Committee Administrator: Alison Argent: alison.argent@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Direct Dial on: 01263 516058
7 December 2012
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Tuesday 18 December
2012 at 9.30a.m.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours. Coffee will be available in the staff restaurant at 9.30 a.m.
and at the break.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516047, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore, Mr J H PerryWarnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mr R Smith and Mr P Terrington.
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this
meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative
format or in a different language please contact us.
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
SUBSTITUTES
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any
4.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
(9.30 – 9.40)
To approve as correct records, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on 21 November 2012.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To consider any petitions received from members of the public.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A MEMBER
To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to
the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days notice, to include an item on the
agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
OR RECOMMENDATIONS
To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or
recommendations.
10.
THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
(Page 9)
To discuss the Forward Plan and to consider the programme of business for Cabinet,
Overview and Scrutiny, Audit and Full Council.
11.
PRESENTATION - NORTH NORFOLK CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP –
COMMISSIONING STRATEGY – 2012-2016
(Commissioning Strategy attached - Page 14)
(9.40 – 10.30)
Mark Burgis, Head of Clinical Programme Design for North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning
Group and Rebecca Champion, Engagement Manager, North Norfolk Commissioning
Group will give a 10 -15 minute presentation on the Commissioning Strategy and then take
questions.
12.
2012/13 REVISED BUDGET
(Cabinet agenda – 13 December 2012)
(Page 35)
(Appendix A – p.48) (Appendix B– p.49) (Appendix C – p.75) (Appendix D – p.89)
(Appendix E – p.91)
(10.30 – 10.55)
Summary:
The base budget for 2012/13 was approved by Full Council on 22
February 2012. The budget was updated as part of the 2011/12
final accounts report for the carry forward of funding from the year
end process. The budget has continued to be monitored
throughout the year to date and reported to Members accordingly.
This report now presents for approval the 2012/13 revised budgets
for revenue and capital.
Options considered:
Not reporting the revised budget – recommending a revised budget
during the year provides an opportunity to critically review all
budgets and to ensure spend and income budgets reflect current
service plans and objectives. Due to the significant budget
movements in the year in particular the service restructurings
following the management restructure and the outcome of the pay
and grading review, this thorough review during the year provides a
mechanism to ensure the reported budget is accurate and enables
meaningful budget monitoring for the remainder of the year.
Conclusions:
The revised budget shows a small underspend of £1,398 for the
current financial year and will be transferred to the general reserve
in the year.
Recommendations: That Members agree and recommend to Full Council:
1) The revised revenue budget for 2012/13;
2) The revised transfers to and from reserves as detailed within
Appendix D;
3) A transfer of £1,398 to the general reserve;
4) The revised capital programme and associated financing as
included at Appendix E including the additional sum of
£37,084 be made available to fund refurbishment works to the
Rocket House, to include the full renewal and upgrade of the
lift system and £21,000 for the replacement scanner and
printer for the Planning service, both to be funded from capital
receipts.
5) The scale of fees and charges from 1 April 2013 included at
Appendix C.
6) That delegated authority for setting the fees and charges for
waste be given to Corporate Director, Head of Environmental
Health, Head of Finance and relevant Cabinet Portfolio
Members.
13.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To agree a revised budget for the current financial year.
Cabinet Member
Wards affected
Contact Officer
telephone number
and email:
Wyndham Northam
All
Karen Sly
01263 516243
Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
BIG SOCIETY FUND UPDATE REPORT
(Page 56)
(Appendix A – p. 63) (Appendix B – p.65) (Appendix C – p.71) (Appendix D – p.77)
(11.10 – 11.30)
Summary:
This report examines the operation of Big Society Fund
in the first six months since its launch. It outlines the
nature and outcome of applications to the Fund to-date
and evaluates the effectiveness of the scheme in
achieving its objectives so far
Options
considered:
This is an update report with no substantive
recommendations. Whilst many options exist in relation
to the future operation of the fund, it is suggested that
this review take place later in the financial year when
the Service level Agreement is to be reconsidered.
Conclusions:
The Big Society Fund has provided financial support to
a wide range of community oriented projects which will
undoubtedly help in achieving the purpose of the Fund:
to help build strong communities in North Norfolk. In
general the fund has been a success and minor
procedural or administrative issues have been
satisfactorily addressed throughout this initial
operational period. The future operation of the Fund
should be determined towards the end of its first year of
operation, alongside an evaluation of the effectiveness
of Norfolk Community Foundation in fulfilling the
requirements of the Service Level Agreement.
Recommendations: It is recommended that:
1. A politically balanced working group comprising
of two Cabinet and two Scrutiny Members is
established to work with officers to review the North
Norfolk Big Society Fund.
2. A report is presented to Cabinet in March,
identifying whether or not the Big Society Fund
should be continued in the next financial year and if
so, the most appropriate way for this to be
implemented.
Reasons for
This will enable consideration of the first three quarters
Recommendations: of the Fund’s first year of operation to be evaluated,
alongside the review of the SLA.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Service Level Agreement between NNDC and Norfolk Community Foundation
BSF Prospectus
Big Society Board Terms of Reference
Report/ minutes of Cabinet (31/1/12); O& S Committee (6/2/12); and Full
Council (22/2/12)
Cabinet Member(s) Ward(s) affected
Cllr Trevor Ivory
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Rob Young/ Sonia Shuter, 01263 516162, robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk
14.
HOUSING ALLOCATIONS SCHEME
(Cabinet agenda – 13 December 2012)
(Page 100)
(Appendix F – p. 106) (Appendix G – p.125)
(11.30 – 12.15)
Summary:
Options considered:
Conclusions:
The Council has reviewed its Allocations Scheme to reflect the
changes in legislation introduced by the Localism Act and
statutory instruments. The changes ensure that the Council’s
Allocation Scheme complies with all statutory requirements whilst
also ensuring that it maximises the number of affordable dwellings
which will be occupied by households with connections to towns
and villages in North Norfolk. The new Allocations Scheme will be
delivered through the Your Choice Your Home scheme which is a
partnership between the Council and 8 Housing Associations.
Once adopted, the new Allocation Scheme will be used to allocate
properties from April 2013.
1. Do nothing. This option was discounted as this would
mean the Council’s Allocations Scheme was not in
accordance with legislation and did not meet members’
aspirations for how affordable housing is allocated.
2. Review the allocation policy. This option was adopted as it
ensures the Council’s new Allocations Scheme reflects
changes in legislation on the operation of housing
registers. It also ensures that member’s aspirations that
the number of affordable dwellings which are allocated to
households with connections to towns and villages in
North Norfolk is maximised.
The Localism Act has introduced changes to the operation
of housing registers. The Council’s Allocations Scheme
has therefore been amended to reflect the changes and
also to meet member aspirations. The proposed new
Allocations Scheme has created 3 housing registers and
includes both qualifying and non-qualifying criteria and
introduces a new 2 Stage Approach to allocations which
will seek to maximise the number of properties allocated to
households who have connections to towns and villages in
North Norfolk. The proposed new allocation scheme has
been subject to wide consultation and now requires
adoption by the Council.
Once adopted the new
Allocations Scheme is expected to go live in April 2013
following an implementation period.
Recommendations: Cabinet recommend the adoption of the Housing Allocations
Scheme to Full Council.
15.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To ensure that the Council’s Allocations Scheme reflects the
legislative and regulatory requirements for housing registers
following a change in these requirements.
Cabinet Member:
Wards affected
Contact Officer
telephone number
and email:
Trevor Ivory
All
Nicola Turner
01263 516222
Nicola.turner@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EMPTY HOMES PILOT
(Cabinet agenda – 13 December 2012)
(Page 128)
(*Exempt Appendix 1- p.171)
(12.15 – 12.35)
* The exempt appendix is not for publication by virtue of paragraph 2 of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972
Summary:
Options considered:
Conclusions:
In October 2011 Cabinet received a Report on Empty
Homes as classified on the Council Tax Register and
resolved to establish an Empty Homes Pilot Project to
identify a way forward in dealing with the issue of long term
empty homes in the District. This report reviews the Empty
Homes Project and its outcomes.
N/A
The outcomes achieved through the Pilot Project to date
are as follows;
•
•
•
•
•
The appearance of the properties/gardens has been
enhanced by the use of the statutory notice
procedures.
Where building condition impacted negatively on
adjoining properties, this has been remedied
Debts owed to the Council have been recovered
from the property owner through the use of the
charging order procedure.
One property has been sold and the Council Tax
status changed as a result and one is currently
under repair.
A record of intervention has been developed that
•
•
•
Recommendations:
would support an application for a Compulsory
Purchase Order on the properties as required.
Learning from pilot will be used in implementation of
new Empty Homes Policy.
The pilot has shown that the willingness of the
Council to use CPO powers and the use of other
enforcement powers to improve the appearance and
condition of the empty homes has achieved results,
although in one case further action is required to
ensure improvements in property condition are
maintained. This process of enforcement action as
the Council prepares the CPO case will continue.
The learning from the pilot will be used to ensure
that the new Empty Homes Policy will be able to
deliver a reduction in the number of empty homes
and the ability to use a range of enforcement powers
including the enforced sale procedure and where
appropriate and effective CPO powers.
(1) That all required enforcement action on empty
homes be directed through the Enforcement
Board.
(2) That £200,000 is ringfenced to support bringing
back into use properties through the use of
enforcement methods including enforced sale
and CPO powers.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
ODPM Circular 06/2004 Compulsory Purchase and the Crichel Down Rules
ODPM Empty Property : Unlocking the Potential
Cabinet Member:
Wards affected
Contact Officers
telephone number
and email:
16.
Trevor Ivory
All
Nicola Turner & Emma Duncan
01263 516222./516045
Nicola.turner@north-norfolk.gov.uk
emma.duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Page 79)
(Appendix E – p.81) (Appendix F – p.84) (Appendix G – p.85) (Appendix H - p.89)
(Appendix I – p.90) (Appendix J – p.114)
(12.35 – 12.45)
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix E) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix F.
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:
17.
Mr T FitzPatrick
All
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
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 21 November
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr D Young
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Price
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director, the Head of Finance, the
Health Improvement Officer , the Head of Organisational Development, the
Sports and Leisure Services Manager and the Scrutiny Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mr P W High, Mr K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mrs B McGoun,
Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam, Mr R Oliver, Mrs A Sweeney, Ms V
Uprichard and Mr J Wyatt
Democratic Services Officer (ITV)
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman informed Members that Mrs Alison Argent, Democratic Services Officer, was
absent through a family bereavement. Members asked that their sympathies be conveyed
to Mrs Argent.
The Chairman also reported on Mr B Smith’s absence through ill health. It was agreed that
the Committee’s best wishes be sent to Mr Smith.
Finally the Chairman referred to an e-mail message which had been circulated following Mr
Perry-Warnes’ notification of his decision to relinquish Chairmanship of the Council for
health reasons. Members were sorry to hear this news and passed on their best wishes to
Mr Perry-Warnes.
87 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr B Smith and Mr P Terrington..
88 SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Price for Mr R Reynolds, Mr R Shepherd for Mr J Perry-Warnes and Mr D Young
for Mr P Terrington.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
1
89 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
90 MINUTES
On Minute No 84 – Review of Outside Bodies - Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds pointed out
that her remark in (a) that none of the outside bodies (apart from NHOSC) was reported
to Council would more accurately refer to not many outside bodies. Members agreed
and, subject to that amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 23 October 2012 were approved as a correct record and
signed by the Chairman.
91 ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS
Call-in: Cabinet: 12 November 2012: Item 15: North Walsham Dual Use Sports
Centre
A call-in had been received from Mr P Moore in accordance with the Council’s
Constitution in respect of the Cabinet’s decision on the management of the North
Walsham DUSC. To comply with the constitutional requirement to deal with the call-in
as expeditiously as possible, the Chairman had agreed to take the matter as an item of
urgent business at this meeting. The Chief Executive summarised the advice of the
Monitoring Officer on this point. The Leader queried whether the call-in was valid as he
felt that it challenged the decisions of Cabinet rather than the process to reach those
decisions. The Chairman responded that the Monitoring Officer had confirmed that the
call-in was valid and that it was appropriate to call-in a Cabinet decision.
A note of the Cabinet decision, together with a summary of the grounds of Mr Moore’s
call-in, had been circulated to Committee Members. Mr Moore explained why he had
called in the decision with the aid of a longer written statement tabled at the meeting.
The resolution of the Cabinet was as follows:
1) That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreement with North Walsham High School to ensure that:
a) The Council pays the school only for the additional costs incurred in having the
school buildings open for community use.
b) The Council assumes overall responsibility for setting all fees and charges
relating to the Dual Use Centre, in consultation with the Voluntary Management
Committee
2) That, should it be necessary to serve notice to vary the existing agreement or enter
into a new agreement to be implemented by 1 April 2013 officers, with the
agreement of the relevant portfolio members, are authorised to serve the required
notice on the school to end the current Dual Use Agreement.
3) That officers are authorised to work with the Voluntary Management Committee to
improve local Management of the Dual Use Centre, including the setting up of a
Community Sports Trust if this is feasible.
4) That improvements to the facilities, such as the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area
at the Dual Use Centre, are explored further with the school.
5) That officers are authorised to negotiate and conclude variations to the Dual Use
Agreements with Cromer Academy and Stalham High School as per
recommendation (1) above.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
2
Mr Moore sought equality of treatment across all such centres by committing the
Council to negotiate simultaneously with the Cromer and Stalham facilities with a view
to a comprehensive package of revised costs and prices being brought forward for
consideration. He felt that the proposal was not clear as to how funding for the North
Walsham facility would continue; that the recommendation potentially harmed the
Council’s negotiations with North Walsham High School on future rents and that, in
the absence of discussion with the High School thus far, a more conciliatory
approach, setting out options on future rents, needed to be taken. In his view, the
proposed course provided insufficient clarity on the setting of fees and charges,
omitting reference to any mechanism for dealing with disputes and disagreements
with the Voluntary Management Committee.
Mr Moore proposed that the matter be referred back to Cabinet with a request that
a) All three DUSCs are reviewed simultaneously, so that a comprehensive total package
of revised costs and prices can be brought forward for consideration as part of the
Council’s budget setting process. Part (5) of the resolution should state that
negotiations and variations to the dual use agreements with Cromer Academy and
Stalham High School will be conducted simultaneously with those relating to North
Walsham High School.
b) Part (2) of the resolution should be amended to read: “That the Council enters into
negotiations with the School(s) with a view to securing a new or varied Agreement(s);
that officers should be authorised to vary the Agreement(s) or if necessary negotiate a
new Agreement(s); if the officers are not successful, the matter will be referred back
to Cabinet for resolution.”
c) It would be inappropriate for Cabinet to finalise its position regarding the future
finances of the DUSC(s) unless and until accurate financial data is provided.
The proposal was seconded by Ms Gay, who commented that the matter had suffered
from confusion and undue confidentiality.
The final part of Mr Moore’s proposal was based on the premise that three different
figures were in use. Following a question from the Chief Executive, when it became
became apparent that the figures being queried comprised an initial budget figure plus
projections for the next two years, Mr Moore agreed, with the consent of his seconder,
to withdraw part (d) above from his proposal.
Mr Lee wondered how this call-in had come about, as the way in which Cabinet had
reached its decision was not being called into question. Furthermore, the questions
asked by Mr Moore had been dealt with by Cabinet and previously at Council and
elsewhere. The Cabinet was not picking on North Walsham – all three agreements
were different. The North Walsham agreement had not been looked at since 1986,
since when the Council had effectively been subsidising the school. The report to
Cabinet had been perfectly clear on finances and on officer support to the facility.
Consultation with the Voluntary Management Committee had taken place and the
Council would continue to work with that body.
Ms Uprichard stated that a petition signed by over a thousand North Walsham residents
was being presented, expressing opposition to the Council’s proposal to withdraw
funding and transfer management of the Dual Use facility. Mr Johnson pointed out that
this was now outdated, negotiations having moved on since the signatures had been
collected.
Following discussion on the issue and service of notice, Mr Oliver commented that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
3
failure to take account of these matters in the formal agreement would mean that there
would be no incentive for the school to renegotiate. This was a professional approach
with the aim of achieving the best value for money for the local taxpayer. Mr Johnson
informed the meeting that he had been to the North Walsham Town Council last week,
when there had been no dissention to what was being proposed by Cabinet.
On being put to the Committee initially, the proposal, as amended, received 5 votes in
favour and 5 against and the motion was carried on the Chairman’s casting vote.
RESOLVED
That the decision of Cabinet be referred back in accordance with (a) and, (b) above.
92 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 15 –
Presentation: East of England Ambulance Service Trust – as the Council’s
representative on the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
93 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
A petition initiated by the North Walsham Sports Centre and bearing 1023 signatures
was handed in by Ms V Uprichard.
Minute No 91 above refers.
94 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
95 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
96 THE FORWARD PLAN AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES WORK PROGRAMME
Noted.
97 BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2012/13 – PERIOD 6
Mr W Northam, portfolio holder, presented the report, drawing attention to the forecast
underspend of £23,552 on the revenue account.
The Chairman commented on the General Fund Capital Programme, where actual
expenditure fell well short of the updated budget. This appeared to be a regular feature
and was presumably a situation which had to be accepted due to commitments and
projects yet to come to fruition.
In reply to a query from Ms Gay, the Head of Finance clarified the outlined
savings/additional income shown for court costs by pointing out that the word
“recovered” had been omitted from the relevant column at Appendix G of the report.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
4
Mr R Smith drew Members’ attention to a service variance in Development Management
(page 63 of the report) where a shortfall had occurred in the projected budget for
planning income.
The report was noted.
98 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2012/13
QUARTER 2
The Head of Organisational Development presented the report.
The Chairman pointed out that the interim report on The Big Society Fund would now be
considered at the December meeting of the Committee.
In reply to a question from the Chairman on the Business Manager appointment for
Democratic Services, the Chief Executive said that the initial response had prompted
another look at the structuring of the post.
Ms Gay enquired as to progress on Cabinet consideration of the proposed business
plan for the new Destination Management Organisation for the North Norfolk coast and
countryside. Mr K Johnson confirmed that this was on schedule for a Cabinet decision at
the December meeting.
The Chairman asked whether there was anything further to report on the development of
the key site at North Walsham referred to in paragraph 2.23 of the report to Cabinet and
where £2.4m had been secured from the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) Growing
Places Fund for infrastructure investment. The Chief Executive stated that officers from
the LEP were happy with progress, although slightly behind the original timetable. A
further meeting of the LEP was to take place on the following day and Members were
reassured that the funding remained secure.
In noting that 4 out of 5 major planning applications had been determined outside the
thirteen week target in the second quarter (paragraph 2.36 of the Cabinet report), the
Chairman assumed that the fifth application had been that for the Waitrose development
at North Walsham. Things were moving quickly on this project, which was good news for
the town.
Mr P Moore, in moving the recommendation, made the point that, although the proposed
annual reporting on the rate of take up of new designated employment land was
sensible, this or indeed any other frequency of reporting would not increase take up.
The motion was seconded by Mrs A Green.
RESOLVED
(a) That the report be accepted.
(b) That the rate of take up of new designated employment land (indicator J 005) be
reported annually instead of quarterly as originally agreed at Cabinet in May 2012.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.05am and reconvened at 11.25am.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
5
99 SHARED SERVICES
Deferred.
100 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Noted.
The meeting was adjourned at 10.40am and reconvened at 11.10am.
101 PRESENTATION – EASTOF ENGLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE TRUST
The Chairman introduced Paul Leaman – Assistant Director, Chris Hartley – Assistant
Director and Teresa Church – General Manager, in attendance to make a presentation
on the background, services and challenges facing the East of England Ambulance
Service NHS Trust. The presentation took account of questions forwarded to the Trust
prior to the meeting.
Mr Leaman, in commencing the presentation, welcomed the opportunity to share the
challenges and issues facing the Trust and to discuss how the service could be moved
forward in the quest for improved patient care. The Trust served nearly 6 million people
in six counties in the East, comprising a diverse mix of urban and rural areas. Some
4,000 staff and 2,000 volunteers, whose activities were managed by three control
rooms, worked towards the achievement of a regional target. Mr Leaman explained that
80% of the Trust’s work revolved around the Emergency 999 service. The challenges
ahead were to deal with an increasing level of 999 calls, to save £50m over 5 years and
to seek continual improvement in quality of service provision, all within the wider
changes being implemented in the National Health Service. The Chairman sought
clarification on when this programme of efficiency savings had begun. Mr Leaman
informed the meeting that the process had commenced in April 2010 and that the
savings were required to be made by the NHS commissioning authorities.
Mr Hartley informed the meeting that the Trust had been set a cost improvement target
of £10.6m, out of a total budget of £227m. He agreed to supply more detailed figures for
Members.
A new service model was needed to replace the existing one, which was unsustainable.
A more responsive service would be achievable through having the right resources,
putting them where patients needed them and deploying resources in the most efficient
way. This could mean, for example, identifying where patients could be handed over to
local nursing teams or surgeries, rather than being taken to hospital and, where they
were taken to hospital, ensuring that patients were seen by hospital staff in a timely
manner, rather than kept waiting in ambulances.
