Please contact: Lydia Hall
Please email: lydia.hall@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please direct dial on: 01263 516047
02 February 2015
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 11th
February 2015 at 9.30am.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member
of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be
filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P
Moore, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr R Shepherd, Mr N Smith, and Mr
R Wright.
All other Members of the Council for information.
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 & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
SUBSTITUTES
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any
4.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
(9.30-9.35)
To approve as correct records the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on the 10th December 2014.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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.
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To consider any petitions received from members of the public.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A MEMBER
To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to
the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days’ notice, to include an item on the
agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
OR RECOMMENDATIONS
To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or
recommendations.
10.
2015/16 BUDGET REPORT
(Cabinet papers p.55)
(9:35-10:35)
Summary:
This report presents for approval the 2015/16 budget
along with the latest financial projections for the following
three years to 2018/19.
Options
considered:
The budget for the forthcoming financial year must be set
annually. Whilst there are options around the individual
budgets presented for approval i.e. what is included in
the budget for 2015/16, the overall position now
presented for approval is the culmination of work carried
out by officers and Cabinet over a number of months,
details of this work is provided within the report.
Conclusions:
The Council’s budget is set for approval each year; it is
presented to Cabinet and then considered by Overview
and Scrutiny Committee before recommendations are
made to Full Council. This report now presents a
balanced budget for 2015/16 and also presents the latest
financial projections for the following three financial
years, 2016/17 to 2018/19. The budget has been
produced based on a number of assumptions as detailed
within the main body of the report and also reflects the
provisional finance settlement announced on 18
December 2014. The report recommends that the
surplus for the year is allocated between the general
reserve and restructuring and invest to save reserve.
The report also outlines the risks facing the Council in
setting the budget and forecasting future spending plans
and resources.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet agree and where
necessary recommend to Full Council:
The 2015/16 revenue budget as outlined at Appendix
A;
The surplus of £462,424 be allocated to the general
reserve and restructuring and invest to save reserve
as outlined at section 5.8 in the reports;
The demand on the Collection Fund, subject to any
amendments as a result of final precepts still to be
received be:
a. £5,307,071 for District purposes
b. £1,716,441 (subject to confirmation of the final
precepts) for Parish/Town Precepts;
The statement of and movement on the reserves as
detailed at Appendix E;
The updated Capital Programme and financing for
2014/15 to 2017/18 as detailed at Appendix F;
The new capital bids as detailed at Appendix G;
The prudential indicators as included at Appendix H;
That members note the current financial projections
for the period 2016/17 to 2018/19.
1)
Council
Decision
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To recommend a balanced budget for 2015/16 for
approval by Full Council on 25 February 2015.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Local Government Finance Settlement 2015/16, 2014/15 budget monitoring reports.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
Councillor W Northam
All
Karen Sly
telephone
and e-mail:
11.
01263 516243
karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT 2015/16
(Cabinet papers p.134)
(10:35-10:40)
Summary:
This report sets out details of the Council’s treasury
management activities and presents a strategy for the prudent
investment of the Council’s surplus funds.
Options Considered:
Alternative investment options are continuously appraised by
the Council’s treasury advisors, Arlingclose and all appropriate
options are included within this Strategy.
Council
Decision
12.
The Strategy represents an appropriate balance between risk
management and cost effectiveness. An alternative strategy
might be to invest in a narrower range of counterparties or for
shorter periods. Interest income is likely to be lower as a
consequence, but with a reduced risk of losses from
counterparty default. Investing in a wider range of
counterparties or for longer periods may increase interest
income, but with an increased risk of loss from defaults.
Conclusions:
The preparation of this Strategy Statement is necessary to
comply with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy’s Code of Practice for Treasury Management in
Public Services.
Recommendations:
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that The Treasury
Management Strategy Statement is approved.
Reasons for
Recommendation:
The Strategy provides the Council with a flexible treasury
strategy enabling it to respond to changing market conditions
and ensure the security of its funds.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officers
telephone
and e-mail:
Cllr W Northam
All
Tony Brown
01263 516126
tony.brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk
MANAGING PERFORMANCE QUARTER 3 2014/15
(Cabinet papers – p.8)
(10:40-11:10)
Summary:
The purpose of this report is to give a third quarter progress
report of the performance of the Council. More specifically it
reports delivery of the Annual Action Plan 2014/15 and
achieving targets. It gives an overview, identifies any issues
that may affect delivery of the plan, the action being taken
to address these issues and proposes any further action
needed that requires Cabinet approval.
Options considered:
Conclusions:
Options considering action regarding performance are
presented separately, issue by issue, to the appropriate
Council Committee.
1. The majority of the 56 activities in the Annual Action
Plan 2014/15 are on track (45). Performance is being
closely monitored, particularly for the activities where
issues or problems have been identified (four). Some
activities have already been completed successfully
(five) and one is on hold. See Chart 1 below.
2. Of the 16 performance indicators where a target has
been set eight are on or above target, three close to
target and four below target. Where assessment
against the same period last year is possible (20
indicators), eight are improving, two are static and six
are worsening. There are currently two indicators
where data is awaited.
3. The delivery of the Annual Action Plan is progressing
according to plan but there are a very few performance
issues in achieving targets and achieving improvement.
The issues involved, and action being taken in each
case, are detailed in the remainder of the document.
Recommendation:
That Cabinet notes this report, welcomes the progress
being made and endorses the actions laid out in
Appendix 1 being taken by management where there
are areas of concern.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To ensure the objectives of the Council are achieved.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
13.
