Please contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk Please direct dial on: 01263 516010
Committee Administrator: Alison Argent: alison.argent@north-norfolk.gov.uk
8 January 2013
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 16 January
2013 at 9.30a.m.
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. Coffee will be available in the staff restaurant at 9.30 a.m.
and at the break.
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
516047, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore, Mr J H PerryWarnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mr R Smith and Mr P Terrington.
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 – 9.40)
To approve as correct records, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on 18 December 2012.
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.
THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
(Page 9)
To discuss the Forward Plan and to consider the programme of business for Cabinet,
Overview and Scrutiny, Audit and Full Council.
11.
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME 2013/14
(Cabinet agenda – 7 January 2013)
(Appendix A – p.21) (Appendix B –electronic only) (Appendix C – p. 24)
(Appendix C2 – p.30)
(*Amended report – page 14)
(*Amended Appendix A – page 20)
*Please note that the report and appendix A appended to this agenda have been amended
following discussion at the Cabinet meeting held on 7 January 2013.
(9.40 – 10.00)
Please note that Appendix B is very large – printed copies are available on request from
Democratic Services
Summary:
Conclusions:
On the 1st November the Local Government Finance Bill
received Royal Assent. The Act includes a requirement for each
billing authority in England to develop its own Local Council Tax
Support Scheme which must be agreed by full Council before
31st January 2013 for implementation on 1 April 2013.
That the Council adopt a Local Council Tax Support Scheme
that meets the criteria for the transitional funding that was
announced in October 2012.The scheme would enable a
maximum award of 91.5% of a person’s council tax liability for
those people currently in receipt of 100% Council Tax Benefit.
Recommendations: Cabinet recommend to Full Council the Local Council Tax
Support as set out in this report (option 3).
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Legislation requires a Council Tax Support Scheme to be agreed
by full Council by the 31 January 2013 prior to implementation of
the scheme on 1 April 2013.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published
elsewhere)
Cabinet Report 16 July 2012
Local Government Finance Act
Localising Support for Council Tax – Transitional grant scheme
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/localising-support-for-counciltax-transitional-grant-scheme
Cabinet Member(s)
Wards affected:
Contact Officer,
Telephone no & email:
Cllr W Northam
All
Louise Wolsey
01263 516081,
louise.wolsey@north-norfolk.gov.uk
12.
DETERMINATION OF COUNCIL TAX DISCOUNTS AND LEVEL OF CHARGES FOR
2013/14
(Cabinet agenda – 7 January 2013)
(page 31)
(Appendix D – p.37)
(10.00 – 10.20)
Summary:
The Local Government Finance Act 2012 includes a
number of reforms in relation to council tax exemptions,
discounts and the introduction of the empty property
premium. The reforms give councils new flexibilities to
vary council tax on second homes and empty dwellings
which offer the opportunity to raise additional revenue as
well as encouraging empty properties to be brought back
into use. This report recommends changes to discount
levels and the adoption of an empty property premium to
take advantage of the new areas of discretion and
recommends all discounts that will apply for 2013/14.
Options considered:
The determinations and decisions set out in this paper
come into effect on 1 April 2013 for the financial year 1
April 2013 to 31 March 2014. They are made by the
Council under sections 11, 11A, 11B, and of the Local
Government Finance Act 1992 and other enabling
powers. References to the Local Government Finance
Act 1992 include references to Regulations made under
that Act.
Conclusions:
The Council Tax reforms as included within the Local
Government Finance Act 2012 provide greater flexibility
for Local Authorities to set levels of discounts on second
homes and empty dwellings to generate both revenue
streams and incentives to bring empty properties back
into use. The Council has to approve its determinations
for each financial year. The calculation of the tax base
for 2013/14 will be made on the assumption that the
determinations recommended below will apply.
Recommendations:
1
(i)
(ii)
That Cabinet recommend that Council Resolve that
under section 11A of the Local Government Finance
Act 1992, and in accordance with the provisions of
the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and other
enabling powers that:
the council tax discount for dwellings defined
as being within Class ‘A’ remains at 50% for
the year 2013/14 (report para.3.4);
the council tax discount for dwellings
defined as being within Class ‘B’ be reduced
to 5% for the year 2013/14 with the
exceptions of (report para. 3.4):
(a)
(b)
those dwellings described or geographically
defined at Appendix D which in the
reasonable opinion of the Head of Finance
are judged not to be structurally capable of
occupation all year round and were built
before the restrictions of seasonal usage
were introduced by the Town and Country
Planning Act 1947, will retain the 50%
discount.
iii)
The council tax discount for dwellings
defined as being within Class ‘C’ to be set at
100% for three months for the year 2013/14
(report para. 3.3)
(iv)
The council tax discount for Class D
properties to act as an incentive to bring
them back into use is recommended to be a
discount of 50% for a maximum of 12 months
(report para.3.2)
2
That Cabinet recommend that Council Resolve that
under section 11B(2) of the Local Government
Finance Act 1992, and in accordance with the
provisions of the Local Government Finance Act
2012 and other enabling powers that:
(i)
A premium is charged for properties which have
been empty and substantially unfurnished for two
years or more of 50% of the council tax payable in
relation to that home.
3
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Cabinet Member(s)
Wards affected:
Contact Officer,
Telephone no & email:
those dwellings that are specifically
identified under regulation 6 of the Council
Tax
(Prescribed
Classes
of
Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003, which
will retain the 50% discount; and
In accordance with the relevant legislation
these determinations shall be published in at least
one newspaper circulating in North Norfolk before
the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the
date of the determinations.
To recommend for approval the Council Tax discount
and premium determinations to come into effect from 1
April 2013. To raise additional council tax revenue and to
encourage properties to be brought back into use.
Cllr W Northam
All
Karen Sly
01263 516243 Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
NB: ITEMS 13 AND 14 TO BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER
(10.20 – 11.00)
13.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT – INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION
ADVICE AND ‘DO I NEED PLANNING PERMISSION?’ ENQUIRIES
(Page 21)
(Appendix B – page 22)
This report provides the opportunity to review the situation following the introduction of fees
for certain pre-application services in May 2012.
14.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE
(Page 23)
(Appendix C – page 24) (Appendix D – page 25)
This report provides the opportunity for Members to discuss planning performance in the
light of the changed circumstances since the matter was last considered in November 2011.
15.
WASTE CONTRACT
(11.15 – 11.35)
A brief written update covering: household collections; recycling rates; street cleansing; and
toilet cleaning and maintenance will be circulated to Members shortly. Barry Brandford,
who oversees the Waste Contract, will be attending the meeting to answer Members’
questions.
16.
UPDATE REPORT REVENUES AND BENEFITS PARTNERSHIP
(Page 29)
(Appendix E – page 33) (Appendix F – page 34)
(11.35 – 11.55)
Summary:
This report provides the Committee with an update on
the Revenues & Benefits Partnership between North
Norfolk District Council (NNDC) and the Borough
Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN).
