Please contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk Please direct dial on: 01263 516010
07 October 2013
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber at North Lodge, Cromer on Wednesday 16th October 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.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mrs B McGoun, Mr P
Moore, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr R Shepherd, Mr N Smith, and Mr 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 – 9.35)
To approve as correct records, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on 17 July 2013.
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 day’s 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 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
(Page 12)
(9.35 – 9.40)
To discuss the Cabinet Work Programme and to consider the programme of business for
Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny, and Full Council.
11.
OVERVIEW OF LEISURE SERVICE
(Page 16)
(9.40 – 10.05)
To receive an update on North Norfolk District Council’s Leisure Services, to include an
update on usage levels.
(Source: Karl Read, Sports and Leisure Services Manager, karl.read@north-norfolk.gov.uk,
tel: 01263 516002)
12.
TOURISM UPDATE
To receive a briefing updating the committee on tourism statistics in the district.
Please Note: This briefing is to follow.
(Source: Robin Smith, Economic and Tourism Development Manager, robin.smith@northnorfolk.gov.uk, tel: 01263 516236)
13.
HEALTH UPDATE
(page 20)
(10.30 – 10.45)
This report provides an update on some of the strategic and multi-agency work as well as
direct services that the Council provides which impact on health and well-being.
(Source: Sonia Shuter, Health Improvement Officer, sonia.shuter@north-norfolk.gov.uk,
tel: 01263 516173 and Karl Read, Sports and Leisure Services Manager, karl.read@northnorfolk.gov.uk, 01263 516002.
14.
BUSINESS RATES POOLING
(page 23)
(11.00 – 11.15)
Summary
This report reviews the potential for establishing a business rates
pooling arrangement for Norfolk and for north Norfolk district
council to pool jointly with Norfolk county council and other
Norfolk district councils. The report considers the financial
advantages to the Norfolk council tax payer and the potential
risks to the councils involved.
Options considered
To join a County wide business rates pool or not.
Conclusions
Establishment of a business rates pooling arrangement for
Norfolk has the potential to achieve financial benefits for Norfolk
through increased retention of business rates generated locally
that can be invested in Norfolk.
Recommendations
Cabinet recommends to Council:
1) In principle and subject to the negotiation of the detailed
financial and governance arrangements, North Norfolk District
Council agrees to join a business rates pool with Norfolk County
Council and other Norfolk district councils;
2) Subject to the approval of the detailed pooling and governance
arrangements the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chief
Finance Officer and the Leader of the Council, be given delegated
authority to enter into a business rates pooling arrangement for
Norfolk.
Reasons for
Recommendations
To maximise the amount of additional business rates income that
is retained in Norfolk and invested in Norfolk.
Cabinet Member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Contact Officer:
Telephone No:
Email:
Cllr Tom Fitzpatrick
All
Sheila Oxtoby
01263 516000
Sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
15.
OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING SERVICE
(11.15 – 11.45)
To receive an introduction and overview to changes to the planning service by the new
Head of Planning, and to update the committee on any further changes to the service.
16.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(page 27)
(Appendix A – p. 29) (Appendix B – p.33)
(11.45 – 11.50)
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with topics in its
agreed work programme (attached at Appendix A) and invites
Members to identify any arising items for future meetings. The
Scrutiny Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix B.
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:
19.
Mr R Oliver
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.”
20.
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 11 September
2013 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mrs B McGoun
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr P W High
Mr M J M Baker
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (NB), the Head of Economic
and Community Development, the Head of Finance, , the Head of Assets
and Leisure, the Chief Accountant, the Health Improvement Officer, the
Policy and Performance Management Officer, the Housing Team Leader Strategy, the Democratic Services Team Leader, the Democratic Services
Officer and the Housing Development Officer
Members in
Attendance:
Mr R Oliver, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr G Jones, Mrs L Brettle, Mrs A Moore
and Mrs V Uprichard.
Democratic Services Officer (TGS)
50. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr P Terrington, Mr R Shepherd, and Mr J Perry-Warnes
51. SUBSTITUTES
Mr P W High for Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr M J M Baker for Mr P Terrington
52. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
53. MINUTES
Mr R Reynolds wished for it to be noted that he had raised the topic of domiciliary care
four times previously at the committee. The Health Improvement Officer commented that
there would be a presentation on Domiciliary Care at the November meeting of the
committee.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
11 September 2013
The minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 17 July 2013 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
54. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
55. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
56. PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
57. CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
58. RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
59. THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
Mr P W Moore queried the length of the Cabinet meeting on the 9th September 2013. He
asked whether or not any Cabinet decisions had been approved during such a short
meeting. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett responded on behalf of Cabinet and confirmed that all
agenda points had been approved, and that there had been no questions regarding
agenda items at the time. Mr P W Moore replied that hopefully discussion about agenda
items could be had at Full Council.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
60. PRESENTATION BY THE NORTH NORFOLK CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, portfolio holder for Health and Wellbeing introduced Mark Taylor,
Chief Officer of the NNCCG. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett commented that she hoped Mr Taylor
would make the role of the NNCCG clear in his presentation. Mr Taylor then outlined the
work of the NNCCG, which has had a statutory role since 1st April 2013. He explained
that the NNCCG works with NNDC and Broadland Council in a statutory capacity to
commission secondary care services.
Before inviting members to ask questions, the Chairman queried how much the Primary
Care Trust had spent per head of population to cover the costs of running the
organisation compared to the NNCCG. Mr Taylor replied that the PCT had spent from
£30 to £40 per head, whereas the NNCCG spent approximately £25 per head. The
Chairman then referred to poor ambulance service in the area and asked if the
Ambulance Service had recruited a new Chief Executive. Mr Taylor commented that
they currently had an interim Chief Executive.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
11 September 2013
The Chairman went on to question if a North Walsham surgery would have information
and publicity on the out of hour‟s service and facilities that Cromer Hospital provided. Mr
Taylor responded that there had been an issue with publication of the hospital‟s services
due to recent reopening, and that the NNCCG were working to improve publicity
generally. He also provided a leaflet which showed the services which Cromer hospital
offered. He established that whilst Cromer hospital could deal with minor injuries, they
could not deal with minor illnesses. The Chairman then invited members to ask
questions.
1. Mr R Reynolds commented on the issues that Broadland Council had been having
with domiciliary care. He asked whether the hubs that Mr Taylor had previously
mentioned in his presentation would be able to monitor carers and caring
arrangements. Mr Taylor responded that whilst the NNCCG did not commission
domiciliary care, it would be possible to collect „soft‟ intelligence from their staff and
report it to the County Council if necessary.
2. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds raised her recent meeting at the Health Overview and
Scrutiny meeting at Norfolk County Council on the 5th September. She mentioned
how they established that the 111 service did not provide an adequate triage service
in the county for dental work. Mr Taylor responded that dental was indeed one of the
identified issues with the 111 service and that the NNCCG wanted to push the
service to provide better advice. She also commented on the high levels of staff
sickness and morale in healthcare currently, which led to high staff turnover numbers.
The Chairman replied that he was grateful for her comments.
3. Mrs V Uprichard queried paramedic response times, and Mr Taylor responded that
this data was included within the 8 minute target ambulance response time outlined
earlier. He also mentioned that whilst paramedics did respond quickly to call-outs,
there was a significant issue with regards to the time it took for a hospital transfer.