Councillor T FitzPatrick
All
Helen Thomas
01263 516214
helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2015-16
Summary:
Conclusions:
(Cabinet papers p.41)
(11:30-12:00)
This report presents the Annual Action Plan for 2015-16
for approval
.
A rigorous development process has resulted in a
balanced and effective Annual Action Plan for 2015 -16
and associated performance indicators to deliver the
priorities and objectives as laid out in the Corporate Plan
2012-2015.
Recommendations:
Cabinet Decision
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
14.
Cabinet is recommended to approve the Annual
Action Plan 2015-16 and the targets and
recommendations for performance indicators as set
out in Appendix 1.
Councillor T FitzPatrick
All
Helen Thomas
01263 516214
helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
(Page 15)
(12:00-12:05)
To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.
15.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Page 18)
(12:05 – 12:25)
To receive an update from the Scrutiny Officer on progress made with topics on its agreed
work programme and to receive any further information which Members may have requested
at a previous meeting.
16.
EXCLUSION OF THE 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 items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
17.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 14 January
2015 in the Council Chamber, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer at
9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr P W Moore (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V R Gay
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Green
Mr R Reynolds
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr E Seward
Officers in
Attendance:
The Head of Environmental Health, the Environmental Health Officer, the
Property Business Manager, the Democratic Services Team Leader and
the Democratic Services Officer
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs A Moore, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P Terrington, Mr B Smith, Mrs A
Fitch-Tillett, Mr R Oliver, Mr G Jones, Mr J Lee, Mr S Ward and Mr P High.
94. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr R Wright
95. SUBSTITUTES
None.
96.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
The Chairman asked that any public questions be taken in the relevant item on the
agenda.
97.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 10th December
2014 were accepted as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman with the
following amendments:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
14 January 2015
i) Item 87: Mr R Reynolds said that he would like a simplistic view on the situation
regarding Fakenham CAB. The information from the previous meeting was
disappointing regarding the situation in Fakenham. However, from this meeting he
understood that there were two Fakenham members being trained. One of the cost
issue was the office location and he said that he understood that his issue was being
looked at and would be pleased with an update.
ii) Item 90: Mr R Reynolds urged Members not to forget that various mistakes made by
Central Government fifteen years ago to university train people...
98.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
99.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
100. PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
A petition was received from Mr Andy Bullen in regards to the on-street parking and
residential permit parking consultation in Sheringham. Mr A Bullen said that there were
1,345 signatures on the petition collected since 7th January. He said that a further 750
people had signed an on-line petition and that they anticipated another 250 signatures
as the petition was on-going.
101. CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None.
102. RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Democratic Services Team Leader informed Members that Cabinet had accepted
Overview and Scrutiny’s recommendations regarding the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and
that a review would be undertaken.
103. THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Democratic Services Team Leader advised members of changes to the Cabinet
work programme. Due to a very heavy schedule for the February meeting, several items
had been moved to March.
AGREED
To note the Cabinet Work Programme
104. COUNCILLORS CALL FOR ACTION: CAR PARKINGL; RESIDENTIAL AND PAY &
DISPLAY FROM NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
Mr R Oliver, Portfolio Holder for Assets and Leisure introduced the call for action and
thanked the Norfolk County Council officers for attending the meeting. Mr Oliver said the
issue raised was of great interest demonstrated by the number of attendees
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
14 January 2015
representing Cromer and Sheringham. He said that a thorough report had been
prepared by the Head of Assets and Leisure and circulated in advance of the meeting. It
outlined the pros and cons of pay and display parking and the proposed residential
parking permits which would have a profound effect on the towns and the surrounding
areas as well as on tourism.
Mr Oliver said that the consultation had been lack lustre and that it was meant to be
transparent and that he had several questions regarding the process but urged that they
all worked together to determine the best solution possible.
The Chairman read out a statement received from Cllr Richard Smith who had been
unable to attend the meeting. Mr Smith had written that he was grateful that the issue
was being discussed and that he was not against a parking scheme – rather that a
robust consultation should take place which allowed stakeholders to voice their
opinions. Mr Smith had written that any scheme would need to be agreeable with
residents. He had concerns regarding a pay and display scheme and was opposed to
this in certain areas such as the esplanade as this would be detrimental.
Public Speaker
Mr Andrew Bullen from Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Mr Bullen started by saying that he thought the questionnaire was not fit for purpose. He
asked what the costs of the proposal were and the income of the scheme and asked
how the scheme would be monitored. Mr Bullen said that there was no information
available on the free parking which was currently 45 minutes in Sheringham and that
there was no research on how many workers brought cars into the town on a daily basis
and where they parked.
Mr Bullen said that there were 2,500 people against the proposal – as demonstrated by
the petition
Mr Bullen said that health and safety was a priority and asked whether double yellow
lines were to be removed.
Mr Bullen summarised by saying that there should be one body governing parking in the
district who could work with them and other stakeholders to look at the issue as a whole.
Mr Phil Reilly from Norfolk County Council said that he was overseeing the initial survey
and urged Members to remember that they were still in the very early stages of the
proposal. He said that they were asking for peoples’ views and that no proposal had
been drawn up. Referring to Mr Bullen’s comments, he said that the points raised were
details and would be publicised later. He exemplified this point by saying that the
process had started in King’s Lynn in October 2013 and they were now advertising a
consultation process and that they were 18 months away from getting the details. Mr
Reilly said that they were working with stakeholder groups and urged people to
complete the surveys.