Conclusions:
The report identifies the key areas of work that the
Partnership will be focused on over the next six months.
Recommendations: That members accept this report
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr W Northam
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Louise Wolsey 01263516081 Louise.wolsey@north-norfolk.gov.uk
17.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
(Page 35)
(Appendix G – page 37) (Appendix H – page 40) (Appendix I – page 41)
(11.55 – 12.05)
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix G) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix H.
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others
need to be monitored and opportunities for scrutiny
should be discussed.
Recommendations: That Members should consider any follow-up
actions required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s):
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer
telephone number
and email:
18.
Mr T FitzPatrick
All
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
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.”
19.
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 18 December
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
18 December 2012
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 January 2013 to 30 April 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
January 2013
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Wyndham
Northam
Overview & Scrutiny
16 Jan 2013
Council Tax
Support Scheme
(Final)
Louise Wolsey
Revenues & Benefits
Services Manager
01263 516081
Full Council
(Special meeting)
Cabinet
23 Jan 2013
Council Tax
Discounts
Wyndham
Northam
Overview & Scrutiny
16 Jan 2013
Louise Wolsey
Revenues & Benefits
Services Manager
01263 516081
Full Council
(Special Meeting)
Cabinet
23 Jan 2013
Properties at Star
Yard and Oak Street
Fakenham
Tom
Fitzpatrick
7 Jan 2012
7 Jan 2013
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Housing &
Infrastructure
Lead Officer
Status
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Exempt item
*Exempt item under
Paragraph 1 information relating
to any individual
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
9
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 January 2013 to 30 April 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Destination
Management
Organisation
Tom
FitzPatrick /
John Lee
Jobs & the Local
Economy (D)
Robin Smith
Economic & Tourism
Development Manager
01263 516236
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Big Society Fund –
grants over £10,000
Trevor Ivory
Localism (C)
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Collective Energy
Switching Scheme
Proposal
John Lee
Delivering the
Vision
Peter Lumb
Sustainability
Assistant
01263 516331
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Review of Tourist
Information Centres
Exempt item under
Paragraph 3 information relating
to the financial or
business affairs of a
person or
organisation
John Lee
Delivering the
Vision (D)
Localism
Estelle Packham
Head of Customer
Services
01263 516079
Status
Exempt item
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
10
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 January 2013 to 30 April 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Review of CCTV
service
Rhodri Oliver
February 2013
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Housing Renewal
Policy
Trevor Ivory
Housing &
Infrastructure
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Treasury Strategy
2013/14
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Performance
Management
Tom
FitzPatrick
Delivering the
Vision (A)
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Overview & Scrutiny
20 Feb 2013
2013/14 Base
Budget and
Projections for
2014/15 to 2016/17
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Helen Thomas
Policy & Performance
Management Officer
01263 516214
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Full Council
Cabinet
27 Feb 2013
4 Feb 2013
North Walsham
Town Centre
Development
Opportunities
Trevor Ivory
Status
Duncan Ellis
Head of Assets &
Leisure
01263 516330
Annual
Cyclical
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
11
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 January 2013 to 30 April 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
March 2013
Cabinet
4 March 2013
Review of Big
Society Fund
Trevor Ivory
Localism (C)
Cabinet
4 March 2013
Budget Monitoring
Period 10 (12/13)
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Cabinet
4 March 2013
Big Society Fund –
consideration of
grants above
£10,000
Trevor Ivory
Localism (C)
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Cabinet
4 March 2013
Community
Transport
Trevor Ivory
Localism
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
April 2013
Cabinet
15 April 2013
Cromer to
Winterton Study
Angie FitchTillett
Coast,
Countryside &
Built Heritage
Cabinet
tbc
Options for future
of Building Control
Service
Rhodri Oliver
Delivering the
Vision (D) (E)
Rob Goodliffe
Coastal Community
Projects Manager
01263 516321
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Status
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
12
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 January 2013 to 30 April 2013
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
13
Agenda Item No______11______
Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2013/14
Summary:
On the 1st November the Local Government Finance Bill
received Royal Assent. The Act includes a requirement
for each billing authority in England to develop its own
Local Council Tax Support Scheme which must be
agreed by full Council before 31st January 2013 for
implementation on 1 April 2013.
Conclusions:
That the Council adopt a Local Council Tax Support
Scheme that meets the criteria for the transitional
funding that was announced in October 2012.The
scheme would enable a maximum award of 91.5% of a
person’s council tax liability for those people currently in
receipt of 100% Council Tax Benefit.
Recommendations:
Cabinet recommend to Full Council the Local Council
Tax Support as set out in this report (option 3).
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Legislation requires a Council Tax Support Scheme to
be agreed by full Council by the 31 January 2013 prior
to implementation of the scheme on 1 April 2013.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not
published elsewhere)
Cabinet Report 16 July 2012
Local Government Finance Act
Localising Support for Council Tax – Transitional grant scheme
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/localising-support-for-council-taxtransitional-grant-scheme
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr W Northam
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
14
1.
Introduction
1.1
Government legislation has abolished Council Tax Benefit (CTB) from the 1
April 2013. All Councils are required to implement new arrangements to
replace CTB with the expectation that government support for the new
scheme would reduce by 10%. The new scheme is called the Council Tax
Support Scheme (CTS). This change is part of a wider set of welfare reforms
currently being implemented. The scheme is intended to work closely within
the framework of the national welfare reform.
1.2
Cabinet received a report at its meeting on the 16 July 2012 detailing the
changes being introduced to the Council Tax Benefits (CTB) system and how
the scheme would be funded in future, essentially moving from a scheme
funded 100% from Department for Work and Pensions Subsidy to a scheme
funded by government grant (base funding) and local discounts. Indicative
base funding grants were announced earlier in 2012, the provisional figures
for 2013/14 are expected in late December as part of the provisional finance
settlement announcements.
1.3
The Government determined that pensioners should be protected from the
impacts of these reforms and has developed prescribed scheme to ensure
that pensioners are not adversely affected by these reforms.
1.4
The Government has provided a default scheme that will be applied to all
Councils where the Council has not implemented its own CTS Scheme by the
31 January 2013. The provisions of the default scheme are that it broadly
reflects the requirements of the existing CTB scheme and would deliver
similar outcomes for recipients of CTB as they receive now. Whilst this would
minimise the impacts of the changes it would mean that the Council and
precepting bodies would have a loss of income equal to the cut in the
Government grant in excess of 10% of prior CTB expenditure.
2.
Background
2.1
A politically balanced working party was set up in July 2012 to consider
options for a local scheme for North Norfolk District Council. It was initially
proposed that Norfolk wide scheme be developed. The Norfolk Authorities
and other precepting bodies have agreed that given the authorities different
demographics and financial positions that it will not be possible to have one
scheme for Norfolk. It was agreed that the local schemes would be selffinancing.
2.2
A draft scheme was proposed and a comprehensive consultation process
with local residents took place during September and early October 2012
through a wide range of methods. These included a mail shot to over 4,000
people who currently receive CTB, drop in session, electronic and paper
surveys, press and web publicity and consultation with organisations in the
district that support the most vulnerable.
