duty to provide
advice and assistance.
i) The Chairman suggested that the Committee request a monitoring report after 12
months.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To agree to the adoption of the Housing Allocations Scheme to Full Council, but in
agreeing to this the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would wish to see a monitoring
report 12 months after the scheme was implemented.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
97
Agenda Item 17
116 EMPTY HOMES POLICY
a) The Council was committed to reducing the number of empty homes. The Empty
Homes Policy provided a policy context for work to bring empty homes in North
Norfolk back into use. It set out why empty homes should be brought back into use
and it detailed the Empty Homes Procedure and the approaches which would be
used to bring empty properties back into use, including what advice and support
would be offered and when and what types of enforcement action could be used.
b) Mr T Ivory said the way in which the Policy worked had been looked at. Flexibility
was needed on the council tax definition of an empty home. He suggested that the
Council included its own definition of what it considered to be empty ie a house that
was empty for more than six months. Members supported the idea of a definition of
an empty home as it would add a great deal of clarity. A meeting was to take place
with the Valuation Office about their criteria in respect of de-listed properties.
c) The Chairman asked how many properties had been empty for more than two years
as recent legislation enabled councils to charge a council tax premium on such
properties. He also commented that it was resource-intensive to bring empty homes
back into use. Mr Ivory said he could find out how many there were. Properties
which had been empty for more than two years were the ones which created
concern for residents.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To agree to the adoption of the Empty Homes Policy 2012-15, but to request that a
monitoring report is presented to the Committee 12 months after the scheme was
implemented.
117 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Scrutiny Officer reported that the Cabinet had not accepted the Committee’s callin concerning North Walsham Dual Use Sports Centre.
b) Information which Members had requested on the Ambulance Service was attached
to the agenda and was in the Members’ Bulletin. Information was awaited
concerning ‘A Typical Day for a Cromer Ambulance’
c) The date of the next Committee meeting had been brought forward from 23 to 16
January 2013 to allow for a special meeting of Full Council on 23 January to
consider the Council Tax Support Scheme and the Determination of Council Tax
Discounts and Level of Charges for 2013/14.
d) An update from the Health Improvement Officer was attached.
e) Recommendations from the Public Transport Review Task and Finish Group were
attached. Both Council Leaders had signed the letter requesting action from Norfolk
County Council. The Scrutiny Officer would try to obtain a response and report back
to Members.
f) The work programme for the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee was
attached.
g) On 7 March 2013 a report would be made by the East of England Ambulance Service
NHS Trust, Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Foundation Trust and NHS
Waveney to the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the
Ambulance turnaround times at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. It was hoped that
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds would be able to attend and give feedback.
h) A letter from the Scrutiny Officer at Norfolk County Council had recently been
received concerning a questionnaire they were undertaking on mobile phone
network coverage in Norfolk. It would be interesting to see how this area compared
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
98
Agenda Item 17
with others. The Scrutiny Officer could ask that this Council was kept informed. The
Chairman suggested that this be drawn to Members’ attention in the Members’
Bulletin and comments invited for submission to the County Council.
i) A report on the Big Society had been deferred until a review had been undertaken.
j) The Chairman said he would arrange for the Scrutiny Officer and the Health
Improvement Officer to clarify the correct Ambulance response rate figures in North
Norfolk.
k) Ms V Gay confirmed that the Public Transport Review Task and Finish Group had
met but both she and Mrs B McGoun had been unable to attend through illness. Mr
R Reynolds, the Council’s representative had not attended either as he had been on
holiday.
The meeting concluded at 12.45 pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
99
Agenda Item 17
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 7 January 2013 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr J Lee
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr P High
Mrs A Moore
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
90.
Mr T Fitzpatrick (Chairman)
Mr T Ivory
Mr R Oliver
Mrs L Brettle
Ms V Gay
Mr N Lloyd
MrPMoore
Mr J Punchard
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Finance,
the Economic and Tourism Development Manager, the Head of
Customer Services, the Communications Manager and the
Sustainability Assistant.
Mr B Wright and Mr C Rabone (members of the public), the press
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
91.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2012 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
92.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received. Mr B Wright and Mr C Rabone were present as public speakers on
Agenda Item 16: Proposed Action in Respect of Structurally Unsound Properties at
Star Yard and Long Term Empty Property at No.57 Oak Street, Fakenham (see
Minute 95 below).
93.
Cabinet
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
1
100
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
None received.
94.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
95.
PROPOSED ACTION IN RESPECT OF STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND
PROPERTIES AT STAR YARD AND LONG TERM EMPTY PROPERTY AT NO.57
OAK STREET, FAKENHAM
The Chairman agreed to bring this agenda item forward in deference to the two
public speakers in attendance.
Mr Rabone indicated that he and his wife had only become aware that this matter
was to be under consideration today through reading an article in the local press. He
hoped that Members appreciated that the problem at Star Yard was not of their
making, any more than that it had been caused by the Council. In fact he and his
wife had instigated action by contacting the Council because of the danger and
disrepair of the properties either side of their own through falling flints etc.
As owners of the two storey section of the buildings in Star Yard, the Rabones had
been engaged in steadily improving the property until unofficially advised that it may
not be a good idea to spend too much time on repairs. This was borne out by advice
from surveyors examining the neighbouring property on either side.
As far as Mr and Mrs Rabone were concerned, the ideal outcome would be for the
rest of the property to be put into good order, allowing them to do the same with their
part of the building.
Mr Wright, on being invited to address the meeting, accepted that the Star Yard
buildings were an eyesore and in poor structural condition. Unable to afford
professional help, he had offered to carry out repair work himself. His intention was
to make the buildings structurally sound, bricking up the window in line with adjacent
buildings. For health reasons, he sought more time to be able to do this and stated
that he required at least six months. As far as
Cabinet
2
101
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
the Oak Street premises were concerned, he confirmed that the property was not
empty but was being used for storage of items for his other business. He had
boarded up the window and
intended to paint it black and continue to use it for storage. In the long term, he
wished
to establish an antiques shop there, with flats above.
In thanking the speakers, Mr T Ivory informed the meeting that the properties had
been an issue for many years. The Star Yard property was unsound and presented a
serious risk, especially as it was attached to other properties. Time was of the
essence and, whilst he hoped to be able to work with the owner to secure a solution
within the terms of the recommendation, he said that he felt six months was simply
too long for the Council to wait. The Oak Street property, vacant for over twenty
years, was an eyesore. He welcomed Mr Wright’s proposals, but action was needed
more quickly than was being suggested. This view was supported by Mr Reynolds
and Mrs Claussen-Reynolds, ward representatives who had been determined to
move this forward on behalf of local residents.