Mrs V Uprichard then went on to ask about blood testing in the district, querying why
people at North Walsham were being sent to Cromer for blood tests. Other members
supported this point. Mr Taylor responded that surgeries in the area should be
carrying out blood work and that he would look into the issues surrounding this.
4. Mr N Smith raised the issue of mental health, and mentioned the rise in depression in
staff in the mental health service. He also queried why there seemed to be no
cohesion between primary care and psychiatric referrals. Mr Taylor responded that
communication between primary and secondary care providers is key, and that
recent changes in the district should see improvements. He commented that the use
of a single assessment team with three categories of desired response, ranging from
4 hours to 28 days, meant that the system had been simplified. He commented that
the NNCCG was monitoring the response times of secondary care units. He went on
to say that whilst staff morale and sickness could indeed be a problem, it may have
been over-exaggerated in the press.
5. Mr P Moore commented that he was concerned about poor ambulance times and he
said he hoped to see improvements soon. In addition, he feared that patients with
minor illnesses were being sent to the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital which
could lead to the hospital being over-subscribed.
6. Mrs B McGoun raised a recent experience with the 111 service, and commented how
they did not refer her to Cromer hospital which would have been convenient. She
also asked if the NNCCG would be keeping voluntary groups involved once they had
set up their new Hub system. Mr Taylor replied that voluntary groups were a hugely
important part of the health service and that the NNCCG would keep them involved
as much as possible. He went on to say the he was indeed frustrated with oversubscription levels at the NNUH, but that hard data had only been available since
April, so it may not be completely accurate.
7. Mr M J M Baker raised the issue of customer service in primary care facilities, such
as Holt, and questioned if it could be improved. Mr Taylor replied that whilst they
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
11 September 2013
8.
don‟t commission primary care, they could influence it by encouraging best practice.
Mr Taylor commented that he would enquire at surgeries at Holt and Fakenham
about why their appointment system was ineffective.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds commented on her trip to the Queen Elizabeth hospital at
Kings Lynn where she learnt that some ambulances were having to travel from
outside the district due to poor supply within the district. These ambulances then had
poor knowledge of the area which again resulted in slow arrival times.
The Chairman, noting the widespread concern about the ambulance service, proposed
a resolution. It was seconded by Mr R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
To note the presentation and approve the following motion:
“The Committee notes with concern the information provided by the North Norfolk
Clinical Commissioning Group (NNCCG) regarding ambulance response times across
the District and the length of time taken to respond to patients suffering from a stroke.
Both areas fell well below the expected national standards. The Committee asks
Officers and the Portfolio holder to support to the NNCCG in lobbying for a better
service. The Committee also resolved to write to the District two Members of Parliament
expressing their concern and urging action.”
The Chairman thanked Mr Taylor for his very informative presentation.
61. HEALTH UPDATE
It was proposed by the chairman, agreed by the committee and
RESOLVED
To defer this item to the following Overview and Scrutiny meeting in October
62. REVIEW OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SERVICE 2013
The Corporate Director (NB) introduced the item. He commented that it was going to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee before Cabinet in order to include the committee fully
in the decision process, so that they could discuss any matters covered by the review.
He added that all the relevant stakeholders had been consulted.
1. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Chair of the CCTV Working Party, made a brief statement
about the work of the Working Party. She extended her thanks to the Property
Business Manager, and the Head of Assets and Leisure, for their hard work and
valuable contributions. She stated that all three options laid out in the report would
provide savings to the Council. She also commented that all feedback from relevant
stakeholders would be passed onto the Cabinet and would be considered. She went
on to say that she had visited both Great Yarmouth CCTV and Kings Lynn CCTV to
assess their effectiveness. The quality of wireless CCTV at Great Yarmouth was very
good and there was the possibility that this option could also provide WiFi to
members of the public. Mrs Claussen-Reynolds went on to say that the picture quality
at Kings Lynn, which could provide a reactive system, was also very good. She
concluded that all options had their pros and cons, and that it would be for the
Committee to discuss. The Chairman thanked her for her comments.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
11 September 2013
2. Mrs B McGoun commented that the report stated that Public Order Disturbances had
been reduced from 129 cases to 63 cases in 2012, and suggested this may show the
usefulness of the system.
3. The Chairman commented that whilst he did not like surveillance in most cases, he
also appreciated that it could be used to catch criminals and reduce crime.
4. Mr P Moore commended the Working Party for their hard work and stated a
preference for the wireless system. He noted that the strategic placing of cameras
may result in fewer being required. He expressed concern at Fakenham Industrial
Estate‟s lack of response during the consultation process, but commented that CCTV
was often necessary to ensure that both locals and tourists felt secure. He queried
why North Walsham seemed to be paying more for the cameras than Cromer and
Sheringham. The Chairman added that North Walsham Town Council had provided a
summary of their response which reiterated several of Mr Moore‟s comments. The
Town Council also stated that they were concerned about a lack of financial
contribution by the police towards funding the system.
5. Mr G Jones commented that CCTV should be a system that was implemented by the
police and should not be the responsibility of the Council. He suggested it should be
a valid candidate for cuts to services, and that any feelings of safety because of
CCTV cameras were often a myth. He went on to say that the CCTV consultation
couldn‟t be taken in isolation, and that if this wasn‟t cut, something else may have to
be.
6. The Chairman asked for an update from Mr R Oliver, the Deputy Leader, and
Portfolio Holder covering CCTV, regarding the Police and Crime Commissioner‟s
response to the consultation. The Deputy Leader responded that the police decision
to make no contribution to the system could be seen in their letter in the attached
report. He stated that the police saw it as potentially setting a precedent to have to
fund other Councils‟ CCTV, and that they were unlikely to reconsider their position.
The Deputy Leader further commented that he believed the police should be
contributing to the CCTV system if it provided a valid service to their work.
7. The Democratic Services Team Leader raised the point that the PCC was
provisionally scheduled to attend the November meeting of the committee, and that
these issues could be raised then.
8. Mr N Smith commented that the CCTV system may be useful in helping to find
missing persons and that this alone justified the cost of the system.
9. Mr M J M Baker commented that he thought CCTV was not a good use of council
money, and that stronger responses from judicial process would be more beneficial.
He added that as ward member for Holt, he found his community to be quite safe and
secure.
10. Ms V Gay commented that in principle, she had no support for surveillance, as North
Norfolk was a particularly safe part of the country. However she also commented that
CCTV cameras could be useful to improve beach safety, if placed in strategic
positions.
11. Mr R Reynolds stated that he supported the comments of Mr G Jones and the
Deputy Leader regarding police funding.
12. The Chairman queried whether the Police Authority‟s Council Tax was capped. The
Head of Finance confirmed that it was. The Chairman responded that if CCTV
cameras assisted with the prosecution of offenders, then it saved the police authority
money and that he too was disappointed in the PCC for their lack of financial
contribution.
13. The Deputy Leader then responded to a number of comments by members. He
commented that it was important that North Norfolk was a low crime area, as it meant
that CCTV provided less value for money. He also commented on the inequality of
coverage, which could be seen by some areas of the District as unfair. In response to
Mrs B McGoun‟s point regarding public disturbances, he said that it could be a
general trend, as opposed to being a result of the use of CCTV. Regarding Mr
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
11 September 2013
14.
15.
16.
17.