Mr Bullen said that all of the details were needed so that people could respond to the
survey fully and that all of the information should be available. He also queried why the
questionnaire was the same for residents and businesses when they would have
different needs.
Mr Reilly agreed that residents and businesses had differing needs. He said that in
King’s Lynn, the initial survey had led to different schemes and that the survey had been
similar to the one in question.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
14 January 2015
The Chairman asked that this information was made available to officers.
Mr Reilly advised waiting for the consultation review to come back. He said that there
was space for comments at the end of the survey and that the process was already
underway.
Public Speaker
Mrs Tracey Khalil from Cromer Chamber of Trade
Mrs T Khalil said that the questions in the survey were not applicable to businesses and
that was unable to address the needs of her business in Cromer. She said that the
survey was not fit for purpose for businesses. Mrs Khalil said that they needed to know
the purpose of the car owners’ visit to the town.
Mrs Khalil said that there was no space on the form for additional comments and that it
stated on the survey to answer the questions and not to add additional comments,
however, the online survey did have a comments box.
Public Speaker
Mr Barry Starling from Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Mr B Starling said that he was a newsagent. He stated that the parking proposals were
bad for everyone. He questioned why the survey was self-funding – that people had to
buy a stamp to return it and asked how many responses the County Council were
expecting.
Mr Starling said that the free waiting time in parking spaces was 45 minutes from 8am to
6pm except in one area which was from 8am until 7pm. He said on-street pay and
display would mean a loss of 75% of parking spaces and that giving 180 minutes would
have an adverse effect and reduce footfall. Mr Starling said that the two loading bays in
the town had no parking information – one with restricted parking information.
Mr Starling then said that permit parking for residents would mean that the roads in the
town would remain empty during the day and that this had happened in Great Yarmouth.
Mr Starling asked what the costs of the implementation were; the metres and
administration costs.
Mr Starling summarised by saying that the proposals would make Sheringham a ghost
town and would negatively impact on shopping and tourism. He questioned who could
have a swim in 45 minutes or have less than three hours at the beach.
Mr Bob Mills, Norfolk County Council officer, addressing the question about the costs of
implementation and maintenance, said that the County Council had taken over civil
parking enforcement three years ago. He said that it was 5-8 years ago that the police
had ceased to enforce civil parking. Mr B Mills said that they were already carrying out
enforcement in the area so it would not cause any additional costs.
Mr Mills said that the costs had to be covered and that in Great Yarmouth there was a
strong belief that the residents parking was self-financing. He said that the permits were
popular there with hotels and bed and breakfast establishments as it meant that their
guests had a chance to park nearby to where they were staying. He said the scheme
was working well there but that the scheme had to break even.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
14 January 2015
Public Speaker
Mr David Gooch, Deputy Mayor of Sheringham
Mr D Gooch revealed that Sheringham Town Council had received a letter dated 2nd
December 2014 from Norfolk County Council with the proposed questionnaire. They had
asked that all comments be received by 5th December which meant that only three days
was given to a topic, in Mr Gooch’s opinion, was an important one that warranted due
consideration.
Mr Gooch said that in discussions of Sheringham Town Council they agreed that
parking permits would be detrimental to residents, it would deter visitors and be
detrimental to businesses in the town.
Mr Gooch believed that the initial consultation had been set to take place over the
Christmas holiday period and was going to be a selective questionnaire. The County
Council were now consulting everyone on the proposals. Mr Gooch said that the income
could be increased if enforcement issues occurred. He said that the yellow lines on
Station Approach were too faded and so parking restrictions there could not be
enforced.
Mr Gooch commented that a permit was no guarantee of a space outside of your
property despite paying £40. He had received reports from concerned businesses about
the reduction in vehicles utilising the parking spaces in the town if the parking was
metered and increased to a three hour period.
Mr Gooch said that there were concerns about where the meters would be placed and
that there were limitations already and that further ones would kill the town. He added
that he had not spoken with one person or business that were in favour of the proposals.
Mr Reilly said that Mr Gooch had raised some valid points but that there were no details
of how any scheme would look on the ground. He said that there were other ways of
putting in the changes and that they were looking to work together. Mr Reilly said that if
a huge negative response was received then the County Council would not railroad the
towns into having a scheme that was not wanted.
Mr Reilly reported that residents had contacted the County Council with parking
concerns and issues and they were responding to these. He reiterated that they were at
the very start of the process and they welcomed peoples’ views and input.
The Chairman questioned the short period of time initially given to Sheringham Town
Council to respond and asked whether it was a typing error. He asked why it had been
such a short period of time.
Mr Reilly said that he had not been aware that the time period for a response had been
that short but that it was a part of a checking process.
Public Speaker
Judith Miller from Sheringham Parking Action Group
Mrs J Miller said that she had concerns with the comparison to King’s Lynn and Great
Yarmouth as these were large towns with a different demographic.
Mr Mills said that the comparison was because these are the two towns where similar
schemes have been implemented, but assured Members that each town was
considered individually with different issues to be addressed. He added that meetings
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
14 January 2015
about the proposals took place in 2014 and that they were looking at Sheringham and
Cromer as they had been asked to do so.
Mr G Jones said that the report prepared by the Head of Assets and Leisure had
recorded the pros and cons and asked why the proposal was coming forward. He asked
whether it was to provide funding for increased enforcement in the area and could the
County Council justify these changes. He commented that Mundesley had parking
problems and everyone had to pay. Mr Jones asked the County Council officers why
they were considering the proposals if it wasn’t to make money.