Mr Ivory moved the recommendation and was seconded by Mr Lee, who referred to
the serious safety issues presented by these properties.
Mr Reynolds was pleased to see that this matter had now come before the Cabinet
after long negotiations. The shop was situated on a main thoroughfare into the town
for pedestrians, cars and buses. The shop was a blot on the character of Oak Street,
which comprised pleasant shops, terraced housing interspaced with some modern
dwellings and a few short residential lanes leading to meadows. He could remember
this shop being in use and totally in keeping with the surrounding area. Its
deterioration had become unacceptable to the local people and Town Council several
years ago, but various approaches to encourage improvement had been
unsuccessful. Since their election in 2011, Mr Reynolds and Mrs Claussen-Reynolds
had attended many meetings with the owner and officers of the Council and were still
being approached by concerned townspeople.
Cabinet
3
102
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Mrs Claussen-Reynolds reiterated these comments and informed Members of the
many questions received over the last eighteen months as to when 57 Oak Street
would be brought back to a respectable condition. As far as Star Yard was
concerned, she was in favour of the protection of the heritage of Fakenham, with
many old buildings having been lost, but feared that without prompt attention, and
with the onset of winter, these buildings could deteriorate to a condition beyond
repair.
Ms V Gay agreed in principle with the proposal, but wondered what criteria were
used to reach this conclusion in respect of a property. Mr P Moore thought that there
were other properties which fell into a similar category and enquired as to the legal
powers available for use to enforce action. Mt N Lloyd commented that a decision to
enforce repairs or refurbishment could herald a long-winded process.
The Corporate Director explained that emergency works had been undertaken at
Star Yard, with the cost being charged to the owner. Further emergency works were
required and, if the owner was unable to carry out the work, which was necessary to
protect the adjoining properties, the Council would have to bear the costs in the
short term. The position at Oak Street was not as clear cut, but the buildings were in
the same ownership and a good opportunity therefore presented itself to secure
improvement through a common approach. In response to Mr Lloyd’s observation,
the Corporate Director agreed that there was a risk of setting in train a lengthy
process at Star Yard, but the Council did have powers under the Building Acts to
bring about a quick resolution. He added that different powers were applicable to
either property. Mr Ivory pointed out that there were various powers which could be
considered by the Enforcement Board in respect of empty properties and Mr
FitzPatrick reminded Members that, if they were aware of any similar situation, then
they could bring the matter to the attention of officers.
RESOLVED:
Cabinet
4
103
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
1. To provide authority for officers to make an offer to purchase properties at No.57
Oak Street and Star Yard, Fakenham, based upon advice received from the
District Valuer, less any direct costs associated with securing the structure of the
buildings, with the objective of undertaking minor works to protect the properties
from further deterioration and then seeking t advertise them for
sale/redevelopment.
2. In the event of the Council being unable to reach agreement with the owner of the
buildings regarding the proposed purchase of the properties by the end of January
2013, Cabinet authorises officers to take enforcement action against the owner of
the properties so as to bring about an improvement in their condition and
appearance and see them brought back into productive use.
Reasons for the decision:
To prevent further deterioration in the condition of the properties and then
advertise them for sale/redevelopment, or alternatively take enforcement action,
to bring about a positive outcome.
96.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
None received.
97. CONSIDERATION OF ANY REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None received.
98.
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT WORKING PARTY
Mr W Northam, Chairman of the Working Party, presented the minutes and referred
to the recommendation therein, which was the subject of the next agenda item.
RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meeting of the Council Tax Support Working Party held on 23
Cabinet
5
104
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
November be received.
99. COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME 2013/14
Mr Northam drew attention to two amendments to be made to the report:
•
•
On page 16, paragraph 2.1 to read: “it will not be possible to have one
scheme for Norfolk”.
On page 19, paragraph 5.1 to replace “form” in the third line with “from”.
He explained that the £8.3m paid in Council Tax benefits at present would be
replaced by Council Tax Support, a scheme for which had been required to be set
up. The Working Party had been established to look into this and had gone out to
consultation before making recommendations. Meanwhile, £100m had been made
available by Government to cover interim arrangements and the option put forward
by the Working Party met the criteria for this transitional funding.
Mr D Young queried the projected figures for initial additional income and the Head of
Finance agreed to go through the details with him after the meeting. The Chief
Executive pointed out that the levels of determinations for different categories of
property were covered by the recommendation in the following item (see Minute 100
below).
Mr Northam moved the recommendation and was seconded by Mr J Lee.
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL:
That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme as set out in the report (option 3) be
adopted.
Reasons for the decision:
Legislation requires a Council Tax Support Scheme to be agreed by full Council by
31 January 2013 prior to implementation on 1 April 2013.
100.
DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL TAX DISCOUNTS AND LEVEL OF CHARGES
FOR 2013/14
Mr W Northam moved the recommendation, commenting that reforms gave the
Council the flexibility to raise taxes and /or get empty properties brought back into
Cabinet
6
105
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
use.
In seconding the proposal, Mr Ivory was pleased that the Council would now be able
to look at empty homes.
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL:
1. That Council resolve, under Section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act
1992, and in accordance with the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and other
enabling powers, that:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The Council Tax for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘A’ remains at
50% for the year 2013/14 (report para.3.4)
The Council Tax for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘B’ be reduced to
5% for the year 2013/14 (report para.3.4) with the exceptions of:
(a) Those dwellings identified under Regulation 6 of the Council Tax
(Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003, which will
retain the 50% discount; and
(b) Those dwellings described or geographically defined at Appendix D which
in the reasoned opinion of the Head of Finance are judged not to be
structurally capable of occupation all year round and were built before the
restrictions of seasonal usage were introduced by the Town and Country
Planning Act 1947, will retain the 50% discount;
The Council Tax discount for dwellings defined as being within Class ‘C’ to be
set at 100% for three months for the year 2013/14 (report para.3.3);
The Council Tax discount for Class ‘D’ properties to act as an incentive to
bring them back into use is recommended to be a discount of 50% for a
maximum of 12 months (report para.3.2).
2. That the Council resolve under Section 11B (2) of the Local Government Finance
Act 1992 and in accordance of the provisions of the Local Government Finance
Act 2012 and other enabling powers that a premium is charged for properties
which have been empty and substantially unfurnished for two years or more of
50% of the Council Tax payable in relation to that home.
