Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 02 March 2011
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N Ripley (Chairman)
Mr R Combe
Mrs H Eales
Mr P High
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs J Moss
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mrs A C Sweeney
Officers in
Attendance:
The Strategic Housing Manager (for item 83), the Sustainability Assistant
(for item 83) the Economic and Tourism Development Manager (for item
84) the Economic and Tourism Development Officer (for item 84) the North
Norfolk Learning and Skills Project Manager (for item 84), the Head of
Planning and Building Control (for item 85), the Customer Services Team
Leader (for item 86) and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs P Bevan Jones, Mrs A Green, Mrs G Lisher, Mr J Lisher, Mrs H
Nelson, Mr S Partridge and Mr J Wyatt
77 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mrs S Arnold and Mr B Hannah
78 SUBSTITUTES
None
79 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
80 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2010 were signed as a correct record.
81 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
82 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following Members declared an interest in the items listed below:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
02 March 2011
Member(s)
Mr P High
Minute No.
85
Item
Review of Single Development
Control system
Interest
Personal – is a
Member of the
Development Control
Committee
Mr J PerryWarnes
85
Review of Single Development
Control system
Personal – is a
Member of the
Development Control
Committee
Mrs A
Sweeney
85
Review of Single Development
Control system
Personal – is a
Member of the
Development Control
Committee
83 FUEL POVERTY REVIEW
The review of Fuel Poverty across the District followed the signing of the East of
England Fuel Poverty declaration by Full Council in December 2010 and a commitment
by the Council at the November 2010 meeting of the Environmental Sustainability Board
to reduce fuel poverty during 2011/12. The report provided an overview of fuel poverty in
the District and proposed a pilot project for implementation in 2011/12. It was a joint
initiative by the Housing and Sustainability teams.
Fuel poverty was exacerbated in rural areas due to a higher number of solid walled
properties, more off-gas properties and lower than average wages. It had an impact on
health, led to increased household debt and a rise in CO2 emissions. Past government
policies had focussed on cavity wall and loft insulation and there had been a lack of
funding for solid wall insulation and off-gas properties. The Council no longer offered
grants to householders for wall and loft insulation. Instead, enquirers were referred to
other grant-funded programmes such as Warm Front.
The private Sector House Condition Survey 2007 indicated that the Stalham and
Cromer / Sheringham areas accounted for 58% of all households in fuel poverty in North
Norfolk. This was supported by the Centre for Sustainable Energy’s Fuel Poverty
Indicator (2003) and the Energy Saving Trust’s database. It was therefore proposed that
the pilot project would focus on the Stalham are initially. Lower value properties would
be targeted where the owners received a means tested benefit. Householders would be
invited to contact the Council if they wished to take part and a home visit would survey
the property and provide general advice on energy efficiency and the reduction of fuel
costs. A search of the Energy Savings Trust could also be made for available grants.
The home visits would be conducted by two officers – one from the Housing team and
one from the Sustainability team.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mrs H Nelson spoke on behalf of Mrs P Bevan Jones, Portfolio Holder – Strategic
Housing and Supporting Communities. She suggested that it could be useful to work
with doctors’ surgeries and health visitors to identify the households most in need –
particularly those suffering with health problems that were exacerbated by fuel
poverty. The Strategic Housing Manager replied that they were considering various
ways of taking the project forward, including engagement with GP consortia and the
Health and Well-being Board.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
02 March 2011
b) A Member asked whether there were plans to work with Victory Housing. The
Strategic Housing Manager replied that Victory Housing involved social housing
tenants and the focus of the programme was on the private sector. Victory Housing
had their own programme the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ which addressed some of
the issues affecting fuel poverty. In response to a further query regarding the poor
state of a Victory Housing tenant’s home, the Strategic Housing Manager said that
the Environmental Health Officer within the Strategic Housing team would deal with
complaints from all tenants regarding the condition of their properties – social and
private.
c) The provision of advice to parish and town councils was raised. It could be helpful
for an officer to attend their AGMs to talk about fuel poverty and how residents could
address it. The Strategic Housing Manager responded that the Council was keen to
publicise the programme as widely as possible.
d) A Member asked if there were any pressures being placed on roof insulation
providers to reduce the cost of provision to pensioners under the age of 70. The
Strategic Housing Manager replied that there was nothing in place at present.
