Please contact: Lydia Hall
Please email: lydia.hall@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please direct dial on: 01263 516047
08 June 2015
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Wednesday 17th
June 2015 at 9.30am.
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
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so must inform the Chairman. If you are a member
of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that you may be
filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Butikofer, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mrs J English, Ms V Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr M
Knowles, Mr P Moore, Mrs M Prior, Mr E Seward, Mr B Smith, Mr D Smith and Mr N Smith.
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 the 18th March 2015.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To consider any petitions received from members of the public.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A MEMBER
To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to
the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days’ notice, to include an item on the
agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
OR RECOMMENDATIONS
To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or
recommendations.
10.
2014/15 OUTTURN REPORT (PERIOD 12 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT)
(Cabinet papers page 6)
(9.35-9.50)
Summary:
This report presents the provisional outturn position for the
revenue account and capital programme for the 2014/15
financial year. Details are included within the report of the
more significant year-end variances compared to the
current budget for 2014/15. The report also makes
recommendations for contributions to earmarked reserves
and the general reserve as applicable for future spending
commitments. An update to the current capital programme
is also included within the report and accompanying
appendices.
Options considered:
The report provides a final budget monitoring position for
the 2014/15 financial year. Whilst there are options
available for earmarking the underspend in the year, the
report makes recommendations that provide funding for
ongoing commitments and future projects.
Conclusions:
The outturn position on the revenue account as at 31
March 2015 shows an underspend. The final position
allows for a number of underspends to be rolled forward
within earmarked reserves to fund ongoing and identified
commitments. The position as reported will be used to
inform the production of the statutory accounts which will
then be subject to audit by the Council’s external auditors
PWC.
Recommendations:
Members are asked to consider the report and
recommend the following to Council:
a) The provisional outturn position for the general
fund revenue account for 2014/15;
Council
Decision
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed within
the report (and appendix C) along with the corresponding
updates to the 2015/16 budget;
c)
Transfer the surplus of
restructuring/Invest to save reserve;
£431,525
to
the
d) The financing of the 2014/15 capital programme as
detailed within the report and at Appendix D;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £2,289,024 at
31 March 2015 and forecast balance of £2,082,065 at 31
March 2016;
f) The updated capital programme for 2015/16 to 2016/17
and the associated financing of the schemes as outlined
within the report and detailed at Appendix E.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To approve the outturn position on the revenue and capital
accounts for 2014/15 that will be used to produce the
statutory accounts for 2014/15. To provide funding for
ongoing projects and commitments as detailed within the
report.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Budget Monitoring Reports, NNDR returns
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Councillor W Northam
All
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
11.
Karen Sly
01263 516243
karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
DEBT RECOVERY 2014-2015
Summary:




Recommendations:
Council
Decision
Cabinet member(s):
Wards:
Contact Officer,
telephone number,
and e-mail:
12.
(Cabinet papers page 63)
(9.50-10.05)
This is an annual report detailing the council’s collection
performance and debt management arrangements for
2014/15
The report includes:
- A summary of debts written off in each debt area showing
the reasons for write-off and values.
- Collection performance for Council Tax and Non- Domestic
Rates.
- Level of arrears outstanding
- Level of provision for bad and doubtful debts
To approve the annual report giving details of the Council’s
write-offs in accordance with the Council’s Debt Write-Off
Policy and performance in relation to revenues collection.
Wyndham Northam
All
Sean Knight
01263 516347
Sean.Knight@north-norfolk.gov.uk
TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2014/15
(Cabinet papers page 83)
(10.05-10.20)
Summary:
This report sets out the Treasury Management activities
actually undertaken during 2014/15 compared with the
Treasury Management Strategy for the year.
Options Considered:
This report must be prepared to ensure the Council complies
with the CIPFA Treasury Management and Prudential
Codes.
Conclusions:
Treasury activities for the year have been carried out in
accordance with the CIPFA Code and the Council’s
Treasury Strategy.
Recommendations:
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that The
Treasury Management Annual Report and Prudential
Indicators for 2014/15 are approved.
Council
Decision
Reasons for
Recommendation:
Approval by Council demonstrates compliance with the
Codes.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Wyndham Northam
All
Contact Officer,
telephone number,
and e-mail:
13.
Tony Brown
01263 516126
tony.brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk
ANNUAL REPORT 2014/15
(Cabinet papers page 92)
(10.20-10.35)
(please note the Annual Report is available separately on the Council’s website)
Summary:
This report outlines the key elements of the Annual Report
2014/15 to be published by July 2015 for discussion and
eventual approval and presents the key contents of the report.
The Annual Report will present the delivery of the Annual Action
Plan 2014/15 and show achievement against targets.
Options considered:
Publish a text only version of the Annual Report.
Publish a version of the report suitable for a public audience.
Conclusions:
The Annual Report 2014/15 concludes that North Norfolk District
Council delivered the Annual Action Plan and delivered
overwhelmingly improving performance against performance
indicators.
Recommendations:
1) That Cabinet note the contents of this report.
Cabinet
Decision
2) That Cabinet give authority to the Leader of the Council
and the Chief Executive to approve the final public version
of the report.
3) That Cabinet give authority to the Leader of the Council
and the Chief Executive to approve the communications
plan for the Annual Report 2014/15.