At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr David Russell, Vice-Chairman of the Norfolk
Involvement Network (LINK) and lead on ambulance matters, asked a question
regarding lost off road hours and whether these were contributing to waiting times at the
Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
Mr Leaman replied that achieving the target time of 15 minutes for patients to be
transferred from the ambulance on arrival and a further 15 minutes for preparation for
the ambulance’s departure was a particular issue at the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
6
Anecdotal evidence of delays in getting patients into hospital attributed to the
ambulance service showed these were often caused by deficiencies in the hospital’s
processes; the ambulance service sympathised with this, often to the extent of crews
actually assisting inside the hospital with duties beyond their remit, but this did
adversely, and unfairly, affect their performance against targets. 166 hours had been
lost at the hospital within the last week. A possible interim solution would be to provide
another vehicle at the hospital into which the patient could be temporarily transferred,
allowing the speedier release of ambulance and crew, but this would still involve the
Trust’s resources. The hospital was working very hard to rectify the problem, which was
not an issue to the same extent at any other hospital in the region. In reply to a question
as to whether the Trust could charge the hospital, Mr Leaman said there was no
mechanism for this and that commissioning was a matter for the PCT.
Following a comment from Mr R Price on a suggestion that another consultant was
being procured by the hospital, Mr Leaman agreed that a suitably trained person, not
necessarily a consultant, could improve things considerably for patients.
Mr W Northam had heard that problems were exacerbated by the referral of immigrant
patients from the Peterborough area to Norwich rather than their local hospital.
Mr Leaman explained that the two response targets for the most urgent 999 calls were
to achieve a 75% response time of 8 minutes to emergencies determined as life
threatening and a 95% response of 19 minutes to the next category. In 2008, the figures
achieved were, respectively, 57.25% and 84.87%. Figures for 2010/11 were an 48.51%
success rate for the 8 minute responses and 84.95% for the 19 minute target. More
detailed figures by local area would be provided for Members. Mrs A Sweeney asked
whether lives were being lost through waiting for a response to a 999 call, with particular
reference to an example where a patient waited for 60 minutes. Mr Leaman said that
any wait was too long and 8 minutes was a challenge. He referred to the availability, in
life threatening circumstances, of an excellent Air Ambulance, run by a charitable body,
with whom the ambulance service had a very good relationship. For clarification, he
mentioned that there were 4 other categories of response and, in certain circumstances,
a 60 minute wait would be within target. He would be happy to look into an individual
case on request.
Mr Leaman confirmed that 999 calls were increasing year on year, partly because
people were living longer, with a greater dependency on the health service, partly
through misuse and to a degree because of the decision of general practitioners to
decline an out of hours service. There was scope for some reduction in demand through
a preventative approach, such as that adopted by the Fire Service, where basic safety
measures introduced in the home had been very effective in reducing demand. The use
of the new 111 number would also help, as well as further measures to educate the
public. On the last point, Mr Hartley stressed that the service needed to be better at
setting out what it did and how it was funded, to prioritise different patients and do more
to explain this.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds agreed that an approach that included educating the public
was necessary, recalling an experience, on a shift with an ambulance crew as a
Member of the Norfolk Health and Overview Scrutiny Committee. This had involved a
physically impossible response time to reach a patient in the care of the Police, which
could have been handled differently. Mr R Shepherd, speaking as a former Police driver,
felt that an 8 minute response time was generally impractical and could, depending
upon conditions and time of day, be dangerous. He wondered to what extent stress
affected staffing sickness levels. Mr Leaman confirmed that a very good employee
assistance programme was available. Ms Church said that 25% of sickness absence
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
7
was due to stress and, until recently, would not have been recorded as such. Managers
were now trained in stress assessment and picking up the signs early.
In reply to a question on vacancy rates, Ms Church revealed that there were currently 62
technician and paramedic jobs available in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Teresa Church outlined the changes taking place locally, referring to details of present
and proposed cover at Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham ambulance stations, as
circulated. Following an anecdote from Mrs Claussen-Reynolds concerning the
difficulties of an ambulance crew from Ipswich in travelling between Stiffkey and North
Walsham, Ms Church , in agreeing to look into this incident, explained that once an
ambulance had arrived in Norwich from Cromer, it could be re-routed to any emergency.
An ambulance from Ipswich would not normally find itself in North Norfolk, but this
showed how crews could become displaced.
Mr R Oliver, thanking the representatives for an excellent presentation, said that the 999
response times were not good enough for the people of North Norfolk who, he hoped,
were not losing out through preferential treatment in more urban areas in order to
maximise target compliance. Mr Leaman assured Members that this was not the case.
He mentioned more ways in which the local community could help improve the service
in North Norfolk, for example through the appointment of more community first
responders, or even through sponsorship. More local commissioning presented a
greater opportunity to become involved.
Mrs A Green referred to discussions at parish councils on the merits of acquiring a
defibrillator and sought advice on this. Mr Leaman felt that the purchase of such a piece
of equipment, at a cost of around a thousand pounds, was an excellent investment. The
equipment was simple to use, cost effective and an asset to any community.
Mrs Claussen-Reynolds asked how the service’s objective of a paperless office was
progressing. Mr Leaman said that this was some way off, but would eventually lead to
much easier maintenance and transfer of records.
The Chairman mentioned recent publicity on a review of rural services. Mr Hartley
explained that the terms of reference for a capacity review were currently being
formulated and agreed to forward details to the Council as soon as they were available.
Mr Leaman suggested that he and his colleagues come back, once the review was
under way, to enlist the Council’s support.
The Committee agreed with the Chairman’s suggestion that an update be considered at
the meeting on18 December, in the light of the further financial and response time
details promised and any more information on the capacity review.
Members expressed their appreciation to Ms Church, Mr Hartley and Mr Leaman for a
very helpful and candid presentation and the Chairman thanked the representatives for
their attendance.
The meeting concluded at 12.54pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
21 November 2012
8
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 December 2012 to 31 March 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
December 2012
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
Cromer Council
Office
Improvements
Tom
FitzPatrick /
Rhodri Oliver
Delivering the
Vision (B,D)
Nick Baker
Corporate Director
01263 516221
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
Empty Homes
Policy
Trevor Ivory
Housing &
Infrastructure (E)
Nicola Turner
Strategy Team Leader
01263 516222
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
Trevor Ivory
Housing &
Infrastructure (E)
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
Empty Homes Pilot
Scheme
*Exempt item under
Paragraph 1 information relating
to any individual
Local Development
Orders
Rhodri Oliver
Housing &
Infrastructure
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
North Walsham
Retail Demand and
Capacity Study
Trevor Ivory
Jobs and the
Local Economy
(A)
Localism (B)
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Status
Contains
Exempt
Information
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
9
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 December 2012 to 31 March 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
2012/13 Revised
Budget
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Overview & Scrutiny
18 Dec 2012
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Full Council
Cabinet
19 Dec 2012
3 Dec 2012
Allocations Policy
and Local Lettings
Agreement
Trevor Ivory
Housing &
Infrastructure
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Cabinet
3 Dec 2012
Street Naming &
Numbering Fees
Rhodri Oliver
Housing &
Infrastructure
Mark Ashwell
Planning Policy &
Property Info Manager
01263 516325
January 2013
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Housing Renewal
Policy
Trevor Ivory
Housing &
Infrastructure
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Wyndham
Northam
Overview & Scrutiny
16 Jan 2013
Council Tax
Support Scheme
(Final)
Full Council
(Special meeting)
23 Jan 2013
Status
Louise Wolsey
Revenues & Benefits
Services Manager
01263 516081
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
10
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 December 2012 to 31 March 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
7 Jan 2012
Council Tax
Discounts
Wyndham
Northam
Overview & Scrutiny
16 Jan 2013
Full Council
(Special Meeting)
Cabinet
23 Jan 2013
Compulsory
Purchase Order
(Fakenham)
*Exempt item under
Paragraph 1 information relating
to any individual
Tom
Fitzpatrick
7 Jan 2013
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
Status
Louise Wolsey
Revenues & Benefits
Services Manager
01263 516081
Housing &
Infrastructure
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
01263 516232
Exempt item
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Destination
Management
Organisation
Tom
FitzPatrick /
John Lee
Jobs & the Local
Economy (D)
Robin Smith
Economic & Tourism
Development Manager
01263 516236
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Big Society Fund –
grants over £10,000
Trevor Ivory
Localism (C)
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
11
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 December 2012 to 31 March 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
Status
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Collective Energy
Switching Scheme
Proposal
John Lee
Delivering the
Vision
Cabinet
7 Jan 2013
Review of Tourist
Information Centres
John Lee
Delivering the
Vision (D)
Localism
Peter Lumb
Sustainability
Assistant
01263 516331
Estelle Packham
Head of Customer
Services
01263 516079
February 2013
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Treasury Strategy
2013/14
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Annual
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Performance
Management
Tom
FitzPatrick
Delivering the
Vision (A)
Helen Thomas
Policy & Performance
Management Officer
01263 516214
Cyclical
Cabinet
4 Feb 2013
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Overview & Scrutiny
20 Feb 2013
2013/14 Base
Budget and
Projections for
2014/15 to 2016/17
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Full Council
Cabinet
27 Feb 2013
7 Feb 2013
Review of Big
Society Fund
Trevor Ivory
Localism (C)
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Key Decision
* Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (As amended by the Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Exempt Information)
(England) Order 2006)
12
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme
For the Period 01 December 2012 to 31 March 2013
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Corporate Plan
Priority`
Lead Officer
March 2013
Cabinet
4 March 2013
Budget Monitoring
Period 10 (12/13)
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision
Cabinet
4 March 2013
Big Society Fund –
consideration of
grants above
£10,000
Trevor Ivory
Localism (C)
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Robert Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships Manager
01263 516162
Cabinet
tbc
Options for future
of Building Control
Service
Rhodri Oliver
Delivering the
Vision (D) (E)
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)
13
Commissioning Strategy 2012/16
1
14
Document Control Sheet
Name of document:
Commissioning strategy 2012-16
Version:
22 (version for use in public consultation)
Owner:
Mark Taylor
File location / Filename:
Mark Taylor
Date of this version:
25th September 2012
Produced by:
Synopsis and outcomes of
consultation undertaken:
Synopsis and outcomes of
Equality and Diversity Impact
Assessment:
Approved by (Committee):
Mark Taylor
8 week consultation 12/11/12 – 7/1/13 currently
underway.
Date ratified:
18th September 2012
Copyholders:
Mark Taylor & Kevin Sharman
Next review due:
3/1/13
Enquiries to:
Mark Taylor
Not undertaken at this stage
Executive Group
2
15
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
4
About North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group
Health issues in the population
Mission and values
Strategic commissioning goals
What will be different by 2016/17
4
6
7
7
8
CONTEXTS AND KEY CHALLENGES
9
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
Policy context
Insights from patients, public, clinicians and local partners
Provider landscape and key performance issues
Patient experience, quality and safety
Financial picture
9
16
18
19
22
23
COMMISSIONING INTENTIONS 2012 ONWARDS
24
Commissioning and market development strategy
Programmes and initiatives
25
28
IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERY
41
GLOSSARY
42
3
16
INTRODUCTION
This section gives an overview of North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group as an
organisation, summarises the health issues in the population and sets out the vision
and strategic goals to tackle these.
About North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group
North Norfolk and Broadland is a rural and coastal area to the north and east of the city of
Norwich. North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group (NNCCG) was formed in 2011/12 as
a Sub Committee of NHS Norfolk and is seeking to achieve authorisation to operate as the
commissioner for health services in North Norfolk from April 2013. The CCG is one of five
being created in the current NHS Norfolk and Waveney Primary Care Trust Cluster
(NHSN&WC) area.
NNCCG comprises 20 General Practices, across the whole of North Norfolk District Council
(NNDC) and the majority of Broadland District Council (BDC), many of whom have a long
history of working together.
4
17
NN CCG is a local membership organisation led by family doctors that is responsible for
planning and paying for healthcare services. We do not provide healthcare like a GP
Practice or hospital. Our role is to make sure the appropriate NHS care is in place for the
people of North Norfolk, within the budget we have. The CCG has a small core team of staff
who support the work of the Council of Members and the Governing Body.
Formed in 2012 following the Health and Social Care Act 2012, NN CCG are made up of 20
GP practices in North Norfolk and rural Broadland. These practices are all members of the
organisation. The member doctors will lead the decisions about which hospital services,
mental health services and the community healthcare services are needed for the 167,800
people living in the North Norfolk area.
Primary care services, which are GPs, dentists, pharmacies and opticians, will be organised
by the NHS Commissioning Board (NCB) from April 2013.
NN CCG aims are:
To work with patients, staff and stakeholders to offer care that is high-quality, good
value for money and delivered (where possible) closer to home
To maximise the potential of primary care to deliver excellent services for patients
To provide information to our GPs to help inform work and planning
To involve patients in decision making
To reduce health inequalities
To aid educational opportunities for staff in GP surgeries to improve services
At the moment NN CCG is a ‘shadow’ organisation with a delegated budget and the
authority to take decisions. The CCG will officially take over the planning of healthcare
services from April 2013 from NHS Norfolk and Waveney (a Primary Care Trust or PCT).
When planning and buying services the CCG will work with other nearby CCGs in Norfolk to
help make sure local services are consistent and to secure greater leverage with providers
on delivery. NNCCG will also play an active role in wider commissioning networks organised
by the emerging National Commissioning Board Local Area Team which is driving strategic
change and service redesign, for example Stroke.
A memorandum of agreement is in place with the emerging NHS Norfolk Commissioning
Support Unit (NCSU) for those functions which the CCG presently wishes to outsource –
procurement, contracting and performance management – as well as back office functions.
NNCCG has grasped the opportunity to focus on service redesign and community and out of
hospital services in the locality. This is being delivered locally in strong partnership with key
providers and Norfolk County Council. New structures and processes have been introduced
to ensure that this alignment with partners delivers both better services for local people and
better value for money. North Norfolk Healthcare Referrals Management Centre will be key
to systematically enabling choice, pathway redesign and tackling unwarranted variation.
This commissioning strategy sets out the vision of the member Practices, and the start of a
practical work programme which will deliver real benefits to the population, whilst
recognising the challenge of improving quality and access in a climate of financial restraint
within the NHS. It is the means by which Practices can hold the CCG to account and in turn
the CCG can expect support and commitment from Practices to deliver.
5
18
Health issues in the population
The health of people in NNCCG’s area is generally better than the England average.
Deprivation is lower than average, life expectancy for both men and women is higher than
the England average. Approximately one third of NNCCG’s population is aged over 65 and
the current predictions are that this will rise to about 40% by 2028. Over the last 10 years,
all cause mortality rates have fallen as have early death rates from cancer and from heart
disease.
However, the overall level of health status masks variations between localities, with some
with poor health status largely linked to deprivation, unemployment and the low level of
educational attainment. Whilst it is important to tackle the traditional killer diseases such as
heart disease, respiratory disease and cancer, it is equally important to focus upon the
health challenges of obesity, chronic alcohol misuse, long term conditions, mental health and
dementia, and the needs of young people.
This commissioning strategy is being shaped by the health needs of and the unique service
delivery challenges faced by the rural and coastal populations of NNCCG:
an older population living longer often with at least one long term condition
a large rural area with poor transport infrastructure making access to services
challenging and the need to deliver more care at or closer to home
unwarranted variation in health status and outcomes in particular parts of the
locality particularly for young people
a need to promote healthy lifestyles and improve quality of life
the need to prioritise resources accordingly in a time of economic constraint
All of these characteristics present a challenge to NNCCG in designing services which excel
at both preventing and managing the effects of long term conditions, avoiding unnecessary
reliance on acute hospital admission, and that promote well-being and independent living
amongst the whole population but especially older people. NNCCG aims to focus initially on
areas where it can have the greatest impact by reviewing pathways and seeing how they
can be adapted to meet the challenges set out above.
The CCG’s success will be measured by its ability to make consistent, incremental
improvements in outcomes and cost effectiveness, and to tackle unwarranted variation,
across its whole programme of commissioning activity in order to free up the resources to
address future health needs.
6
19
Mission and values
The purpose of NNCCG’s mission and values is to create a strong sense of purpose and direction. They
will be the guiding principles by which NNCCG will conduct business and on which this
commissioning strategy has been shaped.
The mission of the CCG is the statement of intent, setting out ambition for the future. NNCCG has
agreed this mission to guide its commissioning as follows:
The mission of NHS North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group is
to improve health and wellbeing; to support people to be mentally and
physically well; to get better when they are ill; and when they cannot
fully recover, to stay as well as they can to the end of their lives
The values which underpin this mission are:
 Putting patients first and working in partnership
 Treating people with respect, dignity and compassion, ensuring no one is
excluded
 Taking responsibility for our patients in the NHS or social care wherever they
are
 Delivering quality and coherence in primary care practice
 Aspiring to deliver high quality outcomes not merely process driven
 Working to tackle the unique challenges in our population
Strategic commissioning goals
The CCG’s strategy is to commission the best possible health services & outcomes for local
people in financially challenging times by:
Critically reviewing & maximising the value of our current investment in
services (which could lead to disinvestment)
Rigorously driving up the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of our
commissioned services by better engagement of clinicians and intelligent but
rigorous performance management of contracts
Relentlessly reviewing Primary Care quality markers, such as referral rates,
prescribing and outcomes across our Practices so as to minimise
unwarranted clinical variation, the Referrals Management Centre is key to
achieving this
Commissioning care in the right setting, at the right time by the right team
and practitioner
Delivering fully integrated community health and social care teams as the
norm, working in full partnership with local General Practice to support
people in their homes
7
20
What will be different by 2016
The development of this strategy has been led by and with GPs. The next three years will
have a number of characteristics, these will include:
the delivery of this strategy will be led by GPs, working with clinicians and patients
the patient and their quality of care will be the focus of the CCG’s work
collaboration across Practices, and with key partners will build relationships and
ways of working to benefit patients, clinicians, and other local professionals.
engagement with patients and the public and their involvement in the CCG’s
decision making processes will build a new partnership between a statutory
commissioning organisation and the local population it serves
using clinical expertise and ideas from others to develop opportunities for
innovation.
More recently NNCCG has been developing its vision of what differences its residents would
experience in healthcare by 2016/17. This is that the whole population, but especially older
people and those with long term conditions which impact their quality of life, will have access
to a fully integrated primary and community health and social care service, and access to
more specialist care which is evidence based, safe, and delivered with compassion and
dignity.
Our emerging vision of integrated care includes:
 Fully integrated health and social care delivery teams which fully support the 20
General Practices
 Services being arranged around patients’ GP surgeries with access to a wider range
of social, voluntary and housing related services
 A single assessment process across health and social care
 Identified key workers who understand individual patient’s social as well as medical
contexts
 Greater local access to services which are planned and appropriate for delivery in the
locality
 Services which are simple to use and can be “switched on” via a single call and
assessment
 A universal expectation that all services delivered at or close to home will be
delivered with respect, compassion and a personalised approach to care.
8
21
CONTEXTS AND KEY CHALLENGES
This section gives a selected extract from the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment of
the big health challenges facing NNCCG; provides insights from partners and the
community on health issues concerning them; describes the national and regional
strategic context for this strategy; describes the local provider market and its
performance; and sets out the CCG’s financial context.
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
The Norfolk-wide Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) has been disaggregated to
provide a rich picture of the health needs of the population. The full JSNA can be accessed
at www.norfolkinsight.org,uk
Key highlights are set out below.
Population demographics
The registered population of NNCCG is approximately 167,800. The population profile is
older than the English average with correspondingly fewer people under the age of 44.
Projections suggest that this trend will continue. Horsford has the youngest population and
Mundesley and Sheringham the oldest.
In the north of the CCG area small declines are projected in all of the under 20 age groups
over the next 25 year period, in particular for children aged 5-10, however, in the Alysham,
Taverham and Horsford areas each of the five-year age groups is projected to increase up to
2030, the largest increase being in the 5-9s and the smallest in the 15 -19s.
9
22
Health needs and inequalities
The health of people in NNCCG is generally better than the England average.
The 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) did not identify any part of the CCG as being in
the most deprived quintile in England. Whilst deprivation is lower than average, about 1 in 10
children in the CCG area live in poverty. The overall level of health status does, however,
mask variations between localities where health status is poor, largely linked to deprivation,
unemployment and low level of educational attainment. In general terms, Cromer Group
Practice and Ludham and Stalham Green Surgery serve the most deprived communities in
the CCG but there are also significant issues for Wells, Fakenham, Aldborough and the
Practices covering the east coast area.
10
23
Social determinants of health – deprivation
For the period 2008-10, average male life expectancy at birth in the CCG area was 80
compared to the England figure of 78.6. The absolute gap between the lowest part of the
area and the highest was 6.6 years and this has decreased very slightly from the last
recording period. The Practices in areas with the lowest life expectancy are Coltishall,
Stalham Staithe, Acle, Cromer and Sheringham. Sheringham has the lowest male life
expectancy in the CCG area.
In the same period, average female life expectancy at birth for the CCG was 84.7 compared
to the England figure of 82.6. The gap between the area with the lowest life expectancy and
the area with the highest is 11.6 years. This gap is decreasing in the south of the CCG area,
but increasing in the north.
The Practices in areas with the lowest female life expectancy are Drayton, Birchwood and
Paston. Drayton has the lowest life expectancy in the area with a higher than average all
age all cause mortality for women. The rural area around North Walsham is the other lower
area and may relate to the high number of care homes in the area.
Premature mortality
On average, premature mortality in men is better than the national average in North Norfolk
CCG, however, there is still a wide inequality between the best rate of 151 deaths per
100,000 and the worst of 375 per 100,000. The England figure is 345 per 100,000. The
highest rates for men are in the Fakenham, Holt, Sheringham, Cromer, Horsford, Stalham
and Wroxham areas.