However, pensioners under 70 might be eligible for lower-cost insulation if they were
in receipt of state benefits.
e) It was suggested that information on reducing fuel costs and consumption could be
provided via the Council’s publication, Outlook. The Council could also place
pressure on individual landlords to upgrade their properties. The Strategic Housing
Manager replied that they were intending to use Outlook to provide advice and
publicise the pilot programme. She said that the Council did have enforcement
powers but landlords usually responded quite quickly if they were contacted by the
Council. The Council also tried to encourage tenants to take on the responsibility of
approaching their landlord themselves first.
f) The problem of the high cost of heating oil was raised. The establishment of
syndicates should be encouraged by the Council as they could reduce the cost of
purchasing oil considerably. The Chairman responded that Parish Councils were
well-placed to set up syndicates and had done so successfully in several villages.
g) A Member asked whether residents who had low incomes but were not in receipt of
state benefits would be targeted and if so, how this would be done. The Strategic
Housing Manager replied that they would not be specifically targeted but that the
EDP would be used to encourage people to refer themselves to the scheme. No-one
would be turned away. She reminded members that the scheme aimed to raise
awareness of sustainability issues too, so everyone was welcome to take part.
h) There was a concern that the scheme would prove very popular and the officers
involved may struggle to cope. It was suggested that Building Control could also
assist in delivering the programme. The Council website and Council Tax letters
should also be considered as a way of promoting the programme to residents.
i) A Member suggested that the Council should work with Voluntary Norfolk on this
issue. Members had recently attended a VCS Together seminar ‘Cost in the
Countryside’ which had covered fuel poverty in Norfolk.
RESOLVED
1. To approve the commencement of the pilot project
2. To receive a progress report at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny committee
in October 2011.
84 BUSINESS SUPPORT
The Economic and Tourism Development Manager introduced his team and briefly
outlined their roles. The majority of the Economic Development Unit’s (EDU) work over
the previous 18 months had focussed on mitigating the effects of the economic
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
02 March 2011
downturn on local businesses. The funding that had provided support in this area over
the previous 12 years had now gone. Business Link East was in the process of being
disbanded and were withdrawing the provision of business workshops from September
2011. Additional challenges were presented by the creation of a new eastern region
Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the setting up of the Norfolk Development
Company (NDC) by the County Council. The impact of these on the work of the EDU
was hard to gauge at this stage but they would need to work hard to ensure that the
concerns and needs of North Norfolk businesses were heard.
The Economic and Tourism Development Officer briefly outlined the areas of focus for
business support. The withdrawal of funding and the harsh economic climate had led
the unit to work more closely with the North Norfolk Business Forum (NNBF) – a coordinated group run by businesses on behalf of businesses. Workshops encouraging
people to set up a business were delivered via the NNBF in Fakenham, Cromer, North
Walsham and Stalham. They were very popular, with 50-60 people attending the
workshops. In addition, the Pathfinder Business Advice Project provided crucial support
and advice to 90 local businesses affected by coastal change and blight. The EDU
continued to work closely with partners across the County and would seek to play an
active role within the new LEP.
Working with young people to improve their skills to enable them to find work and in
some cases encourage them to set up their own business was a vital part of the EDU’s
work. The Learning and Skills Manager stressed the importance of securing funding for
this type of work. He used a case study to illustrate how with the right support and
advice a young adult with limited qualifications could gain the skills necessary to find
work. Between 1 April 2010 and 01 March 2011, 45 people had been helped into work
and a total of 514 people had received advice through 740 advice sessions.
The Economic and Tourism Development Manager thanked Members for their
continued support. The release of £70000 for a ‘Fighting Fund’ in 2011/12 had allowed
the Learning and Skills Manager and his team to continue their work for another year.