14.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To comply with the provisions of the Council Performance
Management Framework and local government best practice.
Cabinet member(s):
Wards
Contact Officer,
telephone number,
and e-mail:
Tom FitzPatrick
All
Helen Thomas
01263 516214
helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
GRASSCUTTING ACROSS THE DISTRICT
(10.45-11.15)
To receive and consider an oral update on grass cutting provisions.
15.
THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
(Page 13)
(11.15-11.20)
To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.
16.
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Page 18)
(Appendix A – p.19 & Appendix B – p.23)
(11.20-11.30)
To receive an update from the Scrutiny Officer on progress made with topics on its agreed
work programme and to receive any further information which Members may have requested
at a previous meeting.
17.
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.”
18.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 18 March 2015
in the Council Chamber, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N Smith (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Shepherd
Mrs V Uprichard (Sub)
Officers in
Attendance:
The Head of Finance, the Chief Accountant, the Health and Communities
Officer, the Democratic Services Team Leader and the Democratic
Services Officer
Not present
Mr B Jarvis
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs A Moore, Mr G Williams, Mr P Terrington, Mr G Jones, Miss B Palmer,
Mr W Northam, Mrs B McGoun, Mrs H Eales, Mr R Oliver, Mrs P GroveJones and Mr P High.
122. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr P Moore and Ms V Gay.
Apologies were also received from Mr J Lee as Portfolio Holder for Health and
Communities and Mr B Hannah as an invited Member for item 131.
123. SUBSTITUTES
Mrs V Uprichard for Mr P Moore.
124. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None.
125. MINUTES
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
18 March 2015
The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11th February 2015 were
accepted as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman with the following
amendment:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds was referring to iPads on page 12.
126. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
127. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
128. PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None.
129. CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None.
130. RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
131. UPDATE ON RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND PAY & DISPLAY IN CROMER AND
SHERINGHAM
Mr P Reilly from Norfolk County Council introduced the item by informing Members that
they had received the statement of results which so far showed a rate of return of 28%
from Sheringham and 36% from Cromer. He said that there was further work to be done
with stakeholders and that Cromer Chamber of Trade had issued a separate
questionnaire.
Mr Reilly said that he would like to use the time to answer any questions or concerns
attendees may have.
Mr R Oliver said that he had brought the matter to Committee under a ‘Councillor Call
for Action’ with Mr R Shepherd. Mr Oliver said that at the January meeting when Norfolk
County Council Officers had attended, that the Chairman had allowed the public to
engage in the debate before Members and asked whether this would be the case this
time. (Chairman agreed). Mr Oliver said that since the last meeting, the survey had been
completed and that Norfolk County Council had obtained data for more detailed
proposals. Mr Oliver said that he was happy to hear the views of the public first.
Mr Bob Smith, Sheringham Resident, said that the parking plans were not wanted and
that a petition against the on street pay and display option had 3,500 – 4,000 signatures.
He asked whether Norfolk County Council would take note of this.
Mr Tim Adams, Deputy-Mayor of Cromer Town Council, said that he welcomed the
controversy that the survey had caused as it meant that far more instructive decisions
around parking could be made. He said that the parking needed to be properly
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
18 March 2015
managed. Mr Adams said that the best figures showed that 80% of the cars in the town
were tourists and workers. He said that he looked forward to working with Norfolk
County Council in the future and working towards better parking solutions.
Mr Adams said that the parking needed to meet the needs of the residents in the towns,
but also residents in the surrounding areas and that this was an issue for the initial
consultation. Mr Adams commented that the response rate of the survey was increasing
and that responses were still being received. He said that the Cromer Chamber of Trade
had created their own survey for shoppers and workers in the town and that there was
also a petition in Cromer against the pay and display parking metres.
Mr Adams thanked Members and Officers for their continued commitment to the issue
and that Cromer Town Council were consulting with residents. Mr Adams said that they
were at an early stage of the consultation and suggested dividing up the parking issue
and working together to engage with the community and to collect data on how the town
was used.
Mrs Ann Smith, Councillor of Sheringham Town Council, said that it was a dialogue for
the democratic process. She said that in Sheringham, the survey response showed that
there were pockets of the town interested in permit parking and added that there was no
support for on-street pay and display. She asked Norfolk County Council Officers
what % of weight was given to responses. She wanted to express the concerns of the
Town Council and the Sheringham Parking Action Group. Mrs Smith said that she
anticipated that Norfolk County Council would bring further proposals and that more
detail would allow for public consultation, unlike the poorly drafted survey that had been
sent out.
Mrs Tracey Khalil, Cromer Chamber of Trade, said that they had been working closely
with Cromer Town Council and had issued a business orientated survey. She said that
within a four week period they had 840 signatures on their petition and one third of the
businesses sent the survey, had responded. Mrs Khalil said that the survey was not
about the pay and display parking meters sent by the County Council but was about
residential parking permits.
Mrs Khalil added that from the 24 survey responses they had received, 120 parking
spaces were needed to accommodate the workers coming into Cromer on a daily basis.
She said that an online survey showed that 328 out of 368 shoppers came to the town
by car and of these, 250 pay in the on-street parking bays and in unrestricted roads and
140 parked in both public and private car parks.