11
24
In women, again, the average is better than the national rate of 219 per 10,000 with a range
of 100 at best to 221 at worst. The North Walsham area has the highest female premature
mortality in the CCG area.
Circulatory disease
Male and female premature mortality from circulatory disease is on average lower than the
national average. The rates for each area, however, vary substantially with some areas
being above the national average. For men, the range in rates is from 40 to 113 per
100,000, compared to a national average of 95.
For women, the variation is from 5.9 to 47, with a national average rate of 41. Clearly
although rates are relatively low there are substantial inequalities in outcome within the
CCG. For men, the highest rates are around Cromer, Horsford and Acle. For women, the
area with the highest rate is from North Walsham to Aylsham.
Cancer
This follows the same pattern as for circulatory disease. The average rates are lower than
the national average, but again there is a large variation within the CCG. For men the rate
varies from 50 to 126 per 100,000 and for women from 45 to 126. The Practices who
have a significant number of patients from high rate areas are Cromer, Holt, Fakenham,
Acle, Reepham and Coltishall for men and for women, the highest rates are in the Holt, Acle
and Ludham Practice areas.
Chronic respiratory disease
The average standardised mortality rate for men in England is 29 per 100,000. In North
Norfolk CCG, the rate varies from 0 to 42 by area, with the highest rate being in
Sheringham. For women, the average national rate is 20 per 100,000, with CCG variation
from 0 to 25.4 in the North Norfolk District. Accurate data is not available for the
Broadland part of the CCG. The highest areas are Horsford, Drayton, Reepham and
North Walsham.
12
25
Premature mortality causes 2008-10
Health profiles
Health profiles incorporating a range of direct and wider determinants of local population health are
produced annually. These provide a snapshot of the overall health of the local population with
national and regional comparisons. Compared with the England average, NNDC and BDC show
significantly better health outcomes for the majority of indicators.
Areas where NNCCG is significantly worse highlighted in the Health Profiles 2012 include:
in BDC – statutory homelessness and physically inactive children
across NNCCG, diabetes and physically inactive children
13
26
Assessing need - health and wellbeing overview
Broadland
Indicator
North Norfolk
SPOT analysis
NNCCG has reviewed the spend and outcomes (SPOT) analysis published by the Yorkshire
Public Health Observatory in September 2012 for the NHS. This analysis does not show any
substantial outliers for NNCCG though the data must be viewed with caution as this is the
first cut at a CCG level and most of the data are Norfolk wide.
Hospital utilisation
The dataset published in September 2012 by the West Midlands Quality Observatory shows
NNCCG to have high hospital admission rates for Falls, Dementia, COPD and Heart Failure
relative to England. Whilst these rates may be expected for a population of the CCG’s
demography, these rates are still high when compared to comparator cluster CCGs.
East of England Public Health Observatory (ERPHO) analyses of Hospital Episode Statistics
(HES) provisional data 2011/12) show that the Directly Standardised Rates (DSR) for
cystoscopy and prosthesis of lens (cataracts) procedures are higher than for England, the
region and comparable areas elsewhere in the country, the DSR for arthroscopies was also
high in the last quarter of 2011/12. ERPHO analyses also show that the Standardised
Admission Rates (SAR) for the Urology, Ophthalmology and Dermatology specialties are
higher than for England, the region and geographically comparable areas.
14
27
Access to services
Access to services is not uniform across NNCCG, evidence suggests that differences occur
amongst older people and in those with disabilities. Barriers to access include cost,
availability and accessibility by public transport.
The map below shows the location of key NHS health services in NDC locality which, on its
own, covers a geographical area of 373 square miles. BDC covers a further 213 square
miles. The map shows that most of the services are located close together in the main towns
and access from many villages is challenging.
Location of key NHS services in NDC
Source: CACI (2010)
Key challenges emerging from population demography and epidemiology:
 reducing the health inequalities within the population - whilst the CCG covers
a population which enjoys relatively good health, the district level population
data mask variation at lower super output level
 a larger than average ageing population and the percentage of older people
with one or more long term conditions, such as diabetes, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and dementia
 rurality and access to treatment and care
15
28
Policy context
The NHS Outcomes Framework 2012-13 published by the DoH in December 2011, together
with the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework, and the Public Health Outcomes
Framework published in January 2012 set the national policy context and describe a range
of indicators by which performance and outcomes for the NHS will be measured. These
policy documents support NNCCG’s desire to improve integration of services.
The NHS Outcomes Framework is structured around five domains, which set out the highlevel national outcomes that the NHS should be aiming to improve. They focus on:
Preventing people from dying prematurely.
Enhancing quality of life for people with long term conditions.
Helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury.
Ensuring that people have a positive experience of care.
Treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from
avoidable harm.
 Improving outcomes and supporting transparency.





The NHS Commissioning Board, supported by NICE and working with professional and
patient groups, is developing the Commissioning Outcomes Framework (COF) to measure
the health outcomes and quality of care, including patient reported outcome measures
(PROMS) and patient experience. NNCCG will use the COF to evidence achievement
against key milestones developed for its commissioning programmes and projects and to set
future priorities.
The Public Health Outcomes Framework consists of two overarching outcomes that set the
vision for the whole public health system of what is to be achieved for the public’s health.
The outcomes are:
 increased healthy life expectancy, i.e. taking account of the health quality as well as
the length of life
 reduced differences in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy between
communities (through greater improvements in more disadvantaged communities).
Strategic clinical networks hosted and funded by the NHS Commissioning Board (NHSCB),
will cover conditions or patient groups where improvements can be made through an
integrated, whole system approach. These networks will help local commissioners of NHS
care to reduce unwarranted variation in services and encourage innovation.
The conditions or patient groups chosen for the first strategic clinical networks are:




Cancer
Cardiovascular disease (including cardiac, stroke, diabetes and renal disease)
Maternity and children’s services
Mental health, dementia and neurological conditions
NNCCG clinical leaders will play an active part in these networks and support the
development of quality improvement in local services.
16
29
Commissioning for quality improvement and safety
The National Quality Board (NQB) published a report on 16th August 2012 setting out how
quality will be maintained and improved in the new health system. This report focuses
predominantly on how the new system should prevent, identify and respond to serious
failures in quality. It is also anticipated that the learning, when published in the new year,
from the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust Francis Inquiry report into failures in care and
treatment will have significant implications for the NHS.
In NNCCG, quality will be at the core of commissioning. The CCG will use all available
contractual levers to ensure that quality is central to service delivery. Clinical leaders wish to
play a full and active part in the new quality surveillance groups and will work with regulators
and other organisations in a culture of open and honest cooperation.
NHS Norfolk and Waveney Cluster Integrated Plan 2012
The NHS Norfolk and Waveney Cluster (NHSN&WC) Integrated Plan 2012 sets out how the
Cluster will deliver national mandates defined in the Department of Health’s National
Operating Framework including the 4 top priorities of:




Carers
Dementia and Care of Older People
Military Veterans
Health Visitor and Family Nurse Partnerships
The Cluster plan also describes actions to deliver the current regional priorities detailed in
the NHS Midlands & East Cluster’s Commissioning Framework which includes delivery of
five ambitions to drive further service transformation. These are:
The National Commissioning Board Local Area Team may wish to review these ambitions. In
the meantime, the NNCCG has included, where relevant, those plans that now need to be
driven forward by the CCG to ensure that national and regional priorities are delivered.
17
30
Insights from patients, public, clinicians and local partners
NNCCG has worked closely with GPs and member practices through the shadow Members’
Council to develop its vision and aims. The CCG has also held a number of engagement
workshops with patients and stakeholders, including provider organisations, local authority
and other statutory and non-statutory organisations, to explore opportunities through the new
and emerging clinical commissioning system.
As a ‘shadow’ organisation NNCCG was keen to develop a dialogue with local stakeholders
as early as possible. A key stakeholder event held in July 2012 provided a rich source of
insights into issues concerning partners, patients and other key individuals and
organisations. NCCG clinical leaders and staff met approximately 60 stakeholders from a
range of organisations. The main aims of the event were:
 To view the current Public Health needs assessment data for the area
 To hear from the GP Chair of NNCCG about the proposed commissioning priorities
for the CCG
 To give local stakeholders an opportunity to feedback their views
 To provide an opportunity for networking.
During the event there were question and answer sessions, workshops and the opportunity
to review and comment on public health maps. Feedback from the event was captured and
some priorities identified.
A number of key messages to support the drive for integration emerged from the
event which included:
•The health needs of particular groups must not be overlooked e.g.
people with learning difficulties, children and young people, carers
Inequalities (young and old), disabled people, drug and alcohol misuse
Integrated
care
•There were a number of issues that required joint working e.g.
social isolation, prevention, importance of wider factors in
influencing health outcomes, developing a single point of access
and a single point of entry to services, joined up and holistic
working
Access
•Potential barriers to effective joint working needed to be
addressed e.g. data sharing – confidentiality issues, access –
transport, mobility, educational, social, disempowered patients –
finding the system too difficult and confusing to navigate
18
31
To support ongoing delivery of this strategy, NNCCG has developed a Communications and
Engagement Strategy. The communications and engagement strategy sets out how NNCCG
will engage with people at all stages of decision-making about their health and healthcare
through patient, carer and public involvement in the context of existing NHS policy, best
practice and legislation.
Provider landscape and key performance issues
The current provider market in NNCCG is similar to that of other rural shire counties and
includes:
a large acute services provider, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust (NNUHFT), to the south of the city of Norwich to which access is
a challenge from some parts of NNCCG, the FT also operates a Minor Injuries and
Ambulatory Care Unit from Cromer Hospital on the north Norfolk coast;
community services that are principally delivered by one county wide provider
services organisation, Norfolk Community Health and Care (NCHC), the
organisation also operates from 4 community sites in the CCG with up to 68 beds;
a large mental health and learning disabilities NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk and
Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (NSFT) provider; and
a range of independent and voluntary sector providers.
19
32
Acute hospital services
NNUHFT provides around 90% by of NNCCG’s acute hospital services. There are fairly
small referral flows to the east, to James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
(JPUHFT), and west, to Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn NHS Foundation Trust
(QEHKLFT). NNUHFT is the by far the largest and most influential acute services provider
with whom the CCG needs to work in partnership to deliver service redesign.
The governance risk rating for the NNUHFT was amended by MONITOR from AMBER-RED
to RED in May 2012 due to a failure to meet healthcare targets in quarter 4 2011/12.
Performance has been variable against the Accident and Emergency (A&E) 4 hour wait
standard and the Trust is failing to deliver on the 18 week wait referral to treatment times
standard, largely due to Orthopaedics. Whilst A&E 4 hour wait performance has improved in
2012/13 the Trust continues to fail to deliver on RTT with a forecast recovery date of
February 2013.
Independent sector acute provision is limited with a small SPIRE facility adjacent to the
NNUH site. Other independent sector providers are in King’s Lynn, Cambridge and
Peterborough, a 1-2 hour journey away from Norwich by car, almost inaccessible from rural
and coastal areas by public transport.
Urgent care sector
East of England Ambulance Services NHS Trust (EEAST) provides a wide range of
emergency and patient transport services across eastern region covering six counties
including Norfolk and the CCG area. EEAST is currently in the Foundation Trust pipeline
with MONITOR.
Performance for category A (8 minutes) and category B (19 minutes) responses is variable
even at times when demand is relatively low.
This is an area of specific concern to NNCCG. There is a consistent failure to achieve
performance targets primarily because of issues of rurality and distances to be travelled
which is of significant concern to patients and General Practitioners.
Mental health sector
NSFT was formed by merger in 2011 of the former Norfolk and Waveney Mental Health NHS
Foundation Trust and Suffolk Mental Health NHS Partnership Trust to provide mental health
services. About 8% of the CCG’s allocation is invested in services delivered by NSFT.
Learning disability services are run by Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.
The governance risk rating for NSFT was amended by MONITOR from AMBER-RED to
AMBER-GREEN in May 2012 due to improvements in compliance with CQC essential
standards. The financial risk rating for the Trust was changed from FRR4 to FRR3 at quarter
4 2011/12 due to deterioration in the Trust's financial position.
The Trust generally performs well against the four mental health targets - the number of new
cases of psychosis treated by the early intervention teams (EIT), performance of crisis
resolution home treatment, care programme approach (CPA), 7 day follow up and improved
access to psychological therapies (IAPT).
20
33
Community services
NCHC provides over 95% by value of NNCCG’s out of hospital care services. NCHC is
currently in the pipeline to become a Community Foundation Trust (CFT). NNCCG gave
conditional support for this organisational form in July 2012. The Trust runs bed based
services from sites in Holt, Cromer, Fakenham and North Walsham.
Independent sector
There are over 150 care homes in the North Norfolk and Broadland, one of the highest areas
of concentration of care home providers in England.
There is also a thriving third sector with a high degree of ‘social capital’ in the community.
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in current provider market
Weaknesses:
Strengths
Provider monopoly for a number of
services which has arguably led to
a lack of ambition in service
delivery
Choice operates more within
providers rather than through
competing providers given the
challenges of access to other parts
of the region
Generally high quality local
service provision
FTs are largely financially stable
Opportunities
Threats
Potential for good collaboration
between secondary and primary
care to reform pathways
Potential for greater integration of
care at a local level
Use of contracting levers
including CQUINs to drive up
performance
•
21
34
Financial challenges impact upon
maintaining and improving quality
and performance
Ensuring delivery through
challenging times
Patient experience, quality and safety
Ensuring people have a positive experience of care
The population in NNCCGG generally enjoy a positive experience of care. NNCCG
performed well in the GP Patient Experience Survey 2011/12 with 92.8% of patients
reporting the experience of making an appointment as good, and 91.8% reporting a good
overall experience of their GP Surgery.
These scores are above the NHSM&E Cluster and the national average. NNUHFT was one
of the highest performing organisations across the NHSM&E against the Inpatient Survey
2011-12 results.
A new commissioning for quality and innovation target (CQUIN) to measure patient feedback
was implemented from May 2012 in NHSN&WC – the net promoter score (NPS). Patients
are asked if they would recommend the treatment they have just received to a friend or
family member. Patient feedback is converted to an overall score out of 100. The scores for
NNUHFT were have been around 65% per month, the threshold for CQUIN payment, but
deteriorated to 62.42% in August.
Treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting
them from harm
Performance in NHSN&WC has been variable though improving against the Methicillin
Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, Clostridium Difficile and hospital related venous thromboembolism (VTE) key targets. There were, however, 4 never events during 2011-12 at
NNUHFT.
Whilst not a key target yet in this domain, NCHC reported an increased prevalence of new
grade 2, 3 and 4 pressure ulcers in May 2012. The national Intensive Support Team has
been supporting NCHC to develop a robust action plan to eliminate pressure ulcers.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) concerns
There were no CQC concerns in relation to NNUHFT, NCHC and NSFT.
CQC visited EAAST in March 2012 as part of its schedule of routine visits to review
compliance. EAAST was found to be compliant on the outcomes reviewed but a number of
key issues were raised in relation to hospital Trusts in NHSN&WC. These issues related to
ambulance handover and turnaround times at NNUHFT in the main.
Compared with other ambulance services, EAAST had one of the highest number of hours
lost due to delays at hospital in England. In terms of hospital delays, analysis undertaken by
EAAST showed a high level of correlation between delays at hospital of over 60 minutes and
their underperformance on response times.
22
35
Financial picture
To make the commissioning strategy viable it is important for the CCG to ‘live within
its means’. Those means translate to spending no more on average than £1,320 for
every person in the population of North Norfolk in 2013/14.
We presently work in a context where as part of the NHS, we along with partners in
social care and other public services will be responding to the needs of increasing
numbers of people with long term conditions and an ageing population. Though the
amount of funding we are given by the government is favourable compared to other
public sector partners (who are facing funding reductions) the additional funding
(above inflation increases) received by the NHS in recent years has now stopped.
This means we will require our providers to manage their increasing costs within
existing resources. As commissioner we will work with providers to find a
combination of working the same way but for less cost (increasing efficiency and
productivity) and implementing new ways of working (transformation and innovation).
23
36
COMMISSIONING INTENTIONS 2012 ONWARDS
This section describes the strategic goals and initiatives that NNCCG has developed
to respond to the health needs of the population. These are the areas which have
been selected as key priorities for action.
The diagram below identifies five programme areas and key initiatives that will drive delivery
of NNCCG’s commissioning strategy.
Older people
•Developing integrated pathways of care
•Integrating health and social care delivery
•Risk identification and stratification
Mental health
•Improving access to psychological
therapies
•Improving the management of dementia
•Mobilising a new substance misuse service
Planned care
•Redesigning elective care pathways
•Reviewing thresholds for surgical
intervention
•Reforming pathology services
Unplanned care
•Avoiding uneccessary hospital admission
•Reforming the emergency care system
•Improving the quality of care and outcomes
for Stroke
Children
•Improving access to child and adolescent
mental health services
•Making sure our childrens services support
families and young carers
24
37
These programmes will be underpinned by three key strands of commissioning activity:
Managing hospital and health service utilisation by
driving out unwarranted variation
Robust contract management and using contracting
levers to secure improvements in quality and
outcomes
Enabling choice and using competition where
appropriate to deliver change
Commissioning and market development strategy
NNCCG Practices formed a Community Interest Company (CIC) in 2010, called North
Norfolk Healthcare primarily to operate a Referral Management Centre (RMC) which peer
reviews, logs and offers choice to patients for most acute referrals. The original aims of the
RMC were:
to drive up the standard and consistency of referrals
to reduce the number of unnecessary referrals to secondary acute care
to introduce peer review processes into Practices to support and challenge referral
behaviour
to provide a robust database from which pathway and service redesign priorities
could be identified and developed
to improve the Choose and Book service to patients
The RMC has made good progress against all of these aims. As well as immediate feedback
on individual referrals, RMC feedback presentations to individual Practices are delivered
every six months and have been well received. The RMC database has been used to
identify the most utilised referral specialities and referral reasons and this information has
been used to inform decisions on service redesign activities. Feedback from patients
contacted to offer choice and book appointments has also been very positive.
Practices have readily accepted the RMC and the concept of peer review, indeed 34 GPs
from participating practices have trained as Referral Review Clinicians. Around 20% of all
referrals processed by the RMC have an intervention. Of these, around 4% are due to a
clinical query / intervention, such as an upgrade from routine to an urgent 2 week wait
cancer/emergency/urgent appointment, redirection to an alternative service or speciality etc.
25
38
The CCG believes that the continuing proactive management of, and collection of detailed
clinical information on, referrals is central to how the CCG will drive up standards of referral,
and drive out unwarranted clinical variation in primary care utilisation of secondary care.
Similarly the operation of Choose and Book through the RMC will allow the CCG to ensure
that any opportunities to promote choice for patients in North Norfolk will be maximised in
the context of the challenges presented by the near monopoly provider landscape North
Norfolk faces.
NNCCG will use market management techniques appropriately to optimise productivity,
efficiency and health outcomes of the current range of providers. There are a number of
actions to support this aim:
To develop effective and productive working relationships with current and potential
new providers
To maintain robust business processes for managing these relationships including
contract management, performance management and service development
To ensure that business processes for working with providers are transparent, nondiscriminatory and ensure equality of treatment
To develop a portfolio of standard and consistent contracts with providers that
enable delivery of the objectives in this commissioning strategy
To ensure that all providers support the CCG’s requirements to continually improve
understanding and the timely access to information about the needs of patients and
utilisation of services
Compare performance with other providers, including the private sector, in order to
identify ‘best in class’ and learn from good practice
To encourage the development of providers to enable continual improvement in the
quality and value for money of services
To develop a balance of review mechanisms and contractual incentives and
penalties in order to manage both the level of supply and the quality of services
provided.
Commissioning for Quality Improvement and Innovation (CQUINs)
The CQUIN scheme for standard NHS contracts with providers continues in 2012/13 as a
framework for ensuring the delivery of national and local priorities. Providers have CQUIN
schemes which in 2012/13 are 2.5% of their total contract value to address the needs of
each local population. NNCCG will be fully involved in the monitoring of these schemes with
local providers.
It is anticipated that the learning from the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust Francis Inquiry report
will have significant implications for the NHS. Through linking real time patient and carer
experience directly to provider CQUIN payments, NNCCG aims to ensure the failings
identified in the report will never happen to patients. Protecting the most vulnerable
members of the population, for example by setting challenging Dementia CQUINs to be
delivered by local providers, will be a high priority.
26
39
The CQUIN scheme will also be used to further embed the NHS Outcomes Framework.
It is anticipated that patient choice in general will have a marginal impact upon the local
providers given the significant difficulties with access to more distant providers. However, it
should be noted that Norfolk has had some success in the past in moving patients from the
local acute provider, NNUHFT, to other NHS and independent sector providers particularly
where travel costs and costs to carers are covered e.g. Orthopaedics. This CCG will not
hesitate to undertake similar initiatives if service quality and access issues warrant it.
It is more likely that choice of care setting and/or care team will impact upon the local acute
provider e.g. for end of life care, but this should have a positive effect releasing hospital beds
for more appropriate acute care. NHSN&WC had around 75% of first outpatient
appointments booked using the Choose and Book system in quarter 1. Around 40% of
bookings are where access to a named Consultant led team was available.