2.3
The draft scheme proposed that claimants, other than pensioners, would
have seen their council tax support reduced by 30%.
2.4
In October 2012 the Department for Communities and Local Governments
published a transitional grant scheme for Localising Support for Council Tax1
to help fund part of the cost of a local CTS scheme for 2013/14. The
Government has set aside £100m which may be applied for by billing
1
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/localising-support-for-council-tax-transitional-grantscheme
15
authorities (on behalf of the billing authorities and major precepting
authorities) after 31 January 2013. Payment of grant monies will be made in a
single instalment in March 2103. The breakdown of the grant is as below for
North Norfolk.
2.5
Authority
Transitional Grant Amount
North Norfolk District Council
22,740
Norfolk County Council
147,893
Norfolk Police Authority
25,434
Total
2.6
£196,067
To apply for the grant, billing authorities must adopt schemes which ensure
that;
•
Those who would be entitled to 100% support under the current CTB
arrangements pay between zero and no more than 8.5% of their net
council tax liability;
•
The taper rate does not increase above 25%;
•
There is no sharp reduction in support for those entering work
2.7
The funding is described as transitional funding and therefore has to be
assumed it is a one off payment for 2013/14 only. The scheme would need to
be amended in the second year or funding identified elsewhere, to fill the gap
in future years.
3.
Council Tax Support Scheme Options
3.1
The Government’s ‘transitional scheme’ would prevent the Council
implementing some CTS options being considered in the first year, such as
changes to savings limits, removal of second adult rebates allowances, and a
70% ceiling for CTS. This is because these options would result in Council
Tax increases for some individuals in excess of the Government’s 8.5%
scheme limit.
3.2
There are three main options for the Council to consider;
1) Adopt the Governments default scheme and subsequent loss of
revenue for all precepting bodies of at least 10%.
2) To develop a local scheme without recourse to the transitional grant
and the conditions attached to the grant. The Council would be free to
include the CTS options outlined in 3.1. The scheme would be selffinancing.
3) To develop a CTS scheme eligible for government transitional funding
but which limits the Council Tax increase to no more than 8.5% for
those currently receiving 100% CTB.
3.3
Under separate legislative changes to Council Tax exemptions and discounts
Councils have discretion to change the level of discount awarded to Empty
16
Homes and Second Homes. The details of proposed changes and financial
implications are included as a separate item on this agenda. The additional
revenue from these changes could be used to support the loss of funding
supporting a CTS scheme.
3.4
The table attached at Appendix A sets out the overall impacts of the three
options including revenues from changes to discounts and exemptions and
the Government Grant.
3.5
In relation to the town and parish councils NNDC will receive the base funding
grant and the transitional grant which are intended to be passed to the town
and parish councils. Initially the Government proposed that the local
preceptors (parishes) would not have their tax base reduced by local CTS, ie
two tax base calculations would be required, which would provide certainty of
funding for the parishes. This proposal was changed in late November when
the Government announced their response to this consultation which states
that only one tax base calculation would be required, i.e. a reduced tax base
for all2.
3.6
The council tax base for parishes will now reflect the changes for the CTS
scheme and the respective grant for the parishes will be allocated
accordingly. It is estimated that the shortfall for the parishes will be
approximately £26,000 and due to the transitional arrangements for the
scheme these costs will be funded by the district.
4
Scheme Administration
4.1
Administration of the scheme is set out in S13a and Schedule 1a of the Local
Government Finance Act 1992 and a copy of the Local scheme for NNDC is
attached at Appendix B (Council Tax Reduction Scheme. S13a and Schedule
1a of the Local Government Finance Act 1992).
4.2
The Council may administer Housing Benefit and other welfare payments and
discretionary payments alongside the administration and management of
Local Council Tax Support.
4.3
Personal data obtained by the Council for the purposes of processing or
managing Local Council Tax Support may be shared in relation to Housing
Benefit, Discretionary Housing Payments or any other fund administered
undersection13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
4.4
Personal data obtained by the Council for the purposes of processing or
managing Local Council Tax Support may be shared with any other body
where:
4.5
2
•
The data subject (or their representative) provides formal consent;
•
It is in the beneficial interest of the data subject to do so;
•
To prevent fraud;
•
The law permits sharing of data, (for example to prevent or detect a
crime).
Persons in receipt of Local council Tax support shall be deemed to be in
receipt of a means tested entitlement for the purposes of any council policy
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/localising-support-for-council-tax-council-tax-base
17
where entitlement under the that policy was linked to the receipt of Council
Tax Benefit.
5
Conclusion
5.1
It is recommended that Option 3 be adopted. This takes into consideration the
feedback that was received when the scheme as outlined in 3.1 was
consulted on. Feedback from the consultation supported the view that we
should protect those on lowest incomes and this is reflected in the proposed
option. This scheme would ensure compliance with the Governments wider
aims including protecting vulnerable people, making work pay and integrating
the new CTS scheme with the introduction of Universal Credit.
6.
Financial Implications and Risks
6.1
The financial implications are detailed within section 3 and Appendix A to the
report. The risk of funding shortfalls is shared across the major preceptors in
proportion to their share of the Council tax bill. After taking account of the
transitional grant and indicative base funding and potential additional revenue
from the proposed reforms to council tax discounts, the costs to the major
preceptors is estimated to be:
Major Preceptor
£000
NNDC
18
Norfolk County Council
120
Norfolk Police Authority
21
Total
158
6.2
The decision as to how to fund the gap is an individual one for each
precepting body to consider.
6.3
The Council consulted on a scheme that differs from the scheme now being
recommended in that the scheme now being proposed is a more generous
scheme to individuals. By recommending a scheme that is eligible for the
transitional grant, this reduces the minimum a customer would be expected to
pay from the consulted scheme of 30%,to 8.5%. With a significantly lower
percentage that is more favorable to customers, it is considered that the risk
associated any challenge to the scheme is low. Feedback from the
consultation supported the view that we should protect those on lowest
incomes and this is reflected in the proposed option.
6.4
If the Council reduces the level of benefit in payment it will have additional
income to collect from some of the most vulnerable households in the District,
with a risk that this money will not be recoverable. The proposed option
reduces this risk from that of the original scheme consulted on. The Council
will also have additional income to collect from customers who previously had
an exemption or a higher level of discount, with the potential risk of failing to
collect this money.
6.5
The estimates relating to the changes in discounts and exemptions on empty
properties are based on historical data. Trends can change with a
18
subsequent positive or negative impact on the Tax Base. Estimates for the
CTS Scheme have been based on current caseload, with some provision for
growth. Regulations regarding the changes and other welfare reforms
changes may affect the CTS Scheme e.g. Universal Credit, have yet to be
passed.
6.6
The annual billing processes may be adversely affected if the key scheme
principles are not prescribed before January 2013 as this will limit time for
testing and development of software and narrow the time for training of staff.