Mrs Khalil said that the parking proposals would be detrimental to the town and asked
Norfolk County Council Officers not to implement changes. She said that she could not
support a policy that made one person happy at the expense of another.
Mr Barry Starling, from Sheringham Chamber of Trade, said that he agreed with Mrs
Khalil and that it was the same in Sheringham. He said it was a tourist industry and
urged people to reject the proposals. Mr Starling said that the survey had been
extended to 30th April at the request of Cromer Town Council. He said that Sheringham
had clearly objected to the proposals, whereas Cromer’s response was mixed. He
asked County Officers whether the towns would be dealt with separately or together and
wanted a decision at the meeting.
Mr Dave Stevens, from Norfolk County Council, said that he was responsible for the
delivery of CPE. Mr Stevens said that it was about engagement and that Mr Adams had
highlighted the positives around what could be achieved in working together – to fully
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
18 March 2015
understand the complex issues of parking, enforcement and how to deal with high
demand.
Mr Stevens said that it was too early to answer or address specific points. He said they
were seeking engagement and understanding the parking issues for Sheringham and
Cromer and that they would be dealt with separately.
Mr Stevens said that Mrs Khalil had identified issues they dealt with in framing the
proposals; how it all affects each element with another and that it was complex. He said
he was keen for positive engagement and to give steer to the County Council team.
Mr Stevens said that the Sheringham opposition to the proposals was recognised and
that they would take a view from the petitions, but that it was the responsibilities as
Highways to enforce the Traffic Management Act and to deal with congestion and other
traffic related issues.
Mr Stevens explained that they had to look at the wider issues of equality and to look
objectively at whether current arrangements meant paying the penalties of freedoms of
other groups. He reiterated that this was still an early engagement process and an issue
affecting each person.
Mr Reilly said that they were keen to re-engage before the May elections and to look at
and identify areas of issues and what can and can’t be implemented as well as looking
at all of the restrictions.
Mrs B McGoun said that there was a small, popular tourist village in her ward and that
they had the same issues and that they were looking at other way of doing things. She
said it was difficult as there were more cars with single occupants and suggested a park
and ride scheme or permit parking in the car parks for workers, stating that businesses
cannot thrive without their employees. Mrs McGoun said that they needed to find
parking outside of the towns and make the insides of the towns something really special
and worth visiting, but that it was a nightmare situation.
The Chairman said that parking was a problem everywhere. He said that the parking
issues increased for Cromer and Sheringham over the summer months with the influx of
tourists and asked whether Norfolk County Council could look at how this issue was
solved in other, similar areas. The Chairman agreed with Mrs McGoun’s idea of a car
park for workers outside of the town with a bus bringing them in to the centres. He said
that car sharing was difficult as people travelled in from different locations.
Mr Oliver said that there were a number of questions. He asked Members to scrutinise
the issues. He said that at the January meeting there was ill feeling towards the survey
questions and that there was a perceived bias to illicit particular responses.
Mr Oliver asked the following questions which were answered by Norfolk County
Council Officers.
1) Do you have an estimate as to how many households did not get the survey in
comparison with the percentage of the response rate? A) Mr Reilly said that this
information was not known.
2) People are disenfranchised as the electoral roll was not used especially when there
is s large number of households with multiple occupancy. A) Mr Reilly said that the
pitfalls with the initial survey had been acknowledged and that they wanted to reengage with local authorities and that they would be talking to residents again.
3) Were Norfolk County Council comfortable that they had received less responses
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
18 March 2015
than the Hunstanton consultation and would it be representative of the towns? A) Mr
Reilly said that it won’t represent the towns but that it opened the door to further
information and that there was a long way to go. Mr Reilly reiterated that they were
at the very start of a long engagement process.
4) Would they use the electoral roll in the future? A) Yes.
Mr Oliver said that North Norfolk District Council were not financially contributing to the
Joint Parking Partnership and asked whether revenue would be gained through civil
parking enforcement. He said that the district council had been invited to withdraw from
the Partnership for not contributing. Mr Oliver asked whether this was a substantial
reason, if not the primary one, for trying to raise revenue from Cromer and Sheringham.
Mr Oliver asked why Sheringham and Cromer had been looked at when there were
other towns to consider; Holt had incredibly difficult parking issues.
Mr Stevens said it reflected the principals as they were set out. He said that the TMA
duties illustrate a range of factors and that this is what he was charged with doing. He
said that they considered a wide range of issues.
Mr Stevens said that the reason for Cromer and Sheringham being considered was
initiated by NNDC and that information was given when asked the question concerning
revenue raising. He said there was an overarching business management objective and
that it covered its own costs, with no financial liability. Mr Stevens said that any surplus
would be re-chanelled into transport.
Mr Oliver said that the Pay and Display car parking, as a proposal, had not gone well in
either town and that a petition for 5,000 signatures was accumulating and that this would
force a Full County Council debate on the issue which would be extraordinary. Mr Oliver
said that if Norfolk County Council Officers would rule out the Pay and Display parking it
would help to rebuild the trust between the towns. He commented that there had been a
strong response considering the number of people who lived in the area. Mr Oliver
asked whether there was any reason that Officers could not rule it out.
