Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 16 November
2011 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 R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr P Moore
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive (for Item 77), the Environmental Health Manager (for
item 77) the Head of Planning and Building Control (for item 78), the
Strategic Director - Community (for item 78) the Policy and Performance
Management Officer (for item 79), the Deputy Chief Executive (for items 80
- 82) and the Democratic Services Team Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs S Arnold, Mrs H Eales, Ms V Gay, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr P High, Mr
K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mrs A Moore, Mr W J Northam, Ms B Palmer, Mr R
Shepherd
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
67 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr B Jarvis and Mr R Wright
68 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright
69 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Lara Williamson, of the Holt Local Area Partnership asked the following question:
A recent newspaper article had outlined planned changes to the funding of the Local
Area Partnerships (LAPs). Were the Committee aware of the situation and could they
explain why the partnerships had not been kept up to date with the changes to their
funding arrangements?
The Chief Executive said that a letter sent to the LAPs in July 2011 outlining possible
changes to their funding had come from the North Norfolk Community Partnership
(NNCP) not the District Council. The NNCP was the funding agent and it was meeting
shortly to discuss its own future and that of the area partnerships across the District.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
16 November 2011
There would be a round-table meeting with all the LAPs as soon as possible to clarify
the situation. He emphasised that the proposal to establish a Big Society Fund was still
in progress.
70 MINUTES
The Minutes of the special meeting held on 04 October 2011 and the meeting held on 18
October 2011 were signed as a correct record.
71 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
72 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
73 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting. Two of the petitions had expired with neither reaching the
required threshold. A Member asked what happened to expired petitions. The
Democratic Services Team Leader said that they were still available to view on the
Council’s website but would be listed as ‘past petitions’.
74 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
75 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet’s response to the comments made by the Committee on the corporate plan had
been circulated.
76 THE FORWARD PLAN
Members had no comments on the Forward Plan.
77 COMMUNITY SAFETY UPDATE
Chief Inspector Neil Baily, District Commander for North Norfolk and Broadland gave a
presentation on policing arrangements in North Norfolk and provided a summary of
district crime statistics. He explained that crime reduction within the District was 6%
during 2010/11. The police had placed more emphasis on focussing on crimes that
profoundly affect the victims – such as dwelling burglary and as a consequence they
were expanding their victim-centred approach, particularly for the most vulnerable
victims of crime. There had been a noticeable rise in theft and non-dwelling burglary in
rural areas. The increase was believed to be linked to the growing value of scrap metal
and several current policing operations were being directed at addressing the problem.
Anti-social behaviour issues were now being dealt with by the joint-agency team based
at Cromer Police Station. The District Council, Norfolk Constabulary and Victory
Housing were working closely together to provide expertise to tackle the more complex
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
16 November 2011
cases. During 2011 there had been a 29% reduction in the number of calls to the Police
reporting anti-social behaviour. He concluded by outlining a number of changes to the
policing model in Norfolk from January 2012. Three Police Deployment Bases would be
created, providing 24 hour policing cover for the District. They would be situated at
Cromer, North Walsham and Fakenham. Each base would be managed by an Inspector
with 5 Sergeant led teams. It was intended that this model would greatly enhance the
capacity of the local police to respond to calls from the public. The Environmental Health
Manager informed the Committee that Hannah Harvey had been appointed as the new
Joint ASB Co-ordinator. She would ensure that all ASB cases were identified and then
allocated to the relevant partnership agencies. It would be a victim-focussed approach
and it was intended that other options such as restorative justice would be considered in
the future. A Member requested that details on how to contact the ASB Co-ordinator
were published in the Member’s Bulletin.
Members discussed the report:
a) The establishment of the new Police Deployment Bases was praised. A Member
asked whether there would be someone on duty at each police station 24 hours a
day. Chief Inspector Baily said that the front counter would not be open 24 hours a
day but there would be a member of staff on site. The rest of the team would be on
patrol to increase coverage of the District.
b) The issue of the social background of criminals was raised and whether they were
questioned about this when in police custody. Chief Inspector Baily said that they
were not and that the Police were already broadly aware of their backgrounds.
c) A concern was raised regarding speeding through villages and whether it could be
addressed. Chief Inspector Baily said that it was a matter of prioritisation. The Police
did not have the capacity to patrol all the villages affected. They dealt with the
problem on a needs basis – if there was an increased number of complaints in a
particular village then they would enforce it but only for a limited period.