NNCCG will work with the emerging NCSU, and in collaboration with other CCGs, to
stimulate new entrants to the provider market to deliver its commissioning strategy where
appropriate - the Referrals Management Centre will be central to enabling this to happen.
The CCG wishes to strike a sensible balance between collaboration and competition to
secure the best outcomes and maintain a stable health care delivery system without
detriment to patient care. The areas likely to be subject to competitive procurement are:
Acute hospital sector – offering choice of treatment elsewhere via the Referrals
Management Centre where waiting times for access to treatment are unacceptably
long; using the Any Qualified Provider (AQP) process to enable greater choice e.g.
Audiology services
Diagnostics and technology sector - reference has been made elsewhere in this
strategy of the importance of technology to deliver outreach health care solutions to
patients who do not routinely access health services particularly our more deprived
populations, there is potential for growth in this market segment in a number of our
programme plans e.g. exploring the potential, as part of care pathway reviews, of
procuring and deploying more mobile diagnostic capacity and capability into the
community and using telemedicine to support people with long term conditions to
maintain independence at home
Mental health sector - reviewing the substantial new investment in primary mental
health services i.e. improving access to psychological therapies with a view to
varying the current NSFT contract or retendering
Where new health improvement interventions and health care service needs are identified in
this strategy, the general presumption will be that market testing will apply, except where it
makes sense to collaborate with an existing provider e.g. no other potential providers in the
market or seeking to enter the market, or where service concentration for certain services
precludes choice.
27
40
Programmes and initiatives
Programmes and
initiatives
•Older people
•Mental health
•Planned care
•Unplanned care
•Children
Older people
Diabetes modelling suggests there is much undiagnosed diabetes in NNDC
Hospital admissions for diabetes are currently higher as a percentage of weighted
list size than the national average, this may in part be due to the age of the
population but also indicates a need to review local pathways and service provision
Diabetes prevalence is predicted to rise sharply in the next twenty years with almost
all of the increase being due to obesity
There is unexplained Practice variation across NNCCG in secondary prevention for
both Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes
Emergency admissions for fractures in the over 65s are not significantly worse than
elsewhere in Norfolk, but show a twofold variation between the best and worst
practice areas and the rate has increased slightly over the last three years
Flu immunisation uptake is significantly worse than the national average
The excess winter death rate in the NNDC area is significantly worse than the
national average and the CCG variation is from no excess deaths in one area to the
worst in Norfolk in another
28
41
What initiatives will NNCCG undertake to tackle these demographic and health
challenges?
Older people
•Frail and elderly case management
•Integrating health and social care
•Risk stratification and case management of
long term conditions
Frail & elderly case management
NNCCG Practices were in the first wave of a roll out of a NHSN&W Cluster led project, Care
of the Frail and Elderly, which incorporates intensive case management, the use of
telemedicine, local step-up/admission avoidance beds, and access to local Medicine For the
Elderly (MFE) advice. An investment of £1 million was made in this project. A major joint
evaluation with NHSN&W has identified some reduction in admission rates for those patients
who have been case managed though it is not yet clear whether this is due to the
interventions of the project or regression to the mean.
NNCCG will, on the basis on this evaluation, refine and develop its approach to the Care of
the Frail and Elderly, Integrated Care and Care Home initiatives, seeking to build on the
successful elements of each but equally decommissioning any services found not to be
effective. Closely linked to this, NNCCG has redefined its Community Nursing Service
specification, seeking to simplify and better performance manage the service provided by
NCHC. NNCCG will also review access to therapy services and improving communication
between Practices and therapy services.
NNCCG’s emerging vision of integrated care includes:
A single assessment process across health and social care
Identified key workers who understand individual patient’s social as well as medical
contexts
Services which are simple to use and can be “switched on” via a single call and
assessment
Services being arranged around patients GP surgeries with access to a wider range
of social, voluntary and housing related services
29
42
A single point of access (SPA) to the range of services available in both health and
social care
A universal expectation that all services delivered at or close to home will be
delivered with respect, compassion and a personalised approach to care.
Integrated care
3 Practices (Fakenham, Wells and Holt) participated in the DoH’s Integrated Care Pilot
which is addressing the provision of a more joined up and intensive case management of
known high risk patients involving General Practice, NHS community and adult social care
services. Both the national and local evaluations were published in 2011. Early indications
were that the Practices achieved a reduction in their overall admission rate with reference to
the rest of Norfolk and non pilot sites.
A key focus of integrated care is the need to achieve increased levels of integration of
service delivery across services provided by different providers, both NHS and beyond, in
order to improve service quality, efficiency and clinical outcomes. NNCG is developing a
performance management framework which will drive integration through measurement
against a range of key indicators. Examples include;
Reduction in number of visits to site and no repeated tests
Patients only give information once
Patients provided with public health / well being advice at each visit
Risk stratification and case management
NNCCG is part of the NHSM&E Cluster’s long term conditions (LTC) implementation
programme which aims to improve the quality and effectiveness of holistic care of people
with long term conditions across the health economy.
The local NNCCG LTC programme, in summary, is designed to facilitate and enable local
health teams to deliver change at pace, in a measured and supported way that delivers the
aim above and:
Escalates the pace of integrating health and social care service commissioning and
delivery
Improves patient experience through self management
Upholds the principle of “no decision about me without me”.
The programme builds on the developments and foundations that the current Frail Older
Person and ICO projects have provided, particularly that of the case management approach
and the embedding and strengthening of the Practice based MDT meetings. Its scope
includes:
developing an implementation plan to align with the National Outcomes Framework.
reviewing the options for risk stratification tools and designing a bespoke combined
model.
establishing and developing a multi-disciplinary professional leads network to
spread learning and ‘troubleshoot’ operational issues.
refinement of the performance and monitoring framework for delivery
30
43
strategic review and value for money assessment of the utilisation of 'step up’
community beds'
undertaking a strategic review and value for money assessment of the Social Work
Link Workers impact within the model and the strategic decision to cease this for
2012/13
developing, with the Head of Social Care, a revised and defined pathway for
Practices and GPs for access and referrals to Social Work professionals
Development of a Care Home locally enhanced scheme (LES)
Whilst the initiatives above are targeted on the known at risk population, NNCCG also
wishes to design a more proactive approach to identifying those older people at risk who
rarely, if ever, have any contact with the health and social care system, and who present at
times of crisis generally into the acute hospital system as emergencies.
Actions to be taken
2012/13
 Refine and develop the approach to integrated care
 Performance manage delivery of community nursing services against the new
contract specification
 Review the provision of therapy services
 Continue participation in the DoH LTC programme
 Roll out the Care Home LES
 Undertake research to identify approaches to at risk but unknown individuals in the
community who present in crisis
2013/14
 Decommission any services found to be ineffective
 Implement a single assessment process for health and social care
 Implement a placement without prejudice process for continuing health or social care
 Design a model for SPA
 Develop a performance framework to measure the impact of integrating health and
social care
 Implement the SPA model
 Continue to learn from and implement best practice in the management of LTCs via
the DoH programme
31
44
 Design a proactive approach to risk management of individuals unknown to the
health and care system
2014/15
 Commission a fully integrated health and social care system
Mental health
Mental Health admissions vary considerably between Practices and may in some
cases reflect the presence of specialist care home facilities. The presence of these
facilities may place a currently unquantified demand on GP and community services
A number of mental health conditions are also likely to increase in the CCG area in
the coming years, prevalence of depression in BDC is higher than the NHS Norfolk
and England averages
In the NNDC coastal towns of Mundesley and Cromer there is a high number of
claimants of working age benefits where the reason is mental health
There is considerable variation in percentage dementia prevalence between the
CCG Practices, with most exceeding the national average and two being more than
twice the national average figure
Dementia prevalence is projected to continue rising, and a higher than average
percentage of Practices’ list size with dementia is currently being admitted to
hospital
While mortality fell for liver disease alcohol related admissions are rising year on
year
What initiatives will NNCCG undertake to tackle these health challenges?
Mental health
•Improving access to psychological therapies
•Review referrals for pathway redesign
•Evaluate the newly commissioned dementia
service
•Continue to support evaluation of the new
substance misuse service
32
45
Improving access to psychological therapies
Prevention of low mood and depression can be improved by advocating increased physical
activity and cognitive behavioural counselling interventions such as IAPT (Increased access
to psychological therapies). NHSN invested over £1 million in IAPT and awarded a 3 year
contract to NSFT which is due to expire in 2014.
NNCCG will continue to refine this contract and agree thresholds for access to the service as
part of renegotiating, in collaboration with other CCGs, an extension to the contract or a full
re-procurement.
Mental health referral and pathway review
General Practitioners have identified as a priority a need be develop clear protocols,
guidelines and referral routes into the range of services now provided by NSFT. The RMC
will undertake a short focussed review of mental health referrals to identify those pathways
which are a priority for service redesign. This will also support the introduction of Payment by
Results (PbR) in mental health for which NSFT is a pilot site.
New pathway design may be linked to the development of a single point of access (SPA)
following evaluation of the pilot currently underway in West Norfolk.
New Dementia service evaluation
NHSN&W Cluster, with the support of CCGs, made a number of investments in new
Dementia services in 2011/12 in line with the national strategy and aimed at reducing
unnecessary admissions to hospital/reducing length of stay/improving the quality for people
with dementia.
33
46
These included:
General Practice attached primary care practitioners in Dementia
The commissioning of a Dementia Intensive Support Team (DIST) across Norfolk at
a cost of £1.2million to reduce acute bed utilisation and save an equivalent amount
A DIST in NNUHFT to reduce length of stay and avoid excess bed costs as well as
signpost individuals to more appropriate out-of-hospital care services
Cognitive stimulation therapy programme
NNCCG will undertake a review of the effectiveness of these investments during 2012/13
and base further commissioning intentions on this review.
Support evaluation of new substance misuse service
NNCCG is working with the Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) on a countywide rollout
of new substance misuse services procured in 2011/12. A lead NNCCG General Practitioner
took an active part in the tender evaluation and contract award and NNCCG continues to
provide clinical input to the mobilisation of the new service.
Actions to be taken
2012/13
 Review the lessons from the evaluation of the West Norfolk mental health SPA pilot
 Review the newly commissioned dementia service
 Review outcomes of the new substance misuse service
2013/14
 Review and refresh the specification for the IAPT service
 Undertake a systematic review of referral guidelines and protocols for access to the
full range of mental health services
 Implement new care pathways possibly via a single point of access use clear
protocols and algorithms
2014/15
 Recommission the IAPT service via a contract extension or new procurement
34
47
Planned care
East of England Public Health Observatory (ERPHO) analyses of Hospital Episode
Statistics (HES) provisional data 2011/12) show that the Directly Standardised
Rates (DSR) for cystoscopy and prosthesis of lens (cataracts) procedures are
higher than for England, the region and comparator cluster CCGs, the DSR for
arthroscopies was also high in the last quarter of 2011/12
ERPHO analyses also show that the Standardised Admission Rates (SAR) for the
Urology, Ophthalmology and Dermatology specialties are higher than for England,
the region and comparator cluster CCGs
What initiatives will NNCCG undertake to tackle these demographic and health
challenges?
Planned care
•Redesigning elective care pathways
•Reviewing thresholds for surgical
intervention
•Reforming pathology services
Role of the Referral Management Centre in reforming planned care
The RMC will play a pivotal role in reforming planned care by enabling:






Systematic, evidence and outcome based pathway reviews
Engagement of CCG clinicians in peer review and challenge of referral practice
Identifying priorities for pathway redesign
Developing new clinical guidelines, thresholds and protocols
Re-auditing the impact of new pathways
Renegotiating or where necessary re-procuring relevant services
Redesigning care pathways
Spinal pathway
As part of a programme of collaborative work on Orthopaedics with local CCGs, the RMC
commissioned and progressed a piece of patient engagement work through an external
company to test out people’s experience of local services for lower back pain.
35
48
The results identified a number of issues and challenges which will be taken forward to
reshape local orthopaedic, pain management and physiotherapy services.
Building on the existing review of the spinal pain pathway, this project will also extend to a
review of the current pathways for hip and knee conditions which are areas of high referral
volume for NNCCG. This will include a review of the current Orthopaedic Triage service so
as to ensure that it adds clinical value to the pathway, the development of clear referral
guidelines and the potential role of the RMC in better management of these referrals. An
initial aim will be to develop referral guidelines for MRI scans within a defined pathway. This
may deliver a 10% reduction in MRI scans.
Adult audiology
NNCCG is working with other Norfolk CCGs to redesign adult audiology services locally
using the Any Qualified Provider (AQP) model. The new model will offer increased choice to
patients and enable them to avoid having to travel to acute hospitals for this common
intervention. It will also ensure consistent delivery of audiology services across CCG
practices and is expected to deliver cost efficiencies.
24 hour ECG
All Practices have implemented local ECG services aimed at reducing unnecessary referrals
to Cardiology and improving access for local people. This service includes providing
information on maintaining a healthy heart for patients who do not need a referral. NNCCG
expects to see an increased take up of this in 2012/13 with a concomitant reduction in
referrals to NNUHFT Cardiology department.
Urology lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/haematuria
NNCCG, supported by the RMC, undertook a review of these common urological conditions
and their management across primary and secondary care. Improved referral guidelines
were published in December 2011 and have been followed with GP education sessions.
NNCCG intends in due course to commission a local community-based “one stop” service
for these conditions.
Dermatology
Work is also planned with NCHC and GPs from the CCG to develop a community based
service for treatment of a range of dermatological conditions.
Reviewing thresholds for surgical intervention
Analysis of the hospital utilisation data as part of the local JSNA shows that the CCG has
high rates of intervention in the specialities of Urology, Dermatology and Orthopaedics. A
review of these specialties will be undertaken to determine whether the protocols, guidelines
and pathways for certain procedures are robust e.g. level of visual acuity for cataract
operations, to identify pathways for redesign and whether the need for surgical intervention
is appropriate.
36
49
Reforming pathology services
The NHSM&E reforming pathology services project aims to bring about delivery of the Carter
recommendations. In the east of England, hospitals are being encouraged to work together
to deliver GP requested pathology services. Via a clear and transparent process, hospitals
are demonstrating how they have the appropriate capacity and capability to deliver safe and
effective GP requested pathology services in the future. The likely outcome is that there will
be a number of hubs in the region, supported by teams working in other hospitals. A hub is
the centre of a hub and spoke model of delivery, with the hub providing all the “cold”
pathology services and the spokes working at the local hospital to deliver all the urgent or
“hot” pathology services.
NNCCG will be proactive in engaging with this project to ensure that the performance and
outcomes of any new preferred provider respond to the needs of a highly dispersed General
Practitioner community.
Actions to be taken
2012/13
 Redesign of pathways for spinal pain management and therapy
 Commission an external review of demand and capacity in Orthopaedics at NNUHFT
 Review of surgical thresholds in three specialties
 Improve access to diagnostics via AQP for audiology services
 Recommission new pathways for Urology
 Review capacity for colonoscopies as part of the bowel screening programme rollout
 Review referral rates for Cardiology as a result of implementing 24 hour ECG
 Improve access to diagnostics via AQP for MRI and non Obstetric Ultrasound
 Participate in and influence the reform of pathology services as it relates to NNCCG
2013/14
 Decommission current Orthopaedic triage services
 Recommission new pathways for Orthopaedics
 Implement primary care management of selected dermatological conditions
2014/15
 Optimise the RMC as a centre for pathway management and tackling unwarranted
variation
37
50
Unplanned care
Standardised emergency admissions are generally low in the CCG area by
comparison with the County average, the Norfolk rate is lower than the England
rate, only one North Norfolk Practice is an outlier terms of high emergency
admission rates.
There is, however, a high degree of variation between Practices for emergency
admissions to hospital - range minimum = 4556 DSR per 100,000 - max = 7964
DSR per 100,000
The majority of emergency admissions are admitted for at least a day and this
proportion is rising faster than zero length of stay
Repeated emergency readmissions and emergency readmissions within 28 days of
discharge are both lower than the national mean
Whilst the Ambulatory Care Sensitive (ACS) emergency admission rate in the CCG
is high as a percentage of Practice list size, it is lower than the NHSN rate and East
of England rate when standardised to take account of the demographics,
suggesting that there are few preventable admissions
Although they represent a higher than average proportion of emergency admissions
by Practice list size, admissions for both Circulatory Disease and COPD are lower
than the NHSN average, and that in turn was lower than the East of England
average
What initiatives will NNCCG undertake to tackle these demographic and health
challenges
Unplanned care
•Avoiding uneccessary hospital admission
•Improving the quality of care and outcomes
for Stroke
•Reforming the emergency care system
Early diagnosis and avoidance of hospital attendance/admission
NNCCG, in association with Public Health and NCHC Community Nursing, is exploring the
referral rates and reasons for emergency admissions which have urological problems as a
prime diagnosis, especially urinary retention and catheter care, and renal colic. A new
pathway will be developed to manage these interventions in the community or, if sent to
NNUHFT, assessed in A&E rather than admitted.
38
51
Minor injury services
NNCCG, supported by the RMC, will review the function and accessibility of minor injury
services across the CCG area to ensure an equitable and cost effective model of service
delivery. The first phase of this will involve a clear audit of the use and cost effectiveness of
the MIU at Cromer Hospital and a review of current Minor Injury services provided by
Practices. The CCG has initially agreed with NNUH to decommission all follow up MIU
attendances.
Improving quality of care and outcomes for Stroke
It is well recognised that significant improvements in stroke prevention and care were
required across NHSM&E to maximise reduction in morbidity and mortality. This includes
identification of patients at risk, prompt recognition and action on symptoms, effective
management of transient ischaemic attacks (TIA) and access to thrombolysis. NNCCG is
working with NHSM&E who are leading a region-wide review of Stroke services following the
success in London in outcomes for hyper acute care. This includes development of
hyperacute Stroke care at centres of excellence. This will directly reduce the incidence of
stroke and its associated morbidity and mortality.
Reforming the emergency care system
The population of NNCCG is highly dispersed and this presents a significant challenge for
the delivery of urgent first response and emergency ambulance services. In order to
influence the future direction of service development in EAAST, which is an aspiring
Foundation Trust, NNCCG will play an active role in the commissioning of these services
across the East of England on a collaborative basis.
Actions to be taken
2012/13
 Continue GP education programme for the management of common
urological conditions
 Redesign the pathway for renal colic
 Re-audit emergency Urology admissions for pathway compliance
 Review the role of MIUs in the urgent and emergency care system
 Decommission follow ups in MIU settings
 Participate in and influence the reform of Stroke services
 Play an active role in performance management and review of the EAAST
urgent and emergency care services contract in collaboration with other
CCGs
39
52
2013/14
 Recommission MIUs as appropriate
 Actively participate in the evaluation of proposals for the reform of Stroke
services
 Prioritise and respecify EAAST services as necessary
2014/15
 Recommission EAAST to deliver optimum response times particularly in rural
areas
Children
Based on benefit data, there are approximately 2,600 children in NNDC affected by
income deprivation, similar data are not currently available for the rest of NNCCG
but overall this is about one in ten children on CCG Practice lists
In the region of 1,500 children in BDC are estimated to have a diagnosable mental
health condition, and a similar number are estimated to have emotional or
behavioural problems
What initiatives will NNCCG undertake to tackle these demographic and health
challenges
Children
•Review the impact of the recently
reconfigured child and adolescent mental
health services
•Undertake a baseline review of investment
in children's services
•Make sure our services support families
•Commission services that encourage active
lifestyles
•Support Young Carers
40
53
Child and adolescent mental health services
NHSN&WC, with the support of CCGs, invested substantial new resources in the
reconfiguration of tiers 1-4 of the child and adolescent mental health services pathway in
2011-12. These new services will be reviewed for their effectiveness and impact upon quality
and value for money.
Undertake a baseline review of investment in children's services
NNCCG will undertake a full baseline review of its current range of commissioned children’s
services with a view to setting priorities going forward.
Family and carer friendly services
NN CCG will aim to make sure the services they commission support families and young
carers. The CCG will also work with Public Health and other partners to promote healthy
active lifestyles for children and young people.
Actions to be taken
2012/13
 Review the impact of the recently reconfigured child and adolescent mental
health services
 Undertake a full baseline review of commissioned children’s services
2013/14
 Recommission services identified as priorities
2014/15
 Performance manage delivery of any redesigned services
IMPLEMENTATION AND DELIVERY
NNCCG has implemented a project management approach to its commissioning programme
which will be further developed in 2012/13. All proposed commissioning initiatives require
sign off by the CCG Executive Group with the joint clinical and management sponsors
required to identify at the outset clear benefits in terms of improved patient outcomes,
access, experience and/or reduced cost against which projects will be measured. Projects
also have to demonstrate use of a relevant evidence base and plans for patient/public
engagement and robust evaluation in order to get project approval.
NNCCG Executive Group will monitor delivery of the programme above regularly during
2012/13 using this methodology.