Mr Stevens stated that they would not be ruling anything out. He said that the proposal
was best described as ‘ticket and display’ and would not necessarily a charge in the
spaces covered by the scheme. Mr Stevens explained that there would be a period of
time for free parking with a ticket to enforce this and show anyone abusing the scheme,
and that there would then be top-up charges. He said that this would affect people
differently and that this needed to be understood.
Mrs Khalil said that the parking spaces were currently free for 30 minutes and were
used 8 hours a day. She said that the town was full of people who only needed 30
minutes and that increasing the time allowed in the space to 3 hours would mean fewer
customers. She said that anyone wanting more than 30 minutes can use the car parks
and that two spaces had already been lost to a loading bay. Mrs Khalil had calculated
that the 30 minutes free parking bays equated to 5,200 cars in the working year and that
these customers would be lost.
Mr Stevens said that he had expressed that one of the impacts had to be balanced
against a resident who needs more than 30 minutes and said that they were aiming to
find out this information through continued work.
Mr Seward said that this was the second time of looking at the proposals and that it
concerned two parishes. He said that he did not want any parking proposals for North
Walsham. He said that the parking committee had never heard of it before.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
18 March 2015
Mr Seward said that he recommended writing to Norfolk County Council and stating that
a) the survey was not fit for purpose and b) it should be re-constructed so that
Membership of the committee involved would have a better input into proposals and be
consulted.
Mr Seward said that a survey was to look at parking habits and to draw out the ‘parking
hotspots’ and that this was not the perception of the residents. He said that in Cromer
there was a mixed reaction and there were issues that needed to be addressed. He said
that a good response had been received and that there were a small number of streets
in Sheringham with issues that needed to be looked at.
It was proposed that the Norfolk Parking Partnership Committee is not fit for
purpose and needs to be reviewed and reconstituted by Norfolk County Council
so that the membership provides input into proposals affecting parking across
the County and how they are consulted on
Proposed by Cllr. E Seward
Seconded by Cllr. B McGoun
Vote: 3 for, 1 against, 4 abstained
The Committee AGREED to write to Norfolk County Council
Mr R Shepherd said that the outcome would not change – that the cost if the survey was
in man hours and asked whether it was worth carrying on with the Pay and Display
proposals and asked whether it was too early for County Officers to make a decision. He
said that Sheringham had already made their decision.
Mr R Smith said that it looked as though 5% of people in Sheringham wanted parking
changes but that no one wanted the pay and display parking. He informed the
Committee that from a freedom of information request that Great Yarmouth made a
profit from the parking restrictions through fines and that there was a profit of £200,000.
He said to introduce a similar system in Cromer and Sheringham would mean parking
fines and therefore a profit – he said it would be fining tourists for their day out.
Mrs H Eales said that she was speaking as a parking user rather than as a Councillor
and commented that it was an interesting debate. She asked that Norfolk County
Council make up their mind. She said that she lived six miles outside of Cromer and that
there was no direct bus into the town. Mrs Eales said that she looked for a 30 minute
parking space if she was popping in and used the car park for longer visits. Mrs Eales
said that pay and display parking was not needed and that parking metres would be a
disaster.
Mr Adams said that he was keen on the discussions and said that a wish list of what
people wanted should be looked at such as 30-45 minutes spaces or a park and ride
service. He said that they should consider the long term for financial sustainability such
as the train service and using driveways for commuters and to involve the needs of the
tourists. Mr Adams said that they should build constructive links with other stakeholders
and work around events like the Cromer Carnival. He asked that NNDC engage with
Cromer residents and compliment the car parking facilities – which were very good. Mr
Adams said there were other issues that warranted discussion like the underuse of the
Runton Road car park and introducing free parking days. He said that NNDC’s lack of
involvement in the parking partnership meant that changes to legislation allowing the
public to challenge decisions gave scope for much discussion.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
18 March 2015
Mr G Jones said that a sensible approach was needed and that the idea of parking
meters was abominable. He asked why Norfolk County Council were involved and said
that the profits of car parking should go to the Town Councils. He said that parking
should be under the remit of Town Councils and that there was too much bureaucracy
stating that North Norfolk District Council and Norfolk County Council should not be
involved at all. Mr Jones said that it needed to be looked at in the long term and that
parking meters should not be brought in.
Mr Stevens said that it was the Highway Authority under Norfolk County Council and
that it was their responsibility over these regulatory orders. He explained that since the
decriminalisation of parking that NCC had taken over and sought to engage with district
councils. He emphasised that NCC had not come to any conclusions about the parking
and that they were trying to understand the issues involved. Mr Stevens said that it
seemed as though the attendees had made up their minds about the pay and display
parking when Officers were still at the beginning of the process. He said they were trying
to have a conversation with stakeholders to bring the proposal forwards.
Mr Oliver asked whether it was possible that the scheme could be introduced in one
town and not the other.
Mr Reilly said that they were following the same protocol for both Sheringham and
Cromer but would change that if one moves in a different direction.
Mr Oliver said that NCC had now consulted with Sheringham South as well as
Sheringham North and that the implication was that Sheringham South strongly
opposed parking permits. He said that 3-4 roads in Sheringham North had been in
favour of the permits and asked whether the views of Sheringham South would bear any
impact.