d) The Local Member for Wells commented on the increase in the number of outboard
motor thefts from boats in the town and asked whether Neighbourhood Watch
schemes were still being supported by the Police. Chief Inspector Baily said that the
Neighbourhood Watch schemes were still in operation but due to financial
constraints the Police had reduced their support. He acknowledged that outboard
motor thefts were a significant problem in Wells. Intelligence suggested that they
were not committed by local people but by people travelling into the area. It was a
problem that the Police were addressing.
e) The 15% reduction in dwelling burglaries was praised. A Member asked why there
had been such a significant fall. Chief Inspector Baily replied that it was a very high
risk crime with relatively low gain. In response to a further question regarding the
reduction in anti-social behaviour cases, he confirmed that it was an actual reduction
but that anti-social behaviour was very low in Norfolk. The Environmental Health
Manager added that interventions were taking place much earlier now, limiting a
recurrence in such crimes.
f) The issue of metal theft was highlighted and the ability of the Police to deal with it
was questioned. Chief Inspector Baily said that as scrap metal yards were the sole
outlet for metal there was an opportunity to address the problem. Operation Radar
was engaging regularly with local yards and examining their scrap. The government
was considering how to tackle the issue and there was a proposal that all payments
to those providing metal to scrap yards should be paid into a bank account. This
would make it easier to trace them.
g) A Member asked whether the Police had seen an increase in anti-social behaviour
following changes to the provision of youth services in the District. Chief Inspector
Baily said that there had not been any significant increase yet but that the Police
were aware that problems could occur in the future. They were working hard to
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
16 November 2011
support projects such as Kickz in North Walsham as it had helped reduce anti-social
behaviour considerably.
h) The role of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and how they would fit into
the new team structures was raised. Chief Inspector Baily said that he felt that the
role of PCSOs was often misunderstood. They knew the local picture better than
Police officers and they were freed up from legislative responsibilities so they could
engage with communities. He added that they were additional to the Police not a
replacement for them and that they would continue to have a role within the new
structure. In response to a further question regarding drug-related crime within the
District, he said that it had previously been a significant problem in Cromer but that it
had reduced considerably.
The Chief Executive referred the Committee to the attached report outlining the main
responsibilities of the new police and crime commissioners (PCCs). There would be
significant upheaval in the governance arrangements and a fundamental change for
community safety partnerships. As far as the scrutiny of PCCs was concerned, a police
and crime panel (PCP) would have to be established for every police force area to
scrutinise them and support them in the effective exercise of their functions. Each
council in the force area would appoint a councillor on to the panel, with a minimum of
10 councillors and two co-opted members. In Norfolk a Task and Finish group had been
set up to consider how many representatives should sit on the PCP and whether it
should be Norfolk-wide. It was still not clear whether the District Council needed to
scrutinise crime and disorder at a local level. The Chairman said that it would be
unfortunate for the Committee to lose that responsibility and he requested that the issue
came back before the Committee when more detail was available.
AGREED
1. That contact details for the Joint ASB Co-ordinator would be circulated to Members
via the Member’s Bulletin.
2. That the Committee would receive an update at a future meeting on the situation
regarding the scrutiny of crime and disorder at local level.
78 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE UPDATE
The report provided information on planning applications and appeals for the period
from July to September 2011 and covered the turnaround of applications, workload and
appeal outcomes. The Head of Planning and Building Control outlined the background
to the figures. He explained that during 2010/11 his team had delivered efficiency
savings of almost £250,000, removing the equivalent of 5.5 full time posts. When the
initial restructuring was considered during 2009/10, the number of planning applications
had dropped considerably reflecting the wider economic situation. The following year the
number of applications rose significantly, impacting on the time taken to process them
and accruing a backlog. During the current year performance had dropped again. It had
been recognised that there was now a significant problem and a temporary post had
been recruited for 1 year. The backlog was now easing and the Head of Planning and
Building Control was confident that if the level of work remained the same the team
would soon catch up. He warned that there were issues that could hinder their progress
– there were several complex cases in progress which were labour intensive. In addition
there were 2 judicial review cases pending and 5 ombudsman cases had been
submitted during the current financial year.
He concluded by saying that the delegation system seemed to be working well with
approximately 92% of planning applications dealt with this way. The Portfolio Holder –
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
16 November 2011
Planning added that the service was under considerable pressure, particularly as more
decisions were being challenged. He said that several local authorities charged for
planning advice and this was a possibility for the future but that the provision of free
advice ensured that the applications received tended to be of a higher quality. The
Chairman of the Development Committee agreed and said that the number of
retrospective applications would increase if advice was not provided free of charge.
