Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14 December
2010 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N Ripley (Chairman)
Mrs J Moss
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs C Wilkins
Mrs S Arnold
Mr R Combe
Mrs H Eales
Mr P High
Mrs B McGoun
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive (for item 70), the Performance and Risk Assistant (for
item 70) the Sustainability Coordinator (for item 71) the Strategic Director –
Environment (for items 71 and 72) the Supporting Communities Manager
(for item 73) the Financial Services Manager (for item 74), the Community
Safety Manager (for item 75) and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Also in
Attendance:
Members of the North Norfolk Youth Voice (for item 73)
64 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr B Hannah and Mrs J Trett
65 SUBSTITUTES
None
66 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
67 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2010 were signed as a correct record.
68 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
69 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following Members declared an interest in the items listed below:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
14 December 2010
Member(s)
Mr N Ripley
Minute No.
71
Item
Health Strategy Update
Interest
Personal – is a
member of Cromer
Lawn Tennis &
Squash Association
Mr J PerryWarnes
75
North Norfolk Safer
Communities Partnership
Update
Personal – is a
Member of Norfolk
County Council
Personal - is a
Member of Norfolk
Police Authority
70 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT QUARTERLY REPORT (AS AT 30 SEPT 2010)
The Chief Executive presented the Performance Management quarterly report for the
period ended 30th September 2010. Overall performance continued to be good. Four
performance indicators were significantly below target. The Performance and Risk
Assistant drew Members attention to a few minor errors on the performance indicators
table (Appendix F, p.55). The errors related to the planning indicators Q2 results and
should have read as follows:
1. Processing of Major Planning applications (NI 157a) should state 55.56% not
75.00%
2. Processing of Minor Planning applications (NI 157b) should state 67.13% not
62.86%
3. Processing of other Planning applications (NI 157c) should state 83.64% not
79.83%
Consequently, Box 2 of the ‘indicators significantly above target’ - on p.49 (Agenda Item
12) should be ignored as this was now incorrect.
The Performance and Risk Assistant assured Members that the errors were not due to a
system error but operator input in the planning department. It was unlikely that they
would happen again.
Members discussed the report:
a) A concern was expressed about the errors regarding the planning indicators getting
into the public domain.
b) It had been noted that reductions in staffing had been cited as the reason for a loss
of performance in the planning department. A Member asked for clarification on the
current situation and whether the department would be able to cope with an increase
in the number of planning applications. The Chief Executive responded that the new
planning system supported the staff reductions. The impact of an increase in
applications would be considered when allocating the budget. Financial restraints
meant that the public may have to accept differing standards of service. He added
that the planning indicators had been abolished and consequently the pressure to
meet them had eased. The focus was now on rewarding performance for meeting
new homes targets.
c) A Member commented on the performance indicator of 100% for dealing with flytipping. She asked whether this was because there was not much fly-tipping in the
district. The Chief Executive responded that it was a measurement of how quickly
reports of tipping were responded to and not an indication of the amount. Another
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
14 December 2010
Member added that if fly-tipping took place on private land then it was the
responsibility of the landowner to clear it up. It was unlikely that such cases were
reported to the Council.
d) The very high figure for the number of businesses assisted to retain jobs was
praised and further information was requested on what this actually entailed. The
Chief Executive replied that it related to work carried out under the Business Support
Pathfinder Programme which assisted businesses in trouble and threatened with
redundancies. It included signposting to other advisory services. Members
requested that the Economic and Tourism Development Manager attended the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee at a future date to present a detailed report on the
Business Support Pathfinder Programme. Another Member also requested that the
North Norfolk Learning and Skill Manager attend at the same time to provide further
information on his work regarding guidance on redundancies.
e) Concerns regarding planning enforcement were not reflected in the performance
indicators. A Member commented that this area should be closely monitored.