Mr Reilly said that it was part of the questionnaire and that they had been asked the
question that if an adjacent road had permit parking, would they want permit parking on
their road. He said that they wouldn’t look at a permit scheme for one street and that
they needed a minimum scale to make it a worthwhile exercise.
Mr Oliver said that having heard all of the comments that the towns had made up their
mind on the pay and display parking. He asked whether the Committee would look at
passing a motion to ask NCC to withdraw the pay and display parking proposals as
there was no support for it in either town. He said that if it was withdrawn, this would
provide a greater mutual trust between the towns and NCC and that they wouldn’t feel
that their objectives would be met at whatever cost.
It was proposed that due to lack of support from residents, Norfolk County
Council should agree to withdraw the proposal for on-street pay and display
machines
Proposed by Cllr. E Seward
Seconded by Cllr. A Claussen-Reynolds
Vote: 6 in favour, 2 abstained
The Committee AGREED that NCC should be asked to withdraw the Pay and Display
parking proposals.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
18 March 2015
Mrs Ann Smith thanked Mr Jones for referring to localism and that it would be nice for
Town Councils to have a greater say. She asked that if the parking proposals
progressed who would make the final decision; the EDT or Full Council.
Mr Seward said that his understanding was that once the process had gone through the
EDT Committee and that they were perfectly capable of going against Officer
recommendations.
The Chairman thanked all attending for their contributions to the debate.
132. BUDGET MONITORING – PERIOD 10
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report. He said that the
overall position at the end of January 2015 showed a year to date variance of
£2,826,265 to date for the current financial year on the revenue account, before taking
into account commitments £2,792,723. He said that this was currently expected to
deliver a forecast full year underspend of £376,624.
Mr Northam said that there had been an extension given for the grants for flood
damage.
The Committee NOTED the report.
133. OUTSIDE BODIES REPORT
The Democratic Services Team Leader explained that there were several components
to the work and that they had begun to review the number of committees at the end of
2012 resulting in the removal of five outside bodies in late 2013 with amendments to the
constitution.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that the review of Outside Bodies was done
by assessing how appointments were made, making recommendations for improvement
and a questionnaire sent to Members each January before the appointments were made
in May. She said that this, however, did not allow for Members to see whether the
appointments being made were worthwhile.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that it would be useful for Members to have
the full review of Outside Bodies at Overview and Scrutiny before the Members at Full
Council. She said that she recommended that they build more into the review process to
allow Members to engage fully. She added that it would be worthwhile adding the
financial information as part of the review.
Mr R Reynolds commented that he sat on two Outside Bodies and that they were good
panels, but that they met too rarely.
Mr P Terrington said that he would welcome any attempts to tweak the system. He said
it would be helpful to go back to a motion made by Mr E Seward as he had concerns
about the political representation on the Outside Bodies. Mr Terrington suggested that
appointments were made based on the skills Members possessed. He acknowledged
that some Outside Bodies required the Portfolio Holder on the panel but that it wouldn’t
change the balance very much at all and that it didn’t seem to work. He added that
unless one political party had more skills than any other group there should be more
balance – he said it was possible for one party to have more skills but was statistically
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
18 March 2015
unlikely.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that they couldn’t apply political balance
rules by law. She said that the majority in administration wild want the majority of
appointments on Outside Bodies and that the Constitutional Working Party had looked
at this and done what they could.
Mr Terrington said that he appreciated the hard work that had gone into the report.
Mr G Jones said that as an Independent Member that he was no longer on any Outside
Bodies and that his skills were not being used. He said that the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee should remove the requirements regarding political balance. Mr Jones said
that he did not know what contributions Members were making to these bodies and that
it shouldn’t be a political issue – he said that this leads to lethargy and that they should
be on the panels because they want to be.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that Mr Jones made a fair point and that she had also
raised the issue of information not being brought back to Members. She added that she
did send on the information from her appointment.
The Democratic Services Team Leader agreed and said that this was part of the
recommendation.
Mrs P Grove-Jones said that she was on one Outside Body, along with a number of
other Members and that the attending Members were very interested and keen and
made valid contributions. She said that she could understand the concerns of political
bias due to the compositions of the panels. She said that Members with no interest in
the Outside Body they had been appointed to should ask to be removed.
Mr E Seward said that under the information on funding that there was no mention of the
Norfolk CAB who are funded. He added that important groups were not being attended
and urged Members that if they wanted the voice of North Norfolk to be heard that they
needed to attend.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that the Norfolk CAB information was
recorded with the stakeholder information in the report.
Mrs B McGoun said that the information they received on Outside Bodies from Mrs
Claussen-Reynolds was great. She asked for a breakdown of figures of representation
and asked how many Members from each political party were represented.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that she would circulate this information to
Members.
The Chairman thanked the Democratic Services Team Leader for the work that had
gone into the report.
Committee AGREED to the three recommendations.
The meeting stopped for a break from 11:05 am and resumed at 11:24 am
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
18 March 2015
134. NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND
In the absence of the Portfolio Holder, Mr G Williams introduced this report by saying
that the scheme was considered to be very successful. He said that grants and funds
were under pressure, both locally and nationally and that it was getting tough for
communities. He added that the schemes from NNDC were successful, making a real
difference and should continue.
