Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 18 December
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
The Chief Executive, Head of Economic and Community Development, the
Head of Finance, the Housing Team Leader - Strategy, Coast and
Community Partnerships Manager, the Health Improvement Officer and the
Scrutiny Officer.
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mrs B McGoun, Mrs A Moore, Ms B
Palmer, Mr R Price, Mr R Shepherd and Mr D Young
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
102 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds and Mr R Smith.
103 SUBSTITUTES
Mrs B McGoun for Mr R Smith, Mr R Shepherd for Mr J H Perry-Warnes and Mr R Price
for Mr R Reynolds.
104 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mr B Elliott, Chairman of North Walsham Hospital League of Friends wished to speak on
item 11 – Presentation – North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group – Commissioning
Strategy – 2012-2016.
105 MINUTES
Minute 101 Presentation – East of England Ambulance Service Trust
The Chairman asked that the first sentence of the third paragraph be amended to read:
“Mr Hartley informed the meeting that the Trust had been set a cost improvement target
of £10.6m, out of a total budget of £227m for the current financial year.”
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on
21 November 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
106 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
107 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mr R Price
Minute
No.
114
Item
Interest
Big Society Fund Update
Report
Personal – is
assisting
organisation with
their application to
the fund
108 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
109 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
110 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
It was noted that Cabinet had decided not to accept the Committee’s recommendation
to call in its decision on North Walsham Dual Use Sports Centre.
111 THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
Noted.
112 PRESENTATION – NORTH NORFOLK CLINICAL COMMISIONING GROUP –
COMMISSIONING STRATEGY – 2012-2016
Rebecca Champion – Engagement Manager and Ellis Laywood - Clinical Programme
Manager both of North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group made a presentation to
the meeting with the aid of powerpoint. The presentation was to look at how North
Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group and North Norfolk District Council could work in
partnership to bridge the gap between health and well-being.. They then answered
Members questions:
a) Mr Brian Elliott, Chairman of North Walsham Hospital League of Friends, who was
attending the meeting for this item, commented that the Strategy’s ideals were very
laudable with a few exceptions. The literature was the same as that used by NHS
Norfolk a few years ago. He could not see how it was going to save money. There
seemed to be more discussion groups. The ideas were not new and he queried why
changes had to be made. There was a desperate shortage of carers. The Strategy
contained many wonderful ideas but how would they be financed? Ellis Laywood
replied that the initiative was imposed by the Government. The cap on management
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
costs was much lower than the Primary Care Trust (PCT) The Strategy had been led
by local clinicians who knew their community. Services would be better located.
They were a commission-led organisation. In terms of the Community Trust, they
would work very closely with them and improve community hospital services.
Mr N Smith expressed concern about mental health issues. He considered there
was a lack of cohesion between mental health and doctors. Mentally ill people did
not want to speak to volunteers. Ellis Laywood said they were working as hard as
they could to build bridges with the Mental Health Trust. They were going through a
radical redesign of their programme. GPs shared concerns on links between
primary care and the community to access public health. Rebecca Champion added
that previously it was not possible to get access to consultants. It would mean a
quicker response.
Mrs B McGoun said she would like to see a pro-active service. We lived in a ‘Tescoised’ world where people expected services 24/7. She asked whether GPs
surgeries would be open at the weekend and whether there would be the
opportunity to do something different. Ellis Laywood replied that they had to provide
the activities most needed at the time. They were trying to ensure all GP practices
had standard opening times but would look at whether there could be additional
benefit from increasing services. They could only offer what they could afford.
The Chairman said that up to 50% of ambulance calls were not an emergency. At
weekends, there was no-one else people could contact. Rebecca Champion said
that Norfolk had launched a ‘111’ service for anything urgent which was not an
emergency. Advice would be given on what to do, ending up with contacting a GP.
Mrs A Green considered that there should be a GP on duty at night in order to reduce
the number of 999 calls made. Ellis Laywood replied that out of hours services were
provided by a contract. They were moving to 111 calls and the person you would
speak to would most likely be a GP.
Mr P Terrington said Wells Community Hospital was trying to expand services. He
asked how community hospitals were represented on the Board and whether local
community groups could help and introduce services for local people. Ellis Laywood
said they didn’t have a place on the Board as they were potential local providers.