The Democratic Services Team Leader advised Members that most of the questions
had related to specific service areas. In future she would remind Members to let her
know prior to the meeting if they had questions relating to the Performance
Management Quarterly Report. She would then be able to request that individual service
managers attended the meeting to respond.
RESOLVED
1. To note the contents of the report
2. To request a presentation on the Business Support Pathfinder Programme
71 UPDATE ON PROGRESS UNDER THE CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY THEME
The report updated members on the completed and future work under the
environmental sustainability theme. Good progress had been made with all key activities
to date. The Sustainability Co-ordinator highlighted the main achievements:
1. Carbon emissions from NNDC operations had reduced by 270 tonnes – a net overall
reduction of 7.1% from 2008/09 to 2009/10. This meant that the Council was on
track to meet their target under the Carbon Management Plan of a 33% reduction
over 5 years.
2. Cabinet had approved the preferred supplier for the voltage optimisation project in
November 2010. Work had been completed in Fakenham and would commence
soon at the Council offices in Cromer.
3. A piece of Council owned land was being made available in North Walsham.
Enquiries had been received from several other parishes following the allotments
event in July.
4. An additional category was proposed for the Environment Awards. It would be
awarded for proposed projects that were likely to have lasting impact. The prize
money would go towards carrying out the project during the following year.
5. A survey undertaken at North Walsham station had exceeded all expectations and
resulted in 1297 responses. It was intended that a travel plan would be completed
by the end of March 2011.
6. Six companies had been invited to provide estimates for the installation of
photovoltaic panels on three council-owned buildings. The officers were in the
process of examining the business case and how the government feed in tariff
compared to the rate of return. Cromer High School and Stalham High School had
shown an interest in using renewable technology in their sports centres. As the
Council paid 60% of the energy costs for out of hours use for these buildings, it
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
14 December 2010
could prove cost-effective in the long-term. The Strategic Director – Environment
emphasised that the Council would have to act on this within the next year if they
were to maximise the benefits.
The Strategic Director – Environment drew Members attention to the Environmental
Sustainability Board’s request that a review of the extent and impact of fuel poverty
across the district was brought to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It was intended
that a report would be presented on 2 March 2011. He stressed that fuel poverty had a
much bigger impact in rural areas. It was a cross-cutting issue that impacted on health
and on older people in particular.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member was concerned about the high price of oil. There was no regulatory body
and the price had increased considerably over the past few months. As very few
homes in the District were on mains gas, the cost of oil was something that needed
to be closely monitored. The Strategic Director – Environment acknowledged the
high price of oil and the impact on householders. He said that it was important that
the Council focussed on areas where they could achieve a positive intervention.
Insulating buildings was relatively cheap and there were potential funding streams
available, although it may need a capital bid internally.
b) Concerns were expressed about the siting of photo-voltaic panels on the roof of the
Council offices. A wind turbine could be a more suitable option. The Sustainability
Co-ordinator responded that wind turbines were not as effective as solar panels.
She stressed that any energy savings must include minimising energy use. Photovoltaic panels which were more effective than wind turbines would still only produce
about 14% of the energy used by the building.
c) The issue of staff reducing their energy consumption was raised. The Sustainability
Co-ordinator confirmed that the last energy walkround in November 2010 showed a
further 6% drop in consumption.
d) The cost of providing showers for staff and watering bowling greens and tennis
courts was queried. The Sustainability Coordinator responded that staff were using
the shower facilities regularly and they were necessary if more people were to be
encouraged to cycle to work. The Strategic Director – Environment acknowledged
that the Council needed to try and reduce the cost of watering the grass tennis
courts at Cromer. The contract with the Lawn Tennis and Squash Association was
historical and not necessarily in the best interests of the Council. However, they had
started to work together in a more positive way to encourage the use of the facilities
by schools and increase public use.
RESOLVED
1. to note the positive progress made towards the corporate aim of becoming an
environmentally sustainable council.