It will also restrict available time to provide relevant information to members of
the public who will be affected by these reforms.
6.7
One of the main changes required to enable the new scheme to operate is to
update the current software on the revenues and benefits system. One-off
new burdens grants have been made available and it is anticipated that these
will more than cover the associated software costs.
6.8
The Council does hold earmarked and a general reserve which can be used
as a one-off to mitigate the impact on the Council’s budget of any shortfall
resulting from the scheme in the short term.
7.
Sustainability
No significant impact
8.
Equality and Diversity
8.1
Consultation was undertaken to assist with the proposals for the new
scheme. The Equality Impact Assessment for the scheme now being
recommended is attached at Appendix C
9.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
No significant impact
19
Local Council Tax Support - Options
Appendix A
Financial Implications - Local Council Tax Support Scheme
£000
Estimated shortfall from introduction of Local Council Tax Support Scheme (based
on indicative grant amounts)
1,094
Cost of Option
1,094
Option 1 - No Change, retain current scheme
Cost allocated across Major Preceptors (Based on current Council Tax)
NNDC
11.6%
County
75.4%
Police
13.0%
Total
100.0%
127
825
142
1,094
Option 2 - Fully funded scheme from reductions in support (consulted scheme)
-
This options assumes a fully funded scheme and therefore the estimated impact would be nil as a
direct impact, although there would implications in terms of funding hardship/writing off and this would
have an impact on the collection fund for all the major preceptors.
Option 3 - Scheme that meets the Government criteria for transiational grant funding
Estimated Cost
Transitional Grant (share of £100m):
1,094
NNDC
County
Police
(23)
(148)
(25)
(196)
Scheme Reductions (as per Governments criteria) ie Council Tax generated
Shortfall
Cost allocated across Major Preceptors:
NNDC
County
Police
Total
593
11.6%
75.4%
13.0%
100.0%
Council Tax Reforms - Gross Additional Income (Estimate):
Second Homes (retaining 5% discount) *
Empty Properties undergoing major repairs
Vacant Dwellings - 100% discount for 3 months then zero
Empty Homes Premium (150% of full charge after 2 years)
Total
Revised Shortfall after application of Council Tax Reforms
Cost allocated across Major Preceptors:
NNDC
County
Police
Total
(304)
11.6%
75.4%
13.0%
100.0%
20
69
448
77
593
(262)
(55)
(32)
(86)
(435)
158.46
18
120
21
158
Agenda Item 13
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 16 JANUARY 2013
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT - INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION
ADVICE AND ‘DO I NEED PLANNING PERMISSION?’ ENQUIRIES
This report provides the opportunity to review the situation following the introduction of
fees for certain pre-application services in May 2012
Members will recall discussing this matter in March 2012, when the Committee supported
the introduction of fees for pre-application and ‘Do I Need Planning Permission?’ enquiries
in principle. The Committee were anxious to ensure that there were sufficient resources for
the service and would review the situation in January 2013. Members will note at Appendix
A a monthly schedule of applications and enquiries received since April 2011. The table
includes planning applications, pre-application enquiries (Dev21), ‘Do I Need Planning
Permission?’ enquiries (Dev20), Duty Officer enquiries and applications to discharge
planning conditions.
In relation to Dev21 and Dev20 enquiries the Committee will note that since May 2012
numbers decreased significantly, as was anticipated with the introduction of the charging
regime. In the 8 months up to and including April 2012 some 358 Dev21 enquiries were
received and some 267 Dev20 enquiries were received, thus averaging approximately 45
Dev21 and 33 Dev20s per month.
Since May 2012 the respective numbers are 127 (average 16) and 100 (average 12.5)
respectively. Thus formal enquiries have been reduced to well under half the previous
number.
In terms of Duty Officer enquiries, over the same period 1314 enquiries were received in
the 8 months prior to the introduction of charges and 1405 were received in the following 8
months, averages of some 164 and 176 respectively. It is therefore clear that some of the
formal work has been displaced onto the informal free facility provided by Duty Planning
Officers.
Prior to the introduction of the scheme it was estimated that pre-application advice would
account for some £10,000 per year and ‘Do I Need Planning Permission?’ enquiries would
deliver £5,000 additional income. In practice approximately £10,200 has been received
from the former source and £900 from the latter by the end of December. Looked at in
terms of the financial year as a whole it would appear that the original total estimate of
£15,000 is unlikely to be significantly different from what will be achieved.
In conclusion it is considered that the introduction of charges for these services has led to
a significant reduction in formal enquiries and this has eased pressure to an extent on
staff, although more exacting service standards are now applied. However it has in part
been counter-balanced by additional work on Duty Officers.
Taking into account the income received to date and the fact that formal planning
application fees have risen by 15% from December 2012 it is suggested that the new
arrangements be maintained, that fees for pre-application enquiries are not increased as
the system continues to bed in, but that workload levels and income continue to be
monitored until the budget is set for 2014/15 later in 2013.
Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management
21
Appendix B
22
Agenda Item 14
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 16 JANUARY 2013
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This report provides the opportunity for Members to discuss planning performance in the
light of the changed circumstances since the matter was last considered in November
2011.
The Committee last considered this matter in November 2011 when it was resolved to
recommend that the Portfolio Holder for Planning write to the Government urging a quick
decision on the proposal to permit Local Planning Authorities to set their own fee levels
and to write to Norman Lamb MP and Keith Simpson MP informing them of that
recommendation. The Committee also agreed to receive an update at a future meeting on
the issuing of Planning Decision Notices.
The resolution was followed up and Members will be aware that the Government
eventually decided that it did not wish to allow Local Planning Authorities to set their own
fees but instead introduced a 15% fee rise set at national level which came into force in
December 2012.
As far as the issuing of Planning Decision Notices is concerned, this matter is being
considered as part of the National Planning Benchmark, in which the Council has been
participating, and it is hoped that some further information may be available early in 2013.
Perhaps of more pressing concern are the issues raised in the attached quarterly report on
planning performance which is set out as an Annex to this report (Appendix C). The
conclusions of the report are self-explanatory. In terms of performance on smaller
applications it is hoped that the appointment of two temporary Planning Assistants will
provide sufficient additional capacity to enable the service to reduce the backlog of work
and bring performance back up to target levels over the next year.
The situation regarding major applications is being given top priority, as Members will be
aware, in terms of focussing attention on delivering decisions within the statutory 13 week
period wherever possible. A number of steps have been taken in this respect. These
include bringing the Major Development Team and key consultees together at an early
stage in the process; requiring developers to submit full details of Section 106 Obligation
requirements at an early stage in the process; ensuring that Development Committee in
relevant cases visits the site at an early stage in the process in order to reduce the risk of
delays; and ensuring that all processes are geared to issuing decisions promptly. However
it must be recognised that these necessary steps are likely to reduce opportunities for
securing improvements to schemes which may otherwise have been thought desirable by
Officers, Members or consultees, including members of the public, and may lead to some
schemes being refused which could otherwise have been negotiated through to a
successful outcome. It is hoped that Members and Officers will work in partnership to
assist in the determination of these cases and also to explain to members of the public and
applicants the reasons for this change in approach.