Members discussed the presentation:
1. A Member asked for further information on the proposed Norfolk Development
Company. The Economic and Tourism Development Manager said that it was
intended to be a local development company for Norfolk. District Councils would be
expected to sign up and pass control of their assets over to the NDC. The aim was
to try and rationalise all local projects and deliver them more efficiently. The concern
was that it centralised everything throughout the County and took investment out of
the District. The new LEP would also need to be monitored closely as it would make
region-wide decisions on economic development.
2. The impact of the Highways Authority strict access criteria on businesses was
highlighted. The Member also asked the level of support provided by the EDU to
Merchants Place in Cromer. The Economic and Tourism Development Manager
responded that the Council had lent £350000 for the purchase of Merchants Place
(now repaid) and they used them for running courses when possible. He warned that
there was a current cashflow problem for Merchants Place – they had been affected
by the public sector spending cuts with services like Connexions cancelling
bookings.
3. A Member asked how many new businesses started with the assistance of the EDU
later failed and whether they continued to receive support once the business was
established. The Learning and Skills Project Manager replied that they identified
sources of support for people to use. He added that mentoring schemes would be
very useful. The Economic and Tourism Development Manager said that they
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
02 March 2011
tended to reach those who couldn’t access traditional means of support such as
banks and solicitors. They helped them draw up a business plan and a projection to
make sure they were aware of the turnover needed to ensure that the business
succeeded.
4. A Member requested that the committee considered the role and potential impact of
the NDC and LEP at a future date.
AGREED
To review the role and impact of the Norfolk Development Company and the Local
Enterprise Partnership.
85 REVIEW OF SINGLE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE SYSTEM
The report reviewed the operation of the Development Control Committee since the
move to a single committee as required by Full Council when the revised arrangements
were approved in April 2010.
Apart from a special meeting, a total of 149 items had been considered at 12 meetings
of the single Development Control Committee – an average of 9.3 applications and 3.1
other matters per meeting. Nine of the meetings were completed by lunchtime, with
three running into the early afternoon. The move to a single committee had enabled a
restructuring of officer support arrangements and this had contributed to a saving of
£198,000 in Planning and Building Control during 2010/11.
Members discussed the report:
a) Mrs H Nelson read out a statement on behalf of the Leader and Portfolio Holder for
Building Control and Area Planning, Ms V R Gay. It expressed support for the
current single committee system, highlighting the disruption to staff if a two
committee system was reinstated. She also stressed that any final decision should
be taken by the new Council after the local elections in May 2011.
b) A Member admitted that he had been a critic of the single committee initially but now
felt that it worked very well. The only concern he had was regarding site visits. They
could sometimes be very far apart and those members living a long distance from
the site found them difficult to get to. He suggested a balance in the membership of
the committee based on an east / west split. The Head of Planning and Building
Control agreed that some site visits required travelling considerable distances for
some members. In such cases a minibus was organised to pick up members from
the Council offices in Cromer.
c) The length of meetings under the single committee system was queried. A Member
was concerned that contentious items were dealt with first, requiring members to sit
through lengthy and complex discussions, resulting in a lack of focus by the end of
the meeting. The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that such items
were scheduled first because members of the public tended to attend those
meetings. He added that if the meeting was anticipated to be lengthy, lunch was
ordered for Members to give them a break.
d) The use of substitutes was raised. A Member agreed with a previous comment
regarding an east/west split for members of the Development Control Committee
rather than a political balance. She believed that the large number of substitutes at
some meetings was problematic when contentious schemes were considered, as
many of them had a limited awareness of local concerns and had not attended the
site visits. The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that a political
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
02 March 2011
balance for the Development Control Committee was required by the constitution.