Mr Mills reiterated that they were at the beginning of a process and that they would have
to ensure that any scheme would break even.
Public Speaker
Mrs Tracey Khalil from Cromer Chamber of Trade
Mrs Khalil said that she agreed with what had been said by the representatives from
Sheringham. She stated that Cromer was at a disadvantage and asked whether the 30
minute free parking could be increased to 45 minutes like in Sheringham.
Mrs Khalil agreed that they didn’t know the details and so they could only make
assumptions. She informed Members that there had been 261 workers trying to park in
the town five years ago and that they needed to go somewhere. She added that Cromer
had a town centre in a condensed area and that it was not sprawling. Mrs Khalil
supposed that drivers would just move one street out of the residential parking permit
areas and so the problem would not be solved but moved elsewhere. She suggested
that if the parking problems were solved then parking permits for residents would not be
required.
Mrs Khalil commented that Mary Portas (a well-recognised retail professional) backed
free parking schemes and that Eric Pickles had said that parking permits were harming
the high street.
Mrs Khalil said that she was under the impression that they were looking to de-clutter
pavements and that putting in parking metres was the opposite of this. She added that
there was nowhere that double yellow lines could be removed within the town when they
asked in the past but said that it appeared there could be now that money was involved.
Mr Reilly said that Cromer could have 45 minutes free parking if this was wanted and
that this was an opportunity to also look at existing parking – what can be done to
improve it with the input of stakeholders.
Public Speaker
Mrs Sue Mears from Cromer Chamber of Trade
Mrs S Mears said that she supported all that had been said so far. She queried whether
the Chamber of Trade could produce a questionnaire that would be more useful in
gathering business opinion. She asked whether this information gathered could be
submitted after the survey deadline of 15th February.
The Chairman said that people could purchase car park season tickets from the district
council at a cost of £200.00 for 24 hour parking and £60 for 3-hour parking in any of the
district owned car parks in the area for the year.
Mr Reilly said that they were happy to work together.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
14 January 2015
Mr Mills said that a number of surveys had been returned and that they would see how
the study developed.
The Chairman said that it was normal for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to
receive a follow-up report.
Public Speaker
Mr Tim Adams, Deputy Mayor of Cromer
Mr T Adams said that they did not know what the parking scheme would look like and
that he had been informed that it would mean a £100,000 investment.
Mr Mills said that the investment figure was incorrect.
Mr Adams said that allowing people to challenge the parking proposals would allow a
more open ended consultation.
Mr Adams continued and said that many people with concerns had raised them with
potential solutions. He said that one supermarket in the town encouraged its staff to
park on residential roads rather than in the supermarket’s car park. He said that it
should be a publicly led scheme to get people involved and identify the roads with
specific problems such as St Mary’s Road and Central Road in Cromer. He said that the
town also had a lot of homes of multiple occupancy with 3-4 households in one building
and that only one consultation survey had been sent to these households.
Mr Reilly said that they had received the address information from a mapping system.
Mr Adams said that a number of businesses had not received the information and that
there was a meeting at the end of the month.
Mr Mills, commenting on the information regarding the staff at the supermarket parking,
said that it would be voluntary agreements made with businesses as anyone is allowed
to park there.
Mr Mills said that there was a concern that you would move the issue from one road to
another and to address the concerns regarding funds said that any surplus collected
was controlled by law and that there were restrictions on what the surplus could be
spent on which is one of the reasons why the aim was to break even.
Mr R Shepherd said that the scheme had been redundant in Hunstanton – that it wasn’t
liked and that it had failed. He asked whether any lessons had been learnt.
Mr Reilly responded by saying that the process had been shaped following what had
happened in Hunstanton. He said that they had been asked to revisit the town but
acknowledged that the consultation there had been wrong. He said that individual needs
of streets and towns needed to be met and groups needed to be engaged.
Mr Oliver said that the survey was addressing a sensitive and important topic where
attention to detail was crucial. He said that he had found two spelling errors and that
many people had not received the survey. He added that people seemed to have
different thoughts on the two different schemes discussed in the survey and he was
unimpressed that people had to pay to send back their thoughts.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
14 January 2015
Mr Oliver said that constituents in Sheringham didn’t understand the point of the
consultation and that he had received reports that the on-line version didn’t work and
that there was no space to add additional comments.
Mr Oliver said that Norfolk County Council was not originally going to consult
Sheringham South, that the original consultation was going to take place over Christmas
and that short time frames had been given to stakeholders. Mr Oliver summarised that
the survey was not fit for purpose.
Mr Oliver asked Norfolk County Council officers the following questions:
i) Once the data is back from the survey will the information be fed
back?
ii) What do you deem to be a good return rate of the survey?
iii) When responses are received, if a road has 30 homes and 6 respond;
4 for and 2 against, is there a process for how their views are
perceived?
iv) Is there a set of parameters? 30% response from a road? 60% voting
one way or the other?
Norfolk County Council officers responses:
i) Yes, the information would come back to NNDC
ii) Mr Reilly said that it was an emotive subject and that Hunstanton had
produced a 48% return, Great Yarmouth was lower with 18%. He said
that he would expect a return of between 45% and 50%.
iii) Mr Reilly said that they would not be comfortable with a small return
and would look for more detail in that road.
iv) There were no rules but they would look to stakeholder groups.
Mr Oliver said that he was concerned that there were no rules and that fair treatment of
all of the roads should be considered. He said that as it was an emotive issue that this
would drive a certain response from particular areas and that consultation rules were
needed to analyse the response.
Mr Reilly said that this was worth consideration.