2. to accept the Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan
3. to approve the proposed changes to the Environment Award categories
4. to support the request of the Environmental Sustainability Board for a review of the
extent and impact of fuel poverty across the District
72 HEALTH STRATEGY UPDATE
The Strategic Director – Environment provided an oral update on the Health Strategy.
He reminded members that an event involving ‘key players’ was arranged for 25
January 2011. There were three objectives to the event, which was funded by the
Department of Health:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
14 December 2010
a) To get cross-party agreement from Members on how health should be worded in the
new Corporate Plan.
b) For managers to seize the opportunities presented by the change in health services.
It was hoped that this would lead to officers establishing links with external partners
in health, social services and the third sector.
c) To set up a North Norfolk Health Forum. It was important that it did not replicate the
county-level Health and Wellbeing Board but was geared to improving health at local
level. It would be essential to ensure that the set up was right and that the new
forum focussed on the right projects.
The North Norfolk GP Commissioning Consortium was very well advanced and there
was now real incentive for the consortium to commission services that would have a
long-term beneficial effect. It was hoped that the consortium would seek to work with the
Council to ensure that they were able to commission some of our activities. Also that the
data collected by GPs was more widely shared.
Members discussed the update:
a) The health of young people was important. Increased input from the youth sector
could benefit the council’s health strategy. The Strategic Director – Environment
acknowledged the importance of addressing the health needs of young people.
Sports clubs and schools could play a vital role in this.
b) The issue of funding for the Fit Together programme was raised. Several members
were concerned about the long-term future of the programme. The Strategic Director
– Environment replied that discussions would take place with users of the scheme
on ways to fund it going forward. Self-administration could reduce costs and an
upfront payment by Fit Together participants of £10-20 a year could enable reinvestment and possibly the setting up of other groups for younger people.
73 YOUTH INCLUSION STRATEGY
The Supporting Communities Manager introduced three representatives of the North
Norfolk Youth Voice (NNYV). The group was established in autumn 2008 and had 15
members from across the district, ranging in age from 13 to 22.
They presented ‘Bridging the Gap’, North Norfolk District Council’s Youth Inclusion
Strategy 2011-2014. The strategy had been drawn up following a series of consultations
with 400 young people across the district’s market towns. It was hoped that the strategy
would be a means of bringing young people into the decision-making process and
provide the opportunity to adapt existing services to fit their needs. The strategy had
been developed from a bottom-up approach and reflected the views and needs of the
young people involved. The following actions were to be taken over three years:
1. Communication – website, advertising
2. Supporting young people to be involved – community activities and raising
awareness with NNDCs partners
3. Making a positive contribution – young people’s participation in decision-making
structures including town and parish councils
4. Learning and skills development
5. Monitoring and review
Members discussed the presentation:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
14 December 2010
a) A Member asked where and when the group met and whether there was a
representative from the Holt area. The group met every 2 weeks at Merchants Place
in Cromer. The Holt representative had recently left to go to university.
b) The possibility of young people attending local council meetings was raised. Parish
and town councils struggled to keep in touch with young people’s needs and wishes.
It would make local councils much more representative of their areas. The response
from NNYV was that the time, place and formality of such meetings could be offputting to young people. It may be necessary to alter these to make them more
appealing and increase attendance.
c) The issue of involvement with the Area Partnerships was raised. The Supporting
Communities Manager replied that the main focus to date had been to put the
strategy together. The next stage would be implementing the action plan and there
would be an ongoing programme of working with the Area Partnerships.
d) A Member was concerned about the loss of educational maintenance grants and
travel subsidies. She felt that any input NNYV could give would be very useful.
e) The issue of whether the group would continue to grow was raised. The group felt
that this was something that they would like input from the Council on. Young people
could not be forced into joining NNYV. It had to be approached carefully. The
Supporting Communities Manager added that it was important to put a structure in
place first. A pilot group of three parish councils had been set up and this would be
trialled before it was rolled out across the district.
AGREED
To confirm that the direction of the strategy was compatible with the Council’s vision
for youth inclusion.