Mr Williams said that the Enabling Fund had been set up as some grants requested
were not suitable for the Big Society Fund. He said that some grants were complex and
needed significant funding and that so far, four schemes had been helped by the
Enabling Fund. He said that the fund had no criteria and no requirement for match
funding and that each application was assessed on its own merits.
Mr Williams informed Members that there was £200,000 unclaimed funding and this
would be used as match funding for potential schemes under the Leader Programme to
secure better value. He said that this would enable communities to develop and to
become sustainable and that it helped to bring external funding into the district.
Mr R Reynolds said that he thought the Big Society Fund was working very well. He
expressed his disappointment that Norfolk County Council had halved the allocation of
funds to 25% but that the mitigation that Cabinet would contribute £225,000 to the fund
was welcomed. He said that the Enabling Fund would roll over to £200,000 and that
money had been saved as a result of removing the third party administration meaning
that the monies would now go directly to these community funds.
Mr P Terrington said that following on from what Mr Reynolds had said, that he
supported the funds and that they were a great achievement of the Council and that
Wells had done very well in their applications. He said that the Wells Maltings Project
had received £150,000 as well as funds being received by the skate park, the tennis
club and Homes for Wells. He expressed his thanks to all those involved – the panel
and the Officers stating that applicants had informed him how helpful staff were.
Mr Reynolds agreed with Mr Terrington and that it was a cross party panel involved and
that they had worked well as a team.
The Chairman thanked Officers.
Mrs B McGoun said that the Holt Youth Project had started in a front room and was
founded by a fantastic person. She asked whether they could invite her to Full Council
so that she could inform Members how much the Big Society Fund had helped with the
project and what she had been able to achieve.
Mrs P Grove Jones said that she sat on the panel of the Big Society Fund and said that
it was a privilege to do so. She said that so many small villages were able to apply for
funds and that they were very grateful. She added that they were receiving more and
more applications for the maximum award of £15,000.
Mr E Seward said that the reduction in the second homes fund from Norfolk County
Council which formed part of the funding, would now be in place for three years when it
was previously dealt with annually. He said that the scheme was very attractive to
villages and was not so suited to urban areas like North Walsham as the Griffin Area
Partnership were no longer receiving funds. He said that some partnerships did not
work, but that this one did and that they were not just paying salaries but paying for the
delivery of something that needed paid expertise to deliver it.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10
18 March 2015
Mr Williams said that they should encourage successful applicants to help others and
share good practice. He said that it was more than about funding a few waste bins and
that it was about trying to achieve significant change.
Mr Reynolds said that he had no doubts that town centres must changes – not just
district or County wide, but Country wide. He said that the door to small businesses
were closing and that although people would like to use small shops, it wasn’t viable and
that supermarkets were easy as they provided ‘one stop’ shopping.
Mrs V Uprichard asked whether it was the Big Society Fund that decide the grant
awards from the enabling fund. She said that she was involved with the Griffin Area
Partnership and the Town Team in North Walsham and following the Mary Portas
Initiative. She said that an application had been made to the enabling fund and that they
had been badly let down by the Council and Officers.
Mr Williams said that Cabinet decided who was awarded grants from the enabling fund.
The Chairman said that it was an excellent scheme and well worthwhile.
The Committee SUPPORTED the Recommendation.
135. HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that the strategy was for information only
as it was a Cabinet decision.
Mr R Reynolds said that he had met with several people in danger of being made
homeless who said that the Officers were excellent.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds agreed saying that the Housing Services Team Leader and
her team were excellent.
Mrs A Moore said that the aspirations were mostly not in place and asked when they
would be.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that she would find this information out and
circulate the answer to Members.
Mr E Seward said that there was a priority need for homelessness information and that
this was something he had not seen very much information about in eight years. He
asked why there were 300 households waiting in North Walsham – that there were
medical reasons and overcrowding. Mr Seward suggested that it might be helpful to
focus on these points.
Committee NOTED the report.
136. THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that they were coming to the end of the
administration and that the last Cabinet meeting was on Monday 13th April.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
11
18 March 2015
The Democratic Services Team leader said that the Procurement Strategy and Learning
for Everyone topics in the work programme would roll over to the new council which left
two issues for Cabinet.
137. OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that the organisational structure charts
were progressing and would be updated with changes. She said that the NHOSC
information included in the papers were the outcomes and actions from that meeting
provided by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that the information from Karen O’Cane
would be circulated but that further information was required such as the minutes or
outcomes from the working group.
Mr R Reynolds said that the information provided by Ms O’Cane was no answer at all.
He said that living in North Norfolk meant that mobile phone signal was horrendous, but
that there was a device available on the market to boost signal.
Mrs B McGoun said that a public house in her constituency were happy about the lack
of signal as they didn’t want their customers to be constantly on their mobile phones.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that she would try and get more
information.
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that there would be training in overview and
scrutiny following the May election.
It was agreed that the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 24th
April 2015 should be cancelled.
The Chair expressed his concerns over the mental health care in the district and that
services had been put into ‘special measures’ when the CEO had received a pay
increase of £35,000.