41
54
APPENDIX 1
GLOSSARY
A&E
ACS
AQP
BDC
CCG
CFT
CIC
COF
COPD
CPA
CQC
CQUIN
DIST
DoH
DSR
ECG
EEAST
EIT
ERPHO
FRR
FT
GP
HES
IAPT
ICO
IMD
JPUHFT
JSNA
LES
LTC
LUTS
MFE
MIU
MONITOR
NCB
NCC
NCH&C
NCSU
NICE
NHSM&E
NHSN
NHSN&WC
NNCCG
NNDC
NNUHFT
NQB
NSFT
OOH
PbR
PROMS
QEHKLFT
QIPP
RMC
SPA
SPOT
TIA
VTE
Accident and Emergency
Ambulatory Care Sensitive
Any Qualified Provider
Broadland District Council
Clinical Commissioning Group
Community Foundation Trust
Community Interest Company
Commissioning Outcomes Framework
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Care Programme Approach
Care Quality Commission
Contracting for Quality and Innovation
Dementia Intensive Support Team
Department of Health
Directly Standardised Rates
Electrocardiogram
East Anglian Ambulance Services NHS Trust
Early Intervention teams
East of England Public Health Observatory
Financial Risk Rating
Foundation Trust
General Practitioner
Hospital Episode Statistics
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies
Integrated Care Organisation
Index of Multiple Deprivations
James Paget University Hospital Foundation Trust
Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
Locally Enhanced Scheme
Long Term Conditions
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
Medicine for the Elderly
Minor Injuries Unit
NHS Foundation Trust Regulator
NHS National Commissioning Board
Norfolk County Council
Norfolk Community Health and Care services provider organisation
Norfolk Commissioning Support Unit
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
NHS Midlands and East
NHS Norfolk Primary Care Trust
NHS Norfolk and Waveney PCT Cluster
North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group
North Norfolk District Council
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals Foundation Trust
NHS National Quality Board
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust
Out of Hours
Payment by Results
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Kings Lynn NHS Foundation Trust
Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention
Referrals Management Centre
Single Point of Access
Spend and Outcome relative to other CCGs
Transient Ischaemic attacks
Venous thrombo-embolism
42
55
Agenda Item No_____13_______
BIG SOCIETY FUND: UPDATE REPORT
Summary:
This report examines the operation of Big Society Fund
in the first six months since its launch. It outlines the
nature and outcome of applications to the Fund to-date
and evaluates the effectiveness of the scheme in
achieving its objectives so far
Options considered:
This is an update report with no substantive
recommendations. Whilst many options exist in relation
to the future operation of the fund, it is suggested that
this review take place later in the financial year when
the Service level Agreement is to be reconsidered.
Conclusions:
The Big Society Fund has provided financial support to
a wide range of community oriented projects which will
undoubtedly help in achieving the purpose of the Fund:
to help build strong communities in North Norfolk. In
general the fund has been a success and minor
procedural or administrative issues have been
satisfactorily addressed throughout this initial
operational period. The future operation of the Fund
should be determined towards the end of its first year of
operation, alongside an evaluation of the effectiveness
of Norfolk Community Foundation in fulfilling the
requirements of the Service Level Agreement.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1. A politically balanced working group comprising
of two Cabinet and two Scrutiny Members is
established to work with officers to review the North
Norfolk Big Society Fund.
2. A report is presented to Cabinet in March,
identifying whether or not the Big Society Fund
should be continued in the next financial year and if
so, the most appropriate way for this to be
implemented.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
This will enable consideration of the first three quarters
of the Fund’s first year of operation to be evaluated,
alongside the review of the SLA.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Service Level Agreement between NNDC and Norfolk Community Foundation
56
BSF Prospectus
Big Society Board Terms of Reference
Report/ minutes of Cabinet (31/1/12); O& S Committee (6/2/12); and Full Council
(22/2/12)
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Trevor Ivory
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Rob Young/ Sonia Shuter, 01263 516162, robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
North Norfolk Big Society Fund has been operating since 2 April 2012 in line
with the agreed prospectus (included as Appendix A). The fund is
administered on behalf of the Council by the Norfolk Community Foundation
(NCF) under a Service Level Agreement (SLA) which is in place for two years
from the Commencement Date. Applications for grant from the Fund are
considered at quarterly meetings of the Big Society Board (for applications of
£10,000 or less) and Cabinet (for applications of more that £10,000). So far,
two rounds of applications have been completed; the third round for
applications closed on 9 November 2012 and the fourth closes on 11 January
2013.
1.2
This report outlines the purpose of the Big Society Fund and the means by
which it has been operated. It outlines the grant applications submitted so far
and the levels of grant approved and includes a commentary on the perceived
effectiveness of the grant scheme so far in achieving the objectives set for it
by the Council.
2.
Operation of the Fund
2.1
The figures relating to the applications to the Fund are given below. Many of
the projects that have been funded so far have begun to be implemented and
the mid-term monitoring report, undertaken four months after the decisions on
the first round of applications (included as Appendix B) outlines their
progress.
2.2
The Fund has been well received; the first two rounds resulted in 68
applications requesting funding of over £650,000.00, exceeding the total
annual budget of £450,000 (including administration costs). There are various
reasons why the Fund might be receiving so many applications, one of which
could be the generally reduced levels of funding opportunities available from
other grant sources. Also because the Fund has no upper grant limit it is
attractive to organisations seeking a large grant, in a single application; there
being no requirement for match funding. Another significant reason may be
that the Fund has a very broad purpose; most projects and initiatives could be
perceived to some extent as contributing towards improving social and
economic wellbeing and therefore are theoretically eligible.
2.3
To ensure an efficient and effective process for both the grant applicant and
the Council, any application submitted to the Big Society Board or Cabinet
should contain all the required documentation and supporting evidence in
57
order that an informed decision can be made. Fifteen applications totalling
over £160,000 have not been presented for consideration, or a decision has
been deferred, due to insufficient information or supporting evidence. This is
an issue which has been raised with Norfolk Community Foundation who are
managing the grant process on the Council’s behalf through a Service Level
Agreement.
2.4
Even if an application does meet the prospectus criteria this does not mean it
will be awarded a grant. The extent to which the project will meet the Fund’s
priorities is a key consideration as well as its potential to be sustainable. This,
combined with the need to ensure Fund expenditure remains within its
allocated budget, has meant that applications totalling over £290,000 have so
far been refused.
2.5
The Norfolk Community Foundation manages several grant funds, some
generic and some with a specific geographic or thematic focus. Part of their
role is to ensure that grant applications are directed to the most appropriate
grant fund. To date six applications submitted to the Big Society Fund which
have been refused or deferred, have been awarded grant funding of
approximately £24,000.00 from alternative funds managed by Norfolk
Community Foundation.
2.6
The table below provides information on the number of applications received
and funding requested for both under and over £10,000. It also demonstrates
the amount of funding requested overall and the outcome of the applications,
whether they were approved, refused, deferred or withdrawn.
Total applications
Grant requested
Applications
approved
Funding
approved
Applications
refused
Funding refused
Applications
deferred
Applications
withdrawn
Under £10,000
57
£335,094.16
20
£112,577.00
Over £10,000
11
£319,938.78
5
£80,000
Total
68
£655,032.94
25
£192,577.00
26
£153,702.00
2
£139,372.00
28
£293,074.00
7
£33,397.00
4
£35,418.16
1
£37,350.00
3
£63,216.78
8
£70,747.00
7
98,634.94
Details of the applications which were either refused funding or offered less
funding than they requested are included as Appendix C.
2.2
The distribution of the fund (geographically and thematically) following the first
two rounds of operation is illustrated in the diagrams included as Appendix D.
3.
Budget
3.1
The Big society fund was set up with £450,000 from the ‘second homes
Council Tax’ returned to NNDC under an agreement with Norfolk County
Council. The fund identified £200,000 of capital and £250,000 of revenue,
from which the management fee of £27,000 is taken (for the SLA with NCF).
58
3.2
The budget table shows a breakdown of the total Capital and Revenue
funding awarded for grants under and over £10,000 as well as the amount of
funding that could potentially be allocated to eight deferred applications. It is
clear that currently applications for capital grants significantly exceeded those
for revenue and a transfer of funding from revenue to capital is likely to
enable the Fund to consider capital grant applications in the final two rounds.
3.3
Budget Table
Grants Awarded
May
Under £10,000
Over £10,000
September
Under £10,000
Over £10,000
Revenue
Admin Fee
Total
Revenue
Revenue Remaining
Deferred Revenue Grants
Remaining Revenue less
deferred grants
Capital
£27,289
£0
£52,858
£58,000
£10,430
£0
£22,000
£22,000
£27,000
£64,719
£154,858
Capital
£185,281 Capital Remaining
£43,238 Deferred Capital Grants
Remaining Capital less
£142,043
deferred grants
£45,142
£27,509
£17,633
3.4
The third round of the fund closed to applications on 9th November 2012.
Sixteen applications totalling £107,125.24 were received requesting funding
of under £10,000. Five applications totalling £151,995.00 were received
requesting funding of over £10,000. These are currently being assessed to
ensure they meet the Funds criteria and contain required supporting
documentation. The North Norfolk Big Society Fund Board will determine the
grants under £10,000 on Friday 14th December 2012 and Cabinet grants
over £10,000 on Monday 7th January 2013.
4.
Commentary
4.1
The fund was set up with the purpose (as set out in the BSF Prospectus) of
helping to build strong communities in North Norfolk. It aims to help
communities to develop new and innovative projects which will improve their
social and economic wellbeing. The prospectus identifies the outcomes (i.e.
benefits or impacts that can be recorded now and/or in the future) that the
Council would expect to evidence as a result of investment from this fund as
including:
• People working together to achieve benefits that can be both
appreciated by and have real positive impacts for the whole
community, or sections of it that have particular needs
• People who feel part of their community and have a sense of
belonging and responsibility for the good and long-term benefit of the
wider community
59
•
•
•
Communities and/or local groups who feel empowered to make a
difference and make improvements to the lives of those who they
support in the locality
An increased number of people volunteering and getting involved in
their local community to achieve greater levels of activity aimed at
improving and sustaining opportunities for the wider community
Local economic benefits that can create employment and training
opportunities for those most in need.
4.2
It is too early to determine the extent to which the operation of the fund has
helped to achieve these outcomes. This will only really be possible once the
projects have been fully implemented and operational for a period of time;
however, an analysis of the nature of the successful applications will show the
likelihood of these expectations being met. Both Cabinet and the Big Society
Board have been cognisant of the provisions set out in the prospectus in
determining applications to the Fund; and where it was felt that outcomes of
this nature were not likely to result, then such projects were either directed
towards funds that more closely matched to their outcomes or support was
offered in order for the project to be tailored more closely towards the aims of
this scheme (for resubmission).
4.3
As Members can see from the figures, a great many applications for a wide
variety of projects have been received so far. Both Cabinet and the Panel
have been keen to ensure that the fund is metered out across the whole year
and they have therefore tried to ensure that the eligibility criteria and evidence
requirements set out in the Prospectus have been sufficiently adhered to
before determining whether to grant funding. Where applications have
provided insufficient supporting information the applicants have generally
been asked to undertake further evidence gathering prior to resubmitting the
application for re-consideration. NNDC has set up an SLA with Voluntary
Norfolk and this has enabled expert support to be provided to those
organisations which may lack the expertise in providing the kind of evidence
required.
4.4
A frequent reason for grants not being approved (on first submission),
particularly for larger amounts of money, has been the absence of a
substantiated and viable business case. Without sufficient evidence of a
project’s on-going sustainability, the Council is rightly cautious about projects
becoming dependent upon the Fund because this would most likely lead to
the failure of the project should future support from the Fund not be
forthcoming. The Council (and NCF as its agent for the administration of the
Fund) should therefore continue to maintain its commitment to the provisions
set out in the Prospectus and should not entertain applications that are not
sufficiently supported by evidence. Applications that are reported for decision
by either the Board or Cabinet should satisfy the eligibility criteria and be
sufficiently evidenced; failure on either account should result in the application
being deferred until such time as these provisions are satisfied.
4.5
Certain minor procedural matters have come to light during the operation of
the fund and these have been able to be addressed through a mixture of:
• amendments to internal procedures (such as circulating a summary of
all applications to all Members);
• decision of the Council (such as the appointment of substitute
Members to the Board); and
60
•
discussion with NCF (such as defining our respective roles in relation
communication with applicants.
4.6
Other, more fundamental, issues have been raised along the way, such as:
• the appropriate ceiling for grant awards – there is currently no limit;
• whether or not applications should continue to be considered by
Cabinet – or whether they should all be determined by the Board;
• the criteria against which applications should be considered
• how the scheme can be used to foster greater liaison and better
relations between NNDC and local organisations, including town and
parish councils;
• whether the Fund, or elements of it can be better tailored towards
meeting identified community needs – perhaps through a
‘commissioning role - (certain types of projects have certainly been
prevalent); and
• whether better value for money could be attained from the scheme’s
operation.
4.7
It is suggested that no fundamental changes to the scheme should be made
until it has operated for at least the first year; as prospective applicants will be
familiar with the current modus operandi and may well be gearing up
submissions based upon that. It should not be assumed that the Fund needs
to stay the same, however, throughout the two-year period of the SLA. The
effectiveness of the Fund and its administration/implementation process
should be properly evaluated towards the end of the year and a report be
brought to Cabinet (at its meeting in March) recommending the way forward
for the next financial year. The SLA will similarly need to be reviewed and if
necessary alterations negotiated (bearing in mind either party may terminate
the agreement by giving not less than six month notice).
4.
Conclusion
The Big Society Fund has provided financial support to a wide range of
community oriented projects which will undoubtedly help in achieving the
purpose of the Fund: to help build strong communities in North Norfolk. In
general the fund has been a success and minor procedural or administrative
issues have been satisfactorily addressed throughout this initial operational
period. The future operation of the Fund should be determined towards the
end of its first year of operation, alongside an evaluation of the effectiveness
of Norfolk Community Foundation in fulfilling the requirements of the Service
Level Agreement.
5.
Implications and Risks
No issues currently identified
6.
Financial Implications and Risks
Applications are exceeding expenditure available. Ongoing monitoring is
required to ensure that the Fund does not exceed the allocated budget. A
transfer of some funding from revenue to capital may be necessary to support
the final two grant rounds.
61
7.
Sustainability
No issues currently identified
8.
Equality and Diversity
No issues currently identified
9.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
No issues currently identified
62
Appendix A
THE BIG SOCIETY PROSPECTUS 2012
Trevor Ivory
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Member for Localism and
the Big Society
As Cabinet Member for Localism I
am delighted that North Norfolk
District Council has launched this exciting new
initiative – The Big Society Fund. It will provide
support to communities in the district by making
grants available through the fund itself, by
providing support and advice to voluntary and
community organisations and by providing
assistance (through town and parish councils) to
help with regeneration and planning to meet the
needs of neighbourhoods.
Our local communities are best placed to decide
what their needs are and how they should be met
and this initiative provides a real opportunity to
make investment in the things that matter to
them. The Council will provide support and will
make funding available, but it is for communities
to come up with the ideas.
The Council wants all neighbourhoods in North
Norfolk to be able to thrive and I hope the Big
Society Fund will be the springboard from which
new and exciting ideas will be launched. I am
eager to see innovative projects coming forward.
Summary
The Big Society Fund will assist communities in meeting
their needs. The Fund is provided by North Norfolk
District Council and is available to support community
projects throughout the District. The Fund will amount
to approximately £450,000 in the first year of operation
and will be reviewed annually. It is intended for grants to
be easy to access for a wide range of community and
charitable organisations and applications will be
considered throughout the year.
Applications are invited from 2 April 2012 and those
submitted before 4 May 2012 will be considered at the
first meeting of the Board on 21 May.
The Fund will be administered on behalf of North
Norfolk District Council by the Norfolk Community
Foundation.
Purpose
The purpose of this fund is to help build strong
communities in North Norfolk. It aims to help
communities to develop new and innovative projects
which will improve their social and economic wellbeing.
THE BIG SOCIETY PROSPECTUS 2012
What type of projects would the fund support?
The fund will be available for projects that will improve
or support the wellbeing of our communities and/or
deliver improvements to the local economy. It is
expected that projects would be complementary to the
priorities of the Council as detailed within the Corporate
Plan and Annual Action Plans.
www.northnorfolk.org/council/9047.asp
Outcomes (i.e. benefits or impacts that can be recorded
now and/or in the future) that we would expect to
evidence as a result of investment from this fund are:
z People working together to achieve benefits that can
be both appreciated by and have real positive
impacts for the whole community, or sections of it
that have particular needs related to the outcomes
that will be delivered.
z People who feel part of their community and have a
sense of belonging and responsibility for the good
and long-term benefit of the wider community.
z Communities and/or local groups who feel
empowered to make a difference and make
improvements to the lives of those who they support
in the locality.
z An increased number of people volunteering and
getting involved in their local community to achieve
greater levels of activity aimed at improving and
sustaining opportunities for the wider community.
z Local economic benefits that can create
employment and training opportunities for those
most in need.
The following will not normally be supported by this
Fund:
1. Ongoing revenue costs for administering groups or
organisations, unless these lead directly to clear
short-term project outputs or deliverables with a
long-term exit strategy with a viable funding
programme in place.
2. Ongoing revenue to meet costs such as building
maintenance, cleaning, staffing and infrastructure.
3. Statutory responsibilities and regulatory functions of
public bodies.
z
Who would be eligible to apply?
The Fund will be available for projects that support
people and activities within the North Norfolk District
geographical area. The following categories of
organisation are likely to be eligible:
z Local voluntary organisations, charities (whether
registered or not) and community groups.
z Parish and Town Councils within North Norfolk
District.
z Larger regional or national charities/organisations if
the funding is to deliver a specific project in North
Norfolk.
z Community businesses, social enterprises and other
not-for profit organisations.
z
Note: schools will be eligible if the project/ activity
proposed relates to community oriented or supported
activities that are outside the school’s normal core
curriculum and/or main term-time educational role
(usually outside school hours).
The kind of activities or initiatives that could be
supported, for example, might include:
1. The provision of new or improved community
facilities.
2. The establishment of new organisations or specific
activities (for existing organisations) that will meet
identified local needs and can evidence sustainable
long-term outcomes.
3. Events which promote community involvement or
innovative approaches that bring people together,
that can be sustained (where appropriate) by the
community in the longer term.
4. Projects that encourage specific (hard-to-reach)
people or groups to become more active in the
community (e.g. delivering new training or work
related activities to generate economic benefits for
the area).
5. Projects that generate and/or increase social
enterprise activity, creating more opportunities for
local employment and/or training that can create or
sustain local jobs.
Organisations that are routinely supported by grant
funding from North Norfolk District Council will not
normally be eligible unless the application can prove
that the funding request is for a specific additional
project and that the outcomes are over and above any
existing funding agreement with the District Council.
Individuals will not be eligible to apply.
What evidence is expected to support grant
applications?
Applications should include information, supported by
evidence where appropriate, showing the following.
z The project outputs and outcomes and how these
match the purpose of the Big Society Fund.
z The needs or characteristics of the community
which the project is intended to support.
z Demonstrable support from within the community
that the proposed project is expected to benefit.
z Who the expected beneficiaries are, identifying their
location and other relevant characteristics.
63
z
z
z
The governance and management arrangements of
the group responsible for administering or
implementing the project.
The total project budget, including ‘whole-life’
costings and the proposed and alternative sources
of funding.
A programme for implementing the project (including
key dates and timescales).
A realistic cash flow forecast for any revenue
implications relating to the project (detailed as
appropriate to the scale and scope of the activity
being funded).
A commitment to provide evidence of the project
outcomes once it is complete.
Funding commitment
North Norfolk District Council will honour funding
commitments and will expect applicants to act
reasonably with respect to the submission of funding
applications and to be realistic in respect of their ability
to spend any approved Big Society Fund monies;
therefore:
z There will be no limit on the number of times that an
organisation can apply but the expectation is that
normally only one application will be funded in any
one year.
z Grants will normally be expected to be spent within
one year of the date of the letter confirming the
award. A two-year funding commitment could be
made to a project if more than fifty percent of the
funding is committed from other sources for the
equivalent period and there is a clear demonstration
of project deliverables over that period, together with
a sustainable funding programme.
z Any unspent grant at the end of the grant period
shall be expected to be returned, unless agreement
otherwise has been confirmed in writing by North
Norfolk District Council.
z While there is no limit on the size of grant requested
from the Big Society Fund there is an expectation
that applications for grants in excess of £10,000
would need to provide substantial evidence (e.g.
offers of support, grant approval letters) of the total
funding package and a substantiated and viable
business case, clearly demonstrating the benefits of
the project.
Appendix A
THE BIG SOCIETY PROSPECTUS 2012
Award of Grants
The Fund will be administered through a rolling process,
with applications received at any time. Decisions on
grant awards will made in the following manner.
z Grants of £10,000 or less will be determined by a
grants panel (called the Big Society Board). This
Board will meet quarterly.
z Grants of more than £10,000 will be determined by
North Norfolk District Council’s Cabinet, normally at
meetings held quarterly to coincide with meetings of
the Big Society Board.
z Urgent applications, that can demonstrate the need
for immediate decision on the application, will be
considered by North Norfolk District Council’s
Cabinet at its normal monthly meeting.
z District Council Ward Members will be notified of
grants being submitted which affect their locality.
Further information and making an
application
To find out more about the North Norfolk Big
Society Fund please go to www.northnorfolk.org
where you will also find a link showing you how to
apply.
If you would like to receive this document in
large print, Braille, alternative format or in a
different language, please telephone 01263
516162 and we will do our best to help.
The North Norfolk
Big Society Fund
Prospectus
Audit / Evaluation of Grant
A grant agreement, setting out any standard or special
terms and conditions, will be signed confirming the
award of each grant.
Branding
Grant funded projects will be expected to provide a
suitable acknowledgement of the Fund such that it can
be viewed by the greatest number of people in the
community (commensurate with the scale and scope of
the project as determined by the funder on approval of
the grant).