Mr Oliver asked whether Norfolk County Council would contribute financially to the
questionnaire from Cromer Chamber of Trade if it was better than the survey sent by
them.
Mr Mills replied that if the questionnaire was beneficial to them then the County Council
would contribute towards any costs incurred.
The Chairman queried the fact that people had to fund the return of the questionnaire
themselves and suggested that a central collection point was arranged.
Mr Oliver asked whether the maps had been withdrawn. He said that the pay and
display parking and residents parking had covered the North of Sheringham and asked
whether the maps were in place.
Mr Mills said that the maps had shown the areas that the County Council was
investigating.
Mr Oliver asked where the residents parking would be in Cromer as this hadn’t been
shown on the map.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
14 January 2015
Mr Mills said that the maps had been drawn up earlier in 2014; in May for Cromer and
October for Sheringham and Mr Reilly added that they had been the starting point for
the discussion.
Mr Oliver commented that parking was used in a restrictive way – he said that he did not
want to discredit Mr Reilly’s point but they would be filling a budget deficit and still
raising money.
Mr Mills countered by saying that any enforcement scheme had to break even and that if
it fell into a deficit then that would need to be dealt with but that the centre point was to
break even.
Mr J Lee, Ward Member for Cromer Suffield Park commented that the 2012/13 figures
showed a CPE surplus of £214,000 which was a large surplus for something that aimed
to break even.
Public Speaker
Mrs Julie Chance, Clerk to Cromer Parish Council
Mrs J Chance said that the process had started a while ago and that the Town Council
had been dealing with parking issues for a long time. She said that North Norfolk District
Council and Norfolk County Council had begun to address the issues raised and that the
Town Council had expected a long process of discussion first. Mrs Chance said that it
seemed as though they had jumped several steps forward with a draft scheme being
proposed before background information was gathered. Mrs Chance asked whether the
survey could be withdrawn and the process started again.
The Chairman agreed that this was a good idea.
Mr Reilly said that they were at the beginning of the process and that it was not a ‘done
deal’.
Mrs Chance said that the officers should have waited to send out the survey.
Mr Reilly said that discussions had taken place and that there would be further
discussions.
Public Speaker
Mrs Anne Steward, prospective Conservative MP for North Norfolk
Mrs A Steward said that there had been a breakdown in communication. She said that
the survey did not seem to bring any information into the public domain.
Mrs Steward asked why people were filling the form in and that a second questionnaire
from the Cromer Chamber of Trade would make the process disjointed. Mrs Steward
suggested to Norfolk County Council officers that the survey was withdrawn
Mr R Reynolds said that he had listened with trepidation and that he had concerns that
this scheme was a test-run for roll out to other parts of the District. As a Fakenham
District Councillor he felt that it was important that there was a full in-depth consultation
involving residents the town council and businesses. Mr Mills restated that the
consultation was taking place because there had been requests to investigate residents
permit parking in Sheringham and Cromer. No request had been received from
Fakenham or North Walsham and so there were no plans to looks at similar schemes in
these towns.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
14 January 2015
Ms V Gay said that it was a flawed consultation. The officers had said that they wanted
to gather ideas and welcomed input but the lack of a ‘comments’ box impeded this. She
went onto ask whether there had been a formal evaluation of the scheme that was
currently operating in Great Yarmouth. Mr Reilly said that there had been no formal
evaluation in Great Yarmouth but that two years previously there had been calls to
remove residents parking permits, and there was an overwhelming response from
people to keep them in place.
Ms Gay reiterated that there had been no formal evaluation for officers to analyse how
the scheme worked in reality and how they had initially intended it to work.
Mr Reilly replied that in 2006 the books were balanced and asked what the County
Council was gaining. He added that the purchase of permits was voluntary.
Mr E Seward said that he was a North Walsham Member and felt unable to comment on
the situation in Cromer and Sheringham but that it seemed as though the process had
gotten off to a bad start. He suggested starting again with the input of stakeholders and
looking at the parking issues for workers in the towns. He added that the experiences of
Great Yarmouth would not be the same as in Sheringham and Cromer and that each
town should be treated on its individual merits.
Mr Seward thanked Mr Oliver and Mr Smith and others for alerting him to the Norfolk
Parking Partnership Joint Committee. He said that they should go to meetings and make
their views known. Mr Seward added that if the County Council had any intentions of
introducing a similar scheme in North Walsham that they didn’t want it and to ‘leave
them alone’.
Mr Mills said that they had not been asked to investigate North Walsham.
Mr J Perry-Warnes said that tourism was very important to the district and that any
threat to this should be resisted.
Mr Mills said that not all Members had voting rights at the Norfolk Parking Partnership
Joint Committee.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds commented that the residents and business permits were
between £40 and £130 with scope to allow an increase and with 2-3 cars per household
it was very costly. It would mean huge costs on a small business.
Mr Reilly said that the pricing would be based on what was currently the cost in Great
Yarmouth. He said that the charges were increased following a survey two years ago
when the scheme wasn’t covering its costs. Residents were asked whether they were
willing to pay more or lose the scheme. More uptake made it more sustainable.
Mrs B McGoun said she wanted to gauge the impact it would have on tourism and to
compare for best practice with other small tourist towns.
Mr Reilly said that he was unable to comment on tourism but said that the rest of the
country were implementing parking and enforcement regimes.