3. In accordance with the relevant legislation, these determinations shall be
published in at least one newspaper circulating in North Norfolk before the end of
the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the determinations.
Reasons for decision:
To recommend the Council Tax discount and premium determinations to come into
effect on 1 April 2013; to raise additional Council Tax revenue and to encourage
properties to be brought back into use.
101.
Cabinet
DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION (DMO) FOR NORTH NORFOLK
7
106
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Mr J Lee moved the recommendation, saying that the Council was committed to the
tourism industry and that it was vital to promote North Norfolk as a year-round
destination. This was seconded by Mrs Fitch-Tillett, who believed that anything that
could be done to help kick start an organisation which would attract visitors to one of
the most beautiful areas in the country must be beneficial.
Ms Gay expressed some concerns as to whether the projected funding would
materialise and also regretted the loss of 0.5 of a member of the Council’s tourism
staff under the changes put forward. The Council had always had an integrated
approach to tourism and now appeared to be proposing to hive off its seaside areas.
Mr FitzPatrick pointed out the area covered by the new organisation, Visit North
Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd, as defined in the report. In reply to a question
from Mrs A Moore as to why Aylsham had been mentioned as part of that area, the
Economic and Tourism Development Officer referred to earlier discussions which
had worked on the basis of economic rather than district boundaries.
Mr Lee reiterated that the proposal had to be made to work. Tourism could not
always rely on Council funding. The Council would retain a degree of control of how
its money was spent and the direction in which promotion of tourism was going
through membership of the Board.
Appointment of the representative on the Board would be a matter for the full
Council.
The Economic and Tourism Development Manager stated that since 2008 the
Council had moved away from domination of the tourism industry. Succession
planning, recognising the financial limitations placed upon the Council, had begun
some time ago. Meanwhile, there had been a growth of interest on the part of the
private sector. If the lead on tourism was not transferred to the private sector by
2015, the industry would be in distress, due to the lack of funding available to the
Council. Against this background, the Council had been talking to the Borough
Cabinet
8
107
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk on ways of continuing local authority
involvement and influence in tourism. The solution now proposed was of a type being
sought by al local authorities involved in tourism. It would enable the Council to
manage a strategic approach and, if unhappy with any aspect, to suspend the
Service Level Agreement.
Mr P Moore supported the efforts being made by the Economic and Tourism
Development Manager, but remained concerned at the level of Board representation
proposed. Mr FitzPatrick pointed out that this would be at the same level as the North
Norfolk Business Forum.
Mr Ivory felt that the Service Level Agreement was comforting in that it was very clear
as to where the funding would be going and what the outcomes would be.
Recognising that the relationship between public and private sectors would be new
and needed testing, it was not necessarily a good idea for the Council to be in control
of a Board of this nature.
Mr Lloyd asked what incentive other contributors had, given that they would already
be paying business rates and Council Tax. The Economic and Tourism Development
Manager pointed out that these forms of revenue were not direct contributions to
tourism promotion. Subscribing to an independent organisation with a private sector
outlook would be advantageous to contributors.
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL:
That the release of £25,000 per annum over the periods 2012/13, 2013/14 and
2014/15 (£75,000 for three years) from the NNDC Community Fund and £10,000 per
annum over the periods 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 (£30,000 for three years)
from the Economic and Tourism Development Unit budget be authorised as the
Council’s contribution to Visit North Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd.
Reasons for decision:
To support the bringing together and promotion of all aspects of the tourism industry
in a major channel for communication, support and access to the market; to provide
Cabinet
9
108
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
funding to assist the establishment of the DMO as the platform for the private sector
to take a greater responsibility for destination management in the future.
102.
BIG SOCIETY FUND LARGE GRANT APPLICATIONS
Mr Ivory put forward the proposal and was seconded by Mr Northam, who referred to
the assistance which had been afforded to organisations through this avenue. The
specific grant referred to in the report had been requested by the Sheringham and
District Sports Association towards the refurbishment of existing floodlit tennis courts
and the transformation of the facility for all-weather use.
RESOLVED:
That a grant award of up to £15,000 be made, conditional upon the submission of
substantial evidence (eg offers of support or grant approval letters) of the total
funding package and a substantial and viable business case; such evidence should
be to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive in consultation with the Portfolio Holder
for Localism and the Big Society, prior to funding being awarded.
Reasons for the decision:
To ensure that the application gets the support necessary to give the project every
chance of success, while safeguarding sufficient funds for other projects.
103.
COLLECTIVE ENERGY SWITCHING SCHEME PROPOSAL
Mr J Lee introduced the report, which put forward an initiative for groups of residents
to band together to negotiate, through a third party, preferential terms for the supply
of gas and electricity. Such schemes presented an opportunity to help more
vulnerable residents from falling into fuel poverty. He drew attention to a scheme
operated by Norwich City Council as an example of the savings that could be
achieved. Mr Lee moved the recommendation and was seconded by Mr R Oliver.
Mrs Fitch-Tillett said that some communities had already introduced local schemes,
which were highly recommended.
Cabinet
10
109
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
In response to a question from Mrs L Brettle, the Sustainability Assistant said that
oil tariffs were covered by a different scheme.
RESOLVED:
That delegated authority be given to the Head of Economic and Community
Development to progress with a collective energy scheme (option 2) as outlined
in the report.
Reasons for decision:
To assist local residents in reducing their energy bills, therefore helping to address
fuel poverty issues and divert spending by residents from energy to local businesses
etc; to gain a potential new stream of income for the Council.
104.
REVIEW OF CCTV SERVICE
In moving the recommendation, Mr Oliver pointed out that the Council’s CCTV service
was discretionary and currently cost approximately £200,000 per annum. A review
would carefully examine how any savings could be made. Mr Ivory seconded the
proposal, welcoming the suggested cross-party approach.
RESOLVED:
1. That a politically balanced working party be established to consider the potential
options for the future management of the CCTV service and that the Group
leaders notify Democratic Services of their nominations.
2. That nominations for the membership of the working party be notified to
Council.
Reasons for the decision:
To provide a balanced forum for discussing the various options available for the
future management of the service.