Members are asked to consider the issues raised in this report and any matters arising
from the Annex and accompanying statistical appendices.
Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management
23
Appendix C
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE
This is the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from
October to December 2012, covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal
outcomes. It will be considered by Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Development
Committee at their meetings on 16 and 17 January respectively.
Table 1A (Appendix D) sets out performance for processing planning applications for the
third quarter of 2012/13.
Seven major applications were determined in the quarter, together with 95 minor and 214
other applications, a total of 316 applications, an increase of 70 compared with the
previous quarter. This is largely accounted for by the arrival in post of the replacement
Student Planning Officer and the end of the main summer holiday period.
In terms of speed of determination, figures for minor applications were down by some 3%
and for other applications were down by almost 5%. It is hoped that the recruitment of two
temporary Planning Assistants will address this continuing decline in performance.
As far as major applications are concerned, 7 were determined, of which four were within
the 13 week determination period. The cumulative figure for 2013 shows a significant
improvement from 25% after the first two quarters to 40% by the end of the third quarter.
Members will appreciate the significance of this change in the light of the Government’s
recent consultation paper concerning “Planning Performance and the Planning
Guarantee”, which was discussed by Members following the meeting of Development
Committee on 13 December 2012. In considering the period for which measurement is
likely to be made for the purposes of determining whether an Authority enters ‘special
measures’, i.e. from April 2011 to March 2013, the Council’s current cumulative
performance on major applications is that 12 out of 34 have been determined within the
statutory 13 week period i.e. 35.29%.
As at 1st January 2013 19 major applications were in process of which 13 were already out
of time and 6 were within the statutory 13 week period. Of the former it is anticipated that
up to 6 may be withdrawn in due course as amended schemes come forward, whilst the
other 7 are likely to be determined over the coming weeks and months. In order to
maintain performance levels it is therefore vital that the applications which remain in time
are determined within the statutory period.
Members will be aware of the strenuous efforts being made to determine major
applications more quickly having regard to the Government’s proposed sanctions.
Amongst other measures which are being taken, Development Committee will be asked to
visit key major sites at an early stage in the processing of applications in order to minimise
the risks of delays in determination.
Table 1B indicates workload for the service during the quarter, which shows that 340
applications were submitted, i.e. some 24 more than the number determined. At the
present time the service is still failing to keep pace with incoming work for planning
applications, but the shortfall was significantly less than in the previous quarter. Preapplication enquiries fell by 3 during the quarter but there were 18 more “Do I Need
24
Planning Permission” enquiries. Duty Officer queries amounted to some 474, compared
with 580 during the previous quarter, although this will have been in part accounted for by
the closure of the Council offices between Christmas and the New Year. This matter is the
subject of a separate report to Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 16 January 2013.
In terms of delegation of decisions, the figure remained at just over 93%; this has been
remarkably consistent over the past three years.
Table 2 indicates performance in terms of appeal decisions. During the quarter 10
decisions were made of which 7 were dismissed, 2 were allowed and 1 appeal was the
subject of a mixed decision. The success rate for appellants was therefore 25% and the
cumulative figure for 2012/13 stands at just over 31%.
In summary, the figures indicate that the service has continued to struggle to cope with its
workload, but in recognition of these difficulties two Planning Assistants on twelve month
contracts have been offered appointments and it is hoped that both may be able to start
work later this month. This should assist the team in terms of dealing with minor and other
applications, but the benefits are likely to be realised later during the new quarter in view of
the time taken for new staff to adjust to the Council’s policies and systems.
In terms of major applications efforts will continue to be made to focus attention on
performance. However, the loss of one Senior Planning Officer who has secured a similar
post with another Norfolk Local Authority, will have an impact on service delivery. Steps
are being taken to replace her at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, Members may be aware that the service has participated in the National Planning
Benchmarking exercise which will enable the costs and performance of the service to be
compared with a large number of other Local Authorities, the results of which will inform
the forthcoming Peer Review. This will be undertaken by a team from the Local
Government Association in February 2013. Further information on this will be given to
Members once the final arrangements have been confirmed.
Steve Oxenham, Head of Development Management
25
APPENDIX D
TABLE 1A – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
DECISIONS BY SPEED – 2009/10
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
3
2
279
82
657
74
60.00%
40.00%
77.29%
22.71%
89.88%
10.12%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2010/11
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
8
15
300
163
661
159
34.78%
65.22%
64.79%
35.21%
80.61%
19.39%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - 2011/12
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
6
13
198
308
425
370
31.58%
68.42%
39.13%
60.87%
53.46%
46.54%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - QUARTER 3 2012/13
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
4
3
35
60
111
103
57.14%
42.86%
36.84%
63.16%
51.87%
48.13%
DECISIONS BY SPEED - CUMULATIVE 2012/13
MAJOR
TOTAL
%
MINOR
OTHERS
0 – 13 WEEKS
13 + WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
0 – 8 WEEKS
8+ WEEKS
6
9
117
191
303
264
40.00%
60.00%
37.99%
62.01%
53.44%
46.56%
COUNCIL TARGETS
-
72%
26
80%
TABLE 1B – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT WORKLOAD
2009/10
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1235
479
300
181
2313
2010/11
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1640
447
325
214
1979
2011/12
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
1543
477
374
201
1982
QUARTER 3 2012/13
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
340
39
45
47
474
CUMULATIVE 2012/13
Applications submitted
Pre-Application Inquiries
Do I need Planning Permission?
Discharge of conditions
Duty Officer
27
1044
169
138
143
1572
TABLE 1C – DELEGATION OF DECISIONS
%
DELEGATED
92.7
93.0
93.28
93.01
93.02
Year ending 31 March 2010
Year ending 31 March 2011
Year ending 31 March 2012
Quarter 3 2012/13
Cumulative 2012/13
TABLE 2 - PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
Allowed
Year ending
31 March 2010
Year ending
31 March 2011
Year ending
31 March 2012
Quarter 3
2012/13
Cumulative
2012/13
Dismissed
4 (17.4%)
19
23
8.5+(34%)
16.5+
25
4 (28.57%)
2.5 ^
(25.0%)
10
14
7.5
10
6.5 (30.95%)*
14.5
21
Council target for 2012/13 = 20%
+
7 appeals allowed and 3 part allowed, part dismissed.
Therefore 50% success rate assumed for these appeals.
* Includes 2 appeals part allowed and part dismissed.
^
Total
Includes 1 appeal part allowed and part dismissed.
28
Agenda Item No______16______
UPDATE REPORT REVENUES AND BENEFITS PARTNERSHIP
Summary:
This report provides the Committee with an update on
the Revenues & Benefits Partnership between North
Norfolk District Council (NNDC) and the Borough
Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (BCKLWN).
Conclusions:
The report identifies the key areas of work that the
Partnership will be focused on over the next six months.