Mr Reilly said that they had looked at other boroughs which were all comparable and
that pay and display parking usually exists and that it was not unusual.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10
14 January 2015
Mrs P Grove-Jones thanked the officers for attending the meeting. She said that Radio
Norfolk had been reporting from Great Yarmouth and said that Marks & Spencers and
Hughes were considering moving to a retail park because of the lack of free parking in
the town and were concerned about footfall.
Mrs Grove-Jones said that with residents permit parking there were incremental
increases in cost and that there wasn’t a designated parking area. She voiced her
concern that the parking issue would migrate to other streets in search of parking
spaces and only compound the problem and push it onto someone else.
Mr Oliver said it was a balance of income generation against the disuse of retailers. Mr
Oliver said that if residents in Sheringham did not want residents’ permits, County
Council officers said they would not introduce them – Mr Oliver asked whether the same
applied to the pay and display parking scheme.
Mr Mills confirmed that this is what they would advise.
Mr Oliver asked what committees had executive power over the proposed schemes.
Mr Reilly said that it was subject to traffic regulations and that the process was after
several rounds of consultation; with objectives considered and reported with
recommendations to the Environment Development and Transport Committee.
Mr Oliver thanked Norfolk County Council officers for attending the meeting. The
Chairman suggested that the Committee was kept updated of any developments.
The Committee AGREED to take the answers provided by Norfolk County Council
officers and to wait to hear back for the survey results.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that she would circulate the minutes of the
EDT to Members.
The meeting stopped for a break at 11:25 am and resumed at 11:44 am.
105. WASTE CONTROL UPDATE
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coast and Environmental Services introduced the
report. She said that the report had been drafted by the Environmental Health Services
Officer and that it was a particularly important contract to the Council, worth £4m per
year
The Environmental Health Services Officer informed Members that any large contract
was problematic and that it was how the issues were dealt with that indicated how well it
was run. He added that the performance reports showed the level of monitoring and that
they looked to make improvements where possible.
Mr J Perry-Warnes referred to page 18, one paragraph from the bottom of the page of
the report, asked whether the figures were an improved number of missed collections.
The Environmental Health Services Officer explained that the technology had not been
working as there had been a delay in implementation.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
11
14 January 2015
The Head of Environmental Health Services added that it had been issue to tackle with
Kier and it was discussed in a December meeting. The information had to be provided
under notice and said that they expected the impact on speed to be rectified.
Mr R Reynolds said that there had been issues with some of the drivers being unfamiliar
with some routes following a re-organisation of some rounds. He asked whether this had
been resolved.
The Environmental Health Officer said that the rounds were re-organised in 2011 and
that the crews had been unhappy that they had not been consulted. The IT company
used by Kier had not taken into account some of the operational issues such as market
days. He added that Kier were looking to reorganise the routes again but that the crews
were going to be consulted and that drivers would continue to get an input.
Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that the recycling bin was being emptied later and the
residual waste earlier – which was a swap from before – and asked whether this had
affected service delivery.
The Head of Environmental Health said that Kier had initial concerns regarding the
increase in recyclable waste and the impact this would have on the rounds. It was a
technical issue regarding the level of compression so that the recyclable glass did not
get damaged. He had been anecdotally informed that the rounds had evened out with
the residual waste taking less time and the recycling round time increasing. He added
that they were looking at the impact. The Head of Environmental Health explained that
an additional vehicle had been available at the beginning of the contract to assist but
had not been utilised. He added that one crew had been slower and had not completed
their round but that this was unconnected. He said that he was reasonably confident that
there had been no significant impact.
Mrs Grove-Jones commented that it had worked very well.
Mrs A Moore, referring to page 19, paragraph 3 of the report, asked whether there had
been minimal financial impact and said that she didn’t recollect a financial cost.
The Head of Environmental Health explained that depreciation was accounted for and
that the vehicles were written off at the end of the contract. He said that the vehicles and
bins were no longer needed at the end of the contract and that it was the value of those
assets. He added that the cost would be absorbed into the normal aspects of running a
business. Mrs Moore said that she did not recall the discussion.
The Head of Environmental Health said that he had not been party to those discussions
and that they had been factored into the costings and that there was a capital amount
rather than a revenue cost.
Mrs B McGoun said that Eric Pickles had said that there would need to be residual
waste collections every week and she asked whether the Council was satisfied with the
2 weekly collections.
The Head of Environmental Health answered that they had received no correspondence
and that requests for more regular residual waste collections had come from people who
did not manage their waste.
Ms V Gay said that the North Walsham transfer station was in Worstead and that North
Walsham members would like to be informed of information pertaining to it. She asked
what the current recycling figure was and the impact of glass in the bins.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
12
14 January 2015
The Environmental Services Officer said that the rate was ever changing and that it was
difficult to put a figure on it before the year end in June. He said comparing the same
time in 2013 and since the change in service in October 2014 there were 500 tonnes of
recycling with 400 tonnes for glass. He added that the residual waste figures were not
known for comparison but that the last rate was for the year end in March 2014 and that
it was less than 4%.
The Environmental Services Officer said that there were other contributory factors on
waste such as a drop in sales of newspapers and the weight of glass having lowered
that made comparison difficult. He commented that waste was a good indicator of the
economy as when people had more they bought more and there was more waste. He
added that at this time of year people also had ‘spring cleans’ and that the figures would
be more accurate in six months time. He summarised that the council accepting a wider
range of materials for recycling had been offset by people creating more waste.
The Head of Environmental Services said that there were fluctuations in recycling rates
and that lots of factors impacted on it. He added that there were patterns with
fluctuations seasonally and annually.