The meeting concluded at 12.00 pm
__________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
12
18 March 2015
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 June 2015 to 30 Sep 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
June 2015
Cabinet
08 Jun 2015
Out-turn report
Wyndham Northam
Scrutiny
17 Jun 2015
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Council
24 July 2015
Cabinet
08 Jun 2015
Annual Report
Tom FitzPatrick
Scrutiny
17 Jun 2015
Helen Thomas
Policy & Performance
Management Officer
01263 516214
Council
24 July 2015
Cabinet
08 Jun 2015
Debt Management
Annual Report
Wyndham Northam
Scrutiny
17 Jun 2015
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Council
24 July 2015
Cabinet
08 Jun 2015
Wyndham Northam
Scrutiny
17 Jun 2015
Treasury
Management
Annual Report
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Council
24 Jun 2015
Status / additional
comments
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* 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 June 2015 to 30 Sep 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
08 Jun 2015
Confirmation of
new taxi vehicle
application fees
Judy Oliver
Cabinet
8 June 2015
Proposed Cromer
Community Sports
Pitch Facility
Tom FitzPatrick
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
Enforcement
Board Update
(including update
on long-term
empty homes)
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
Shannocks Hotel,
Sheringham
Lead Officer
Status / additional
comments
Dealt with by Chief
Executive as an
emergency measure to
implement on 1 May
2015
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
July 2015
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
John Rest
Judy Oliver
6 monthly update
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* 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 June 2015 to 30 Sep 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Status / comments
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
Tom FitzPatrick
15 Jul 2015
Sean Kelly
Head of Business
Transformation
01263 516276
6 monthly update
Scrutiny
Business
Transformation
Update
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
Enabling Fund
Prospectus
Tom FitzPatrick
Cabinet
Scrutiny
15 Jul 2015
Rob Young
Head of Economic
and Community
Development
01263 516162
Corporate Plan
All
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
01263 516000
Cabinet
Financial Strategy
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
21 Jul 2015
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
15 Jul 2015
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
15
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 June 2015 to 30 Sep 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
PPBH
15 Jun 2015
Sue Arnold
Cabinet
06 Jul 2015
Local Plan –
Review process
and timetable
Lead Officer
Mark Ashwell
Planning Policy &
Property Information
Manager
01263 516325
Status / comments
PPBH
Cabinet
The Local
Development
Scheme, Reg. 18
notification &
Statement of
Community
Involvement
Housing Land
supply –
publication of
statement of 5 year
land supply of
residential
development land
Sept 2015
Cabinet
07 Sep 2015
Property
Investment
Strategy
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
16
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 June 2015 to 30 Sep 2015
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Lead Officer
Cabinet
07 Sep 2015
Open Space –
lifting of restriction
Tom FitzPatrick
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Cabinet
07 Sep 2015
Asset Strategy
John Rest
Scrutiny
16 Sep 2015
Duncan Ellis
Head of Assets &
Leisure
01263 516330
Council
23 Sep 2015
Cabinet
07 Sep 2015
Cabbell Park
Tom FitzPatrick
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Cabinet
07 Sep 2015
Budget Monitoring
– period 4
Wyndham Northam
Scrutiny
16 Sep 2015
Karen Sly
Head of Finance
01263 516243
Cabinet
07 Sep 2015
Performance
Management Q1
Tom FitzPatrick
Scrutiny
16 Sep 2015
Julie Cooke
Head of
Organisational
Development
01263 516040
Status / comments
Key Decision – a decision which is likely to incur expenditure or savings of £100,000 or more, or affect two or more wards. (NNDC
Constitution, p9 s12.2b)
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information) (England) Order
2006)
17
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
17 June 2015
Agenda Item 16
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
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
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
The latest outcomes and actions report for the NHOSC is attached at
Appendix A.
3.
Responses to issues raised at previous meetings
Citizens Advice Bureaux
3.1
The Health and Communities Officer will attend the July meeting of Overview
& Scrutiny Committee to update members on the latest situation with the
CABs funding and future operation across the District.
4.
The Work Programme and Future Topics
4.1
Members may want to consider scheduling a session for setting the work
programme for the forthcoming year. A request has been received from a
member for the Committee to consider helicopter noise over the East of the
District. Both Norwich International Airport and one of the helicopter operators
have provisionally agreed to attend and provide a presentation of how the
helicopter service to the offshore industry operates and to explain the
constraints regarding flight paths, flying heights, routes, timings and overall
safety. They have also agreed to answer questions both from the committee
and any attending members of the public/ parish Councils. This has been
penciled in for the July meeting (if members are in agreement)
18
Outcomes and Actions
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC)
28 May 2015
Appendix A
Agenda Report Title
Item
Number
Outcomes and Actions
1.
Election of Chairman & Vice
Chairman
Cllr Michael Carttiss was elected Chairman
Cllr Nigel Legg was elected Vice Chairman
3.
Minutes
Check the accuracy of minute 6.3 bullet point 12 – case load of mental
health staff in the King’s Lynn area.
Tim Shaw
6.
Chairman’s announcements
An induction session for all new members & substitute members of
NHOSC will be held at 2.00pm on Thursday 2 July 2015 in the
Conference Room, South Wing, County Hall. The session is also
open to any other members of NHOSC who wish to attend for a
refresher and to all other members of the County Council.