He added that the political balance was not applicable when substitutes were used.
e) A Member was concerned that there was no longer a check in place for large or
contentious schemes. Previously, such applications would have gone before the two
Development Control Committees. She suggested that in future they should go
before Full Council. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that several
years ago major developments had gone to Full Council but it had proved very
difficult to manage the large numbers of people in the Council chamber as members
of the public usually attended too. It was felt that there had also been a lack of
knowledge amongst some Members at these meetings and they were subsequently
abandoned. The Member responded that other Councils managed to do this
adequately and that the issues were not insurmountable. The Head of Planning and
Building Control added that the minutes of the Development Control Committee
meetings were received by Full Council.
f) A Member commented that she felt rather than the Development Control committee
being split on an east/west basis, it was sufficient for the Chairman and Vice
Chairman to represent the different sides of the District. This was the current
situation and it worked very well.
g) In response to an earlier concern regarding site visits, a Member suggested that
planning officers could film the site with a video camera to give a more detailed
overview. The Head of Planning and Building Control agreed to look into the
feasibility of this. Another Member responded that site visits were important and
should be retained. A video camera would not be able to reproduce the full context
of the site.
RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council the retention of the single Development Control
Committee structure comprising approximately 14 members (depending on political
balance) with effect from May 2011
86 CUSTOMER COMPLIMENTS, COMPLAINTS AND SUGGESTIONS MONITORING
REPORT
The report provided Members with an overview of customer compliments, complaints
and suggestions received by the Council during the period 1 December 2010 to 31
January 2011. The report showed that complaints acknowledged year on year have
remained at 100% and complaints responded to within timescale were at 73%. The new
corporate compliments, complaints and suggestions system was implemented in
December 2010. Further training for identified officers across the departments would
take place between April and August 2011. The aim was for all feedback received
across all access channels to be recorded. This would include correspondence received
directly by a specific department as well as feedback via the telephone and in person.
An analysis of the complaints received by the Council between 01 December 2010 and
31 January 2011 indicated that there were 11 complaints compared to 33 for the same
period in 2009. Of those 11 complaints, 100% were acknowledged within the timescale
and 73% were responded to within the timescale. During the same period, 2 complaints
were referred to the Local Government Ombudsman and a total of 20 letters were
received from Norman Lamb MP and Keith Simpson MP. Fifteen of these were
answered within the timescale.
A total of 5 compliments were received across all service areas during the two month
period.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
02 March 2011
Members discussed the report:
a) The Customer Services Team was praised for their hard work. The Member also
commented on the popularity of the Tourist Information Centres.
b) The problem of capturing complaints was raised. A Member wondered if a
complainant phoned a Head of Department direct how it would be picked up. The
Customer Services Team Leader replied that verbal complaints were not captured at
present. It was hoped the planned training for officers across the departments would
address this problem. She suggested that serious complaints should be put in
writing to ensure that they were logged by the Customer Services team.
c) A Member asked how complaints relating to planning enforcement were dealt with
and whether they were logged by Customer Services. The Customer Services Team
Leader said that they would be treated as an enforcement complaint and only
logged by that department. However, if it was sent as a general complaint then it
would be recorded. The Member asked whether that included emails and the
response was that any complaints sent via the ‘Your views count’ section of the
website would be logged.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
87 SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) A Member had asked for further information regarding beach huts in the District. The
Financial Services Manager had provided a detailed breakdown of the costs
involved. A copy had been circulated to members of the Committee.
b) At the December meeting of the Committee, the Community Safety Manager had
asked members to consider which issues they would like her to cover in future
reports. Since then, it had been announced that the Community Safety Team was to
be restructured. Further information on this would be provided at the committee
meeting on 20 July 2011.
c) The Democratic Services Team Leader would discuss the proposed review of the
Norfolk Development Company and the Local Enterprise Partnership with the
Economics and Tourism Development Manager and they would consider when it
should be brought before the committee.
d) The Democratic Services Team Leader was concerned that some items on the
agenda were running for longer than their allotted time. She suggested contacting
officers and reminding them to try and stick to their time slot. The Chairman felt that
it might be a good idea to get feedback from officers on the time they felt should be
allocated to them. The Democratic Services Team Leader responded that a preagenda meeting could address this issue.
The meeting concluded at 12.30pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
02 March 2011