Moore‟s concerns about North Walsham paying more for the CCTV service in the
town, he said that this was because there were more cameras sited in the town,
compared to other towns in the District. He reiterated that money saved in this area
would stop there being cuts in other, potentially more valuable, areas. Whilst he
understood Mr N Smith‟s point about CCTV‟s validity in missing person‟s cases, he
commented that it still may not justify expenditure, due to the relatively rare nature of
these cases.
The Chairman stated that many members seemed in agreement with regards to the
police and their lack of financial support for CCTV. He asked if anyone wished to
second Mr Moore‟s proposal for a wireless system. When no seconder was
forthcoming, he stated that there seemed to be no overall consensus regarding which
option was best for Cabinet to take forward. Mr R Reynolds suggested that the
committee could produce a resolution to query the police‟s lack of support. The
Chairman supported this.
Mr G Jones suggested that the police may not be impressed with this action. He
suggested that the Council could withdraw support for CCTV and reassess the police
response in twelve months‟ time.
The Chief Executive commented that the police had no funding available to support
CCTV, and that passing a resolution may not be beneficial. Mr R Reynolds
commented that he was not aware of this but thought the resolution could be
worthwhile. Mr P W Moore stated that the PCC was elected, and was therefore
responsible to the electorate. He felt strongly that the police should contribute to the
costs of CCTV.
The Chairman queried whether or not they should keep the resolution, and Ms V Gay
asked for clarification of the wording.
The Chairman proposed the following resolution:
“In considering the CCTV review, this committee expresses widespread concern
regarding the Police Authority‟s unwillingness to contribute to the financial costs of
CCTV in the district. CCTV saves the police money when investigating crime, and is
beneficial in helping the police to identify perpetrators of crime and in bringing people to
justice. Therefore, this committee believes that the police should be making a financial
contribution to the costs of CCTV.”
Mr R Reynolds seconded the resolution and it was
RESOLVED
To approve the report to be considered by Cabinet for action.
62. LOCAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY – PROVISION OF LOANS TO REGISTERED
PROVIDERS
The Housing Team Leader (Strategy) introduced this item. She established that the
report aimed to issue loans to registered providers, to support the delivery of new
housing across the district. She pointed out that the loans would be on commercial
terms. She set out that the report recommends that £3.5 million be included in the
capital programme to fund these loans, initially. £1,168,468 of this would be transferred
from the Housing Associations capital budget, and £2,331,522 would be funded from
internal borrowing, or external borrowing, if required. She explained that these loans
would be medium term, approximately 10 years, and would provide affordable housing
and market housing. She went on to say that the market housing would be used to
provide the subsidy to deliver the affordable dwellings. She also explained that the loans
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
11 September 2013
would be secured at approximately 110% of their value in order to protect the council's
assets. The loans would be on a repayment basis so at the end of the period of the loan
it is repaid in full, and the money could then be re-used to provide more loans. She
commented that they had sought legal advice on providing loans which showed that
loans could be provided. She concluded by advising that the provision of loans
supported the Housing Strategy and the delivery of new housing, as well as supporting
the
councils‟
priorities
for
growth
and
housing
building.
The Chairman invited members to ask questions.
1. Mrs B McGoun enquired as to how they would ensure the affordable housing would
be provided to local residents. The Housing Team Leader (strategy) commented that
the planning system would protect the affordable housing.
2. Mr R Reynolds asked what the returns on the scheme should be. The Housing Team
Leader (Strategy) replied that the table at section 7.3 of the report showed a likely
rate of return for the loan, but this is an example using an amount above the Public
Works Loan Board rate, the loan would be at a commercial rate.
3. Mr R Reynolds then went on to enquire where the council would source the money
for loaning. The Housing Team Leader (Strategy) replied that internal borrowing and
the Housing Association‟s capital budget could be utilised. Mr R Reynolds then went
on to ask what the guarantees were, and The Housing Team Leader (Strategy)
replied that the loans would be secured on existing property at approximately 110%
of the value loan although this could be more depending on the due diligence
process. He also enquired if individuals would be able to access these loans. The
Housing Team Leader (Strategy) confirmed that they would not.
4. Mr P Moore enquired as to why the council wasn't going forward with direct
developments themselves, as opposed to acting as a middle man, and argued that
doing so would give the council more control over the types of housing produced.
The Housing Team Leader (Strategy) reiterated that planning controls could act as
adequate control measures. She also commented that in the primary stages the
council did consider a joint venture; however this would be time consuming.
Furthermore, she commented that the council did not have the in house resources to
manage housing. She further pointed out that the affordable housing produced
through the loan system would meet the standards of the council.
5. Mr P Moore queried that if stair casing to eventual property ownership through joint
equity schemes was available, that eventually the owners could act how they wanted
and the council would lose out on the housing. The Housing Team Leader (Strategy)
pointed out that whenever individual owners bought out housing through shared
equity or shared ownership, that money was reinvested into further affordable
housing.
6. Ms V Gay said that she understood the financial appeal of the project but was
concerned about the provision of affordable housing under the scheme, and enquired
as to the mechanism to ensure that affordable housing would be developed. The
Housing Team Leader (Strategy) replied that the loans would only be available to
registered providers, who would use the loans to provide affordable housing. She
also commented that providing loans of up to (for example) 75% of the cost of
providing associations would support housing delivery with the remaining 25%
funded from selling the market housing which would also be provided. Miss V Gay
went on to enquire if the council would still provide grants to cover the 25%, and The
Housing Team Leader (Strategy) replied that they would not as it was not a
sustainable measure. Miss V Gay commented that capital from the Right to Buy
receipts could be used to provide grants. The Chief Executive replied that providing
grants is unsustainable as the VAT Shelter is coming to an end. She commented that
the Local Investment Scheme was far more recyclable and sustainable and delivered
market and affordable housing that wouldn't otherwise be available. She did mention
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
11 September 2013
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
that council owned land could be considered to be given for free as part of the loan
deals. She summarised by saying that the council becoming a landlord was too cost
prohibitive due to a lack of resources and the smaller nature of the council.
Mr G Jones questioned why the capital gained from Right to Buy had not yet been
invested. The Chief Executive replied that some of it had, and the rest of it was
indeed ring-fenced for use in housing development, for example the funding for
Upper Sheringham. £1m had recently been provided for 24 homes in Fakenham.
The Head of Finance further replied that any amounts unspent currently had been
accruing interest in a range of bonds in order to increase revenue, and that this
scheme would in fact see further returns.
Mr N Smith commented that good reserves existed to produce returns, and that it
was a shame the funds couldn't go to individual purchasers. He proposed to examine
the scheme again in twelve months to evaluate its successes, and proposed to
approve the report.
The Chairman questioned that if the council were providing 75% of costs, where
would the providers get the further 25%, and could the council not still provide grants.
The Chief Executive replied that providers would prefer to be given grants as well,
however grants do not create sustainable returns, and that grants would result in
being put in a worse returns position, resulting in the council having to borrow capital
to invest, which was a less attractive option.
Mrs A Moore questioned why in section 6.2 of the report the loans would be available
across the whole of Norfolk. The Housing Team Leader replied that whilst they were
advertising across all of Norfolk to attract providers, the housing itself would have to
be built in North Norfolk.
Mrs A Green commented that whilst the report seemed overly complex, she
supported the project in principle, and offered to second the report.
Mr P Moore commented that it would be beneficial for members to have places on
the housing boards if loans are put into place. The Housing Team Leader replied that
requiring as part of the loan that the Council had a representative on the Registered
Providers Board would likely to make the loan State Aid. As the council was providing
commercial loans, this couldn't be enforced. The Housing Team Leader again
reiterated that the terms of the loans could ensure housing was built in North Norfolk,
and that the types of housing to be provided would be considered as part of the bid
for a loan.
