Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 13 December
2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mrs B McGoun
Mr P Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Officers in
Attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive (for Items 94 - 98), the Financial Services
Manager (for items 95 - 97 ), the Revenues and Benefits Services Manager
(for item 98) the Community Liaison Officer (for item 99) the Environmental
Protection Team Leader (for item 100) and the Democratic Services Team
Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs H Eales, Ms V Gay, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P High,
Mr K Johnson, Mr G Jones, Mr J Lee, Mrs A Moore, Mr W J Northam,
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
84 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Smith and Mr R Wright
85 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Shepherd for Mr R Wright and Mrs B McGoun
for Mr R Smith
86 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
87 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2011 were signed as a correct record.
88 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
13 December 2011
89 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
90 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting. Two of the petitions had expired with neither reaching the
required threshold.
91 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
A request for an item to be called in had been received. It would be dealt with during the
consideration of the relevant item on the Agenda.
92 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet’s response to the comments made by the Committee on the corporate plan was
attached to the Overview and Scrutiny Update report.
93 THE FORWARD PLAN
The Democratic Services Team Leader reminded Members to check the Management
of Council Business matrix that was circulated weekly to ensure that they were kept up
to date with the reports coming to Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and Full Council.
94 THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO LOCALISM AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
BIG SOCIETY FUND
Two Members had called in the Cabinet’s decision relating to the Council’s approach to
Localism and the establishment of a Big Society Fund in accordance with Chapter 4 of
the Constitution, Part 3, Section 8.
The item was introduced by the Portfolio Holder for Localism, Councillor Trevor Ivory.
He informed the Committee that since the presentation of his original report to Cabinet
on 28 November 2011, there had been a meeting with the Local Area Partnerships
Association (LAPA) to discuss the way forward and consider issues of concern as well
as various discussions with charitable organisations and voluntary bodies, including
Voluntary Norfolk, VSC Together, Norfolk Rural Community Council and the Norfolk
Community Foundation to consider their future input and role.
He explained that the proposal for consideration before the Committee was whether to
ring-fence the money from the second homes income to a Big Society Fund and thus
allow it to continue to be used for the benefit of local communities. If this was supported
by Full Council then the detail of how the Fund would be administered would be worked
on. There were three areas for consideration:
a) Governance arrangements of the fund and how it would operate.
b) Capacity building – considering how to provide the expertise and skills to take
projects forward.
c) The provision of general broad support to the voluntary sector in North Norfolk.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
13 December 2011
It was proposed that a report would be presented to Cabinet in February 2012 outlining
the detail. If the Committee agreed, this would come to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee in January 2012 for pre-scrutiny. In particular, it was hoped that the
Committee would be able to have an input into shaping the governance arrangements
and how the fund would operate. He concluded by advising Members of the tight
timescale. If the item was deferred it would be very difficult to have something in place
for 1 April. This was important as the funding for the Local Area Partnerships (LAPs)
ended on 31 March and the tight schedule was in place to ensure that there was not a
funding gap.
The Chairman invited Councillor Glyn Williams to clarify why he had requested a call in
of this item. He explained that it was a ‘technical’ call in due to the way in which it was
dealt with by Cabinet. It was not about challenging the idea of a Big Society Fund but
about making sure that the Council achieved the best outcome for its residents. He
requested that in future as much detail as possible should be included in reports
presented to Cabinet. In response to the Portfolio Holder’s request for the Committee to
be involved in working on the detail of the Big Society Fund, he said that he welcomed
the opportunity but still had concerns that the scheduling was too tight. He added that it
was not clear whether Cabinet had considered any alternatives to delivering funding to
community groups and voluntary bodies and that this could have been done if more time
ahd been allowed. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed that there had been problems
regarding the process of this item. The Portfolio Holder for Localism added that the
Council was dependant on a number of outside organisations making decisions in
relation to the Big Society Fund. He would not have wished it to progress so quickly but
welcomed the role of the Committee in shaping the detail of the proposals.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that regular meetings between the Leader
and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were being set up from
March 2012 to ensure that the scheduling of reports was managed more efficiently.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member warned that any discussions involving the LAPs could be a long and
drawn out process and that it would have been preferable to begin the process
earlier. He queried whether similar meetings were taking place with the town and
parish councils. Finally, he advised that further money could be saved if the LAPs
became more streamlined. The Leader said that a meeting had taken place with the
Chairmen of some of the town councils. Meetings with all the LAPs were underway
and were going very well. She felt that they were working hard to move forward
without the core funding. The Portfolio Holder for Localism added that rationalisation
was vital to the LAPs succeeding in the future. The intention was that any interested
parties would be invited to put forward proposals on how they could provide the
capacity building skills required to support the Big Society Fund. Eventually there
would be just one efficient organisation overarching the whole process.