Any building or infrastructure (including play area and
green space) projects must display acknowledgement
of the Fund in an open public area.
It will be made clear in all publicity, correspondence
etc. that the Grant is provided by NNDC
Big Society Board
The Big Society Board has been set up to consider
grant applications for bids of £10,000 or less. The
terms of reference of The Board will be available on
NNDC’s website. Administration for the grant Fund will
be provided by the Norfolk Community Foundation and
The Board will be supported by an NCF director and an
officer from the Foundation’s grants team.
The current members of the Board are:
Cllr Trevor Ivory
– Cabinet Member for Localism
and the Big Society
Cllr John Wyatt
– Member of the Council
Cllr Philip High
– Member of the Council
Cllr Ben Jarvis
– Member of the Council
Cllr Steven Ward – Member of the Council
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
HOLT ROAD CROMER NORFOLK NR27 9EN
Telephone 01263 513811
w w w . n o r t h n o r f o l k . o r g
w w w . n o r t h n o r f o l k . o r g
64
Appendix B
NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND
Four Month Monitoring Report – Panel 1, May 2012
Fund Object:
The aim of the fund is to help build strong communities in North Norfolk. It aims to help communities to
develop new and innovative projects which will improve their social and economic wellbeing.
Grants Awarded:
The Fund committee met in May 2012 and awarded the following small grants (£10,000 or less) totalling
£81,776 and large grants (over £10,000) totalling £58,000.
Applicant
Cromer and
Sheringham Arts &
Literary Festival
(CASALF)
Grant
Detail
£2,050.00 Cromer and Sheringham Arts & Literary Festival (CASALF)
organises an annual festival which takes place over the
period of a week every October half term. This grant was
awarded to contribute towards the costs of piloting the
COAST Art of Food & Drink Trail.
North Norfolk : N/A
Progress
Work commenced on recruiting the North Norfolk food outlets for The COAST Art of Food Trail in July. The
group decided to delay their start date so as not to conflict with the conclusion of The Crab & Lobster
Seafood Snack and Sandwich Trail.
To date they have 15 confirmed eateries that will participate in and help host the event. It has also been
decided that the Food Trail element of the event will continue for 6+ months to Easter 2013.
The leaflet design is well underway, and 40,000 copies should be printed and available for distribution by
mid/late September. Printing will be done by Barnwell Print and distribution across Norfolk will be
undertaken by a combination of volunteers and professional marketing companies (including Creative
Arts East ‘Arts Rounds Up’ and Best Promotions.) The leaflet will include a user-friendly map of North
Norfolk, information about “alternative to car” modes of transport (e.g. bus, rail, bicycle hire etc.) as well
as affordable advertising opportunities for other small commercial enterprises. This will serve as an
informative pocket-guide to quality food and cultural attractions around the district.
The group have found that it is businesses in outlying areas and in the vicinity of non-coastal towns that
have responded the most positively to this opportunity. These places rely heavily on year-round custom
from both residents and visitors and therefore have warmly welcomed the relatively cheap promotional
opportunity that this project offers.
Applicant
Cromer Skatepark
Grant
Detail
£10,000.00 Cromer Skatepark is a local group campaigning for a
permanent, public skatepark in Cromer. This grant was
awarded to install a skate park facility.
North Norfolk :
Cromer
Progress
The grant was awarded on the condition that the group is successful in coming to an arrangement
guaranteeing the future use of the site (e.g. a secure lease and planning permission.). Plans have been set
back with planning permission refused on the preferred site, though the group continues to progress with
its fundraising towards a new skate park for the area.
65
Appendix B
Applicant
Higginbottom
Recreational Charity
Grant
Detail
£7,645.00 Higginbottom Recreational Charity supplies, maintains and
improves the facilities at the playing field in Briston. This
grant was awarded to purchase new windows and doors in
the Briston Pavilion to improve heat retention and security.
North Norfolk :
Briston
Progress
Jenny English reported that “the group were absolutely delighted to get the grant from the North Norfolk
Big Society Fund.” The group was keen to begin the work as soon as the money was received, however
after receiving a visit from a Crime Prevention Officer plans changed. A recommendation was made for
modifications to improve security further, such as thicker laminated glass and locks to the original
windows.
They have recently received a new quote from the chosen suppliers, including this new recommended
specification. The suppliers are now planning to measure up and begin installing the windows at the
beginning of October.
Applicant
High Kelling Village
Hall
Grant
Detail
£10,000.00 High Kelling Village Hall provides facilities for a variety of
user groups including a luncheon club, bowling, educational
groups and leisure and social gatherings. This grant was
awarded to rebuild the lobby area to improve energy
efficiency and visitor experience.
North Norfolk :
High Kelling
Progress
Geoff Bedford reported that the group is currently concentrating on being able to secure all the necessary
funds for the project before the release of the £10,000 awarded by the Big Society fund. They are
currently awaiting the result of two final grant applications, one with the Environmental Projects Agency
Ltd (landfill tax credits scheme) and one with the Norfolk Rural Community Council. Both are due to meet
imminently so they should have the answer very shortly. Their own fundraising continues and they are
confident that they will be proceeding with the project soon. With the agreement of the Management
Committee, the next stage should be going out to tender and they are hopeful that they should be able to
do this in the next 6-8 weeks.
Since the North Norfolk Big Society fund they have received an additional £5,000 from the Norfolk
Community fund also administrated by the Foundation.
Applicant
Hindolveston
Recreation Ground
Committee
Grant
Detail
£5,712.00 Hindolveston Recreation Ground Committee is a small sub
committee of the Parish Council overseeing the
management of and fundraising for the recreation ground
and pavilion. This grant was awarded to provide a range of
play equipment for all ages.
North Norfolk :
Hindolveston
Progress
The equipment has been ordered and they expect delivery and installation to be within 5 to 6 weeks. A
new toddler climber, basket swing and trim trail will offer more exciting play facilities and cater to all ages
from toddler upwards.
Applicant
Holt Community
Centre
North Norfolk :
Holt
Grant
Detail
£4,000.00 Holt Community Centre provides facilities for community
hire and a venue for many regular groups. This grant was
awarded to purchase and install an electric six plate oven
range and a "bain marie" for holding hot food before
serving as part of general improvements to the kitchen
66
Appendix B
facilities.
Progress
The installation of the cooker and bain marie will take place shortly. The delay in implementation has
been caused by the interaction of this project with other improvements currently underway.
The first step in installing the new cooker is to provide a new powerful (21.6kW 3-phase) electricity supply
to the kitchen - now necessary to accommodate the change from gas to electric cooking. The electricians
have been instructed to undertake this work and have already been on site to plan the task. Once the
power supply is installed – expected within the next few weeks – the cooker and bain marie will be
purchased and installed.
Applicant
Holt Town Council
Grant
North Norfolk :
Holt
Detail
£1,629.00 Holt Town Council has the duties and responsibilities of a
town council, for and on behalf of the local community,
including projects and events to foster community
cohesion. This grant award was to pilot a weekly market in
Holt Town Centre to benefit the local economy and increase
footfall in the town centre.
Progress
A cheque returning the first instalment of the grant of £324 was received on 17 July following the
cancellation of the project.
Applicant
Kettlestone Village
Hall
Grant
Detail
£6,800.00 Kettlestone Village Hall committee manages the village hall
for the benefit of all residents of the village. This grant was
awarded to re-locate the village hall bar as the final stage in
a project to extend and re-order the kitchen facilities.
North Norfolk :
Kettlestone
Progress
Apple Interiors installed the new bar in the village hall in early August. Deborah Skinn stated "The village
hall looks fantastic." The new facilities have already been made good use of during a street fair held in the
village. They are planning a function where the residents can see the renovated village hall and officially
open the bar.
Applicant
Grant
Nancy Oldfield Trust
North Norfolk :
Neatishead
Detail
£5,000.00 Nancy Oldfield Trust provides a Centre where anyone who
is disadvantaged or has a disability be it physical, mental or
emotional, temporary or permanent, regardless of age can
throughout the year and without charge enjoy sailing,
canoeing, fishing, bird-watching and environmental studies.
This grant award was to replace two oil tanks which provide
fuel for residential accommodation and the motor cruisers.
Progress
The Trust was able to raise the full £6,880 and replace the oil tanks. The old domestic fuel tank had come
to the end of its life and no longer met with current regulations. The second Fuelmaster tank was for gas
oil (red diesel) which is used for the motor cruisers, bass boats and Greylag.
They are currently catering to around 5000 clients per annum, many of whom are disabled or
disadvantaged. The beneficiaries are the visitors requiring fuel for their engines and those staying in the
residential accommodation at the Centre that requires domestic fuel.
Applicant
North Walsham
Town Football Club
Grant
Detail
£7,525.00 North Walsham Town Football Club provides facilities for
and to promote community participation in the amateur
67
Appendix B
sport of association football in North Walsham and
surrounding areas. This grant was awarded to increase
dressing room accommodation and provide disabled toilets.
North Norfolk :
North Walsham
Progress
The project started at the beginning of June and is virtually finished. The dressing accommodation was
passed by the North Norfolk District Council building control and the extension to the changing rooms is
nearly complete. Everyone is pleased with the work so far and it has made a huge improvement. They are
awaiting the installation of an alarm in the disabled toilet to complete the work. The new facilties benefit
both regular members and visitors to the club.
Applicant
North Walsham In
Bloom
Grant
North Norfolk :
North Walsham
Detail
£4,824.00 North Walsham In Bloom promotes the development of
floral displays in North Walsham using beds, bubs or
hanging baskets either by their own endeavours or by
encouraging traders to enhance their premises. This grant
award enabled the group to replace 24 half barrel tubs with
new plastic models.
Progress
Christopher Roberts reported “We have placed orders with the company supplying the tubs and towers
however cannot progress any further until autumn planting time (around October) when the old half
barrel tubs will be exchanged for the new ones.”
Applicant
Sheringham Skate
Club
Grant
Detail
£10,000.00 Sheringham Skate Club provides sport and leisure activities
to young people in Sheringham, to promote health and
wellbeing and reduce anti-social behaviour throughout the
town. This grant was awarded to contribute to the costs of
building the skate park.
North Norfolk :
Sheringham
Progress
This grant was awarded on the condition that the other funds needed to undertake the project were
secured, and following this confirmation the grant was paid in early August. The project should get
underway shortly.
Applicant
Southrepps Parish
Council
Grant
Detail
£5,176.00 Southrepps Parish Council provides services to the local
community in Southrepps through democratic decision
making. This grant was awarded to purchase two nest
swings as part of a project to renew all equipment on the
play area.
North Norfolk :
Southrepps
Progress
Elaine Pugh was delighted to inform us that the grant has been spent in full on the two items of play
equipment. The nest swings have been installed on the playing field and have been popular amongst the
younger children who visit the play area.
Applicant
Stalham Brass Band
North Norfolk :
Stalham
Grant
Detail
£5,000.00 Stalham Brass Band aims to help the community of Stalham
by training and encouraging people of all ages to play in the
brass band, bringing music, cohesion and enjoyment to the
community. This grant was awarded to fund the costs of a
project to get young people playing brass instruments
Progress
The brass band training scheme is underway, catering to over 50 children aged between 6 and 11 years
old. The trainees have had individual and ensemble training from tutors, both during the holidays and
after school. Tim Thirst, the Director, held a Brass Band Week allowing guests to drop in on a practice
68
Appendix B
session and explore and try out the different instruments from the cornet, horn, baritone, trombone and
the euphonium. The group have already received great publicity in the Great Yarmouth Mercury after
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk MP) visited the group to see how they were progressing. He stated that ‘it is
fantastic to see so many young children playing a musical instrument and they are learning skills that are
invaluable to them in their education and life.’
Applicant
The Mo Museum
Grant
North Norfolk :
Sheringham
Detail
£6,415.00 The Mo Museum provides and maintains the museum
exhibition facilities in the area of Sheringham and its
environs. This grant was awarded to create a 'History Hub'
at the museum for the benefit of the townspeople and the
wider community.
Progress
The Mo Museum is a tourist attraction and therefore the summer months of June through to October is
the busiest time of the year receiving the majority of the annual visits. This has had a knock on effect to
the History Hub and the project has been slightly delayed. The work is scheduled to begin properly from
early October/November when the museum closes for the winter period. This will allow the space
required and time to get volunteers in place and allow the work to begin.
They have however carried out some initial work on the project utilising the behind the scenes “back of
house” areas. Two new volunteers have been recruited to begin the digitisation of the existing collections
and this takes place on a Wednesday and Thursday. The group are hopeful they will be able to recruit
around 40 volunteers as the project builds momentum, utilising their relationship with Voluntary Norfolk
and the Charity Backroom membership the museum holds to do a ‘call for volunteers.’
The main season launch is due to happen in March of 2013 when the museum re-opens and they are
hopeful they will have an estimated 8000 photographs and objects recorded, ‘digitised’ and uploaded on
the History Hub relating to the history of Sheringham and its people. A software engineer has been
recruited to help run the project and oversee the volunteers work. Once the collection is ready to view
the general public will be asked to access the collections and contribute their own oral histories, written
memories, documents and artefacts to the database.
Applicant
Wells Maltings
Trust
North Norfolk :
Wells
Grant
Detail
£38,000.00 Wells Maltings Trust aims to create a sustainable
community looking at the social, economic and
environmental needs of the area. The project aims to
transform a historic former Maltings and Sackhouse
building town into a viable and self sustaining hub at the
centre of the community providing a permanent home for a
range of new and improved facilities including workspaces
for smalls businesses and start up enterprises, a new
heritage celebrating the maritime history of the local area,
and improved auditorium space, meeting rooms, a
community café, and a dedicated youth space. This grant
was awarded to to restore and repair the Sackhouse
building.
Progress
Things are progressing positively - the Big Society Fund grant was used as match funding to help draw
down over £125,000 of funding from the RDPE fund which was agreed in September. The group is now in
the process of contacting local builders to select a contractor. All being well, work should start by the end
of the year with a view to being complete and ready for new business users in late spring next year. In the
meantime they are planning a comprehensive marketing strategy to make sure that small local businesses
are aware of the opportunity.
69
Appendix B
Applicant
Wells Skate Park
Group
Grant
Detail
£10,000.00 Wells Skate Park Group is a voluntary group of local adults
and young people formed to respond to local young
peoples' request for a safe area for skating, bmx-ing and
scooting. This grant was awarded to contribute towards the
capital needed for the skate park.
North Norfolk :
Wells
Progress
This conditional grant award was released following confirmation that funds have been secured for the
main build. Funds now stand at £57,000 against the £65,000 total project cost, and the group has
recently applied to the Co-op Community Fund and the Tesco Community Fund for £2000 each for 'street
furniture' (i.e. bins benches and a gate). Local young people have held a stall and sideshow during
Carnival Week and at the Pirate Festival, and are also organising a Disco in the Maltings. An application
has been submitted for a grant from the Lovewell Blake fund to be considered in October. It is expected
that works will be fully underway by the spring. The work will be carried out by Wheelscape of
Bristol. They are making a further visit to meet the users and the steering group in October. At a later
stage a presentation will be given by Wheelscape to the Town Council.
The main beneficiaries will primarily be the young people of Wells and outlying district of 20+
villages. The multitudes of young families visiting the area during each holiday season will make use of
the facility and relieve the pressure and nuisance caused by older children on the children's playground.
70
Appendix C
Applicant
BTCV
Excel 2000
District & sub
district
North Norfolk:
Cromer
North Norfolk:
Sheringham
Norwich City
Community
Sports
Foundation
To connect people with places,
building healthy sustainable
communities and increasing people's
life skills.
To relieve persons suffering from
mental or physical disability in
particular, by the provision of training,
information and advice, to improve the
quality of their lives.
Encourage and extend accessibility
and inclusion for all sectors of the
public for the contemporary visual arts.
Application summary
Amount
requested
To contribute to the 'Nature in
£8,054.00
Mind' project for older people
and carers.
To fund the development of a
network of Wellbeing Clubs in
North Norfolk.
£6,792.00
To purchase a range of
equipment to enable the
project to relocate to a new
venue.
North Norfolk: Multisports provides healthy, safe and To contribute to running costs
of the sports programme in
North Walsham interesting outdoor sport based
activities for 5 to 12 year olds, weekly 2012.
during the summer months, aiming to
widen access to youngsters of properly
organised activities at affordable cost
in isolated parts of the county.
£5,000.00
North Norfolk: The Foundation delivers a wide range To support the running costs
of the North Walsham Kickz
North Walsham of programmes that engage people,
project
raising aspirations and enabling
continued participation, supporting
their physical, educational and
personal development to create a
more active and healthier way of life.
£9,800.00
North Norfolk North Norfolk:
Exhibition
N/A
Project
North
Walsham
Multisports
Organisation purpose
71
£2,500.00
Appendix C
The objects of the organisation are to
advance and provide for the care,
education and recreation of children
from birth up to the age of 11 by
making facilities and services available
to them during school term and
holidays.
Potter
North Norfolk: A parish council associated with all
Heigham P.C. Potter Heigham matters of concern to members of the
parish.
Thorpe
North Norfolk: The Parish Council manages the
Market P.C.
Thorpe Market functions and services of the Parish.
To create a new sandpit plus
decking and fencing.
West Runton
Social Club
North Norfolk:
Runton
To provide a safe place for local
people to meet and socialise.
Bodham
Playing Field
North Norfolk:
Bodham
To provide a playing field for children To create a 'trim trail' outdoor
and adults from the village of Bodham exercise track for young
and its surrounding villages.
children on the playing field.
BUILD
North Norfolk:
N/A
To provide activities, practical help and
support to people of all ages with
learning difficulties to build self
confidence and help individuals reach
their full potential.
To help adults with disabilities
in Wells and Fakenham to
make informed choices about
maximising opportunities for
social, leisure and learning
activities in their home area.
£8,923.00
Cromer
Cricket Club
North Norfolk:
Cromer
A volunteer led amateur cricket club
fielding adult and junior sides.
To purchase roll on covers for
the pitch to make it safer for
players and to protect the
pitch.
£2,450.00
Polka Day
Care
North Norfolk:
Wells
£1,700.00
To provide a litter picker for
the staithe area.
£400.00
To purchase and install a new
notice board.
£900.00
To replace the leaking flat roof
of the social club.
£4,300.00
72
£10,000.00
Appendix C
Fakenham
North Norfolk:
And District
Fakenham
Light Operatic
Society
Amateur dramatics group in Fakenham To purchase new stage
which has been running for 45 years. equipment for the society.
To deliver a pilot project to
stimulate local new enterprise
and regeneration.
£9,900.00
To replace the Bowling Green
wall which has become
unsafe.
To discuss and agree the promotion
To support the new Bauble
and funding of the Holt Christmas
Trail as part of events during
Lights Display.
Holt Christmas lights
festivities.
To open a Countrysider Club
To support rural young people
for the 10 -16 age range in
between the ages of 10 - 26 through
educational and recreational activities, Fakenham.
empowering them to take control of
their own clubs and develop a
programme that meets their needs.
£6,985.00
Griffon Area
Partnership
North Norfolk: The partnership has four main areas of
North Walsham work: transport and access, the
economy, social and community and
the environment to provide a better
quality of life for all residents in the
catchment area.
Hempton
North Norfolk: Parish Council for Hempton.
Parish Council Hempton
Holt
Christmas
Lights
Committee
Norfolk
Federation of
Young
Farmers
Clubs
North Norfolk:
Holt
Open Door
Community
Art Group
North Norfolk:
Sheringham
North Norfolk:
Fakenham
Raynham
North Norfolk:
Parish Council Raynham
£4,865.00
To offer arts workshops, projects and
opportunities to a wide range of local
residents and visitors, run by skilled
volunteers, to engage and inspire
participants.
A Parish Council serving West, East
and South Raynham villages.
£1,573.00
£5,535.00
To purchase new christmas
lights for Sheringham.
£1,000.00
To purchase a roundabout to
enhance the play area.
£7,000.00
73
Appendix C
Screen Next
The Sea
North Norfolk:
Wells
Sheringham North Norfolk:
Little Theatre Sheringham
To provide entertainment and
education through the medium of film
to the people of, and visitors to, WellsNext-the-Sea and the surrounding
parishes.
A community arts venue offering
events and opportunities for all ages to
engage with the arts.
To upgrade equipment with a
more technically advanced
projector to improve the
quality of screenings.
£8,000.00
To replace the existing roll-up
cinema screen as part of wider
work to move cinema
screenings on to digital
formats.
St. Seraphim's Trust was established To build an activity room within
in 2005 to purchase the property which the community garden site.
was the former Walsingham railway
station, now an Orthodox Christian
chapel with railway platform and
adjacent land. The Chapel remains
open as a place of mission and
pilgrimage, and the group also aims to
improve public access throughout,
complete the community garden,
establish an office and
comprehensively improve the building.
£7,470.00
Stibbard
North Norfolk:
Parish Council Stibbard
Parish Council for Stibbard.
£2,895.00
North Norfolk:
Stibbard
Stibbard
Village Hall
Management
Committee
To provide community facilities for the To install double glazing to
improve heat efficiency.
village of Stibbard and surrounding
areas.
St Seraphim's North Norfolk:
Trust
Walsingham
To erect a bus shelter.