Recommendations:
That members accept this report
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr W Northam
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Louise Wolsey 01263516081 Louise.wolsey@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
A verbal update was presented to members of Scrutiny Committee on 24 July
2012. A position statement was given explaining the work that had taken
place, risks to the project and what had been put in place to mitigate the risks.
1.2
NNDC went live with the OPENRevenues system at the end of May and
BCKLWN went live on 1 August 2012.
2.
Progress Report
2.1
OPENRevenues Implementation Update – With both sites live the original
intention was to implement a merged database by the beginning of October.
For a number of reasons, including resolving conversion issues, stabilising
NNDC system performance, dealing with the processing backlog, staff morale
and a need to prepare for legislative changes, the Partnership Committee
agreed to reschedule the merge until after the end of year work i.e. April/May
2013.
2.2
Conversion Update – A significant amount of work is still being undertaken by
both councils to correct data conversion differences. The majority of these
29
have now been identified and outstanding problems are with the supplier to
resolve.
2.3
ICT hosting for the Partnership - There are performance issues with the new
revenues and benefits system for staff based at NNDC. These have been ongoing and subject to regular communications between NNDC and BCKLWN.
While there has been some improvement in the situation, the system still
lacks an acceptable level of stability and reliability. This has impacted on
NNDC staff confidence in the system and is detrimental to staff morale. At
Kings Lynn staff have suffered from no performance slowdowns and the
system has been performing well and running in a stable manner. The
Steering Group considered two options as to how to provide NNDC with the
stability and reliability that is necessary to ensure the services are best placed
to deal with an increased workload and future legislative changes, and at the
same time provide the staff with the confidence they need in the system
performance to face these challenges. The two options were ‘fat client’
technology or transfer North Norfolk’s data back to Cromer.
2.4
Using Citrix had proved to be unreliable; therefore it was decided to
investigate ‘fat client’ technology i.e. using the PC to process information
accessed from Kings Lynn over the fast 1GB link. This would involve setting
up a secure ‘trust’ relationship between the two networks. Despite good
progress being made, a reliable solution could not be demonstrated by the
agreed deadline (which was extended by a week) and Civica expressed
doubts as to whether a stable system could be established in a short
timescale.
2.5
Therefore it was agreed in accordance with the Steering Group
recommendation that the North Norfolk data would be brought back to
Cromer. The cost can be contained within the Partnership project budget. The
Partnership Board of 26 November 2013 endorsed this decision.
2.6
The North Norfolk IT team developed a project plan with colleagues at
BCKLWN and the Revenues and Benefits team to install the data in Cromer
and upgrade North Norfolk’s revenues and benefits PCs with fat clients and
installing Windows 7 which offers additional functionality.
2.7
The data was transferred back to Cromer in week commencing 3 December
2012. PCs have been installed, reconciliation and functionality testing
successfully completed. IT have completed a number of key tasks – returning
over 2 million documents to our network, configuring software to ensure all
documentation interfaces, user files are working, setting up batch queues and
maintenance procedures etc. Whilst there are still a large number of jobs to
completed, IT are committed to complete the migration within the tight
deadline.
2.8
The intention is that the live conversion will take place 12/13 January,
minimising the amount of down time across the service area.
30
2.9
This decision has come as a disappointment to the Partnership, but does not
undermine both Authorities continuing to work jointly so as to realise shared
benefits and efficiencies across both Councils.
3.
Performance
3.1.
Performance, as was anticipated, has been impacted in both benefits and
revenues by the data conversion. This has been further impacted by the lack
of stability and reliability of the system’s performance at Cromer. The need to
test functionality and reconciliation processes across the last few weeks, prior
to the live conversion, has also impacted on performance. Against this
background benefits processing continues to improve, with a reduction in
outstanding cases, and revenues collection is being maintained.
Improved reliability, stability and enhanced functionality of the system
following data transfer should assist the service area’s ability to continue to
make improvements in service performance
Appendix E Service Performance Benefits
Appendix F Service Performance Revenues
3.2.
Performance in revenues and benefits will be impacted by the changes to
council tax benefit, the council tax technical reforms and further welfare reform
changes to housing and other welfare benefits. These changes will require
staff training, changes to documentation, software and publicity.
Vacancies in the Council Tax section at NNDC have been filled. Temporary
staff, with knowledge of the legislation and the computer software, have been
employed in revenues and benefits to assist with outstanding work and to help
with the preparation of the coming changes.
4.
Conclusion
4.1.
While the reliability of the system had improved over the last few months it
was still necessary to make further improvements. It is proposed that North
Norfolk’s Data will be transferred into a live environment 12/13 January.
4.2
Performance in revenues and benefits has been improving as the teams have
become increasingly familiar with the new software, vacancies have been
filled and experienced temporary staff recruited.
4.3
The revenues and benefits service faces considerable change across the next
few months; continued development of the new software, changes to council
tax benefit, council tax technical reforms, retention of business rates and a
number of significant housing benefit reforms.
5
Implications and Risks to the Partnership
5.1.
These are reviewed regularly at Project Team meetings, Steering Group
Meetings and the Partnership Committee. Action is taken to mitigate the risks
which have been identified as high.
• IT infrastructure capacity is insufficient or fails.
31
This has been the risk that has given most cause for concern. The problems
experienced at North Norfolk (2.3) have contributed to the service not being
able to finish correcting the Benefits conversion errors and process its
outstanding work, leading to a dip in performance. The IT system
performance has improved recently although some problems do occur.
Resources such as agency staff and overtime are being used to improve the
situation. Currently this is being accommodated within the project budget. The
decision to transfer the data back to North Norfolk will significantly mitigate
this risk.
6
•
Lack of capacity meaning that the implementation project is delayed,
costs increased and the project loses credibility. The Steering Group
believes that by delaying the implementation of the data merge they are seen
to be responsive to the current situation and that this will enable the project to
maintain its credibility. The increase in project costs due to this decision can
be contained within the existing project budget. Linked to this is the risk of
unrealistic timescales leading to a rushed implementation and a more
expensive service. Delaying the merge will make this less likely to occur.
•
A reduction in quality of services during transition, leading to a loss of
confidence in the Partnership. The system problems experienced by NNDC
have affected the staff view of the Partnership. Recent changes have
improved the situation and monitoring will be necessary to ensure on going
improvements continue to provide a stable system work environment.
•
Staff morale. NNDC staff morale has dropped, partly due to the system
problems experienced and also to do with moving to an integrated back office
and workflow system. Regular communication and updates for staff are being
maintained and additional training and support has been provided to those
who need it. As a result morale has been improving. Staff have remained
committed to the project and are doing additional hours and overtime to
reduce processing times across the service.
•
The implementation of Council Tax support and other legislative
changes. The introduction of new Council Tax support and other legislative
changes has meant that resources at both authorities are being stretched,
placing significant demands on the two Revenues and Benefits Managers and
their management teams. This has knock-on implications as far as our
capacity to reduce the backlog of workload related to the system
implementation is concerned.