105. TOURIST INFORMATION
Mr T FitzPatrick drew attention to the review of different delivery models for the
Cabinet
11
110
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
provision of Tourist Information and the fact that an organisation in Wells had
expressed an interest in running the Tourist Information Centre in the town. He felt
that a better service could be provided overall as proposed and that the Expression of
Interest under the Community Right to Challenge should, subject to ratification, be
accepted. In moving the recommendations, he was seconded by Mr J Lee.
In reply to a question from Ms Gay, the Chief Executive confirmed that any savings
arising would be considered as a saving on the budget as a whole.
In response to an enquiry from Mr Lloyd as to the use of the Tourist Information
kiosks, the Head of Customer Services informed Members that usage had gone down
and did not justify the technology involved.
Mr Punchard welcomed the proposal, but cautioned that, when the Tourist
Information point at Fakenham became the responsibility of a third party, the
service had been reduced.
RESOLVED:
1. That Cabinet accepts the ‘Community Right to Challenge’ Expression of Interest
(EOI) from a relevant body to manage the Wells Tourist Information Centre,
noting that the EOI meets the appropriate legal requirements.
2. That subject to a positive outcome from a detailed evaluation of the relevant
body’s proposal, and the absence of any formal challenges or additional EOIs,
officers and the relevant Portfolio Members for Localism and Tourist Information
Centres are given delegated authority to negotiate a Service Level Agreement with
a relevant body with a view to the implementation of service transfer at the start of
the 2013 season.
3. Should further EOIs be received, the organisation will undertake a procurement
exercise in line wit the current contract standing orders.
4. The proposed reduction in TIC staffing levels be approved.
5. That officers are authorised to terminate the maintenance and support contracts
Cabinet
12
111
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
with the New Vision Group for the24/7 kiosks and DMS systems.
Reasons for the decision:
To deliver Tourist Information services more efficiently and effectively, providing value
for money that could produce savings to the Council with no overall loss of service.
Parts (1) and (2) of the decision embrace the Government’s localism agenda to
empower individuals and communities to take more responsibility for their own futures
and to build a stronger civic society.
The Meeting closed at 11.13 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
13
112
7 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
10 JANUARY 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for B Cabbell Manners
E Seward – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W Moore – North Walsham East Ward
Miss B Palmer – observer
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
(164) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Cabbell Manners and Mrs P
Grove-Jones. Two substitutes were in attendance as listed above.
(165) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A planning application at Wickmere, reference PF/12/0277. The reason for
urgency was to expedite the processing of the application.
2.
An update with regard to an enforcement case at Cromer. The reason for
urgency was to update the Committee with regard to the latest position
following its decision at the previous meeting.
(166) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members had received many representations on a number of applications on the
agenda.
Councillor E Seward declared personal interests in Minute (171) as he was a
member of CAMRA, and in Minute (173) as he was a Member of North Walsham
Town Council.
Development Committee
1
113
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal
interest in Minute (169) as they were acquainted with Mr Knights but had not
discussed the application with them.
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest in Minute (169) as she had
dealings with Mr Knights which did not impact on this application.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(167) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/1232 - Erection of two-storey side/rear
extension; Horseshoe Cottage, The Street, Corpusty for Mr S Waller
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no new representations had been received
following readvertisement of the amended plan. The Parish Council had confirmed
that it had no comment or objection to the amended plan. She recommended
approval of this application subject to the imposition of conditions as stated in the
report.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including the removal of permitted development
rights for the insertion of any first floor window or rooflight in the
southern elevation of the extension and a condition relating to the
erection of a temporary fence(s) to protect trees on site.
(168) HAPPISBURGH - PO/12/0423 - Erection of nine replacement dwellings and
reinstatement of former residential land to provide amenity land; Sites off
North Walsham Road and Beach Road for T M Trustees Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs D Burke (objecting)
Ms J Irwin (supporting)
Development Committee
2
114
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs L
Walker, the local Member, who supported this application. In response to her
comments in support of the provision of affordable social housing on the site, the
Senior Planning Officer explained that all nine of the proposed dwellings would be
market dwellings.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Highway Authority had no objection to a
single point of access and considered that the footpath would enhance highway
safety.
Councillor R Shepherd asked if the application would be subject to a Section 106
Obligation. He considered that there was a need for the village to expand and
proposed approval of this application.
The Head of Development Management considered that there was no need for a
Section 106 Obligation in this instance as the site of the demolished dwellings had
been brought up to standard. Councillor Shepherd accepted this view.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that the requirements of Policy
EN12 had been fully covered.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the occupiers of the former dwellings had found alternative
accommodation. The proposed dwellings were to replace the housing stock which
had been lost.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Senior Planning Officer
considered that the alternative site which had been proposed previously had not
come forward as it was in multiple ownership.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds seconded the proposal.
Councillor P W High expressed concern that the proposed site was formerly
proposed as an exceptions site.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that whilst the site could have
been considered as an exceptions site under Policy H03, it had come forward for
consideration against Policy EN12.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed that the question be now put.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2 with 3 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to no new grounds of objection following
readvertisement, no Parish Council objection in respect of the further
amended plans and no objection from Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services following the archaeological investigation of the
site, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
3
115
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(169) HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0993 - Erection of two wind turbines (14.97m to hub,
5.5m diameter blades); Blue Tile Farm, Fulmodestone Road for Mr M Knights
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal
interest in this application as they were acquainted with Mr Knights but had not
discussed the application with them.
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest in this matter as she had
dealings with Mr Knights which did not impact on this application.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager considered that the proposed turbines would not adversely affect the listed
buildings. He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons stated in the
report.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to the objection by the MOD and questioned why the
application had been brought to the Committee. He proposed refusal of this
application in accordance with the recommendation. This was seconded by
Councillor M J M Baker.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to the request by the Committee to consider all
wind turbine applications. She considered that those which the Officers were minded
to refuse should not come before the Committee.
The Committee noted that the Scheme of Delegation had been amended subsequent
to the Committee’s request, but this application had been called in by Councillor B
Cabbell Manners in the interim period.
Councillor B Smith considered that wind turbines had an adverse impact on bats by
creating a vacuum which affected their ability to breathe and caused internal
haemorrhages. He considered that this was also a valid reason for refusal.
The Head of Development Management referred to the Landscape Officer’s
comments which concluded that the proposal would not significantly affect local bat
populations.
Councillor E Seward considered that it would be helpful if NATS and MOD comments
were received sooner. It was agreed that the Head of Development Management
would write to these consultees to request an earlier response to consultation.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the proposed wind turbines would not desensitise
Air Defence radar in the vicinity of the turbines, as identified by the
Defence Infrastructure Organisation, by impacting on its ability to
provide a full air surveillance service in the area, which could have
adverse implications for public safety and security.