The Chairman requested a brief update on planning enforcement. The Head of Planning
and Building Control said that there was a backlog of work in this area and this was
being addressed. All cases were reported to the Development Committee on a quarterly
basis.
Members discussed the report:
1. A concern was raised regarding delays in the issuing of decision notices. Planning
was a vital part of the local economy and the speed of decisions was important.
Perhaps there was a justification for considering recruiting again to address such
issues. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that he was not aware of
any specific problems regarding the issuing of decisions. He was confident that they
did not need additional staff to handle applications at the moment but acknowledged
that the level of future work was hard to predict and that flexibility to recruit on a
short-term basis would be helpful. He added that a Government proposal to allow
local planning authorities to set their own fees had never materialised. This meant
that they had no additional income source. The Chairman asked if the Council had
sent a letter to the government requesting clarification on this issue. The Strategic
Director – Community said that he was not aware of any correspondence. In
response to the question regarding delays in the issuing of decisions he said that
applications with s106 obligations could be held up as other parties were involved.
The Chairman suggested that the Head of Planning and Building Control could look
into this issue and report back to the Committee at a future date.
2. A Member suggested that more information could be provided to the public on
delegated powers and how they were applied. He felt that if they were fully informed
about why some applications were dealt with under delegation then there would be
reduced pressure on Members to take cases to the Development Committee. The
Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that an article could be placed in
Outlook magazine. He said that Members agreed to particular cases being
delegated and therefore they were often in the best position to explain the reasons
to people.
3. There was a concern that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was
being used before it had received assent and that the Localism Act would be in
direct conflict with the aims of the NPPF. The Head of Planning and Building Control
said that it stated clearly in the Development Committee reports that the NNPF was
a material consideration but that it should be given low weight at this stage. The
Localism Act had only just been enacted and had not impacted on the planning
process yet.
4. A Member said that he had not received notification of a planning application
adjacent to his ward. He felt that all Members in the vicinity of a planning application
should be notified. The Strategic Director – Community said that the ward member
was notified and that all Members had access to the Weekly Planning List via the
Members Bulletin and the Council website.
5. A query was made regarding planning appeals and whether more were generated
by delegated decisions than Committee decisions. The Head of Planning and
Building Control said that there was no discernible difference between the two but
that decisions made by the Committee could sometimes be harder to defend.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
16 November 2011
AGREED
To receive an update at a future meeting on the issuing of planning decision notices.
RESOLVED
1. To recommend that the Portfolio Holder for Planning writes to the Government on
behalf of the Council urging a quick decision on the proposal to permit local planning
authorities to set their own fee levels, as envisaged in the 2010 consultation
exercise by the DCLG
2. To write to Norman Lamb MP and Keith Simpson MP informing them of this
recommendation
79 ANNUAL REPORT 2010/2011
The Chairman explained that the original intention had been for the Annual Equalities
report to be presented to the Committee. The Annual Report was an historical document
and it was felt that it was there would be little benefit in considering it at this stage. It
was suggested that the Community Liaison Officer could give a brief presentation on the
Council’s equality duties at the next meeting of the Committee.
The Policy and Performance Management Officer said that in 2012 the Annual Report
would follow the usual cycle of being presented to Cabinet first then the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee.
80 HALF YEARLY TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12
The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services and Corporate Assets presented the report.
He explained that it was a progress report setting out the Treasury Management
activities undertaken in the first six months of 2011/12. Since the publication of the
report, Spanish banks had been suspended from the Council’s lending list. The Council
was also considering increasing the lending list to spread the risk and maximise the
level of interest received. He thanked the Technical Accountant and the Council’s
financial advisors, Arlingclose, for their hard work. He also commended them for the
recent presentation for Members on Treasury Management. A Member asked whether
the slides from the presentation could be reproduced in the Member’s Bulletin. The
Chairman requested that the slides from the recent presentation on the Norfolk Pension
Fund were also circulated.