Sustainability
No impact
7
Equality and Diversity
Delays in processing housing and council tax benefits could adversely impact
on those reliant on these benefits.
8
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
No impact
32
Appendix E
Benefits Week Ending
07/10/2012
14/10/2012
21/10/2012
28/10/2012
04/11/2012
11/11/2012
18/11/2012
25/11/2012
02/12/2012
09/12/2012
16/12/2012
23/12/2012
30/12/2012
Change of Unreported Total claims Speed of Speed of New Claims average Outstanding changes circs average processing New processing average time Cases
average time times to time to Claims
Change of Circs to process
process
to process
process
38
45
44
29
42
39
34
40
31
37
25
48
41
63
54
53
40
47
57
58
51
32
42
43
48
33
61
39
34
40
30
37
26
50
43
63
55
55
49
49
61
70
56
33
24
14
34
23
12
15
24
15
15
18
23
33
44
38
56
47
48
41
44
50
60
47
30
5172
Not run
4800
3572
3412
3155
3033
2687
1653
1464
1566
Outstanding Work Items
Not run
Not run
Not run
11744
9046
8240
8122
7288
6274
5070
4814
REVENUE SERVICES STATISTICS 2012/13
Appendix F
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
TOTAL
12.75
21.00
30.50
38.40
47.70
57.20
67.30
76.20
84.80
93.70
96.00
98.30
98.30
12.75
21.00
30.50
38.48
47.15
56.00
66.32
75.23
83.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
-0.55
-1.20
-0.98
-0.97
-0.94
-93.70
-96.00
-98.30
-98.30
77.29
n/k
n/k
67.48
68.42
68.70
67.32
67.43
67.33
2012/13 Percentage Target for in-year NNDR
Collection
13.30
21.00
33.00
40.00
52.30
62.40
72.40
80.50
89.10
97.40
98.60
98.90
98.90
2012/13 Percentage of NNDR collected to date
13.30
21.00
33.00
40.03
54.55
62.78
72.73
80.52
88.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
2.25
0.38
0.33
0.02
-0.41
-97.40
-98.60
-98.90
-98.90
n/k
n/k
n/k
46.74
46.93
46.71
45.28
46.30
46.03
COUNCIL TAX
2012/13 Percentage Target for in-year Council Tax
Collection
2012/13 Percentage of Council Tax collected to date
Variance to Collection Target
2012/13 Direct Debit Penetration
NON DOMESTIC RATES
Variance to Collection Target
2012/13 Direct Debit Penetration
34
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
16 January 2012
Agenda Item No_17__
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix G) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix H.
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others
need to be monitored and opportunities for scrutiny
should be discussed.
Recommendations:
That Members should consider any follow-up
actions required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s):
Ward(s) affected
Mr T FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer
telephone number
and email:
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
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
Ambulances
A response has been received from the Ambulance Service Trust to two
questions raised by the Chairman:
1) On Trust budget & Income what is the difference between the column A&E
SLA income and the column total income.
The difference between the two figures is because the trust operates more
than just the 999 service. For example, the Trust runs the out of hours GP
service in Norfolk and the new NHS 111 service in Norfolk as well as a range
of other services. The A&E income solely represents the funding for the 999
emergency service.
35
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
16 January 2012
2) On A19 performance which I would like confirmed stands for a response
time of 19 minutes our minutes show a response rate of 84.95% for 2010/11
whereas figures supplied show 80.60 for 2011 and 72.4 for 2012. What are
the correct figures and when they refer to a year is this actually a year from
Jan to Dec or is it a financial year ending on March 31st.
The figures supplied by email refer to calendar years and are correct.
Ambulance response times
A letter is attached at Appendix I from the Chair of the North Norfolk Clinical
Commissioning Group (NNCCG) outlining their concerns regarding
ambulance response times and stating their intentions to monitor the service
and improve provision. I will keep members updated with any progress on this
area.
2.2
Response to previous questions
At the September 2012 meeting, Councillor Claussen-Reynolds sought
clarification on whether the demand for the Learning for Everyone
programme outstripped resources. Jill Fisher has now provided a
response:
Demand does outstrip the resource available at times, and generally the
trainers are booked up 2-4 weeks in advance, but this is not even across the
year as there are obviously peaks during periods of significant redundancies
etc. The service aims to match resources to demand as far as possible given
that there are only 2 IAG workers available.
2.3
Recommendations from Task and Finish Group
A follow-up letter has been sent to the County Council seeking a response to
the initial request.
2.4
Mobile phone coverage
I will be responding to the County Council shortly regarding their request for
information on mobile phone coverage across our District. Please can
Members who wish to respond provide any information to me by Friday 18th
January.
3.
Changes to the Work Programme and Future Topics
At the December meeting Members requested an update on the Housing
Allocations Scheme and the Empty Homes Policy after 12 months. Nicola
Turner has requested that the report is made to committee 12 months after
implementation to ensure that she is able to give a comprehensive update.
Both items will be added to the work programme.
36
Appendix G
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
2012/2013
GUIDANCE FOR REVIEWING THE WORK PROGRAMME
In setting future Scrutiny topics, the Committee is asked to:
a) Demonstrate the value any investigation would have to the Council’s Community
Leadership Role.
b) Consider the relationship any future topic may have with the work of the Cabinet’s Work
Programme and the Council’s Corporate Plan
c) Be mindful of the public’s priorities.
d) Provide reasons for the investigation (so that Officers/Witnesses can assist Members to
reach an outcome).
e) Consider the outcomes required before commencing an investigation.
f) Balance the need for new topics with existing items on the Scrutiny Work Programme.
g) Consider whether it would be helpful to time limit investigations or break down some topics
into smaller areas.
h) Provide sufficient notice, where possible, in order that the Cabinet Member with
responsibility for the subject, Officers and outside witnesses/attendees can fully assist the
Committee.