Development Committee
4
116
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(170) HOLT - PF/12/0713 - Siting of two mobile trading barrows; 16 High Street for
The James Hay Trustees
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Turner (Holt Town Council)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the agent had confirmed that it was
intended that the barrows should remain in situ, there was little detail regarding the
proposed use. The barrows would be removed in the event of their being
unoccupied.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, considered that the proposed barrows
would cause security issues for the bank and users of the cash machine, impede
access to the bank and cash machine, and take away a prime meeting space for the
people of the town. There was no indication as to the possible use of the barrows
and there could be issues relating to cleanliness, hygiene and possible use of a
generator. He considered that the proposed barrows would take trade away from
existing shops, which were liable for full business rates. There was a number of
residential dwellings close to the site which could suffer disturbance. He proposed
refusal of this application.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, supported Councillor Baker’s comments and
seconded the proposal. He added that security vans arriving at the bank used the
space to pull off the road.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered the proposed barrows were unattractive,
unnecessary and inappropriate to the ambience of the town and would clutter the
open space. He considered that the open aspect should not be lost. He stated that
there was nowhere else for security vans to park when visiting the bank.
Councillor E Seward asked if the Police had made any comments with regard to
security issues.
The Head of Development Management referred to Policy EN5 which required
proposals to enhance the overall appearance and usability of Public Realm areas.
Members had suggested that this was not the case. He stated that the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer had not been consulted. He suggested that if the
Committee were minded to refuse this application, that the decision be delegated
subject to any comments from the Police regarding security issues. However, it
would be difficult to refuse on grounds related to amenity without the support of the
Environmental Health Officer.
In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Planning Legal Manager
stated that public health issues were subject to separate legislation.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds related to Policy EN5
(Public Realm) and, subject to the support of the Police, public safety
issues and security related to the cash point.
Development Committee
5
117
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(171) HOLT - PF/12/1164 - Change of use from A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) and
two residential flats, conversion of barn to two dwellings and erection of two
one and a half storey dwellings; The Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road for
Capricorn Estates Partnership
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Turner (Holt Town Council)
Mr A Groom (objecting)
Mr R Kirby (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that 10 further letters of objection had been
received which raised similar issues to those summarised in the report. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objection to the alterations to
the Listed Building and considered that the new build element would be in keeping.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, referred to the importance of the public house
to Holt. He stated that it had retained its character as a ‘working man’s pub’ for as
long as he could remember. He considered that it was possible to retain the public
house as part of a scheme, updated and suitable for all concerned. He did not
support the current application.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, stated that he would comment later in the
debate.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to comments made by Mr Groom, the current
publican, and considered that there had been developments since the report was
written. He proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to the Council’s desire to preserve the
appearance of the area and considered that it should also consider how to preserve
the British way of life. She supported the comments made against this application.
She considered that a pub and pub-restaurant were completely different and that
those who only wanted a drink were not welcome in the latter. She seconded the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that she had worked close to the Railway Tavern
for many years and it had always been busy. She considered that it was the only
public house in the town for local people. She expressed concern with regard to
traffic and the site access.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds questioned whether Holt needed another retail
unit and asked how many shops were currently vacant.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there were very few empty retail units in Holt.
Whilst the proposal related to A1 retail, there was a possibility that it could be
occupied by the Tourist Information Centre.
The Head of Development Management reminded the Committee of the need to
consider Policy CT3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services.
Development Committee
6
118
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor E Seward referred to the further developments since the report had been
written which could prove the business to be viable. He referred to paragraph 70 of
the National Planning Policy Framework which required decisions to “guard against
the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would
reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.” He considered that the
application should be rejected on this basis.
In answer to questions by Councillor R Shepherd, the Officers stated that the owner’s
obligations to carry out repairs would depend on the terms of the lease. A change of
use from public house to retail would be permitted under the Use Classes Order.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Chairman stated that the
only assurance of viability had come from the current landlord.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that remaining traditional public houses in Fakenham
were used every day. He considered that such facilities should not be lost if they
could be made viable. The current landlord of the Railway Tavern considered that it
could be viable.
The Head of Development Management stated that he sensed the mood of the
meeting but there could be difficulties in defending a refusal. He recommended
deferral of this application to consider the viability information which had been
referred to by the current tenant.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor
B Smith that consideration of this application be deferred to allow consideration of the
viability information referred to by the tenant.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, considered that change of use would alter
the frontage of the building, which was an integral part of the Georgian market town.
The road to the bypass was narrow, with inadequate pavements. He considered that
the building could be brought up to date and a profitable business run from it. He
considered that other drinking establishments in Holt were too expensive for many
people living in the town. He stated that the landlord had been running a profitable
business since the link with Punch Taverns had been severed. He referred to the
independent nature of the town which should be retained. He urged refusal of this
application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst the Committee could refuse this
application, there was difficulty in relation to the policy issues. No Member had
spoken in favour of the application. He advised the Committee to defer consideration
and request Mr Groom to share the figures he had referred to which may support the
Committee’s view.
Councillor P W High stated that he understood the Planning Legal Manager’s view
and supported deferral.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried by 9 votes to 4, and on
being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek further
information with regard to viability of the Railway Tavern.
Development Committee
7
119
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(172) MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1120 - Installation of ATM; Rays Stores, 25 Cromer Road
for Tesco Stores Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an email had been received from the
applicant’s agent offering to put the ATM out of use outside shop opening hours by
installing a lockable screen.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, referred to the concerns of the Parish Council.
He considered that the proposal would be acceptable subject to the lockable screen
offered by the applicant’s agent and the installation of safety bollards.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor E Seward that this
application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to
an additional condition to require the ATM to be securely locked outside the shop
opening hours.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that the ATM should be available outside the
shop opening hours. She asked if it could be kept available for use, subject to
reconsideration if problems arose.
The Head of Development Management advised that it would be difficult to revisit this
matter at a later date. He suggested that the operating hours of the ATM should
either be left to the store operators’ discretion or subject to a condition.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that no condition should be imposed with
regard to operating hours of the ATM. As an amendment, it was proposed by
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green that this
application be approved in accordance with recommendation of the Head of
Development Management.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 10 votes to 2 with
1 abstention, and on being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved in accordance
recommendation of the Head of Development Management.
with
the
(173) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1046 - Change of use from B1 (business) to D1
(place of worship/church hall); 1A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for New
Life Church North Walsham
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr I Dallean (supporting)
The Head of Development Management read to the Committee the comments of Mr
D Robertson, North Walsham Town Mayor, who was unable to attend the meeting.