AGREED
1. To recommend that Full Council approve the Half Yearly Treasury Management
Report 2011/12
2. That copies of the presentations on Treasury Management and the Norfolk Pensions
Fund be circulated to all members via the Member’s Bulletin
81 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 6
The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services and Corporate Assets presented the report. It
outlined the budget monitoring position for the revenue account and capital programme
to the end of period 6 (30 September 2011) and included a review of the current capital
programme. It was hoped that any projected overspend would be offset by savings. A
revised budget report would be presented to Cabinet on 28 November 2011.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
16 November 2011
Members discussed the report:
1. There was a concern about the funding for the provision of electricity at Holt Country
Park. The report suggested that some funding came from the mobile gym budget
and this implied that the mobile gym was being under-used. The Deputy Leader said
that this was not the case and that the mobile gym remained popular. The Leader
added that the additional money was likely to have come from the proposed sale of
the larger mobile gym vehicle.
2. The Chairman commented that despite an increase in the number of people using
the Districts sports centres there seemed to be an overspend of £34,000 in this
sector. The Deputy Leader said that the deficit arose from the school leisure centres
where activities were not as well supported as those at the main sports venues. The
Local Member for Stalham and Sutton said that the sports hall at the local school
was underused and more could be done to encourage local people to use it. The
Deputy Leader replied that it was hoped that the new multi-use sports area would
increase attendance and revenue in Stalham.
3. The Chairman asked whether the receipts from the new Tesco supermarket in
Sheringham had been allocated yet. The Deputy Chief Executive said that it had not
yet been received. It would be a capital receipt and Cabinet would decide how it was
budgeted for.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
82 FINANCIAL PLAN UPDATE 2011/12 – 2014/15, STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND
ORGANISATIONAL WORKSTREAMS
The report had been presented to the Special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on 04 October 2011. Due to time constraints it had been agreed that
members would consider the report at the November meeting of the Committee.
1. Mr G Williams proposed that the Committee worked with Cabinet to ensure that
there was an effective review of the Local Area Partnerships. He said that the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee could add value if they were involved at an early
stage in the process. The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services said that the current
procedure for the Committee to consider any decisions made by Cabinet worked
well. The Deputy Chief Executive added that a report on Localism was being
presented to Cabinet on 28 November. This would clarify the some of the issues
relating to the LAPs and explain the Council’s approach to Localism. The Leader
said that that partnership working would continue and several meetings were
scheduled to address any concerns. In response to this additional information, Mr G
Williams agreed to withdraw his proposal.
2. Clarification was sought on possible changes to the Council’s senior management
structure. The Leader explained that a restructuring of senior management was in
progress. It was intended that a report would go to the Full Council meeting on 14
December 2011. There would be an initial restructuring of the Corporate
Management team, to be in place for January 2012 and they would then work on the
senior management restructure for April 2012.
3. A Member commented that the funding situation for the LAPs was very difficult and it
would be useful if the Council could work with them to advise them on how to access
alternative streams of income. The Deputy Chief Executive acknowledged that this
was something that the Council were considering. She added that a meeting with
the LAPs to discuss the way forward was imminent. The Leader said that she was
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
16 November 2011
willing to meet with the Co-ordinators of the LAPs on an individual basis to offer
advice on how to access additional revenue and reduce their costs.
AGREED
To recommend that all members should receive training on Localism and the
implications for the Council.
83 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme
1. The Housing Services Manager had provided the information on SAP ratings
requested at the last meeting. It had been published in the Member’s Bulletin.
2. The Joint Scrutiny Task Group for transport had met once and the minutes were
available. The Democratic Services Team Leader was attending the next meeting on
21 November and would report back to the December meeting of the Committee.
3. Concerns about the sequencing of reports as highlighted by the presentation of the
Annual Report at this meeting could be addressed by a Task and Finish Group. The
Democratic Services Team Leader suggested that such a group was established to
review the work programme template and witness protocol.
4. The minutes of the last meeting of the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny
Committee (NHOSC) were available. The Committee’s representative, Mrs A
Claussen-Reynolds said that she was happy to take any comments back to the next
meeting. A Member said that he had concerns about the length of time it took
ambulances to arrive in rural areas. There was also a query about the number of
ambulances serving the District.
AGREED
To raise the following with the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee:
Concerns about the length of time ambulances were taking to respond to emergency
calls
Clarification of the number of ambulances and paramedic vehicles within the District.
RESOLVED
1. To establish a Task and Finish Group to review the work programme template and
the witness protocol and to appoint 4 Members.
2. That those Members be Mr P Moore, Mr R Reynolds, Mr B Smith and Mr G Williams
The meeting concluded at 12.40 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
16 November 2011