Mr G Jones commented that Victory Housing Trust had promised to provide 500
properties by 2015, and enquired if this project would support that. The Housing
Team Leader replied that it was impossible to know if VHT would make a bid for the
loans therefore it could not be said if the loans would help towards providing the 500
homes.
The Deputy Leader commented that the Local Investment Strategy met with one of
the priorities of the council, to provide affordable housing, provide revenue for the
council and to ensure that council money was safe through secured loans. He
commented that because of the economic climate, the council could meet gaps in the
market for providers that were unable to receive loans through other means. He
commented that if the committee was interested, further funds for the loans scheme
could be accessed through a Public Works loan.
It was proposed by Mr N Smith and seconded by Mrs A Green and
RESOLVED
To support the Cabinet recommendations and note the report
Ms V Gay and Mr P W Moore abstained.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
11 September 2013
63. MANAGING PERFORMANCE- QUARTER 1 2013/14
The Chief Executive introduced this item. She noted that the purpose of the report was
to outline progress in delivering the Annual Action Plan in the first quarter of 2013-14.
She went on to outline where there were particular issues with performance, in particular
in planning, where targets were not being met. However she went on to mention that the
new Head of Planning, Mrs N Baker, was producing a number of ideas to combat this,
particularly around structures and processes. She commented that getting the time of
processing down was a key priority. She also commented that whilst there had been
issues with waste contracts, these issues were now being resolved and that key
managers were dealing with issues in the appropriate way. Furthermore, she was
pleased that Revenues and Benefits had seen considerable improvements in their
processing times.
The Chairman commented that it might be beneficial for the new Head of Planning to
come to a meeting of the committee to answer any questions the committee might have.
He then invited members to ask questions.
1. Mrs B McGoun commended the council‟s achievement of a Green Flag award for
Pretty Corner woods in Sheringham, and commented that she was glad that the
council, were still focussing on environmental issues.
2. Mr G Jones questioned why the waste contractors, Kier, had had problems with their
staff. The Chief Executive replied that the relevant managers at the council were
working hard to establish what the issues with Kier were, but that it may have been
an issue with regards to a change in workers‟ terms and conditions. Furthermore she
commented that whilst the council was working hard to resolve issues and find out
the underlying causes that Kier themselves were ultimately responsible. She
commented that the council would continue to work in partnership with Kier towards a
beneficial resolution for both.
3. The Chairman commented that it might be beneficial to receive a report to the
committee when updates were available.
4. Mr G Jones commented that it may be useful to have a comprehensive list of what
the issues are, what they have been caused by, and how they could be resolved.
5. The Chairman stated that further concerns with the service will be raised at the
January waste update.
The Chairman proposed and Mr R Reynolds seconded and it was
RESOLVED
To note the report
64. BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2013/14 – PERIOD 4
The Deputy Leader introduced this report on behalf of portfolio holder Mr W Northam.
He was pleased to note a forecasted under spend of £14,000 for the current financial
year on the revenue account. He brought to attention of the committee a number of
relevant issues, such as the end of the contractual agreement with Microsoft in April
2014, who provide a number of valuable resources to the council.
The Chairman invited members to ask questions.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
11 September 2013
Mr P Moore commented that the report seemed comprehensive and that he would be
prepared to approve the report without discussion. Other members agreed with this,
and Mr R Reynolds seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED
To note the report
65. FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2014/15 TO 2016/17
The Deputy Leader introduced this item on behalf of portfolio holder, Mr W Northam. He
commented that the report presented a summary of the key issues facing the council in
relation to local government finance. He said that the current financial forecast
presented a funding gap for the next three years of just over £1 million by 2016/17. He
further mentioned that there would be an impact from the changes to the New Homes
Bonus from 2015/16 due to top-slicing. He then added that there was a recommendation
to continue to the current local council tax support scheme in order to get more
experience of the current system. Finally, he thanked the Head of Finance, and her
team for providing such a detailed strategy for consideration. He also thanked the Chief
Executive for the successful running of the strategy workshops.
1. The Chairman queried if problems with revenue would begin in 2015/16, and
suggested that considerable changes to the way local government funding works by
then might change the situation. He further commented that with capital reserves of
£1.7 million, and capital receipts of £1.2 million by 2016, as suggested in section 6.5
of the report, he did not understand how the situation would deteriorate. The Head of
Finance said that Table 14 made assumptions of Right to Buy receipts and that
reserves detailed were revised every year. She also commented that capital receipts
from the New Homes Bonus were dependent upon government allocation. She
added that it was important to maintain adequate reserves in order to ensure further
administrations do not have to make rushed, and potentially unwise, decisions. She
concluded that maintaining good reserves seemed to be a general local government
trend.
2. The Deputy Leader also responded to this point by suggesting that with the reserves
of 2016/17 it would still only take 2 years for the council to default and that it was
prudent for the council to maintain savings.
3. Mr P Moore commented that reserves should be seen as an emergency resource
and do not necessarily need to be spent. He did however comment that a balance
needed to be struck between having adequate reserves and maintaining public
services.
Mr R Reynolds proposed and Mr P Moore seconded and it was
RESOLVED
To note the report
66. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader introduced this item. She commented that she
would circulate the minutes of the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee as
they fell outside the deadline date for being included in the agenda. She also
commented that included with the agenda was a letter from the Local Government
Ombudsman detailing complaints received about the council. Mr P Moore commented
on the briefness of these details and proposed to receive more details from the LGO.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2013
10
11 September
She reminded the committee that the Head of Customer Service would be coming to the
October meeting of the committee and she would have further details on complaints.
She also reminded the committee that the next meeting would be held at North Lodge,
Cromer on the 16th October due to on-going works in the reception area of the council.
The meeting concluded at 1.10pm
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2013
11
11 September
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 October 2013 to 31 January 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
October 2013
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
Rhodri Oliver
Scrutiny
11 Sep 2013
CCTV Working
Party –
final report &
recommendations
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Council
Cabinet
26 Nov 2013
7 Oct 2013
North Norfolk
Coastal Change
Pathfinder:
Replacement
Housing
Development
Angie FitchTillett/
Trevor Ivory
Rob Young
Coast & community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
Cromer Coast
Protection Scheme
982
Angie FitchTillett
Rob Young
Coast & community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Cabinet
7 Oct 2013
Business Rates
Pooling
Tom FitzPatrick
Scrutiny
16 Oct 2013
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
01263 516000
Council
26 Nov 2013
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 October 2013 to 31 January 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Business
Transformation – IT
Strategy and
Customer Services
Strategy
Tom FitzPatrick
& Russell
Wright
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
New Telephony
System
Russell Wright
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Cabbell Park
Tom FitzPatrick
Duncan Ellis
Head of Assets &
Leisure
01263 516330
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Budget Monitoring
Period 6
Wyndham
Northam
Scrutiny
13 Nov 2103
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Treasury
Management half
yearly report
Wyndham
Northam
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Status
Nov 2013
13 Nov 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
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 October 2013 to 31 January 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
North Norfolk
Business Loan and
Grant Scheme
Russell Wright
Jill Fisher
Head of Economic and
Community
Development
01265 516080
Cabinet
4 Nov 2013
Performance
Management
Update Q2
Tom Fitzpatrick
Helen Thomas
Policy & Performance
Management Officer
01263 516214
Cabinet
2 Dec 2013
Review of Leisure
Service/Contracts
John Lee
Cabinet
2 Dec 2013
Fraud Policy
Wyndham
Northam
Louise Wolsey
Revenues & Benefits
Services Manager
01263 516081
North Lodge Park
Rhodri Oliver &
Trevor Ivory
Duncan Ellis
Head of Assets &
Leisure
01263 516330
Status
Dec 2013
11 Dec 2013
18 Dec 2013
Jan 2013
Cabinet
7 Jan 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)
14
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 October 2013 to 31 January 2014
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Revenues &
Benefits shared
services
Wyndham
Northam
Corporate
Plan Priority`
Lead Officer
Status
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
15
Sports and Leisure Services Update
Sports and Leisure Facilities
The Council‟s six sports and leisure facilities, Fakenham Sports and Fitness, Splash Leisure
and Fitness, Victory Swim and Fitness, Cromer, North Walsham and Stalham Sports
Centres had an excellent year in 2012/13. They surpassed the participation target by over
14,000 achieving 544,612 visits, the second highest figure on record. The current year is
also going well and those facilities are currently over 2,000 visits ahead of the 2013/14
target.