Maureen Orr
7.
System-wide review of health
services in West Norfolk
The West Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group confirmed that it is
not expecting there will be any proposals for major service
reconfiguration in west Norfolk at this stage and that it will consult with
NHOSC on any such proposals that may arise in future. The
committee confirmed that it does not expect the CCG to attend with
further reports about the system-wide review unless a ‘substantial
variation’ in service is proposed.
Dr Sue Crossman
8.
Continuing Health Care
NHOSC agreed that, subject to the CCGs’ timetable, a consultation
document on Continuing Health Care could be circulated to members
of the committee for 16 July 2015 but that the item would not be
included on the committee’s agenda on that date. ‘Continuing Health
Dr Anoop Dhesi
Amanda Cousins
19
Action By Whom
Care’ would be on the agenda on 3 September 2015 at which time
representatives of the CCG & Commissioning Support Unit would
attend. Representations from other interested parties could also be
heard at that meeting. The committee would agree its response to the
CCGs on 3 September.
9.
NHOSC appointments
The following request from a Continuing Healthcare Patient and
Norwich Independent Living Group Member to be reported back to the
CCGs:That the Harwood Care & Support Charter card should be used
to open meaningful discussions with those who require help.
Amanda Cousins
Benchmarking data showing where the Norfolk CCGs’ current
spending on Continuing Health Care stands in comparison to other
CCGs to be provided (in response to a request from a representative
of Equal Lives).
Amanda Cousins
The following appointments were agreed:-
Maureen Orr
Great Yarmouth & Waveney Joint Health Scrutiny Committee
Mr M Carttiss
Mr C Aldred
Great Yarmouth and Waveney Borough Council appointee to NHOSC
(yet to be nominated by the Borough Council).
Formal links with CCGs:North Norfolk CCG – M Chenery of Horsbrugh
South Norfolk CCG – Dr N Legg
Great Yarmouth & Waveney CCG – Mrs J Chamberlin
West Norfolk – M Chenery of Horsbrugh
Norwich – Mr B Bremner & substitute Mrs M Somerville
20
Formal links with NHS Provider Trusts
Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust – substitute link – M
Chenery of Horsbrugh
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust – M Chenery of Horsbrugh
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – Dr
N Legg; substitute Mrs M Somerville
James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – Mr C
Aldred; substitute Mrs M Somerville
Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust – substitute link – Mrs
M Somerville
NHOSC agreed to make the remaining appointments at its next
meeting on 16 July 2015:Formal links for:Norfolk Community Health & Care NHS Trust
Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Substitute links for:North Norfolk CCG
South Norfolk CCG
Great Yarmouth and Waveney CCG
West Norfolk CCG
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
8.
Forward work programme
The forward work programme was agreed with the following
amendment:‘Continuing Health Care’ to be removed from 16 July 2015 agenda.
The committee noted that ‘Development of dementia services in West
Norfolk’ on 16 July agenda was expected to be a consultation from the
21
Maureen Orr
CCG regarding permanent changes following the trial period in March
2015.
Maureen Orr to find out more details about reports that members have
heard about a medical practice moving in Cromer.
Copied to:Representatives attending the NHOSC meeting for NHS / other organisations
District Council Members of NHOSC
Member Support Officer - Christine Byles
CCG engagement contacts (x5)
Health and Wellbeing Board support officer – Linda Bainton
Healthwatch Norfolk – Chris MacDonald
22
Appendix B
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2015/2016
Period May 2015
June
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Wyndham Northam
Sean Knight
Cyclical item
Wyndham Northam
Tony Brown
Cyclical item
Tom FitzPatrick
Helen Thomas
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Steve Hems
Annual
Enforcement Board update
Judy Oliver/John Rest
Nick Baker
Cyclical
Business Transformation update
Tom FitzPatrick/Becky Palmer
Sean Kelly
Cyclical
Corporate Plan
Tom FitzPatrick
Sheila Oxtoby
Financial Strategy
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Update on CABs
Tom FitzPatrick
Sonia Shuter
Outturn report 2014/15
Debt Recovery 2014/15
Treasury Management Annual
Report
Annual Report 2014/15
Grass-cutting / maintenance
Update on waste contract
Cyclical Item
Requested by Committee
July
23
Update following recent reports
on this item
Waste Update
Helicopter flight paths
(tbc)
Sept
Property Investment Strategy
Asset Strategy
Budget Monitoring – period 4
Regulation of Investigatory Powers
(RIPA) – Annual Update
Performance Management Q1
Overview & Scrutiny Annual Report
TBC
Outside Bodies – review of bodies
on the approved list
Customer Access Strategy –
including concerns over telephone
answerphones
Planning Restructure Update
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Steve Hems
Steve Blatch
Cyclical
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
John Rest
Duncan Ellis
Wyndham Northam
Karen Sly
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Steve Hems
Cabinet report
Tom FitzPatrick
Helen Thomas
Judy Oliver
Emma Denny
Cabinet report
Judy Oliver
Emma Denny
Becky Palmer
Nick Baker
Requested by a Member
Cabinet report
Cyclical
Annual
Annual
Sue Arnold
Nicola Baker
Requested by the committee for
update 6 months following July
report
24