b) A Member asked whether it was possible that the LAPs could provide the capacity
building support that was required. He was also concerned that there did not seem
to be any arrangements in place to support the LAPs during the transition period
when their core funding ceased. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that all
organisations would be eligible to put themselves forward to provide the capacity
building support. He added that some of the LAPs had already folded in anticipation
of the changes to their funding. As far as support during the transitional period, he
said that the partnerships had received an extension of 3 months to the initial
December date and he felt that it was necessary to extend it again.
c) The Chairman asked if there was any evidence of the areas of duplication and the
costs involved. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that there was no specific
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
13 December 2011
evidence but that it had become clear during recent meetings with the LAPs that
there were areas of duplication. For example, they had all cited their capacity
building role within the voluntary sector
d) There was a concern that local schemes such as the Voyager Project in North
Walsham would struggle without the support of a ‘champion’ in the Griffon
Partnership. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that there was no intention to
criticise the Partnerships and as they were all independent bodies, the Council was
not in a position to close them. He stressed that the LAPs were not the only
champions for local causes. The parish and town councils were valued
representatives of their communities and their support was an important part of the
decision process for allocating funding.
e) A Member questioned whether the Council had the ability to track funds once they
were transferred to organisations. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that this
role would be taken on by the capacity building resource. It was also important that
access to other grant funding was not lost. The Big Society Fund should not be used
where funding could come from other sources. A recent discussion with the
Community Foundation had been very helpful in providing advice on how to avoid
such duplication.
f) The issue of continuing support for voluntary groups across the District was raised.
There were approximately 400 such groups in operation and they were very
effective at attracting funding. The Portfolio Holder for Localism said that it was
important that support for voluntary groups continued but there should also be
opportunities for other community-based groups to access funding.
g) A Member commented that the LAPs, town councils and parish councils did not
always get on well together and he was concerned that there would be increased
rivalry if they were competing for the same funding. The Portfolio Holder for
Localism agreed. He said that it was important that there was a focus on community
priorities and neighbourhood plans could offer a very effective means of clarifying
community needs and objectives.
Councillor Glyn Williams said that the additional information that the Portfolio Holder for
Localism had provided to the Committee together with the opportunity for input on the
governance arrangements and operational side of the Big Society Fund, had led him to
conclude that it would not be beneficial for the item to be sent back to Cabinet. He
therefore withdrew his request for a call in.
He proposed the following recommendation:
The Committee recommends to Council that all major policy proposals should be
subject to timely consultation and engagement with key stakeholders before decisions
are formulated and taken by Cabinet and Council.
Councillor Annie Claussen-Reynolds proposed a further recommendation:
a) To approve the ring-fencing of the money for the Big Society Fund.
b) That a further report should be brought to Cabinet and Full Council in February, and
to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for pre-scrutiny in January
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL
1. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommends to Council that all major policy
proposals should be subject to timely consultation and engagement with key
stakeholders before decisions are formulated and taken by Cabinet and Council.
2. To approve the ring-fencing of the money for the Big Society Fund.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
13 December 2011
3. That a further report should be brought to Cabinet and Full Council in February, and
to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for pre-scrutiny in January
95 2011/2012 REVISED BUDGET
The report outlined the revised budget 2011/12 for both capital and revenue. The budget
had been revised to take account of variances which had been highlighted as part of the
ongoing budget monitoring process. A balanced position was presented for the 2011/12
revised budget while allowing for a contribution to be made to the Organisational
Development reserve to offset any reduced savings in 2012/13 as a consequence of the
of the revised approach in relation to the implementation of the new pay model resulting
from the Pay and Grading Review.