There was going to be a difficult transition period. They were fortunate to have so
many community hospitals.
Ellis Laywood responded to Mr P Moore’s questions. The Group was working to try
and resolve problems on ambulance waiting times. No decision had yet been made
on which clinical commissioning group was to have responsibility for the ambulance
service. Performance was being monitored. Funding for the Ambulance Services
for the East of England was currently held by Bedfordshire.
Ms V Gay said diabetes was a significant problem in North Norfolk and asked
whether there were any other illnesses which we should be aware of. Ellis Laywood
said cardiovascular conditions and respiratory diseases were also of great concern,
although diabetes was of the greatest concern. Other less crippling issues were
also on the rise. They were working with local authorities to monitor this and keep
people in the best possible health.
Mr B Smith referred to Mr Brian Elliott’s comment about the lack of carers in the
District. There were many elderly and infirm people here who were moved around
and had little contact. He asked how the Group would remedy this. Out of hours
GPs seemed reluctant to come out. Patients preferred to have contact with their
own GPs. Rebecca Champion said that she had referred to informal carers such as
family. The NHS realised how important that was and that they needed support. A
unified service was planned. To recruit and train formal carers was a problem which
had been around a long time. It was about giving value to that work. It was a huge
role for the voluntary sector.
Mr N Smith said that the day before, two organisations at national level had found
that voluntary help for mentally ill people was second to none. This needed to be
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
recognised. Rebecca Champion said that the care of support workers was being
piloted in GPs’ surgeries. Hopefully, this would be rolled out more widely.
k) The Chairman referred to the role of patient groups and the concerns expressed in
the strategy about orthopaedics. In the past, concerns had been raised about
physiotherapy. Rebecca Champion said that patient groups based around surgeries
were in existence. Every practice in North Norfolk had a group. They helped the
practice to look at day to day matters such as parking and accessibility for the old
and young. Practice-based commissioners had looked at this area in a more
strategic way and it had been well received. Lay members had been appointed by
the NHS framework and had a role to make sure the Group evolved appropriately in
these areas.
l) Ellis Laywood said that the local trust and Norfolk and Norwich Hospital were
struggling to meet targets for orthopaedics but hoped to do so by February 2013.
They had identified patients in North Norfolk who had been waiting a long time and
were offered other providers. Physiotherapy was part of that pathway. They were
working to improve that and would recommission that service next year to achieve
acceptable waiting times.
m) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said she had taken over as Shadow Member on the Health and
Wellbeing Board at Norfolk County Council. There were 12 emergent priorities, all
of which would be part of everyday work at Norfolk County Council. She would
circulate details later.
n) The Chairman thanked Ellis Laywood and Rebecca Champion for their presentation.
Perhaps they could come back in 12 months to show what progress was being
made.
o) Mr P Moore thanked Brian Elliott for the work which he and the Friends of North
Walsham Hospital did.
113 2012/13 REVISED BUDGET
The base budget for 2012/13 was approved by Full Council on 22 February 2012. The
budget was updated as part of the 2011/12 final accounts report for the carry forward of
funding from the year end process. The budget had continued to be monitored
throughout the year to date and reported to Members accordingly. The report was now
being presented for approval the 2012/13 revised budgets for revenue and capital.
a) The Chairman asked why earmarked reserves had to be kept at certain levels. He
was informed that earmarked reserves were for known items of expenditure coming
up.
b) Ms V Gay queried the difference in figures shown for the original budget. The Head
of Finance explained that this was due to fluctuations over the year.
c) Mr D Young asked whether the underspend on the Big Society related to expenditure
on Community and Localism. The Head of Finance explained that £101,000 was
the amount of variance. This amount would be transferred to reserves if it was not
used in a year.
d) Ms V Gay queried the sum of money in reserves for North Norfolk Enterprise
Innovation Centre. Officers confirmed this was part of the Leadership of Place
budget for North Walsham.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) The revised revenue budget for 2012/13;
b) The revised transfers to and from reserves as detailed within Appendix D;
c) A transfer of £1,398 to the general reserve;
d) The revised capital programme and associated financing as included at Appendix E
including the additional sum of £37,084, subject to a lift engineer’s report, be made
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
available to fund refurbishment works to the Rocket House, to include the full renewal
and upgrade of the lift system and £21,000 for the replacement scanner and printer
for the Planning service, both to be funded from capital receipts.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.05 am and reconvened at 11.20 am.