Visitor Figures 2012/13
Facility
Fakenham Sports and Fitness Centre
Splash Leisure and Fitness Centre
Victory Swim and Fitness Centre
Cromer Sports Centre
North Walsham Centre
Stalham Sports Centre
Mobile Gym
Cromer Tennis Club
Visitors
95,379
164,445
190,306
25,059
27,862
22,315
6,698
12,548
Work has been ongoing in relation amending the current User Agreements at the three dual
use sports centres. Meetings are being held with all three schools to renegotiate those
agreements which will result in an estimated annual saving of around £20,000. The
agreement with North Walsham is expected to be signed imminently. Fees and charges
have also been raised at all three facilities so that they are all in line with each other, and
provide continuity to all our customers. We are also in the process of restructuring the staff
at the three dual use facilities, to provide better resilience and to enable the Community
Sports Manager to deliver a comprehensive publicity and marketing campaign supported by
the Council‟s Media team to further increase participation at those community facilities.
Mobile Gym
The mobile gym project started in 2005 and was fully funded by Sport England as a three
year project to experiment in ways to recruit people into sport and physical activity. The
project received superb reviews and media coverage from national press and regional
television. It also received national recognition as a scheme regarded as an example of good
practice. The project has since received additional funding from both Sport England and Age
UK (Big Lottery) and has been very successful in setting up sustainable activity in areas of
hard to reach communities. The project continues to do well, and the six community gyms
(Stalham, Neatishead, Hindolveston, Neatishead, Aylsham and Acle) are all still operating
successfully.
The gym is now being commissioned by Active Norfolk to share its good practice and deliver
and set up sustainable community gyms across the county. Work has now begun in Loddon
and Costessey and to date both operating very well (fully funded by South Norfolk District
Council and Active Norfolk).
16
Fit Together Walks
This project continues to deliver great results with over 2,400 registered members walking
on 385 walks per year. Each month a total of over 600 people benefit from lead-walks across
the district, by a large group of over 40 volunteers, all giving their time for free.
This project is run by Active Norfolk and they have found further funding to extend the
project until at least March 2014, with funding from the Big Society Fund, to now set up the
North Norfolk programme independent organisation which will enable the project to become
self-sustainable.
Active Norfolk Sport England bid
Active Norfolk‟s solicited bid to Sport England („Get Healthy Get Into Sport‟) has now
commenced. Work has now started in preparation for delivery of the following from
September 2013.
„Get Into‟ style programmes designed to overcome barriers to sport
National Governing Body “health” offer products, e.g. Football Association health
related activities
Sport and Leisure centre supported activity plus community locations
Exercise Referral appropriate sports offers
Physical activity (walks) into sport(strong evidence locally that this works)
Sport England Place Based Women and Girls‟ Sport Bid
North Norfolk District Council was invited by Sport England to bid for between £1.5m - £2.5m
to deliver a pilot project that will recruit more women and girls into sport/exercise/physical
activity. We were one of 30 local authorities invited to submit an „expression of interest‟, and
the only authority in Norfolk.
Unfortunately we were unsuccessful in being shortlisted. However we received very good
feedback from Sport England and only just missed the cut and Sports England has
encouraged The Council to submit a bit to their Community Sports Activation Fund.
Therefore Officers will prepare a bid to this fund which is likely for be around £250,000 worth
of funding; the next round closes in January 2014.
The new Health Profile for North Norfolk has just been released. One statistic is that adult
physical activity appears on the surface to have improved but is being measured in a
different way so can‟t compare with previous years. This information will now be used in
conjunction with existing user statistics and user surveys as evidence for the Sport England
funding application to further demonstrate the need for further investment in sport and
physical activity across the district.
Parkrun
The Council set up a parkrun in November 2012 at Sheringham Park. Parkrun is a noncompetitive weekly 5K off road run available for all. This project was set up in partnership
with Active Norfolk, parkrun, The national Trust and North Norfolk Beach Runners. Numbers
have grown significantly since the start of the project and now total over 750 registered
runners averaging over 100 participants each week.
17
Pedal Norfolk
The Council supported „Pedal Norfolk‟, a cycling event held over three days in May based at
Holkham Hall. The event was a great success with over 300 cyclists taking part, and
provided an opportunity for the Council to further promote our sports and leisure facilities
who were in attendance over the weekend.
Beaches
The Council had four beaches (Sheringham, Cromer, Mundesley and Sea Palling) which
have in the past been awarded Blue Flag status. DEFRA has recently changed the Water
Bathing Directive, and so to qualify for a Blue Flag beaches have to achieve an even higher
standard of water quality over a four year period and not just one. This had to be
implemented by 2015. Keep Britain Tidy decided to implement this in 2013, which meant that
Mundesley became a victim of the new criteria having had poor water quality during 2009.
The Council has however retained the three other Blue Flags at Sheringham, Cromer and
Sea Palling. Mundesley and East Runton achieved the „Quality Coast Award‟ for 2013
proving that they are both still attractive and safe waters in which to bathe.
To date the water quality at all our beaches has been excellent this year with no fails
recorded. This is due to the excellent weather we have largely experienced this summer.
We had an inspection from Keep Britain Tidy inspector on 29th August and early indications
suggest that he was impressed with our offer. The weather on judging day was hot and
sunny and all beaches were clean and well managed. The inspector commented that each
beach had a different character and overall, a variety of needs could be catered for.
Pier Pavilion Theatre
2012/13 saw a challenging year for all theatres across the county. This was no exception to
our Pier Pavilion Theatre and the famous Seaside Special Show suffered with a drop of 12%
ticket sales compared to the 2012 season. However the Council‟s operator Openwide
Coastal did recover this situation well throughout the year, organising a multitude of concerts
and hires which resulted in only a 2% drop in visitors over the year 2012/13.
Cromer Pier was chosen as one of the venues for filming of an Alan Partridge film. The Pier
and other parts of the district including Sheringham were included in the film and further help
to promote the district as an attractive tourist destination.
Parks and Countryside
Green Flag Awards
Green Flag Awards for Sadler‟s Wood and Holt Country Park were retained and a further
award was obtained for Pretty Corner Woods at Sheringham. The Pretty Corner Green Flag
was as a result of significant investment from the Woodlands Trust who secured external
funding to deliver a number of initiatives and work at the site to enable it to be more user
friendly.