Date of
Meeting
Topic
January
16 2013
Council Tax
Support
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Wyndham
Northam / Louise
Wolsey
Determination of
Council Tax
Discounts &
level of charges
2013/2014
Wyndham
Northam / Louise
Wolsey
Planning Fees
Rhodri
Oliver/Steve
Oxenham
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Housing and
Infrastructure A
Review after 9 months,
requested by Members
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
Planning
Performance
Update
Rhodri
Oliver/Steve
Oxenham
Housing and
Infrastructure A
Requested by
Members June 2012 –
deferred from Nov 12
Waste Contract
John Lee/Barry
Brandforf
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
6 monthly update
Shared Services
update
Wyndham
Northam/ Louise
Wolsey
Delivering the
Vision E
6 monthly update
37
Date of
Meeting
Topic
February
20 2013
Environmental
Sustainability
Update
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
John Lee/Peter
Lumb
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Delivering the
Vision E
Annual update
Annual Equality
Report
Julie Cooke
Housing
Renewal Policy
Karen Hill/ Trevor
Ivory
Budget
Monitoring
(October –
December)
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Performance
Management
Helen
Thomas/Tom
FitzPatrick
Delivering the
Vision A - E
2013/2014 Base
Budget and
Projections for
2014/15 to
2016/17
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Housing
Renewal Policy
Karen Hill /
Trevor Ivory
Budget
Monitoring
Period 10 (Jan –
March)
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Health Strategy
Update
Angie FitchTillett/Sonia
Shuter
All
6 monthly update
April or
May 2013
Car Park
Charges
Rhodri Oliver/
Duncan Ellis
Delivering the
Vision E
Review requested by
Members
May 2013
Performance
Management
Helen
Thomas/Tom
FitzPatrick
Delivering the
Vision A - E
June 2013
Complaints,
Compliments
and
Suggestions
Tom
FitzPatrick/Estelle
Packham
Delivering the
Vision B
(Outturn Report)
Karen Sly/
Delivering the
March 20
2013
Annual report
38
Cyclical
Annual
Date of
Meeting
Final Accounts
2011/12
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Wyndham
Northam
RIPA/
Surveillance
Nick Baker/John
Lee
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
Annual
Future of the
Happisburgh
Steps
Brian Farrow /
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage
Request by Coastal
Management Board
(Nov.12)
Budget
Monitoring
Period 4 (April –
July)
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Happisburgh
Beach Access
Steps
Monitoring
Report
Angie FitchTillett/Brian
Farrow
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage C
Undertaking to monitor
made to Cabinet on
10 September 2012 –
request by Coastal
Management Board to
consider in June 2013
Update Housing
Allocations
Scheme (tbc)
Trevor Ivory /
Nicola Turner
Update Empty
Homes Policy
(tbc)
Trevor Ivory/
Nicola Turner
TBA
Customer
Access Strategy
Tom
FitzPatrick/Estelle
Packham
Delivering the
Vision B
Item on
All
Scrutiny
agendas
Scrutiny
Committee
Work
Programme
Tom FitzPatrick/
Scrutiny Officer
All
Sept 25
2012
Jan 2014
Topic
39
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Vision A - E
At Committee
Appendix H
Working Style of the Scrutiny Committee
Independence
Members of the Scrutiny Committee will not be subject to whipping arrangements by party groups.
Member leadership
Members of the Committee will take the lead in selecting topics for scrutiny and in questioning
witnesses. The Committee will expect members of Cabinet, rather than officers, to take the main
responsibility for answering the Committee’s questions about topics, which relate mainly to the
Council’s activities.
A constructive atmosphere
Meetings of the Committee will be constructive, and not judgmental, accepting that effective
scrutiny is best achieved through challenging and constructive enquiry. People giving evidence at
the Committee should not feel under attack.
Respect and trust
Meetings will be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and trust.
Openness and transparency
The Committee’s business will be open and transparent, except where there are sound reasons
for protecting confidentiality. In particular, the minutes of the Committee’s meetings will explain
the discussion and debate in a balanced style, so that they could be understood by those who
were not present.
Consensus
Members of the Committee will work together and, while recognizing political allegiances, will
attempt to achieve consensus and agreed recommendations.
Impartial and independent officer advice
Officers who advise and support the Committee will give impartial and independent advice,
recognizing the importance of the Scrutiny Committee in the Council’s arrangements for
governance, as set out in its Constitution.
Regular review
There will be regular reviews of how the scrutiny process is working, and a willingness to change
if it is not working well.
Programming and planning
The Committee will agree the topics to be included in its published work programme and the
extent of the investigation to be undertaken in relation to resources, and the witnesses to be
invited to give evidence.
Managing time
The Committee will attempt to conclude the business of each meeting in reasonable time. The
order of business will be arranged as far as possible to minimize the demands on the time of
witnesses.
40
26
Appendix I
N,-. i
For The Attention of
Sheila Oxtoby
North Norfolk District Council
Council Offices
Holt Road
Cromer
NR27 gEN
i
:
2Oth
December 2012
RECEIVED BY
"
h*
*
* * k {.-i i m i tn i
B
il.q:itt ir: i sr:i,::r
S u* *
p
North Norfolk Clinical Gommissioning Group
Hoveton & Wroxham Medical Centre
Stalham Road
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT
COLJi\JCII
2 JAN
l't i m#
2013
Hoveton, Norfolk
NR12 8DU
Tel: 07796940721
CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE
Dear Ms Oxtoby
Current Ambulance Service provision in North Norfolk and rural Broadland
We have recently been contacted by a number of town and parish councils concerning the current
level of ambulance service experienced by people in North Norfolk and rural parts of Broadland.
We therefore thought it would be helpful to share with you our position on the current difficulties, our
role as a shadow CCG in the commissioning of ambulance services now and in the future, and what
steps the CCG has taken now to improve things for our local community.
For the past few months our member General Practices have been raising concerns about the length
of time being taken by the East of England Ambulance Services Trust to transport patients to hospital,
on occasions in circumstances which local GPs judge to be urgent. We have made it clear to both the
Ambulance Trust and NHS Norfolk and Waveney, who are currently responsible for commissioning
the service, that we believe that the current service is not at the level we would expect it to be. We do
however very much recognise the commitment and professionalism of paramedics and other local
ambulance staff at the sharp end of providing the service. We also know from other rural CCGs that
these problems are not unique to the north of Norfolk.
The councils who have contacted us have raised questions about cuts in funding to the ambulance
service and the extent to which that may have contributed to the problem. We have therefore checked
with NHS Norfolk and Waveney as to what resources the Trust has available to it. They have
confirmed that the funding has not been reduced, and indeed it has increased modestly by around
2.7-2.8% for each of last 2years. The Trust are though having to manage the challenges to achieve
greater efficiency as a consequence of the soueeze on public spending caused by the national
economic situation in common with all public bodies.
With the abolition of NHS Norfolk and Waveney in April 2013, the responsibility for the future
commissioning of ambulance services will pass to CCGs across the East of England. We are currently
working with our colleague CCGs and the NHS more widely to determine the details of these
arrangements as a matter of urgency. Whatever these are I would like to re assure you that the CCG
and its General Practices takes this issue very seriously and will continue to pressure the Ambulance
Trust to provide the best possible services for our local community.
Excellent healthcalre ciosei^to
hor-r"re
in l..lorth lriorfolk and Rural Broadland
Chair: Dr. Anoop Dhesi
Chief Officer: Mark Taylor
www. northnorfolkgp.co.
41
uk
ln the meantime we have put in place monitoring of response times across all of our practices and we
will follow up in detail any incidents where GPs consider that a response has been inadequate. GPs
and managers from the CCG are also meeting senior managers in the ambulance service on a regular
basis in order to bring about improved services.
I hope that this clarifies any questions you may have had about the current situation and I hope that
we will be able to bring about real irnprovements to the service for the locai community.
Anoop Dhesi
l,
6l
ir_:j.Ji
r*--
GP Principal, Staithe Surgery, Stalham, Norfolk NR12 gBU
Chair, North NorJolk Clinical Commissioning Group
42