The Senior Planning Officer reported further comments from the applicant requesting
the application to be determined as submitted. He reported that there were currently
13 vacant retail units in the town centre. He recommended approval subject to
conditions in respect of hours of use.
Development Committee
8
120
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, supported this application subject to careful
consideration of the conditions to be imposed.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, stated that she was not in favour of the
proposed use, there were no planning reasons for refusal and therefore she
proposed approval of this application subject to the imposition of conditions. This
was seconded by Councillor M J M Baker.
Councillor B Smith stated that the precinct had never been successful. He supported
the recommendation.
Councillor E Seward referred to recent investment in the precinct to refurbish and
repair four retail units, and the recent opening of a retail shoe shop in the precinct.
He considered that overall the retail picture of North Walsham was changing with
new development taking place. He considered that there was more that could be
done with the precinct that its history would suggest. He considered that the
application could be refused on the grounds that there the refurbishment of the retail
units would improve the footfall in the precinct.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that conditions could be imposed to restrict the D1
use to a place of worship/church hall. An hours of use restriction could also be
imposed in accordance with the applicant’s suggested opening times.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the applicants should be given the
opportunity to open at 8.00 am.
The Chairman proposed that no restriction be placed on opening hours which was
seconded.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that the church hall designation would allow the applicants to hire out
the building to other organisations.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(174) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(175) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(176) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(177) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
9
121
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(178) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS – IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(179) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(180) WICKMERE – PF/12/0277 – Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 00/1632 and condition 5 of planning permission reference 09/0052 to
permit permanent residential occupation; No 4, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton
Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara Associates
The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that this application had been
deferred at the meeting held on 31 May 2012 pending a decision in respect of the
review of Core Strategy Policy HO9 in the light of the National Planning Policy
Framework. Subsequent to that review, in the opinion of Officers, the proposal now
complied with the agreed Council interpretation of the requirements of Policy HO9.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application.
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, supported this application.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(181) CROMER – ENF/10/0002 – Unauthorised installation of a shopfront and roller
shutter and display of illuminated advertisements within Cromer Conservation
Area at 57 Church Street by Iceland Foods Ltd
The Head of Development Management stated that it was resolved at the meeting on
13 December 2012 that the Committee was minded to commence prosecution
proceedings for non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice in the event of Iceland
Foods Ltd failing to submit an amended proposal for the shopfront by 10 January.
An email had been received from Iceland Foods Ltd stating that an amended design
had been produced, but a visit to the site was due to take place to ensure that it was
possible to implement the new design before submission to the Council. The
Company would not be in a position to submit the application before 15 January.
The Head of Development Management suggested that the matter be reconsidered
at the meeting to be held on 17 January when he would be able to update the
Committee further as to whether or not an application had been received.
Development Committee
10
122
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
RESOLVED
That this matter be reconsidered at the meeting of the Committee to be
held on 17 January 2013.
The meeting closed at 12.20 pm.
Development Committee
11
123
10 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
17 JANUARY 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer – substitute for B Cabbell Manners
N Smith – substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
P Terrington – substitute for M J M Baker
R Wright – Astley Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Mrs C Batchelar – Landscape Officer
Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(182) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, B Cabbell
Manners and J H Perry-Warnes. Three substitutes were in attendance as listed
above.
(183) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 13 December 2012 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(184) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A prior notification application at Cromer, reference NP/13/0041. The reason
for urgency was because the application was required to be determined within
28 days. The application could not be determined under delegated powers as
the applicant was a Member of the Council.
2.
A planning application at Sheringham, reference PF/12/0568. The reason for
urgency was to expedite the processing of this application by undertaking a
site inspection.
Development Committee
1
124
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(185) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors P W High, Miss B Palmer and R Reynolds declared interests, the details
of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Development
Management, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(186) HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/1192 - Erection of one and a half storey side/front
extension; Carwood House, 59 The Street for Mr & Mrs Howard
Councillor Miss B Palmer declared a personal interest in this application as she was
a tennis coach to the applicants’ children.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Goldsmith (objecting)
Mr M Howard (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to concerns raised regarding the external
staircase. He considered that whilst there could be an element of overlooking, it
would be minimal and the staircase would not be used for sitting out. He
recommended approval as set out in the report.
Councillor R J Wright, the local Member, considered that the staircase should be
located internally. It appeared as though the extension were a self-contained annexe
attached to the main dwelling and he was concerned at possible bed and breakfast
use, which could mean the staircase could be busy. He had no objection to the
design of the building.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that a dwelling could be used for bed and
breakfast for part of the year depending on the number of bedrooms used without the
need for planning permission.
In answer to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that he considered there would need to be some form of escape route from the
rooms in the extension if they were to be used for bed and breakfast accommodation.
Development Committee
2
125
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones questioned why the extension had been proposed at
the front of the property when there was ample space at the rear. She considered
that the proposal appeared to suggest that an application for a separate dwelling
could follow in the future.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that part of the proposal involved a garage
and car port which had to be forward of the existing building to allow access.
The Development Manager stated that a separate application would be required if it
were intended to use the extension as a separate dwelling. However, this would be
contrary to policy. The current application related to ancillary accommodation and
had to be determined as such.
Councillor Mrs A R Green proposed approval of this application as recommended.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Howard stated that there was an internal
staircase which would allow access. He referred to financial constraints and the way
it was intended to develop the scheme in phases with the garage element first.
Whilst it was theoretically possible to relocate the staircase on the other side of the
extension, he considered that it would spoil the appearance of the link. The
extension had been designed to meet Policy EN4.
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Green’s proposal.
The Development Manager suggested a condition to require the door to the external
staircase to be retained as a solid door with no glazing.
Councillor P Terrington requested that additional trees be planted. This was not
supported.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions including the removal of permitted development rights for
additional first floor windows, fixed obscure glazing in those roof lights
on the eastern roof slope, installation and retention of a solid door in
the south elevation and the use of the extension to be ancillary to that of
the dwelling.