Events
The Countryside and Parks Team hold in excess of 50 events each year at Woodlands
Open Spaces and Beaches. The events help support the blue and green flag awards
process and are of a recreational and educational nature.
18
Notable recent events are as follows:
22nd August – Pretty Corner woods Summer Fair
This event included a variety of activities and was staged in conjunction with the Woodland
Trust and attracted in excess of 1,000 people. It was the second year that this event was
held and this year the number of people attending the event increased by 25% on 2012.
18th August – Sadler‟s Wood Summer Fair
Whilst attendance was relatively low, around 55 people, it was the first year this event was
held. There were a variety of activities and a bouncy castle. Surplus income after expenses
will be given to the air ambulance and Addenbrooks Hospital. Sadler‟s Wood serves mainly
the resident community rather than visitors but it is important to continue to encourage
ownership of the woodland resource in the community with a corresponding increase in
participation levels.
15th August – Holt Country Park Fun Day Out
This event was held for the first time this year and included the Sports Centre Team.
A variety of sports and fitness related activities were on offer together with wild life activities
and a bouncy castle. The event attracted about 300 participants.
Alternative planting regimes
There has been a movement in recent years in the field of amenity horticulture to reduce
reliance on traditional bedding schemes in favour of direct seeding of native and other wild
flowers as a more sustainable alternative. Such planted areas provide nectar sources for
bees and other insects known to be in decline through lack of food. These areas and re not
only more beneficial to biodiversity but can generally be provided at a lower cost the
traditional bedding schemes.
In previous years the council has had success with directly seeded areas at woodland sites
and on a minor scale in more formal areas. In 2013 more extensive seeding of formal areas
took place especially at North Lodge Park and Cromer Churchyard an at the Sea front
gardens in Mundesley. In spite of a relatively slow start due to cold dry weather the seeded
areas have subsequently flourished extremely well. Early criticisms from the public have
since been overshadowed by many positive comments. However lessons have been learnt
through this process which will be adopted in future should any similar work be conducted.
Playgrounds
The Council owns a number of play areas containing traditional equipment, some of which is
now approaching the end of its useful economic life. As part of the 2013/14 budget setting
process a capital bid of £100,000 was therefore requested in order to address those
playgrounds and equipment which are in the poorest condition.
As part of approving this capital budget it was agreed that a needs assessment would be
undertaken to identify those areas which would benefit most from the funding prior to
undertaking any improvements. Work on the assessment is being finalised and it is
anticipated that the ESPO framework contract will be used to purchase the equipment.
Installation is anticipated before the end of the financial year.
19
Agenda Item 13
North Norfolk District Council – Health and Wellbeing Report
This report provides an update on some of the key strategic and multiagency health and
wellbeing related work as well as direct services that the Council provides which impact on
health and well - being.
Norfolk Health and Wellbeing Board – Cllr. Fitch- Tillett
Cllr Fitch-Tillet represents NNDC on the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Board are
responsible for the production of Norfolk’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) 2014 2017.The JSNA document will identify the future health, social care and wellbeing needs of
the population of Norfolk and the strategic direction of service delivery to meet those needs.
The JSNA will focus on the overarching goals of prevention, reducing inequalities and driving
integration. The Board have agreed three priority areas; early years, obesity and dementia.
A workshop was held recently to discuss what needs to happen within each of the priority
areas to help achieve the overarching goals. Possible tasks and actions were identified
which will be considered by the Board and if agreed will inform the JSNA.
North Norfolk and rural Broadland Strategic Partnership Group – Nick Baker
This group consists of representatives from North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group
(NNCCG), Norfolk County Council and North Norfolk and Broadland District Councils. It aims
to identify partnership opportunities and provide local strategic direction, priorities for action
and current activities within the following key areas:
1. Physical activity, Healthy Eating and Weight Management
2. Supporting independence at home, better support for people with long term
conditions and addressing the needs of adult and young carers
3. Creation of good developmental and learning outcomes for children and young
people
North Norfolk Health Improvement Forum – Nick Baker and Sonia Shuter
This multiagency Forum covers the NNCCG area it meets to share information and identify,
support and progress projects and initiatives within the three key areas identified by the
above partnership group.
Forum members were involved in the initial consultation events for the Health Communities
and Ageing Well projects in Cromer and Fakenham. Feedback from these events is being
collated and actions identified.
The focus of the next Forum meeting will be obesity.
Mytime Active - North Norfolk Health Trainer Service
This service based at NNDC covers the NNCCG area. Health trainers provides confidential
support and guidance to support people who want to improve their health and wellbeing,
they focus mainly on:
Healthy eating / weight management
Smoking Cessation
Sexual Health Advice
Mental Wellbeing
Since April 2012 the service has received over 600 referrals, the majority being self-referrals
from people over aged 50 predominantly for healthy eating /weight management support.
1
20
Agenda Item 13
Coastal Communities Fund – Sonia Shuter
With a disproportionate and increasing elderly population many of whom have complex
needs there is a need to increase the work force in respect of trained carers and provide
support to nursing, residential and domiciliary care providers. NNDC worked with Norfolk
and Suffolk Care Support to submit for funding for a project to help address this issue which
unfortunately was unsuccessful. Alternative ways to progress this work are being
considered.
Living Well with Dementia - Sonia Shuter
NNDC is participating in a multi-agency project led by NNCCG which aims to increase the
rate of diagnosis of dementia and improve the support available to people with dementia,
providing an earlier diagnosis can lead to the following benefits:
A better quality of life for both the person with dementia and carer
The right support for carers and families, delivered at the right time
A reduction in the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate management
Delaying the move to a care home and enabling people to remain in their own home
for longer
Ensuring people have access to services and medication to enable them to live well
for longer
Planning for future care and support needs including end of life care
Norfolk County Council successfully bid for £750,000 of funding from the Department of
Health to improve the care environment for people with dementia. Wells Community Hospital
will receive £119,000 of this funding predominantly to develop a dementia friendly garden,
training facility, assistive technology suite and carer support.
North Norfolk Activity Referral Scheme - Sonia Shuter
The scheme continues to be popular. People using the scheme mainly go attend one of
NNDC’s leisure facilities; Victory in North Walsham continues to receive most referrals.
Community gyms with appropriately qualified staff can also participate in the scheme.
Recently physiotherapists based in community hospitals have started referring eligible their
patients to the scheme.
Warm and Well in Norfolk – Karen Hill
Norfolk received £283, 570 in for the winter of 2012 / 2013 to implement a range of county
wide actions to reduce the incidence in vulnerable people of preventable illness and death in
which cold housing was a contributing factor. In North Norfolk the grant has enabled:
The distribution of 300 warm packs.
Free low level insulation via Age UK North Norfolk
Establishment via Parish Councils and voluntary organisations of a portable heater
loan scheme.
Grants towards boiler / heating repairs
The winter warmth packs which were distributed by voluntary and community groups as well
GP surgeries were again very well received. NNDC housing officers also offered them to
people they visited.
2
21
Agenda Item 13
Big Switch and Save - Karen Hill
A successful bid to the Department for Energy and Climate Change secured £18,500 to
establish a switch and save scheme to help North Norfolk residents save money on their
energy bills. The first scheme opened on 1 March and closed on 8 April. Work is progressing
to gather information on the number of people in North Norfolk who signed up for the
scheme and who subsequently switched and saved. It is understood the scheme will be
open again this year.