114 BIG SOCIETY FUND UPDATE REPORT
a) Mr T Ivory thanked the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager and his team
for compiling the report. Members had worked together in a cross-party way and
there had been no split decisions.
b) The Chairman referred to the minutes of the Committee meeting on 31 January 2012
where the two Members nominated to review the workings of the Big Society Fund
were Mr N Smith and Mr G Williams.
c) Mrs B McGoun commented that there appeared to be many nominations from village
halls and very few innovative projects. She had been involved with the Horning Boat
Show. She asked whether enough was being done to look for opportunities in the
area. Mr Ivory confirmed that while many applications had been received from
village halls, the Board was keen to see applications which innovate and would lead
to others. He asked Members to encourage local groups to apply.
d) Mr N Smith was concerned that filling out application forms was an art form and that
some groups may have been turned down because they had not made their case
well. Mr Ivory advised that Voluntary Norfolk provided support for this on behalf of
the Council. He was not aware, however, that any group had been turned down
because of that.
e) Mr P Terrington was very grateful for the grants approved for Wells.
f) Mr P Moore suggested that groups could also be encouraged to apply to other
organisations for funding before applying to the Big Society. He asked how
Members could assist in promoting applications as he considered that the Council’s
Outlook magazine was perhaps not the right place to do this. Mr Ivory replied that
groups could contact Norfolk Community Foundation and they would advise on the
most appropriate fund for a project.the Big Society Fund and it would be up to them
to say whether they would be able to help. Members’ suggestions about how the
Fund was promoted could be taken on board.
g) Ms V Gay asked whether there was an explicit definition of what type of applications
would be ineligible for funding, for example if a group’s goals were not in line with
those of the District Council. Mr Ivory explained that bodies already receiving
funding from the Council would not normally be considered unless it was for a new
and different project. If a group was in receipt of regular Council funding, the group
would need to look at other ways rather than applying straight to the Big Society
Fund. He added that it was a great opportunity for local communities.
h) Mr B Jarvis, a Member of the Board, said he would like to see funding made more
accessible for smaller groups.
i) In response to questions, it was explained that match-funding was taken into account
with some applications, although it was not a requirement. Perhaps successful
applications could be monitored to see whether the total amount of funding achieved
was being maximised. North Norfolk Community Foundation was monitoring
applications and the Council would evaluate whether the funding had achieved its
purpose. A report would be made to Cabinet in March.
j) Mrs B McGoun hoped that any changes to funding would not adversely affect
community transport. She was assured that this should not happen as it was
separately funded and a separate review of this was taking place.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) A politically balanced working group comprising two Cabinet Members and two
Members appointed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Mr N Smith and
Mr G Williams) is established to work with Officers to review the North Norfolk
Big Society Fund.
b) A report is presented to Cabinet in March, identifying whether or not the Big
Society Fund should be continued in the next financial year and, if so, the most
appropriate way for this to be implemented.
115 HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SCHEME
a) In response to a query over whether more homes would be allocated to those who
had connections to towns and villages in North Norfolk, the Housing Team Leader –
Strategy advised that modelling had shown it would increase the number of
properties which did, but it was not possible to give figures now as the Scheme was
not yet in operation.
b) The Council had reviewed its Allocations Scheme to reflect the changes in legislation
introduced by the Localism Act and statutory instruments. The changes ensured
that the Council’s Allocation Scheme complied with all statutory requirements whilst
also ensuring that it maximised the number of affordable dwellings which would be
occupied by households with connections to towns and villages in North Norfolk.
The new Allocations Scheme would be delivered through the Your Choice Your
Home scheme which was a partnership between the Council and 8 Housing
Associations. Once adopted, the new Allocation Scheme would be used to allocate
properties from April 2013.
c) The Housing Team Leader - Strategy was thanked for preparing the report.
d) The Chairman highlighted the difficulty which the Council had in providing allocations
for a limited amount of social housing and in trying to match housing need against
local preferences on where people wanted to live.
e) Mr B Smith reported that Blakeney Parish Council was in favour of the proposed
Housing Allocation Scheme.
f) Mr D Young wondered whether it was clear that ‘local connection’ meant North
Norfolk. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained the approach which the
Council would be taking following the adoption of the Scheme and that the Scheme
reflected the requirements of legislation which set out the definition of local
connection.
g) Mr P Moore asked whether the Council was open to challenge with the new policy.