Mr E Seward expressed his concerns that the Worstead Recycling Centre was going to
reduce their opening times to 4 days from 1st April. He said that the waste contract was
a major contract for the authority. He added that people thought that the previous Norse
contract had worked better than it actually did but that the reason Norse did not have the
contract renewed was because they did not actually put in a bid for the contract.
Mr Seward said that the amount of savings was not as high as the first time and that
Kier were not profiting in the way they had anticipated. He said that contractors were
looking for a return but that it wasn’t what they had hoped.
Mr Seward said that his initial concerns regarding the glass banks at Sainsbury’s in
North Walsham were gone and he thanked Environmental Health for their work.
The Chairman asked how long the current contract had to run.
The Environmental Services Officer answered that the Kier contract was up until April
2019.
Mrs Grove-Jones said that Norwich City Council collected food waste from residents
and vegetable waste in the garden bin such as peelings. She queried this with officers.
The Head of Environmental Services said that the cost of procurement for the food
waste was £250,000 and that it would not provide the return to warrant the introduction
of it. He said that garden waste produced outside of the kitchen such as cauliflower
leaves could go in the garden bin but that anything chopped on a kitchen board was
classified as food waste and would have to go in the residual waste bin. He clarified that
prepared vegetable matter was not permitted to be put in the garden bin.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked about the recycling of paint and paint tins.
Mr Seward said that this information was available on the County Council website and
that the advice was that if the paint tin was empty it could go into residual waste, but that
if there was wet paint still in the container that this should be left to dry out before going
into residual waste.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
13
14 January 2015
The Committee NOTED the report.
106. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR CRIME AND POLICING ACT – POWERS AND DUTIES
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coast and Environmental Services introduced the
report by saying that the report had been heard at Cabinet and that a ‘like for like’
comparison had been recorded, the details of which were on page 14 of the Cabinet
papers.
The Committee NOTED the report.
107. OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader reported that Norfolk Health Overview &
Scrutiny Committee had sent her information regarding the number of patients out of the
County placed in Norfolk beds, as requested by the Committee, and said that she would
circulate this information.
The Democratic Services Team Leader confirmed that the visit to the East of England
Ambulance Control Hub was booked for 4th February at 10am and that there was one
place left for anyone who was interested in attending.
The Chairman asked that directions to the control hub were sent to Members.
The Democratic Services Team Leader, referring to the Overview and Scrutiny work
programme, said that the outside bodies report was due and that she was waiting for a
breakdown of the funding from finance. She said that the organisational structure report
would come in March and that the date for the energy strategy was unconfirmed at that
time.
Mr N Smith added in relation to mental health, that 6-10 new beds had been added at
Hellesdon Hospital and that Ashcroft in Wymondham was no longer closing down.
Ms V Gay said that she been hoping that an answer regarding the vacant posts would
have come sooner.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that she would ask the Head of
Organisational Development and said that she may be able to give an update on figures
in time for the February meeting.
Ms Gay informed Members that she had received an invitation to a stakeholder meeting
of the Citizens Advice Bureau on 3rd February and that she intended to attend.
The meeting concluded at 12.27 pm
__________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
14
14 January 2015
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 February 2015 to 30 April 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Health Strategy
John Lee
Scrutiny
18 Mar 2015
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Budget Monitoring
Period 10
Wyndham Northam
Scrutiny
18 Mar 2015
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Growth Plan
Tom FitzPatrick
Scrutiny
18 Mar 2015
Council
25 Mar 2015
Rob Young
Head of Economic &
Community
Development
01263 516162
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Benjie Cabbell
Manners
Council
25 Mar 2015
Local Plan review
timetable and
approach
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Big Society
Enabling Fund
- update
John Lee
Mark Ashwell
Planning Policy &
Property Information
Manager
01263 516325
Rob Young
Head of Economic &
Community
Development
01263 516162
Status / additional
comments
March 2015
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
15
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 February 2015 to 30 April 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Learning for
Everyone –
programme of
work, future
funding through
the LEP and any
overlap with DWP
funding
Tom FitzPatrick
Rob Young
Head of Economic &
Community
Development
01263 516162
Cabinet
09 Mar 2015
Big Society
Enabling Fund
John Lee
Rob Young
Head of Economic &
Community
Development
01263 516162
Cabinet
13 Apr 2015
DWP – Cromer
Council office
Rhodri Oliver
Cabinet
13 Apr 2015
Property
Investment
Strategy
Rhodri Oliver
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
01263 516000
Status / additional
comments
April 2015
Scrutiny
Could go to Council
first for debate/input
Council
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
16
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 February 2015 to 30 April 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Cabinet
13 Apr 2015
Corporate
Enforcement
Policy
Rhodri Oliver
Nicola Baker
Head of Planning
01263 5165165
Cabinet
13 Apr 2015
S106
Benjie Cabbell
agreements/outline Manners
planning
permissions
Status / additional
comments
Nicola Baker
Head of Planning
01263 5165165
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
17
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
11 February 2015
Agenda Item 15
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Work Programme at Appendix D
1.
Introduction
The Scrutiny Update report is a standing item on all Overview and Scrutiny
Committee agendas. The report updates Members on progress made with
topics on its agreed work programme and provides additional information
which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.
2.
Progress on topics since the last meeting
2.1
Councillor Call for Action
The minutes of the meeting held on 14th January 2015 have been forwarded
to the County Council. The dates for upcoming meetings of the Environment
Development and Transport Committee are:
13 March 2015
15 May 2015
10 July 2015
18 Sep 2015
16 Oct 2015
20 Nov 2015
The Norfolk Parking Partnership Joint Committee meets twice in 2015:
19 March 2015
01 Oct 2015
It is anticipated that the County Council will be asked to provide an update on
progress to the March meeting of Overview and Scrutiny.