Energy Boxes - Karen Hill
The funding has also enabled Energy Boxes to be purchased which contain a
comprehensive folder of thematic information and advice sheets on issues such as heating,
insulating and keeping warm in your home, meters, bills and tariffs, Green Deal and
renewable energy. The Energy Box also contains an OWL energy monitor and home
thermometer. Town and Parish Councils were given a box for use within their communities.
Parish Clerks were recently contacted for feedback on the energy boxes and their use. Thirty
three clerks responded although some of them represented more than one Parish Council.
Four Parish Clerks said the energy box had been used by local residents but they were
unable to say how many residents had used it. A key issue raised by several Parish Clerks
was where to locate the boxes as many Parishes had no communal room. Feedback from
other Parishes is expected and once this has been received and evaluated the possible
relocation of unused boxes to community groups such as Age UK will be discussed.
3
22
Agenda Item No____14________
BUSINESS RATES POOLING
Summary
This report reviews the potential for establishing a business
rates pooling arrangement for Norfolk and for North Norfolk
District Council to pool jointly with Norfolk County Council
and other Norfolk district councils. The report considers the
financial advantages to the Norfolk council tax payer and
the potential risks to the councils involved.
Options considered
To join a County wide business rates pool or not.
Conclusions
Establishment of a business rates pooling arrangement for
Norfolk has the potential to achieve financial benefits for
Norfolk through increased retention of business rates
generated locally that can be invested in Norfolk.
Recommendations
Cabinet recommends to Council:
1) In principle and subject to the negotiation of the detailed
financial and governance arrangements, North Norfolk
District Council agrees to join a business rates pool with
Norfolk County Council and other Norfolk district councils;
2) Subject to the approval of the detailed pooling and
governance arrangements the Chief Executive, in
consultation with the Chief Finance Officer and the Leader
of the Council, be given delegated authority to enter into a
business rates pooling arrangement for Norfolk.
Reasons for
Recommendations
To maximise the amount of additional business rates
income that is retained in Norfolk and invested in Norfolk.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Norfolk Leaders Group Report on Business Rates Pooling
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Tom Fitzpatrick
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Sheila Oxtoby, 01263 516000, Sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction and Background
1.1
The Local Government Finance Act 2012 introduced a number of changes to
the funding system for local government, with funding from April 2013, via a
mix of locally retained business rates and government grants that are
allocated from centrally retained business rates.
1.2
Previously business rates were collected locally and pooled centrally for
reallocation by the redistribution of business rates through formula funding.
The intention of the new business rates retention scheme is to provide
23
incentives for local authorities to increase economic growth, through retention
of a share of revenue generated from locally collected business rates. The
new system uses a mechanism of „levy‟ and „safety net‟ for authorities that
experience disproportionate and negative growth respectively.
1.3
In order to provide opportunities for the same incentives across all areas, the
Government has included an arrangement within the new funding scheme for
councils to be allowed to pool business rate resources where it makes local
economic sense to do so. Providing a county council is part of a pooling
arrangement, the creation of a pool within a two tier area can reduce or
remove the levy on business rates growth paid to the Government by billing
authorities. This will enable more business rates growth to be retained locally
and used as agreed by the authorities within the pool.
1.4
Last year expressions of interest in creating a pool were required by the end
of July 2012. Following discussion at Norfolk Leaders‟ Group, most councils
decided not to pursue pooling in the initial year. However, Broadland District
Council and Norfolk County Council submitted an expression of interest to
DCLG in July 2012, who confirmed designation of the pool for 2013/14. The
aim of this pool is to help support the economic growth strategy through the
potential to use additional retained business rates to provide funding for joint
projects, including key infrastructure and provide a pathway for future pooling
arrangements with authorities across the county. Governance arrangements
were agreed by both councils and included provision for dissolving and
reforming a new pool, should other councils wish to pool business rates in
future years.
1.5
In 2013/14, 13 pools were created involving 90 councils. Collectively, based
on provisional forecasts of income, pooled authorities expect to see growth in
their rates income of some £44m; the lower levy rates of pools mean that
about £17m of growth will be retained locally that would otherwise have been
returned to central government.
1.6
From information and discussion with other councils, most pools have been
set up on a fairly straightforward basis, with business rates pooled for the
purpose of Government calculation of tariffs, top-ups and levy payment, but
with arrangements in place that means that only the saved amount in levy
payment is „pooled‟ in respect of joint decision making. The key opportunity
from pooling is to enable funds to be created that can actively support local
economic development and in turn generate new business growth.
2.
Proposed Pooling Arrangements 2014/15
2.1
The Government has recently issued a prospectus for business rates pools
for 2014/15, with a requirement for notification of new pools by 31 October
2013. As with last year, although pools are designated in the autumn, final
decisions can be made after the local government finance settlement.
2.2
DCLG is keen for local authorities to join pooling arrangements for business
rates as it believes that it will “encourage” joint working on economic growth
and service delivery.
2.3
In two tier areas such as Norfolk the upper tier authority, in this case Norfolk
County Council, will normally receive a top up from government and the
district authorities will normally pay a tariff (levy) to government. The levy
rate for any increase in business rates growth over and above the baseline
funding level, adjusted for inflation for all Norfolk District authorities is 50%.
The effect of pooling is that the levy rate will be reduced or eliminated
completely. However, there are also financial risks associated with pooling.
24
Some local authorities may find that a reduction in their local business rates
income which would have qualified for a safety net payment (where business
rates income falls by more than 7 ½% below the baseline funding position) if
they are part of a pool, will no longer qualify where the overall pool is above
its combined safety net threshold.
2.4
Clearly it is not possible to predict with certainty some five months before the
start of a financial year the outturn position for the forthcoming period. For
example, North Norfolk Council has not predicted a significant increase in
business rates for 2013/14.
3.
Options for Pooling
3.1
There are essentially two options available, either to join a pooling
arrangement with Norfolk County Council and other interested Norfolk
districts or not to pool.
3.2
A county council can only be part of one pool. Therefore decisions affecting
pooling in 2014/15 will need to be made collectively.
3.3
Recent discussion with DCLG has confirmed that pools can be created with
considerable flexibility within the locally agreed governance arrangements.
Therefore, it is possible for a council to be an associate member of a pool
where it makes sense in relation to economic strategy, but not part of the
designated pool where it does not make financial sense to do so. This
provides greater opportunity for collaboration in areas such as Norfolk, where
there is varying levels of business rates growth across the county area. In a
situation where an individual district is predicting that it would have no
business rates growth, and particularly if it expects to breach its safety net
levels as Great Yarmouth did this year, then the Norfolk councils as a whole
would financially benefit if that council stayed outside the pool and accessed
safety net payments direct from DCLG.
3.4
In overall terms there would potentially appear to be financial benefits across
Norfolk from extending the current pooling arrangements for 2014/15.
3.5
Although the details have yet to be agreed, the model endorsed by the
Norfolk Leaders is that the arrangement is established whereby the business
rates are pooled for the purpose of the Government calculation of tariffs, top
up and levy payments but in practice only the sum “saved” in levy payments
is actually pooled for joint decision making, as is the arrangement for most of
the existing business rates pools.
3.6
In order to reduce the risk to participating councils of the unanticipated loss of
one or more major business rate payers in individual districts it would be
prudent for the Norfolk pool to replicate the safety net support which the
individual participating districts would lose access to, as a first call on the
pooled payments.