Members discussed the report:
1. There was a concern that the training budget had been cut. The Deputy Chief
Executive explained that there had been a lag in reducing the training budget
following reductions in staff numbers. There would also be an increased emphasis
on e-learning in the future and the possibility of sharing training resources with other
local authorities was also being considered. She reassured Members that funding
was still in place for continued professional development (CPD)
2. Clarification was sought on the total sum in the Organisational Development reserve
after the transfer of £172000. The Financial Services Manager said that it now
totalled £352,000.
AGREED
To recommend to Full Council:
a) The revised revenue budget for 2011/12;
b) The revised transfers to and from reserves included at Appendix C;
c) The transfer of the forecast surplus of £172,488 to the Organisational
Development reserve;
d) The revised capital programme and associated financing as included at
Appendix E;
e) The scale of fees and charges from 1 April 2012 included at Appendix D;
f)
Delegated authority for setting the fees and charges for waste be given to the
Strategic Director for Environment, Deputy Chief Executive and relevant
Portfolio Members.
96 PROPOSED SAVINGS REPORT – 2012/13 BASE BUDGET
The report provided an update in relation to two of the Council’s workstreams which
were currently being progressed to identify future year savings for 2012/13 and 2013/14.
The two workstreams in question focussed on a change to the Council’s management
structure and potential savings and additional income that could be achieved by service
areas. It was now proposed that some of these savings were accepted for inclusion
within the 2012/13 base budget. The Portfolio Holder for Finance added that the New
Homes Bonus had been increased to £611,000. He was confident that a balanced
budget was achievable.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
13 December 2011
Members discussed the report:
a) The Chairman asked whether grants to local Citizens Advice Bureaux remained the
same. The Portfolio Holder for Finance confirmed that this was the case.
b) The fairness of the cuts for each service area was questioned. The planning section
seemed to have been hit harder than most. The Portfolio Holder for Finance said
that not all of the recommendations had been agreed to. Initial proposals amounted
to savings of £1.3m and this had been reduced to £980,000 as it was felt that some
service areas would be hit too hard. The Deputy Chief Executive added that
managers had been asked for potential savings of 10%. It had never been intended
that this would be across the board. Cabinet had considered each proposal carefully
and the likely impact on service delivery. In response to a further question regarding
savings relating to planning support services and whether this would impact on
planning enforcement, she said that this referred to administration support and the
scanning of documents. The Portfolio Holder for Planning said that there were no
savings proposed regarding planning enforcement.
c) Concerns were raised about proposals to increase car parking charges, savings
related to local markets and the loss of the subsidy for the canteen. In particular, the
target to increase parking income by £100,000 seemed very ambitious during a
difficult economic period. The Deputy Chief Executive said that there had been
some modelling regarding the car parks. The initial target was £140,000 and this
had been scaled back to £100,000 so it was felt to be achievable. As far as the
markets were concerned, the main saving was a consequence of bringing the
management back in-house. The subsidy for the canteen would be reduced initially
by 50% and there would be a focus on encouraging staff to use it more.
d) Mr P Terrington, a Member for Priory Ward said that many residents of Wells felt
that an increase in parking charges was unfair. The town did not have a
supermarket or any large chain stores that provided free parking and the
independent shopkeepers felt the increase would be detrimental to their trade. The
Portfolio Holder for Finance said that Cabinet had been concerned about raising
parking charges but high inflation was having an impact on refurbishment costs. The
two tier charging strategy had worked well for other local authorities. It would be
reviewed after 12 months. The Leader added that the cost of car parking season
tickets was not being increased.
e) It was highlighted that the ring-fencing of £700,000 for the Big Society Fund was not
entirely true as community transport had now been listed as a saving. The Deputy
Chief Executive said that this had yet to be decided so it was not included as a
saving at the present time.
f) A Member asked whether any decision regarding the future of the Council’s
magazine, Outlook could come back to the Committee. The Chairman replied that it
would come back as a budget consideration at a future date.