Mr T Ivory responded that the new system completely protected statutory housing
need and complied with statutory requirements.
h) Mr B Jarvis referred to someone in his ward being evicted because his housing need
was not strong enough. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that the
homelessness legislation set out a range of duties to a homeless household and the
Council did not have a duty in all cases to house them, so for example, if someone
was homeless but not vulnerable, the Council would only have a duty to provide
advice and assistance.
i) The Chairman suggested that the Committee request a monitoring report after 12
months.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To agree to the adoption of the Housing Allocations Scheme to Full Council, but in
agreeing to this the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would wish to see a monitoring
report 12 months after the scheme was implemented.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
116 EMPTY HOMES POLICY
a) The Council was committed to reducing the number of empty homes. The Empty
Homes Policy provided a policy context for work to bring empty homes in North
Norfolk back into use. It set out why empty homes should be brought back into use
and it detailed the Empty Homes Procedure and the approaches which would be
used to bring empty properties back into use, including what advice and support
would be offered and when and what types of enforcement action could be used.
b) Mr T Ivory said the way in which the Policy worked had been looked at. Flexibility
was needed on the council tax definition of an empty home. He suggested that the
Council included its own definition of what it considered to be empty ie a house that
was empty for more than six months. Members supported the idea of a definition of
an empty home as it would add a great deal of clarity. A meeting was to take place
with the Valuation Office about their criteria in respect of de-listed properties.
c) The Chairman asked how many properties had been empty for more than two years
as recent legislation enabled councils to charge a council tax premium on such
properties. He also commented that it was resource-intensive to bring empty homes
back into use. Mr Ivory said he could find out how many there were. Properties
which had been empty for more than two years were the ones which created
concern for residents.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To agree to the adoption of the Empty Homes Policy 2012-15, but to request that a
monitoring report is presented to the Committee 12 months after the scheme was
implemented.
117 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Scrutiny Officer reported that the Cabinet had not accepted the Committee’s callin concerning North Walsham Dual Use Sports Centre.
b) Information which Members had requested on the Ambulance Service was attached
to the agenda and was in the Members’ Bulletin. Information was awaited
concerning ‘A Typical Day for a Cromer Ambulance’
c) The date of the next Committee meeting had been brought forward from 23 to 16
January 2013 to allow for a special meeting of Full Council on 23 January to
consider the Council Tax Support Scheme and the Determination of Council Tax
Discounts and Level of Charges for 2013/14.
d) An update from the Health Improvement Officer was attached.
e) Recommendations from the Public Transport Review Task and Finish Group were
attached. Both Council Leaders had signed the letter requesting action from Norfolk
County Council. The Scrutiny Officer would try to obtain a response and report back
to Members.
f) The work programme for the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee was
attached.
g) On 7 March 2013 a report would be made by the East of England Ambulance Service
NHS Trust, Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Foundation Trust and NHS
Waveney to the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the
Ambulance turnaround times at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. It was hoped that
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds would be able to attend and give feedback.
h) A letter from the Scrutiny Officer at Norfolk County Council had recently been
received concerning a questionnaire they were undertaking on mobile phone
network coverage in Norfolk. It would be interesting to see how this area compared
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
with others. The Scrutiny Officer could ask that this Council was kept informed. The
Chairman suggested that this be drawn to Members’ attention in the Members’
Bulletin and comments invited for submission to the County Council.
i) A report on the Big Society had been deferred until a review had been undertaken.
j) The Chairman said he would arrange for the Scrutiny Officer and the Health
Improvement Officer to clarify the correct Ambulance response rate figures in North
Norfolk.
k) Ms V Gay confirmed that the Public Transport Review Task and Finish Group had
met but both she and Mrs B McGoun had been unable to attend through illness. Mr
R Reynolds, the Council’s representative had not attended either as he had been on
holiday.
The meeting concluded at 12.45 pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012