74 2010/11 REVISED BUDGET
The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services presented the 2010/11 Revised Budget. The
budget had been revised to take account of the variances which had been highlighted
as part of the ongoing budget monitoring process. The report presented a balanced
position while allowing for a contribution to be made to the restructuring reserve to fund
one-off costs associated with restructurings still to be carried out. Work was continuing
on the 2011/12 budget and a detailed report would be presented to Members in January
2011. The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services confirmed that an update on the
government grant settlement would be sent to staff and members as soon as possible.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member asked for clarification on the figures for the Pathfinder project. The
Financial Services Manager responded that £474,194 had been received last year
and that had been carried forward. £457,966 had been spent during 2010/11 and
the remaining £16,228 had been carried over to 2011/12. She confirmed that it had
all been allocated.
b) The large increase in central costs was queried. The Financial Services Manager
explained central costs increased considerably when work was undertaken on a big
project and the Pay and Grading Review was reflected in the central costs for
2010/11. The costs would be recharged in full to the final service areas.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
14 December 2010
75 NORTH NORFOLK SAFER COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP – MULTI-AGENCY
TEAM UPDATE
The Community Safety Manager presented a report on the progress made in
establishing a co-located multi-agency team to deliver the priorities in the Safer
Communities Partnership Plan. The Council’s Community Safety Team was now based
at Cromer Police Station full-time. This had proved to be a positive move as the team
was able to react quickly to calls received overnight. However there was the possibility
that they would quickly be overwhelmed. There was also a concern that locally there
was no strategic governance. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and violent crime were the
two main priorities. However, it was likely that the 2 Council ASB posts would cease to
be funded from March 2011. This would entail a shift from a reactive approach to one of
‘fire-fighting’.
Members discussed the report:
1. A Member was concerned that the multi-agency team was too Cromer-centric. The
Community Safety Manager assured her that the team responded to calls from
across the district. She acknowledged that now the focus was county-wide there
would naturally be a shift towards the urban areas and the team was determined to
ensure that North Norfolk received its fair share of resources. The policing area for
North Norfolk now included a large area of Broadland which historically had a higher
crime rate. This too should be reflected in resource allocation.
2. A Member thanked the Community Safety Manager for the detailed information on
crime-rates. It highlighted the differences between parishes and in some cases
demonstrated that crime rates were actually lower than residents believed them to
be.
The Community Safety Manager asked the Committee to consider which issues they
would like her to cover in future reports. The work programme included two reports from
her team but she felt it may be more useful to present one report, tailored to Members
interests.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Democratic Services Team Leader had provided Members with an article from
the EDP 6 December 2010 (attached). It discussed concerns regarding the
scrapping of the college transport subsidy. This subject had been raised at the
previous meeting as a possible addition to the Overview and Scrutiny Work
Programme. The Democratic Services Team Leader suggested that the matter
could be raised as part of the Council’s response to Norfolk County Council’ ‘Big
Conversation’. This was due to be discussed at the Full Council meeting on 14
December 2010. The Member Champion for Youth, Mrs B McGoun, agreed to raise
the issue at Full Council.
b) At the previous meeting, Members had agreed to send a letter to Norman Lamb, MP
proposing that second home owners were charged the full rate of council tax. The
Chairman asked the Committee to consider deferring this until the government’s
position on the matter was clear. The Committee agreed.
c) A summary of the Committee’s investigation into domestic violence was attached.
The Democratic Services Manager proposed that detailed figures on rates of
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
14 December 2010
domestic violence could be included in future reports from the Community Safety
Manager.
AGREED
1. To voice the concerns regarding student transport as part of the Council’s response
to the Big Conversation.
2. To postpone sending a letter to Norman Lamb, MP regarding second homes council
tax until the government’s position was clearer
3. To respond to the Community Safety Manager’s request for input into items to be
covered in her reports to the Committee.
The meeting concluded at 12.30pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
14 December 2010