2.2
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
The latest outcomes and actions report for the NHOSC is attached at
Appendix E
Cllr Annie Claussen-Reynolds has also provided some additional information
on Metastic Liver Resection in East Anglia and a series of Public Discovery
Events which are aimed at increasing awareness on accessing the service.
Members may be interested to know that one of these sessions is being held
in Cromer on 4th March. The venue is to be confirmed but I will ensure that
members are kept updated.
18
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3.
11 February 2015
Responses to issues raised at previous meetings
Mobile Phone Coverage
Members may remember that in December 2012, NNDC was asked by the
County Council to respond to a consultation on mobile phone blackspots.
Nothing further has been reported on this and at the request of Councillor Roy
Reynolds, I will contact the County Council for an update on the current
position. Once I have received a response I will circulate it to members.
4.
The Work Programme and Future Topics
4.1
An update on the number of vacant posts has come to the February meeting.
A full report will follow in March.
Local member protocol – the Constitution Working Party is meeting on 9th and
23rd February to look at this. Draft minutes will be circulated to Overview and
Scrutiny.
Outside Bodies – some information on grants is still awaited from finance. It is
proposed that as Democratic Services is currently undertaking its annual
survey of Outside Bodies – from the bodies and members – that this
information is collated into the report and the full overview comes to Scrutiny
in March – ahead of going to the Annual Council meeting in May. To ensure
that a comprehensive overview is provided we have added some additional
questions into the survey sent to the Outside Bodies.
19
Outcomes and Actions
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC)
15 January 2015
Agenda Report Title
Item
Number
Outcomes and Actions
5.
NHOSC congratulated Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust
on receiving a ‘Good’ rating from the Care Quality Commission in the
latest inspection (16 – 18 September 2014).
Chairman’s announcements
Members were reminded that a visit to the police control room to
observe liaison between mental health workers and police will be
arranged for the end of January / February for members who were
unable to attend on 9 December. Any members who would like to
attend but have not already expressed their interest, please contact
Maureen Orr.
6.
Integration of health and
social care services, central
and west Norfolk
NHOSC may invite commissioners and providers to report back on
progress with health and social care integration in 1 year’s time.
7.
NHS workforce planning for
Norfolk
The draft terms of reference were agreed and NHOSC nominated the
following members to a task & finish group:Michael Chenery of Horsbrugh
Alexandra Kemp
Robert Kybird
Nigel Legg
Margaret Somerville
20
Action By Whom
Members
Maureen Orr (to
contact NCC /
NCH&C & CCGs as
necessary)
Healthwatch Norfolk has been invited to join the group on a co-opted,
non-voting basis. Alex Stewart has accepted the invitation. Chris
MacDonald may substitute for him at the early meetings.
8.
Forward work programme and NHOSC nominated the following members as substitute link
appointment of substitute link members with NHS bodies:members with NHS Trusts
North Norfolk CCG – Michael Chenery of Horsbrugh
Great Yarmouth and Waveney CCG – Jenny Chamberlin
West Norfolk CCG – Tony Wright
James Paget University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – Margaret
Somerville
Maureen Orr to email members about the vacancies that still remain
for substitute link members:Norwich CCG
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
NHOSC updated the approved the proposed forward work programme
with the following changes:16 April 2015 – add a report by Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation
Trust to cover:(a) An update on out of area placement of mental health patients
(b) The effect of changes to mental health services on support for
homeless people
(c) The effect of the changes to mental health services on policing
(d) Disparity in the services available to mental health patients in
different localities
21
Maureen Orr
(e) The numbers of adults in mental health residential care
establishments in Norfolk compared to other parts of England.
(f) The levels of caseloads for NSFT staff
(g) Performance monitoring of the overall effects of the changes to
mental health services
‘Service given to patients with mental health issues in A&E following
attempted suicide or self-harm episodes’ was also approved as an
item for 16 April 2015 agenda.
Dr Ian Mack, Chairman of Norfolk Stroke Network, to provide a report
for the NHOSC Briefing in April 2015 on action taken to address the
Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) comments about access to the
stroke care pathway for incomers to Norfolk. (The comments were
made in the CQC’s report of the latest inspection of Norfolk
Community Health and Care NHS Trust, published in December
2015).
Copied to:Representatives attending the NHOSC meeting for NHS / other organisations
District Council Members of NHOSC
Member Support Officer - Christine Byles
CCG engagement contacts (x5)
Health and Wellbeing Board support officer – Linda Bainton
Healthwatch Norfolk – Chris MacDonald
22
Dr Ian Mack
Question from Scrutiny:
They would like a brief update for the February meeting on the current number of vacant posts.
Response:
There are currently fourteen posts which are in the recruitment process at the time of this response.
This figure is broken down as follows:
Seven are out to advert (Planning / Organisational Development / Business
Transformation and IT)

Paperwork is being reviewed for six posts prior to going out to advert (Revenues and
Benefits / Organisational Development / Planning / Business Transformation and IT)

Interviews have taken place for one post and this has been offered to a candidate
(Environmental Health)
There are seven posts on hold whilst the post is reviewed to see if the post is needed or could be
delivered differently in the future through a more cost effective/efficient means. In the interim, some of
these posts salaries will be used to fund alternative service delivery eg backfill, agency staff, acting up
(additional responsibilities).
23