AGREED to recommend to Full Council:
•
•
•
•
The savings and additional income as identified within Table 1 of the report
Note the updated position in relation to the management structures and
prioritisation workstreams
To fund any ‘on-off’ costs in relation to staff restructuring through the use of the
Restructuring and Invest to Save Proposals reserve
A new reserve is established for the ‘New Homes Bonus’ and that the allocation
for 2012/13, estimated to be £595,700 is transferred to this reserve
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
13 December 2011
97 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT AND INVESTMENT
STRATEGY 2011/12 TO 2013/14 AMENDMENT
The report set out a proposed amendment to the minimum credit rating required for
investment counterparties within the current Treasury Management Strategy. Mrs B
McGoun said that she was very concerned about the proposal.
AGREED
To recommend to Full Council that the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and
Investment Strategy 2011/12 to 2013/14 is amended by reducing the minimum longterm credit rating for investment counterparties from A+ to A-.
98 REVENUES AND BENEFITS SHARED SERVICE
The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager gave a presentation on the progress to
date on the shared services work for Revenues and Benefits. It was explained that the
savings and efficiencies of working in partnership could only be realised if the two
authorities operated on the same application software. In the longer term a replacement
software system would provide savings and improve efficiencies by reducing
duplication. The service would be subject to significant change in the future with the
introduction of welfare reforms and a stable software system would be essential.
Members discussed the presentation:
1. There was a high level of risk for this project and it should be considered for
inclusion on the risk register. The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager said
that there was always an element of risk but that it had been identified early on and
they had tried to mitigate where possible. The Council was liaising with South
Norfolk District Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council as they were already
using software by the preferred provider, CIVICA. It was possible that staff could be
seconded from them if necessary.
2. The introduction of the Universal Credit system could have a financial impact on the
Council, particularly if no funding was provided to assist with the cost of
implementation. The Revenues and Benefits Services Manager said that the Council
had responded to the government consultation paper on the Universal Credit system
and they would strongly support an administrative grant to support the
implementation of a new system. It was likely that local authorities would have a
face-to-face role rather than a processing one. In response to a further question
regarding the provision of broadband, she explained that BT were responsible for
providing the fibre links for broadband and a third party would then buy the right to
use that infrastructure so the Council would have to deal with BT regardless.
3. A concern was raised regarding the proposed redundancies within IT support. The
Revenues and Benefits Services Manager replied that when the Borough Council of
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN) took on the role of software support, 0.5 fte
would be lost at North Norfolk District Council. This would not be a saving as it was
likely that this resource would be used for other ICT projects.
4. The cost of the high speed link hub in Fakenham was queried. A final price had not
been provided and there was a concern that it may be prohibitive. The Deputy Chief
Executive said that the intention was to have a pipe from Cromer to Kings Lynn via
Fakenham. It was hoped that the link would be 200mb initially but there would need
to be a back-up through the Internet and this would involve an upgrade. BCKLWN
had already had an upgrade and NNDC were waiting for a site survey to see if it was
possible. If not then the fallback option of starting on two separate sites would be
used.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
13 December 2011
5. A Member asked if the introduction of the Universal Credits system would be
supported by an outreach team. The Deputy Chief Executive said that this was
being pushed for by local authorities.
AGREED
1. The revised financial information within the business case as updated verbally at
the meeting regarding an additional £72,000 set up for back fill.
2. For the Portfolio Holder for Revenues & Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive
to continue to develop the Partnership Agreement for which the Heads of Terms will
require approval by Council. Delegated authority to the Leader of the Council and
Portfolio Holder for Revenues & Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to develop
a shared service model and following full consultation and report back to Cabinet.
3. To entering into a contract with CIVICA for the provision of a software system; an
outline of the legal obligations to be presented to Council.
4. To continue to explore the infrastructure requirements with BT and BCKLWN and
recommend to Council the infrastructure requirements and associated costs.
5. Approve the proposals for BCKLWN to host the ICT infrastructure and business
system and for NNDC to host any proposed shared management structure.