74
£9,500.00
£8,160.00
Appendix C
Upcher
Community
Partnership
North Norfolk:
Sheringham
Wickmere
North Norfolk:
Parish Council Wickmere
Fit Together North Norfolk:
North Norfolk N/A
North Norfolk:
Visit North
Norfolk Coast N/A
and
Countryside
Ltd
Enhance the standard of living and
quality of life for the inhabitants of
Sheringham and its hinterland
parishes to build a stronger, more
sustainable and resilient community.
Foster community self help and work
with a range of partners to support,
develop and deliver a cohesive
community action plan which meets
identified needs.
To contribute to the cost of
new additions to the
Sheringham Art & Sculpture
trail.
£10,000.00
Parish Council for Wickmere.
To improve village hall
facilities including a new
heating system, fitted kitchen
and disabled parking.
£10,000.00
Total
£153,702.00
To set up and support the new
£26,072.00
The Fit Together North Norfolk
Community Interest Company aims to CIC in its first year of
develop, manage and deliver the North operation.
Norfolk Walking for Health scheme
and associated activity programme.
To support set up and first
The company aims to bring together
the whole of the North Norfolk coastal year operational costs.
and countryside destination and
promote it to the market place as a
cohesive product. As a private sector
led organisation with not for profit
objects it will aim to increase the
involvement and participation of
tourism businesses in the growth of
the north coast and countryside
destination.
75
£15,000.00
Appendix C
Cromer
Cromer
Skatepark
Sheringham Sheringham
Skatepark
Erpingham
Erpingham
Parish Council
Provision of skatepark
Provision of skatepark
Provision of Multi Use Games Area
Requested £15,000 - awarded
£10,000
Requested £30,000 - awarded
£10,000
Requested £83,3000 awarded £10,000
Total
Overall total
76
£5,000
£20,000
£73,300
£139,372
£293,074.00
Appendix D
High Kelling Village Hall ... £10,000
Wells Skate Park
Wells Malngs Trust
Sheringham Skate Park....£10,000
The Mo Museum .............£6,415
£10,000
£38,000
Aylmerton Parish Council £2,000
Holt Community Centre ... £4,000
Cromer and Sheringham ...... £2,050
Arts & Literary Fesval
Cromer Skate Park .................... £10,000
Cromer and District Foodbank .. £5,000
Naonal Coastwatch Instuon
£12,000
Southrepps Parish Council ... £5,176
North Walsham in Bloom .... £4,824
North Walsham Town ......... £7,525
Football Club
North Norfolk Community ... £2,930
Woodland Trust
Stalham Brass Band ....... £5,000
Poppy Centre Trust ....... £10,000
Erpingham Parish Council
Fakenham Recreaon Ground £10,000
Charity
£10,000
Ke;lestone Village Hall ... £6,800
Aldborough Community Centre
£1,000
Hindolveston Recreaon ......£5,712
Ground Commi;ee
Skeyton Village Hall Associaon £1,500
North Norfolk Big Society Fund
Higginbo;om Recreaonal ..... £7,645
Charity
Grants Awarded – May to September2012
Total No. of Grants Awarded - 25
Nancy Oldfield Trust ....... £5,000
Total Amount Awarded - £192,577
77
Appendix D
North Norfolk Big Society Fund Awards ‐ May & September 2012
No. of Awards per Theme
Business Support
2
Business Support includes:
Improving facilities
infrastructure
Opportunities for
business development
Improving Community Facilities includes:
Improving Community Facilities 5
Community Sports & Recreation
9
Town & Village Halls
Community Clubs &
Centres
Access to Community Services
7
Access to Community Services includes:
Community Sports & Recreation includes:
Festivals
Charities
Trusts
Skateparks
Recreation Grounds
Sports Clubs
78
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
Agenda Item No__16__
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix E) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix F.
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others
need to be monitored and opportunities for scrutiny
should be discussed.
Recommendations:
That Members should consider any follow-up
actions required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s):
Ward(s) affected
Mr T FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer
telephone number
and email:
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
The Scrutiny Update report is a standing item on all Overview and Scrutiny
Committee agendas. The report updates Members on progress made with
topics on its agreed work programme and provides additional information
which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.
2.
Progress on topics since the last meeting
2.1
Call-in of North Walsham Dual Use Sports Centre
This item was referred back to Cabinet for further consideration at their
meeting on 13th December.
2.1
Ambulances and the NNCCG
A speaker from the East of England Ambulance Trust attended the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 21 November 2012. The presentation
was well-received and they agreed to provide additional information to the
committee. All of the information has now been received (with the exception
of one item) and it is attached at Appendix G. It was agreed at the meeting
that further consideration would be given to this subject at the December
meeting. Two representatives from the NNCCG are attending the December
79
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
18 December 2012
meeting to outline the commissioning strategy for 2012-16. It is anticipated
that concerns regarding the ambulance service can be addressed following
the presentation. Members may also be interested in the introduction of
tracking devices to monitor handover times at the Norfolk and Norwich
hospital. An article published in the EDP on 29th of November is attached at
Appendix H.
2.2
Special meeting dates in January
Members have been notified of the special meeting dates in January to
receive the council tax reports. It is anticipated that the business scheduled
for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 23rd January will now be
considered on 16th January, to avoid two meetings.
2.3
Norfolk Health and Wellbeing Board
An update from the Health Improvement Officer will be circulated to all
members via the Members’ Bulletin.
2.4
Recommendations from Task and Finish Group
A report has been produced by the Public Transport Review Task and Finish
Group – outlining recommendations for the County Council. A copy is of the
report is attached at Appendix I, together with a letter sent on behalf of both
Leaders.
2.5
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
The Work programme for the NHOSC is attached at Appendix J for
Members’ information, together with an outcomes and actions update
provided by Annie Claussen-Reynolds.
3.
Changes to the Work Programme and Future Topics
A review of the Big Society Fund was scheduled to come to the December
meeting of Overview & Scrutiny. The Chairman has agreed that as the Fund
is being reviewed by Cabinet in March 2013, it is not necessary to receive a
report at this stage. It is hoped that the Task and Finish Group that was set
up to look at the service level agreements when the Fund was established
can reconvene to feed-in to the review. Two representatives from Overview
and Scrutiny will sit on this panel.
80
Appendix E
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
2012/2013
GUIDANCE FOR REVIEWING THE WORK PROGRAMME
In setting future Scrutiny topics, the Committee is asked to:
a) Demonstrate the value any investigation would have to the Council’s Community
Leadership Role.
b) Consider the relationship any future topic may have with the work of the Cabinet’s Work
Programme and the Council’s Corporate Plan
c) Be mindful of the public’s priorities.
d) Provide reasons for the investigation (so that Officers/Witnesses can assist Members to
reach an outcome).
e) Consider the outcomes required before commencing an investigation.
f) Balance the need for new topics with existing items on the Scrutiny Work Programme.
g) Consider whether it would be helpful to time limit investigations or break down some topics
into smaller areas.
h) Provide sufficient notice, where possible, in order that the Cabinet Member with
responsibility for the subject, Officers and outside witnesses/attendees can fully assist the
Committee.
Date of
Meeting
Topic
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Dec 18
2012
2012/13
Revised Budget
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Dec 18
Big Society
Fund Update
Trevor
Ivory/Sonia
Shuter
Localism A, B, C
6-monthly update
Dec 18
2012
NNCCG –
presentation on
draft strategy
Sonia Shuter/
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Dec 18
2012
Empty Homes
Policy
Nicola Turner
Housing and
Infrastructure A
Dec 18
2012
Allocations
Policy
Nicola Turner
Housing and
Infrastructure A
January
23 2013
Planning Fees
Rhodri
Oliver/Steve
Oxenham
Housing and
Infrastructure A
Update requested by
Chairman
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
81
Review after 9 months,
requested by Members
Appendix E
Date of
Meeting
Topic
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Rhodri
Oliver/Steve
Oxenham
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Housing and
Infrastructure A
Requested by
Members June 2012 –
deferred from Nov 12
Waste Contract
John Lee/Nick
Baker
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
6 monthly update
Shared Services
update
Wyndham
Northam/ Louise
Wolsey
Delivering the
Vision E
6 monthly update
Environmental
Sustainability
Update
John Lee/Peter
Lumb
Delivering the
Vision E
Annual update
Annual Equality
Report
Julie Cooke
Budget
Monitoring
(October –
December)
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Performance
Management
Helen
Thomas/Tom
FitzPatrick
Delivering the
Vision A - E
2013/2014 Base
Budget and
Projections for
2014/15 to
2016/17
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Budget
Monitoring
Period 10 (Jan –
March)
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Health Strategy
Update
Angie FitchTillett/Sonia
Shuter
All
6 monthly update
April or
May 2013
Car Park
Charges
Rhodri Oliver/
Duncan Ellis
Delivering the
Vision E
Review requested by
Members
May 2013
Performance
Management
Helen
Thomas/Tom
FitzPatrick
Delivering the
Vision A - E
Planning
Performance
Update
February
20 2013
March 20
2013
Annual report
82
Cyclical
Appendix E
Date of
Meeting
Topic
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Tom
FitzPatrick/Estelle
Packham
Links with
Corporate Plan
June 2013
Complaints,
Compliments
and
Suggestions
(Outturn Report)
Final Accounts
2011/12
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision A - E
Annual
RIPA/
Surveillance
Nick Baker/John
Lee
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
Annual
Future of the
Happisburgh
Steps
Brian Farrow /
Angie Fitch-Tillett
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage
Request by Coastal
Management Board
(Nov.12)
Budget
Monitoring
Period 4 (April –
July)
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Happisburgh
Beach Access
Steps
Monitoring
Report
Angie FitchTillett/Brian
Farrow
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage C
Undertaking to monitor
made to Cabinet on
10 September 2012 –
request by Coastal
Management Board to
consider in June 2013
TBA
Customer
Access Strategy
Tom
FitzPatrick/Estelle
Packham
Delivering the
Vision B
Item on
All
Scrutiny
agendas
Scrutiny
Committee
Work
Programme
Tom FitzPatrick/
Scrutiny Officer
All
Sept 25
2012
83
Notes
Delivering the
Vision B
At Committee
Appendix F
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
84
Appendix G Information for North Norfolk District Council Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Trust budget and income
2008/09
£’000
A&E SLA
income
Total income
2009/10
£’000
2010/11
£’000
2011/12
£’000
147,432
170,792
172,304
179,833
2012/13
£’000
(budget)
185,671
213,814
228,076
223,457
226,874
227,846
Trust cost improvement programme
2009/10 2010/11
£m
£m
Actual
Actual
Savings
5.1
16.7
achieved/planned
2011/12
£m
Actual
14.7
2012/13
£m
Planned
10.6
2013/14
£m
Planned
9.2
2014/15
£m
Planned
10.0
2015/16
£m
Planned
8.1
2016/17
£m
Planned
7.6
2017/18
£m
planned
7.7
Call triage and prioritisation
Due to the high volume of 999 calls received by our Health and Emergency Operation Centres, we use a triage system to prioritise calls. This
system relies on the information provided by the caller as the patient cannot be assessed visually. The calls are then prioritised into one of the
following nationally agreed categories:
•
•
•
•
•
Red 1 calls: these calls are deemed life threatening, such as a cardiac arrest, and require an eight minute response from the moment the
call is connected to the ambulance service
Red 2 calls: these calls are deemed life threatening, such as a stroke, and require an eight minute response, but the ambulance service
has 60 seconds to triage these calls before that eight minute response starts
Green 1: serious but not life threatening and require a 20 minute response; for example a patient with diabetic problems connected to low
blood sugar levels.
Green 2: serious but not life threatening and require a 30 minute response; for example a patient who has fallen and sustained an injury
which is not life threatening
Green 3: not life threatening and require a response within 60 minutes or a phone assessment within 20 minutes (a clinician calling back for
a secondary telephone triage to establish the best pathway of care or an ambulance response at normal road speed within one hour); for
example a patient who has taken an overdose but has no symptoms
85
•
Appendix G Green 4: not life threatening and require a response within 60 minutes or a phone assessment within 60 minutes (as described above); for
example a patient who has fallen but has no apparent injuries.
Patient handovers at Norfolk & Norwich
The first chart shows the % of ambulances that wait at the Norfolk & Norwich for over 60 minutes before handing over the patient (figure 5.34).
The second chart shows the average time ambulance crews at the N&N take from handing over the patient to being available to take the next
999 call (figure 3.14).
86
87
Appendix G Appendix G
Information for North Norfolk District Council Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Language Line
In 2011/12 the Trust spent £7,010.88 on language line. The cost per minute is £1.25.
North Norfolk performance and activity
A8 performance (%)
A19 performance (%)
Total number of red
calls
Total number of
green calls
Total number of GP
urgent calls
2008
57.25
84.87
3035
2009
54.98
83.65
4449
2010
51.95
82.72
5117
2011
52.11
80.60
4937
2012
48.64
72.40
4380
6201
9111
8873
9862
10288
1756
2456
2339
2007
1767
Ambulance deployed from outside Norfolk into North Norfolk
We can only extract information from our system that shows ambulances from outside the Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk area that are
deployed into North Norfolk. Since March this year, there have been eight incidents when an ambulance from outside the Norfolk, Suffolk and
Cambridgeshire area have been deployed into north Norfolk. All of these were stood down en route.
88
Appendix H
How tracking devices will monitor ambulance handover times at N&N
Officials at NHS Norfolk and Waveney said they were stepping up ways of monitoring
ambulance response and handover times at the Norfolk and Norwich University
Hospital following concerns about the performance of the East of England
Ambulance Service Trust.
One of the ways of helping to improve response times would be the introduction of
radio frequency infrared devices (RFID), which would be fitted to trolleys and A&E
doors to record the time it takes to get patients to hospital.
Sallie Mills-Lewis, interim director of commissioning of NHS Norfolk and Waveney,
told members of the trust board yesterday that the tracking system, which would
need to be installed at all seven ambulance handover points at the N&N, would
accurately record arrival times. The system would cost up to £50,000 to install as well
as £15,000 for management costs and £6,000 a year for software and maintenance.
She added that the RFID was part of a package of measures to improve the
monitoring of ambulance response times, which also involved more regular meetings
NHS Norfolk and Waveney staff were having with ambulance chiefs and the N&N
over handover delays.
The director added that the ongoing issue with ambulance response times was a
“system-wide” problem that all parties were responsible for. NHS Norfolk and
Waveney has also initiated Project Domino, to identify and address specific gaps in
urgent care and to focus on ambulance turnaround delays
A recent report showed that in a four-week period this autumn, the hospital at Colney
was accountable for 144 out of 378 of the instances when there were excessive
handover delays, which is hampering the ambulance service trust’s
A new agreement is in place, which means the hospital will be fined £70 per hour for
ambulance handover delays that are aimed to be completed within 15 minutes.
Figures show that between April and October, the ambulance trust hit a 75pc target
of responding to category A calls within eight minutes across the region. However,
the Norfolk figure was 64pc and the target was 68pc.
Sheila Childerhouse, chairman of NHS Norfolk and Waveney, added that a clearer
communication plan needed to be put in place so that the public understand how the
service works.
“We need to make sure they have an appropriate level of service and people feel
safe,” she said.
Sheila Bremner, chief executive of NHS Norfolk and Waveney, added that the trust
would be working closely with the ambulance trust and hospital until the Primary
Care Trust is abolished in April and replaced with five Clinical Commissioning
Groups.
EDP – 29th November 2012
89
Appendix I
Ask for:
Direct Dial:
E-mail:
Our ref:
Your ref:
Date:
Andrew Proctor
01603 430450
cllr.andrew.proctor@broadland.gov.uk
OSC TTLP
XX October 2012
Councillor Graham Plant
Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation
Norfolk County Council
County Hall
Martineau Lane
Norwich
NR1 2SG
Dear Graham
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY REVIEW
Broadland District Council has been working jointly with colleagues from North Norfolk District
Council over the course of 4 months to identify and seek solutions on issues of public
transportation access for residents in our two districts. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s
convened a Joint Time and Task Limited Panel to conduct the review. I understand that you
participated in this review by attending one of their meetings, along with Tracey Jessop
(Assistant Director Travel and Transport Services), to answer some of their lines of enquiry.
The Panel of Members made a series of recommendations with the aim to improving access to
information about public transport services and to improve the provision of Community
Transport Providers in both districts. A copy of their final report is enclosed with this letter for
information.
As you will see the recommendations can largely be fulfilled by each of the district council’s
working with their officers and their parish/town councils. However there are three
recommendations which we hope the County Council will act upon:
1. Ensure that Parish/Town Councils are informed with the correct information about
services available e.g. up to date bus timetables; factsheets on SureStart services and
how to access them; community buses; particularly evening services and the Kickstart
moped scheme; and encourage them to disseminate the information proactively to
residents.
2. Persuade Bus Operators to provide double-decker buses on the most popular and logical
routes to maximise patronage. For example X29 Norwich to Kings Lynn/Fakenham
3. Respond to concerns about the information boards present at the key bus service stops
that are frequently not working. In addition consider linking up Public Authority websites
or media accounts to share up to date information about service delays e.g. Twitter
accounts and websites
90
Appendix I
We understand that the County Council have a responsibility to improve the provision of Public
Transport by making it as accessible as possible, and acknowledge the hard work and
improvements already delivered by your Team which the Panel included within their final report.
However, we consider that should the County Council act upon these recommendations then
residents across Norfolk would benefit greatly.
We look forward to hearing from you in anticipation that our request will be met with a positive
response.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Andrew Proctor
Leader Broadland District Council
Councillor Keith Johnson
Leader North Norfolk District Council
91
Appendix I
Cabinet
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PUBLIC TRANSPORT REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS (AMENDED)
Portfolio Holders:
Wards Affected:
All
All
1
SUMMARY
1.1
On the 29 May 2012 the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed a series of
recommendations identified by their Time and Task Limited Panel who
worked with colleagues from North Norfolk District Council. These
recommendations were presented to Cabinet for endorsement on the 18 June
2012. The Cabinet referred these recommendations back to the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee to further identify how those recommendations could
be achieved and prioritised.
1.2
This report presents those recommendations again with further information on
how each recommendation could be fulfilled and by who. The
recommendations have also been themed to provide a clearer understanding
of what the recommendations are trying to achieve.
2
KEY DECISION
2.1
This is not a key decision and has not been published in the Forward Plan.
3
INTRODUCTION
3.1
In September 2011, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that
Broadland Scrutiny Members would work jointly with Members from North
Norfolk District Council’s Scrutiny Committee to review public transport
arrangements for Broadland and North Norfolk. The joint Time and Task
Limited Panel met for the first time on the 26 October 2011.
3.2
During the course of the review, the Time and Task Limited Panel members
met with the Assistant Director Travel and Transport Services Environment,
Transport and Development, Tracey Jessop and County Council Portfolio
Holder for Planning & Transportation, Graham Plant. The Members also
engaged with Community Transport Providers, Parish Councils and Bus
Operators.
4
THE ISSUES
4.1
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee identified during their work
programming exercise in early 2012 that there were concerns around access
11 September 2012
92
Appendix I
Cabinet
to Public Transport across the district. Upon consultation with other Norfolk
Authorities, North Norfolk District Council identified similar concerns and
agreed to work with Broadland District Council as a Joint Time and Task
Limited Panel to review the effectiveness of Public Transport. The Joint TTLP
were tasked to undertake the following:

Identify gaps in the public transport services provided (Bus, Rail and
Water)

Identify services that are under threat to continue or to be reduced

Conduct a Rural Proofing assessment which can be presented to the
County Council as evidence to support continuing services in rural areas
and where applicable invest in them

Review the impacts on access to the SureStart centre being set up in
Cawston, accounting for the cuts proposed to the bus services

Investigate access to bus stops in terms of older people and disabled
people capabilities, identifying possible improvements to be made

To identify specific problems with public transport services for the elderly
and the disabled

To investigate how opportunities for employment were restricted by
access to public transport in rural areas
4.2
Over the course of four months the TTLP identified a number of
recommendations to be endorsed by each Council.
5
DISCUSSION
5.1
While the Overview and Scrutiny Committee reconsidered their initial
recommendations, they were made aware of the ongoing work being
undertaken by Norfolk County Council during their own service review. To
date the County Council has increased the investment in Community
Transport, and are building capacity with third sector organisations to increase
the volume of journeys that can be undertaken. They have established a new
social enterprise called Norfolk Community Transport Association, which is
offering significant economies of scale for back office activity like recruitment,
insurance, health and safety, operational good practice, CRB checks, vehicle
and legislative compliance, vehicle and driver pooling.
5.2
Members from North Norfolk District Council attended the Overview and
11 September 2012
93
Appendix I
Cabinet
Scrutiny Committee meeting on the 31 July 2012 to continue their involvement
with this review and agreed with our Committee that the recommendations
remained relevant and achievable should they be delivered how suggested.
5.3
Following consideration the Committee did agree to withdraw the
recommendation “District Councils to support Community Transport Providers
with their long-term running to enable the service to remain sustainable and
deliverable e.g. charitable trusts/cooperatives” as it is more relevant to North
Norfolk Council than to Broadland Council considering the number of
Community Transport Operations active within the North Norfolk district.
6
PROPOSED ACTION
6.1
The Cabinet are asked to endorse the following recommendations identified
by the Joint Time and Task Limited Panel and supported by the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee (as amended).
Recommendation
How it could be
achieved
Responsible for
delivery
a.
The Council could do more
to raise the profile of
Community Transport
Schemes available
including what the benefits
are to using community
transport
Coordinated
through community
grants to such
organisations.
b.