4.
Governance Arrangements
4.1
If a pool is to be established it will be important to be clear about the
governance arrangements for the investment decisions with respect to the
pooled funds. The following principles have been endorsed by the Norfolk
Leaders:
The purpose of the Norfolk business rates pool is to make strategic
investments designed to “support Norfolk‟s economic growth strategy”.
25
Decision making in relation to pooled funds to be determined by the Leaders
of each authority participating in the business rates pool. Decision making to
be by consensus.
Investment proposals to give priority for schemes which will:Lever funding from LEP growth and European funds
Support infrastructure projects which will lead to:o Job creation
o Further business rates growth
o Housing growth
o Improved skills and qualifications
o New business creation/expansion
Ready to start on site and have all relevant permissions, licences, land
ownership arrangements in place.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
There is a risk that a major business could close in the district leading to a
reduction rather than an increase in the amount of business rates collected.
This is still a risk to the Council whether it is in a business rates pool or not.
5.2
Outside of the pooling arrangement, if the business rates income for an
authority falls by more than 7.5% below the baseline funding position they will
qualify for a safety net payment which will provide some mitigation from
reduced business rates.
5.3
Similarly within a pool arrangement if the business rates income for an
authority falls this reduces the amount available for investment in the
business rates pool. It is possible that this could lead to a reduction below the
business rates safety net level of business rates baseline, i.e. the level that
would have received a payment from the government. This will however be
mitigated by replicating the “safety net” provisions available to authorities
outside business rate pooling arrangements as a first call on surpluses
generated within the pool.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
None as a direct consequence from this report.
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1
This report does not raise any equality and diversity issues.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1
This report does not raise any Crime and Disorder considerations.
26
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
16 October 2013
Agenda Item 16
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix A) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix B
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 R Oliver
All
Contact Officer:
Telephone number:
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
Domiciliary care
Following the September meeting of the Committee, Emma Denny contacted
the Scrutiny Support Manager for the Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny
Committee, Maureen Orr, to find out if this topic was being scrutinised
elsewhere. She provided the following response:
‘Yes this subject will be looked at in the coming months, not by NHOSC but
by another County Council scrutiny body - the Community Services Overview
and Scrutiny Panel. At its last meeting it agreed to re-convene an all Party
working group to examine the quality of domiciliary care. The terms of
reference are being drafted at the moment but the minutes of the last meeting
set out the areas it will cover. The link below will take you to the minutes on
our website (scroll down and click on 10/09/13 minutes - it's item 9):http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Council_and_democracy/Your_Council/Committees
/DisplayResultsSection/Papers/index.htm?Committee=Community Services
Overview and Scrutiny Panel
27
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
16 October 2013
Item 4, the Panel's discussion about Care UK's performance, might also be of
interest. The members are very conscious of the issues around the quality of
home support at the moment and I think that all Party working group will be
thorough. Draft terms of reference will be presented to the Overview and
Scrutiny Panel (OSP) for approval in November. The working group will
report to the OSP, which can make recommendations to Cabinet.
Maureen Orr
Scrutiny Support Manager (Health)
Norfolk County Council
01603 228912
2.2
Police and Crime Commissioner
A presentation by the Police & Crime Commissioner was scheduled for
November. Unfortunately he cannot make this date and neither himself or his
deputy is available until early next year. Please see the response below from
his office:
‘He has asked whether it would be possible to hold an Informal meeting with
the committee or attend a meeting when the next Police and Crime Plan is
published around February/March time which would be better.’
Please can Members let me have their thoughts on how they wish to respond
to this?
3.
Items of interest to the Committee:
Victory Housing Disposals Programme
VHT have offered to come to the Committee to discuss their disposals
programme. It is anticipated that this will be in either December or January.
Parish and Town Council Update
When the work programme for 2013/14 was set in April it was agreed that a
representative of NALC (Norfolk Association of Local Councils) would come
and speak to the Committee on issues that were concerning the town and
parish councils. Sue Lake has offered to come to Committee and this will take
place in December or January.
4.
Changes to the Work Programme and Future Topics
The updated work programme is attached at Appendix B. Please note that
some items have been moved to make sure that the schedule for each
meeting is not too heavy.
28
Appendix A
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2013/2014
Period October 2013 – March 2014
Date of
Meeting
Oct 2013
Topic
Overview of Planning Service
(possibly postponed)
Officer/
Responsible Portfolio Holder
Nicola Baker
Benjie Cabbell Manners
Notes
Requested by the
Committee
Leisure services- overview on
Karl Read/ Duncan Ellis
all the council’s leisure facilities John Lee
to inc. usage levels
Requested
Health Update
Cyclical
Deferred from September
Sonia Shuter
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Tourism
Nick Baker
To include a summary of the
Rhodri Oliver
season, stats on visitors.
Amount spent on car parking
and whether increases have had
an impact.
Key Decision
Business Rates Pooling
Requested?
Cabinet Decision
Requested by members
Nov 2013 Domiciliary Care Presentation
Tom FitzPatrick
Nick Baker /
Trevor Ivory
Business Transformation ~ IT
Tom FitzPatrick
Strategy and Customer Services Russell Wright
29
Council Decision?
(Labelled as Key Decision)
Date of
Meeting
Topic
Notes
Strategy
Officer/
Responsible Portfolio Holder
Nick Baker
North Norfolk Business Loan
and Grant Scheme
Russell Wright
Jill Fisher
Council Decision?
(Labelled as Key Decision)
Budget Monitoring Period 6
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Cyclical
Treasury Management Half
Yearly Report
Wyndham Northam
Tony Brown
Cyclical
Council Decison
Performance Management
Update Quarter 2
Tom FitzPatrick
Helen Thomas
Cyclical
Trevor Ivory
Nicola Turner
Cyclical
Dec 2013 Update on Empty Homes Policy
to include an overview on how
the Council is progressing with
reducing empty homes.
Enforcement Board Update
Nick Baker
Trevor Ivory
Victory Housing: Disposals
programme?
Trevor Ivory
Nicola Turner
Requested
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
– update on how new body is
Sonia Shuter
Requested
30
Date of
Meeting
Topic
working. Projects being funded
and whether they added value.
Planning service – overview &
future
Parish Council Update
Jan 2014 Waste contract update
Officer/
Responsible Portfolio Holder
Notes
Benjie Cabbell Manners
Nicola Baker
Sue Lake (NALC)
John Lee
Nick Baker
Cyclical
Shared services update
Wyndham Northam
Cyclical
Environmental Sustainability
Update
Nick Baker
John Lee
cyclical
Equalities Data Annual report
Kate Sullivan
Tom FitzPatrick
Annual
Helen Thomas
Tom FitzPatrick
Cyclical
Health Update
Sonia Shuter
cyclical
Annual Action Plan 2014/15
Julie Cooke
Tom FitzPatrick
cyclical
Feb 2014 Performance management
update Q3
31
Date of
Meeting
March
2014
Topic
Customer Access Strategy
Housing Renewal Policy
TBC
Officer/
Responsible Portfolio Holder
Nick Baker
Russell Wright
Annual
Nicola Turner
Trevor Ivory
Customer Service Update
Internal Boards Membership
May
2014
Notes
Housing Allocations Scheme
Requested by Peter
Terrington
Nicola Turner
Trevor Ivory
32
Appendix B
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.
26
33