6. Delegate authority to the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder for Revenues
and Benefits and the Deputy Chief Executive, to agree proposed service level
agreements with customer services and other support services.
7. To receive quarterly updates on the Revenues and Benefits shared services work
99 EQUALITIES UPDATE
The Community Liaison Officer gave the Committee a brief presentation on the Annual
Equality report 2010-11.
Members discussed the presentation:
1. The issue of future challenges was raised. The Community Liaison Officer said
employment and involvement of residents in decision making were key equaility
issues e.g. disabled people were twice as likely to be unemployed and sought
greater involvement in decision making. Other equality issues for the District
included domestic violence and hate crime. The Deputy Chief Executive added that
previously equality had been viewed as an add-on and the Council was now trying to
embed it in all aspects of its work.
2. A Member suggested that the Council could employ people with learning disabilities.
South Norfolk District Council had set up a successful scheme for producing and
planting bedding plants. The Chairman added that there may also be opportunities
for local groups such as About with Friends to access resources via the Big Society
Fund.
100 GYPSY AND TRAVELLERS UPDATE
The Environmental Protection Team Leader updated the Committee on occupancy rates
for the two Temporary Stopping Places for the period April to October 2011 and the
capital grant expenditure to date. The Fakenham site had only been used for a short
period during August and the Cromer site had been in continuous occupation since May
2011. The level of contribution sought from occupiers was under review to close the gap
between income and revenue costs on the sites. In addition, changes to the Mobile
Homes Act were likely to result in a more formal agreement to occupy pitches and a
structure for repayment of pitch fees should the agreement to occupy cease before the
agreed time period.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
13 December 2011
The balance of the grant for the funding of the construction of the sites was now being
used to finance the running costs. It was forecast that there would be a balance of
approximately £92,000 at the end of the 10 year lease period.
Members discussed the update:
a) The Chairman asked whether the initial grant could also be used to cover
maintenance costs. The Environmental Protection Team Leader said that the grant
could be used to pay for the leasing costs of the sites and he was currently
investigating any other costs that could be included.
b) The impact of the sites on illegal encampments was raised. The Environmental
Protection Team Leader said that the Council still had to go through the legal
process to move people on from illegal sites. Some families were willing to move to
the Temporary Stopping Places.
c) A Member asked whether changes to the Mobile Homes Act would alter the status
of Temporary Stopping Places. The Environmental Protection Team Leader said
that the status wouldn’t change; the Act males provision for temporary sites as well
as permanent ones.
d) A concern was raised that the sites were being used by homeless families as a
means of getting on to the housing register. The Environmental Protection Team
Leader said that the family in question was already on the housing register but that
the chance of them being housed was very low. The Council was currently working
with the family to resolve the issues. In response to a further question regarding the
use of the initial grant to cover costs caused by anti social behaviour, he said that
day to day running costs of the site were covered by occupancy charges and this
was one of the reasons for increasing them.
e) A Member queried whether the family who had been asked to leave the Cromer site
due to anti-social behaviour could return at a later date. The Environmental
Protection Team Leader said they could not stop them returning but that they would
try and negotiate a shorter period of stay in the future. In response to a further
question regarding options if landowners did not wish to renew the leases on the
sites, he said that the leases ran for 10 years and this would be something that
would be considered carefully nearer to the renewal date.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme
1. Flooding at Walcott: David Kemp, a representative from the Environment Agency
would be attending the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 25 January to address
concerns. County Councillor Paul Morse and the Chairmen of Walcott and Bacton
Parish Councils would also be invited to attend.
2. Member training: The Member Training Development and Support Group was now
meeting on a quarterly basis.
3. Work programme topics: The Big Society Fund would be discussed at a special
meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 31 January 2012. Future items
for inclusion on the work programme were planning enforcement, the future of
Outlook and updates on the Revenues and Benefits shared service.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
13 December 2011
4. Review of the Constitution: the Monitoring Officer was aware that the Constitution
needed to be reviewed. A log was being kept of all proposed amendments and
these would be considered when the Constitution Working Party was reconvened.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
The meeting concluded at 13.03 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10
13 December 2011