(187) HOLT - PF/12/1375 - Change of use of retail shop (A1) to tea-room (A3); 9C
Chapel Yard, Albert Street for Mrs C Howlett
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Farrow (objecting)
Mrs C Howlett (supporting)
Councillor P W High, a local Member, referred to the number of cafés in Holt. He
stated that this was a difficult application and he could not ignore the number of
objections received by the Town Council which had made it reconsider its views. His
main concern was the impact of the proposal on the residential bungalow adjacent to
Chapel Yard. He also considered that approval would give rise to unfair competition.
Development Committee
3
126
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor P Terrington stated that he was speaking on behalf of Councillor M J M
Baker, a local Member. He referred to a letter received from the neighbour.
He
questioned the Human Rights statement in the report.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Human Rights statement was based on
consultee responses. He referred to the Environmental Health Officer’s response
which concluded that the relationship between the premises and neighbouring
bungalow was acceptable.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that no details had been received in respect of
refuse disposal. She was concerned that the neighbour could be affected.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that a condition would be imposed to require
information to be provided to satisfy Environmental Health requirements.
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that it was important to retain A1 retail shops in Holt.
He was opposed to this application.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that the Council’s policies did not support
refusal. Competition between existing and proposed businesses was not material in
planning decisions and could not be used as a reason for refusal.
The Development Manager stated that in the opinion of Officers there was no policy
objection to this application. He referred to comments that had been made regarding
local connections and stated that the length of time someone had lived in the town
was not relevant.
Councillor J A Wyatt proposed that the application be refused on grounds of the
impact of noise and smell on the neighbouring bungalow and loss of A1 retail unit.
Councillor N Smith referred to the closure of existing shops and asked if it was likely
that, in the event of refusal, the existing shop would close and be boarded up or
continue to operate.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that the proposal was for a tea room and not a
restaurant. She asked if it would be possible to control the type of food served. She
considered that a tea room would not create much disturbance.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed use was as an A3 café, but it
could become a restaurant. If approved, the premises could revert back to A1 retail
without the need for permission.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern as to whether anything could be
done to prevent overdevelopment of one particular type of business.
The Development Manager stated that this issue had been addressed in the Core
Strategy by the designation of Primary Retail Frontages within town centres, where
the type of use was restricted.
Councillor B Smith considered that small businesses had to diversify in order to
survive in the current economic climate. He referred to Sheringham where there
were many restaurants and cafés, which all appeared to be thriving. The NPPF
indicated that competitive town centres should be supported and promoted to make
them viable and sustainable. He considered that if this application were refused, the
shop was likely to close, with others likely to follow. He proposed approval of this
application in accordance with the recommendation.
Development Committee
4
127
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
In answer to a question by Councillor P W High, the Development Manager stated
that the percentage of non-retail uses was the determining factor when considering
applications within a Primary Retail Frontage.
Councillor High considered that this was unfair when considering the situation in
Chapel Yard.
The Development Manager stated that Chapel Yard was not designated as Primary
Retail Frontage.
Councillor P Terrington stated that he supported refusal but only on grounds of
impact on the neighbour.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded the proposal to approve this application.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 5
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions including those required by the Environmental Health Officer
and restricting hours of use from 8am to 8pm daily.
(188) LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Councillor P W High declared a personal interest in this application as he knew Mr
Milton as a consequence of being a trustee of Holt Lowes. He had not discussed this
matter with Mr Milton.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Hewitt (objecting)
Mr J Milton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from the
Solicitor acting for the freehold owner, which reiterated previous concerns and
suggested that Bretts Wood was, in planning terms, in agricultural and forestry use
and therefore an application for change of use would be required for recreational
uses. It suggested that the proposed car park was to serve an unauthorised use and
the free-roaming of visitors could impinge on the residential amenity of the
neighbouring property.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that it was in danger of being
drawn into an argument between the landowner and applicant, which was not
relevant to this application. He referred to the nature and purpose of this application.
He advised that if the Committee were minded to refuse this application,
notwithstanding the lack of objection from the Highway Authority, it should be refused
on the basis of highway safety concerns and not disputes occurring elsewhere.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) advised the Committee that the ‘fallback’ position of parking on a relatively small access was of greater concern than the
proposal, which would create a highway facility and improve the access
arrangements.
Development Committee
5
128
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, considered that the proposal would
create an unnecessary access on a Principal Route and encourage more traffic. She
considered that enhancement of the existing arrangements would allow visitors to
park safely. She stated that there was no comparison with Thursford Wood, which
was an ancient woodland full of interest. She considered that visitors would not stay
in the area managed by the applicant but would wander into adjacent woodland. She
proposed that this application be refused because it would create traffic problems.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to grounds for
refusal, which could be based on additional stopping and turning movements on the
Principal Route.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the local Member. He stated that he passed the
site regularly and had not witnessed many visitors, although the entrance was used
as a pull-in. He considered that the area would be ruined by the formation of a car
park, which would result in additional traffic on a dangerous road. He seconded the
proposal to refuse this application.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposal would be safer than the current
arrangements and he supported the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to his experience as a Police Officer in dealing with
speeding along the road. He expressed concern regarding conflict between people
visiting the site and those exercising their shooting rights on the land.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that shoots took place across public footpaths
and in close proximity to other Norfolk Wildlife Trust sites. He had insufficient
knowledge of this matter to advise.
The Development Manager stated that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer had no
objection to this application. The conflict between those with shooting rights and
other users seemed to him to be a civil matter and this conflict was already in
existence as the public currently had access to the site.
A number of Members expressed opinions both in favour and against this application.
In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Milton confirmed that there was no
link between Bretts (Lings) Wood and Thursford Wood for public access.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in increased traffic generation which would be likely to increase
slowing, stopping and turning movements on an unrestricted section of
the A148 Principal Route to the overall detriment of highway safety.
Development Committee
6
129
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(189) MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1202 - Conversion of coastguard station to holiday
accommodation, insertion of dormer window and erection of side extension;
Coastguards, Beach Road for Mr M Lucas
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, stated that this was an iconic building and
currently used for storage purposes. The proposal would result in a considerable
increase in the size of the building. He referred to previous applications for dwellings
in the 100 year Coastal Erosion Zone. He stated that this application fell within the
50 year zone. He considered that there should be no increase in risk to life. He
requested clarification as to the proposed condition to restrict any occupation to two
months, which the Senior Planning Officer explained. He expressed concern that a
future application could be submitted for permanent occupation. He referred to the
lack of parking and amenity space, and stated that the nearest public car park was
some distance from the building.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that it was preferable for the building to be
enhanced and cared for rather than allow it to deteriorate. She proposed approval of
the application as recommended. This was seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
Councillor P W High stated that there were many holiday homes which had no
parking spaces nearby.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that lack of parking would not be a
problem as people with mobility problems would not rent the cottage.
In response to questions by Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the age of the building was not known. He explained that the proposal
involved removing and raising the roof, and suggested that a condition could be
imposed to require the re-use of the roof slates where possible.
Councillor Mrs Brettle agreed to incorporate the suggested condition within her
proposal.
The Development Manager explained what he considered was the difference
between the applications referred to by Councillor B Smith and the current
application in terms of coastal erosion issues. The current application was limited in
its scale and for holiday use only. Any future application for permanent occupation
would have to be considered on its merits but the development lacked parking and
amenity space.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd
and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including materials, the reuse of existing roof
slates where possible, restricting the occupancy to holiday
accommodation only with any one occupancy limited to two months,
and closure of the access as requested by the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
7
130
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(190) WALSINGHAM - PF/12/1256 - Construction of biomass renewable energy
facility with associated landscaping and vehicular access; North Creake
Airfield, Holkham Estate, Egmere for Egmere Energy Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest as two of his customers were
adjacent to the site. He stated that he had had no dialogue with them regarding this
matter.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Lukas (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the access
arrangements had been amended. The Highway Authority had no objection in
principle subject to the applicant demonstrating that access into the site would be
safe.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a petition had
been received which had been organised by the owners of the control tower and
signed by 142 people, some of which were from overseas, stating “North Creake
Airfield was of major strategic importance during WWII as a Bomber Support station
for RAF 100 Group. It remains today a monument to the 17 aircraft and crews who
gave up their lives to help defeat Fascism. There are plans to develop the airfield by
building a 100 acre solar power plant and an anaerobic digester plant on the
north/south runway. These will destroy its historical character of the airfield and
desecrate the memory of those who served and died from North Creake. Help us
save North Creake Airfield so future generations will know what happened here.”
A letter had been received from the occupier of the control tower who had concerns
regarding turning traffic, the impact of the digester on the public footpath, the
cumulative effect of this application and the solar farm and impact on the historic
airfield. She had requested that the proposed development be relocated.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to the comments of the
Norfolk Historic Environment Services regarding the airfield. Officers considered that
the benefits of relocating the biodigester to protect the historic environment would be
outweighed by impact on the landscape.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) had no objection
subject to additional planting to the north of the site.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) considered that impact on the
historic asset was not sufficient to justify refusal. There were considerable benefits in
terms of provision of energy for the area. He requested delegated authority to
approve this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised by
the Highway Authority and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Landscape Officer stated that the
landscape proposals were fairly robust and in proportion to the scale of the
development. The planting specification had taken into account the need to establish
the landscaping in a short timescale.
Development Committee
8
131
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
Councillor Miss B Palmer reported that Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member,
had concerns regarding noise, smell, traffic, contamination risk and historic aspect of
North Creake Airfield.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the construction of this facility would provide jobs
in the short term and would maintain jobs in local firms. He supported this
application.
Councillor P Terrington stated that he had difficulty in considering this application in
isolation, and considered that the development of the renewables corridor should be
considered as a whole. He considered that these proposals would require upgrading
of the infrastructure, which did not form part of the current proposal. He referred to
the Environment Agency’s concerns regarding pollution. He expressed concern at
the use of crops grown specifically to feed the digester which would divert production
away from food production.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern that agricultural land would be taken out of
production. He had no objection to the construction of the facility, but considered that
an alternative to the use of crops should be found.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the land was only grade 3 agricultural land on
which only a limited variety of crops could be grown. He considered that the
application had been well researched. He proposed delegated approval of this
application as recommended.
In response to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Team Leader (Enforcement
and Special Cases) explained that there would be odour associated with the digester
but this would be controlled. Environmental Health had a statutory duty to consider
this matter and had raised no objections.
Councillor J A Wyatt seconded the proposal.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) confirmed that this application was separate from
the solar farm proposal and planning permission would be unrelated to any other
case.
Councillor R Reynolds referred to the worldwide problem of food waste and stated
that such applications had to be taken in context.
In response to comments from Councillor B Smith regarding traffic movements, the
Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that many of the traffic movements,
including those at harvest time, would be on the network regardless of this proposal.
The Highway Authority was considering an access into the site which may be
acceptable and it was hoped that a solution could be found in respect of the exit.
Councillor B Smith considered that this was an ideal location for the proposal. He
considered that odours from the digester would not disturb anybody.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the setting of the memorial stone would
not be affected by this proposal.
Development Committee
9
132
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised
by the Highway Authority and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(191) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports and an item of urgent
business which the Chairman had determined should be considered pursuant to the
powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act
1972.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Chairman of the Town Council/Town Mayor
be invited to attend:
STALHAM – PF/12/1427 – Mixed use development comprising 150
dwellings, B1 (a - c) employment buildings (3150sqm), public open
space, landscaping and associated highways and drainage
infrastructure; land off Yarmouth Road for Hopkins Homes
SHERINGHAM – PF/12/0568 – Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings with garages; land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott
(192) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly report
on planning applications and appeals for the period from October to December 2012,
covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes.
(193) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(194) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(195) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(196) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(197) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(198) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
10
133
17 January 2013
Agenda Item 17
(199) CROMER – NP/13/0041 – Prior notification of intention to erect re-located
agricultural storage building; Home Farm, Hall Road for Cromer Hall Estate
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
The Development Manager outlined this proposal which involved the erection of a
relocated agricultural storage building within the Countryside Policy Area, Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast. It would also be within the
vicinity of a listed building and the Cromer Hall Historic Park and Garden. However,
the building would be located close to existing buildings and storage yard. No
objections had been received from Environmental Health, the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager or Highway Authority. A response was awaited from
Cromer Town Council. The consultation period was due to expire today.
The Development Manager stated that the proposal was considered to preserve the
heritage asset, have no detrimental impact on residential amenity and to comply with
Development Plan Policy. He requested delegated authority not to require a
reserved matters application, subject to no objection from Cromer Town Council
following expiry of the consultation period.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to not require
a reserved matters application subject to no objection being received
from Cromer Town Council following expiry of the consultation period.
(200) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(201) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 14 of the Officer’s exempt report updating the
situation previously reported concerning the Schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 December
2012.
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
The meeting closed at 12.30 pm.
Development Committee
11
134
17 January 2013