Ensure that transport
providers are aware of the
Bus Service Operators
Grant and help them to
meet the criteria to apply
Information could be
added to the Community
Engagement pages on
the Broadland Council
website, a feature could
be published in
Broadland News and
articles raising awareness
placed in Parish Pages.
CTP are local
businesses, information
could be advertised in
Business Focus
magazine to raise
awareness.
Theme
Awareness
Economic
Awareness
Development Team
11 September 2012
94
Appendix I
Cabinet
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Recommendation
How it could be
achieved
Responsible for
delivery
Ensure that Parish/Town
Councils are informed with
the correct information
about services available
e.g. up to date bus
timetables, factsheets on
SureStart services and how
to access them, community
buses, particularly evening
services and the Kickstart
moped scheme; and
encourage them to
disseminate the information
proactively
District and County
Councils to provide more
positive advertising of the
uses of public transport
and how to access it. This
to also include basic
operator information and a
link to ‘Travel Line’ on the
Council’s website
County/District/Parish or
Town Councils to consult
with communities to fully
identify their needs and find
ways of providing
community bus sharing
schemes and supporting
voluntary drivers to provide
the service to begin with,
for example through
Neighbourhood Planning
exercises
Support and promote the
new river ferry service
being provided from the old
power station to Trowse
(Broadland/City area)
Encourage Community
Transport Providers to use
regular bus routes in
addition to providing
bespoke trips for
individuals
Encourage the County
Council to provide the
information of services
available to parish
Councils through their
existing communication
means. A letter from the
Council leader to County
Council should suffice
Norfolk County
Council
Awareness
District Council
Leaders writing a
letter to County
Council
Lobbying
Provide a positive article
on the Council website
‘Transport and Streets’
along with basic
information that can be
downloaded and link to
the Travel Line website.
Communications
Team
Awareness
Build these questions as
part of consultation
process for parish plan
and neighbourhood
plans. Also consider
using these points of
reference when
consulting on
infrastructure needs for a
community.
Spatial Planning
Awareness
Raise awareness of the
service on the Council
website and within
notices in Broadland
News and Parish Pages.
Feed this information
back to providers when
they are applying for
funding.
Communications
Team
Awareness
Partnership and
Funding Officer
Awareness
Theme
11 September 2012
95
Appendix I
Cabinet
Recommendation
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
How it could be
achieved
Responsible for
delivery
Theme
Consider ring-fencing
funding to support
community transport
schemes and encourage
new providers to come
forward. Schemes that
would assist local
businesses to pick up
employees would be
particularly supported
Provide supported funding
or sponsorship to
community transport
providers to obtain new
vehicles
Would have to be agreed Economic
by the Grants Panel how Development
much funding is put aside Team.
and endorsed by Cabinet.
Raise awareness of
available funds through
community newsletters
and BroadlandDC Twitter
account.
Funding
Partnership and Funding
Officer working with
Norfolk County Council
grants officer to improve
access to funding
streams.
District Council/
Norfolk County
Council
Funding
Negotiate with Bus
Operators to be consistent
in how they provide
information and what they
include with it. A lot of
information is bundled
together which do not
relate and causes
confusion
The Council to support and
encourage Community
Transport Providers to
reach out to young people
who need a service in the
evenings in order to attend
groups or clubs.
Include these points of
reference within same
letter to Bus Operators
outlining the Council’s
feedback from this
review. Initially consult
parish councils to outline
which information from
operators is most useful.
Identify operating CTP’s
and make them aware of
groups/clubs for Young
People who would benefit
from their services,
engage through YAB.
Merge with existing
Leisure arrangements
and advertising methods.
District Council to compile
a joint letter with Norfolk
County Council appealing
to Bus Operators.
County Council should
have existing information
of which routes maximise
patronage
Parish Liaison
Officer
Lobbying
Economic
Development,
Leisure Team
Lobbying
Economic
Development
and
County Council.
Lobbying
Persuade Bus Operators to
provide double decker
buses on the most popular
and logical routes to
maximise patronage. For
example X29 Norwich to
Kings Lynn/Fakenham
District Council
Leaders writing a
letter to County
Council
11 September 2012
96
Appendix I
Cabinet
m.
n.
o.
Recommendation
How it could be
achieved
Responsible for
delivery
Provide bus timetables at
local shops/village
halls/central notice
boards/libraries/schools/do
ctors surgeries and Parish
Magazines not just parish
councils.
Providing the information
where people are most
likely to access transport.
Timetables for Bus
Operators and contact/time
information for Community
Transport Providers
displayed together. This
should include information
within the bus stops of
which buses stop there
Ask the Leader to write to
the Government outlining
the consultation
undertaken and request
them to consider an
alternative regulatory
framework and public
transport funding systems
that is accessible to both
voluntary sector and
private sector
Convey to County Council
Portfolio Holder for
Transport concerns about
the information boards
present at the key bus
service stops that are
frequently not working. In
addition consider linking up
Public Authority websites
or media accounts to share
up to date information
about service delays e.g.
Twitter accounts and
websites.
The Council writes to
Parish/Town Councils
informing them the
expectation that
information needs to be
provided in these areas
across the parish area. A
letter to Parish Councils
encouraging them to
obtain the information
and pass to their local
shops/libraries.
Parish/Town
Councils
Lobbying
Compile a joint letter from
each Norfolk Authority
countersigned by all
Leaders and MP’s and
sent to Government as
per recommendation
Democratic
Services
Lobbying
Compile a letter to the
Norfolk County Council
Portfolio Holder for
Transport (Graham Plant)
conveying this concern
and asking them to be
included within their
review of public transport
services. Implementation
would be at discretion of
County Council.
District Council
Leader
Lobbying the
County
Council
District Council
Leaders writing a
letter to County
Council.
Theme
11 September 2012
97
Appendix I
Cabinet
Recommendation
p.
The Council to encourage
Bus Operators to provide
safer collection points in
areas where the main
roads are dangerous.
q.
Convey to any public
transport provider that it is
important for drivers to be
courteous, welcoming and
helpful. These simple
behaviours are extremely
valued by service users
and can influence their use
of the service
Relax criteria to achieve
funding for community
transport schemes,
providing bespoke support
to applicants to help them
to complete a successful
application form
r.
How it could be
achieved
Responsible for
delivery
Consult with Parish
Councils where their
current collections points
are and if they are
hazardous. Outline this
feedback in a letter to
Bus Operators asking
them to revise collection
points.
Include within main letter
from Council Leader to
Bus Operators, and site
separately with Rail
Companies, Taxi Firms
and Ferry Services.
Collectively the
Parish Councils
working together to
compile one letter
Lobbying
Democratic
Services
Lobbying
Include as part of the
Grants Review conducted
on an annual basis.
Recommendation
reported to the
Partnership and Funding
Officer for information.
Partnership and
Funding Officer/
Democratic
Services
Lobbying
(internal)
Theme
7
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
7.1
There are minimal resource implications within this report. The delivery of
recommendations to improve advertising and raising awareness will require
officer time, any literature about available services or grants or volunteer
schemes can be included within existing Council publications like Broadland
News, Parish Pages and Broadland Business Focus. Leaflets from
community transport providers could be obtained from the providers directly
and supplied at community events across Broadland or relevant to those
operator areas at no cost to the Council. Recommendations have been
delegated to existing Council functions or to Parish Councils within their
community facilitator role.
8
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1
There are no legal implications associated with this report.
11 September 2012
98
Appendix I
Cabinet
9
CONCLUSION
9.1
In conclusion the Overview and Scrutiny Committee have reconsidered their
initial recommendations, they have identified how each recommendation
could be fulfilled in consultation with officers and collectively agreed three
themes the recommendations apply to. The Cabinet are asked to deliberate
these recommendations and consider them for action.
10
OPTIONS
10.1
The Cabinet has the following options
(1)
Endorse the updated recommendations
(2)
Agree alternative course of action to be taken by the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee
Councillor Peter Balcombe
Chairman of the Joint Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel
Martin Thrower
Head of Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer
Background Papers
None
For further information on this report call Stacy Cosham on (01603) 430567 or
e-mail stacy.cosham@broadland.gov.uk
11 September 2012
99
Appendix I
Appendix 3 Public Transport Review
Summary of Stakeholder Responses
Parish Councils
Respondent
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
Horning Parish
Council (NNDC)
What's good? Well, it
exists! If only in a
small way. The bus is
not too expensive.
There are
concessionary fares.
What's bad? Services
are not coordinated to
link with each other.
Provision is by
competition, not need.
Bus and rail are not
coordinated
Fakenham Town
Council (NNDC)
The infrequency of the
bus service and no
alternative i.e. rail etc.
The Coasthopper bus
appears to be very
popular
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
It has to be improved
and integrated better,
a service to the rail
station in Norwich and
the airport, and better
facilities in the buses
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
Coordinate as above.
All providers should
be able to sell a
"through ticket" which
would cover bus and
rail. (In Switzerland
we can buy tickets
which will cover all
parts of the journey
rail, boat, bus from the
rail station) More
publicity of timetables,
both on the route and
for connections.
Flexible "put down
stops". More bus
shelters, even modest
ones! Overall services
need to be more user
friendly
By looking at
integration
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Bus firstly then rail
Public Transport –
means rail and
community transport
100
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Select from previous
answer!
By getting all
providers together to
address the problems.
This would have to be
driven by NNDC.
Like the Curate's egg,
parts of it are
excellent, but it
doesn't hang together.
See 6 above and by
giving such support as
is possible.
Lack of transport after
a certain time in the
evening, if visiting the
theatre etc.
Very difficult in these
new austere times,
with finance tight. An
entrepreneur is
required, someone
like Virgin boss, who
can invest without
worrying if some
routes do not make a
profit initially
The quality is
reasonable it caters
for wheelchairs, etc.
but should have
facilities on board
As an enabler and
collation of information
Appendix I
Respondent
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
North Walsham Parish
Transport to and from
Council (NNDC)
Norwich is a strength;
transport to villages is
a weakness
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
Frequency and
integration are the
keys to persuading
more people to use
public transport.
Better technology and
clean bus shelters
would be an
improvement. "No
one wants to wait in
the rain for a bus that
may or may not
arrive". The
technology would
allow people to check
the whereabouts of
their bus. Whereas
this technology is now
commonplace in
urban areas, it's most
needed in the
countryside.
The verdict on this
was divided between
buses and trains, both
of which we have in
North Walsham. The
view was expressed
that older people think
in terms of buses, and
try to organize their
travel around them, as
they are free and
more likely to take you
into the centre of a
town or city.
The most problematic
elements of public
transport are
frequency, reliability
and, in relation to
buses, the attitude of
some drivers which
can be brusque and
unhelpful.
As above, the
provision is better in
market towns than in
villages, where it can
be non existent.
Here it was suggested
that while district
councils have no
direct responsibility for
transport, they might
lobby more vigorously
and, in particular, they
might do a better job
of understanding the
services in their area
and monitoring them.
101
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Appendix I
Respondent
Aylsham Town
Council (BDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
Good
Fares – joint ticketing
using Bure Valley
Railway, currently
being explored
following Urban
Delivery report
approved BDC
cabinet. Day tickets
More services into the
villages – especially
early morning for
commuters. Would
save residents coming
into towns to “park
and catch the bus”
and would therefore
leave more car
parking for shoppers.
Better service to
NNUH other than
having to go into and
out of Norwich – many
people in this area
rely heavily on
Aylsham Care Trust
voluntary drivers
Predominantly bus,
but it is possible – if
you have time – to get
from Aylsham to
Norwich by train,
using the Bure Valley
Railway and
connecting to Poppy
line at Wroxham. Car
sharing does happen,
more should be made
of the liftshare
scheme. Community
buses are a lifeline in
the villages for
shopping trips.
Kickstart scheme that
provides mopeds has
assisted people in
rural areas to travel to
employment more
cheaply, especially if
in younger age groups
where cost of cars –
and in particularly
insurance – are very
high in comparison
with wages for
inexperienced workers
or those in lower
skilled posts
Timings – other than
from main centres.
E.g. I live in
Banningham and work
in Aylsham – this is
not possible by public
transport especially if
add evening meeting
requirements into the
mix. Lack of use of
services through
villages has led to
their demise. Fuel
costs may reverse this
trend
More “joined up
thinking” – liaison
between authorities at
all levels, community
groups, and the
voluntary sector.
“Grow Your
Community” project
(BDC) with focus on
Aylsham has collated
information in this way
Service and quality
good from main
points, not so from the
villages, although
easier to access if
drive into Aylsham,
park and pick up the
bus
Regular daily service
from Aylsham to
Norwich and Aylsham
to Cromer. Also
service to North
Walsham using bus
that goes to Paston
college and does
come through some of
the villages en route
Sanders coaches
to/from Carrow Road
on matchdays are
very popular! Now
use a double decker
service – used to be
single decker. Also
accepts
concessionary
passes!
Bad
From a NorthNorfolk
perspective, it is
difficult to get to
Norwich and Cromer
direct – people can
wait by the roadside
on the A140, but this
is dangerous. For
both Broadland and
NorthNorfolk, buses to
and from North
Walsham are
infrequent.
North Norfolk –
regular through
services to
Norwich/Cromer
Better service to N
Walsham and across
county – especially
with relocation of
some hospital
services from
Aylsham to N
Walsham
With particular
reference to the relocation of SureStart
from Aylsham to
Cawston – access to
the office will be
difficult other than by
car
Cannot easily use
public transport to
work unless working
in Norwich/Cromer
Evening services
could be improved
102
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
The “Grow Your
Community” project in
Aylsham has already
started to expand the
District Council’s role
as a facilitator.
Appendix I
Respondent
Acle Parish Council
(BDC)
Barshams (NNDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
Some main towns and
villages have excellent
public transport e.g.
Acle. Smaller
communities often
served by much fewer
services with much
longer journey times
as bus routes seek to
maximise passenger
numbers at the
expense of useful
journey times
Address points 1 and
Transport must be
2 above
available at the times
people want to use
them. Commuters
need to know they can
either get to work or to
another transport hub
at the beginning and
end of the day and
shoppers need
services that allow
them the choice of
more than one service
out of and back to
their starting point.
Bus and rail; how
good the park and ride
services are for
people able to access
them
Access to services
from rural locations.
Rather than providing
long rural routes that
go right into Norwich
maybe shorter route
services from rural
locations into the Park
and Ride sites could
be an answer then
increase the number
of buses from the
Park & Ride sites.
ALL problems can be
overcome with the
right amount of
funding or the better
distribution of existing
budgets. This will
involve all financial
contributors to the
transport 'pot'. Maybe
there are some new
contributors available?
How about major
employers who could
benefit from their staff
access to public
transport making
some contibution
possibly in the form of
company subsidised
season tickets
Good, where people
have access to
transport, West and
North Barsham have
none.
People use it where it
is available.
Local access
Public consultation
Good points are
frequency of buses
in/around Fakenham.
Bad point is that
double deck buses
should be used on
X29 to Norwich and
aren’t!
Public transport exists
to Norwich and
King’sLynn, but have
to get the 4 miles to
Fakenham first.
Difficult as it is likely
that buses coming to
smaller villages would
not be cost effective.
BUS, the nearest train
station is 20 miles
away, sadly.
Extension of NNR and
MNR to create the
Norfolk Orbital
Railway
Go to more places
and with times
suitable for all.
Nothing to Swaffham
etc
Pick up points,
Inconvenient times,
Delays
Bus firms.
Government needs to
invest more in
Railways!
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Generally good.
Ensuring the
provision of suitable
transport services by
liaison with other
providers, NCC bus
companies etc. and
funding provision of
services and ticket
schemes where
appropriate and
affordable. The
District Council should
NOT pursue in any
form at all wasteful but
possibly vote winning
transport schemes of
any sort
Good where it exists,
but many villages do
not have public
transport.
Impossible to please
all, but fuel costs are
now so high that some
pensioners
will be forced to stay
at home as they
cannot access public
transport
on foot.
X29 Fakenham to
Norwich/29 to King’s
Lynn. Frankly, poor.
Being able to get out
of their homes is the
only social
contact some people
have in their lives, and
allow them to maintain
their
independence
Survey the
prospective use of
transport to see what
is needed.
Give rural
communities
timetables etc so that
potential users are
aware of what exists
currently
103
Appendix I
Respondent
Great Snoring
(NNDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
No good points except
ramps installed for
wheelchairs but no
buses
Buses need to be
regular so people can
use them everyday to
go to and from work
More regular services
should be provided so
people want to use
them
Bus, mainly rail but it
is necessary to go in a
car in order to be able
to go on a train
Lack of flexibility
Poor
There is no public
transport in Great
Snoring
Provide transport to
this village
Pilot bus/taxis that go
off-route on request
etc. Carry out surveys
to see if that is more
cost-effective for the
operators.
Some rarely use
public transport since
the hub for accessing
it is nearly three miles
away
You need more buses
at more times, but if
people don’t use them
then they won’t run,
so the solution is in
our hands
It is really a county
level problem, so
although the district
councils can comment
it is a county problem
Difficult to get any
public transport
information
Better marketing and
information relating to
the services which do
exist
Remove the subsidy
for bus passes (over
60s) on the Coast
Hopper and re-direct
the funds to rural
buses
The fact that it takes
an extra three hours
to get to where you
want if you go by
public transport
The necessity to drive
to the bus stop (2½ to
3½ miles away) or the
train (25 miles to
either mainline
station) and then have
to park
Try to find effective
private enterprise
alternatives
Needs a complete rethink by both national
and local government.
A 100% increase in
council tax for 2nd
homes and the
removal of the subsidy
from the Coast
Hopper would help
funding issues
Little public transport
and it is limited.
Use powers to alter
funding and raise new
funding from 2nd home
increase in council
tax.
Use council powers
and lobbying abilities
to central government,
to make the regulatory
framework easier,
within which the
private operators run
the system.
Reduce bureaucracy.
Give operators the tax
breaks they need etc.
Realise that councils
will not be able to do
anything themselves,
as they do not run
buses and trains
104
Appendix I
Respondent
Walsingham (NNDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
Good: Coast
Hopper service –
Norfolk Green to be
congratulated on
this excellent
example of a
regular, reliable
service, using clean,
level-entry buses,
driven by courteous
and considerate
drivers.
Provide more
appropriate bus
services in rural
locations. Make
savings on main
routes by reviewing
timetables where
services are
unjustifiably
frequent, or which
duplicate routes,
e.g. Sheringham /
Holt, Sheringham /
Cromer.
(Please see item 2
above)
Bad: Sanders
buses – at best
unable to tick many
of the foregoing
boxes.
Loss of subsidy for
community transport
from County to
provide transport to
Heritage House at
Wells means that
many elderly are
unable to attend the
Day Centre
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
Buses
The lack of positive
advertising to bring
awareness of the
many benefits of
using public
transport. As fuel
costs rise this is
particularly poignant
Market research to
(As 1 above)
establish which
routes and
timetables would be
supported, together
with wide publicity
about the purpose of
the exercise.
Involve all
stakeholders, i.e.
NCC, NNDC, Parish
/ Town Councils
Charge fees to outof-county bus pass
holders who use
buses in Norfolk –
this is especially
applicable to the
Coast Hopper buses
that get
overcrowded with
pensioners on
holiday in North
Norfolk
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Any initiative would
be welcomed.
Isolation of the old
and the worst off
when transport is
not provided and
any initiatives which
would allow them to
keep in touch with
the wider world
would be useful
Provide at least a
limited service for
villages which no
longer enjoy any
form of public
transport
General Comments made:
Horning Parish
Council (NNDC)
As oil prices rise and £ v $ continues to deteriorate, the cost of personal transport will become out of reach for many in the rural community. Furthermore, carbon emissions from single occupancy
cars will become unsustainable. Although now is not an opportune time to act, it is now that we need to start the planning for the next decade. This will to include the structure of provision and
publicity to change the perception of public transport. How about a few free "try it" tickets? Whatever you think, do it now! (Or at least soon)
North Walsham
Parish Council –
footnote
The mayor and the deputy mayor shared the view that public transport was of great importance and that it would be a good thing if more people were to use it. They believe, as do many others in
the town, that we need a later train on Friday and Saturday nights on the Bittern Line. They are both passionate advocates of the North Walsham Area Community Transport Association and
believe it to be a great asset for North Walsham and its surrounding villages. They would like to see its services increased rather than reduced. One of the interviewees commented that
community transport is often regarded as a service for the elderly, but that its long term survival would depend on its extending its work in the direction of young people.
Kettleston (NNDC)
I find it difficult to answer this questionnaire under these headings, but I reply in case what I say can be sifted for useful facts or opinions.
I am retired, living alone, without a car for the last three years, in Kettlestone. The village now has two buses a week running through it – on Thursday to Fakenham and back (three years ago it had,
I think, six a day) – and on the main road, about half a mile from my house, there is the hourly service between Holt and Fakenham. I use the Thursday bus regularly for shopping. The Thursday bus
is also used fairly regularly or occasionally by two or three other villagers. I also sometimes catch the bus on the main road if I want to travel further afield, and that, though it usually picks up or
drops passengers from Little Snoring, is seldom, as far as I know, used by people from Kettlestone, at least not at the times I use it.
At the moment I am more like a hermit than a gadabout and I adapt to what is available. But I can see that if I were less able or were someone with greater family commitments the present supply of
public transport would be difficult, intolerable or impossible. There is a circle by which poor service makes for fewer users and fewer users encourage a poorer service, as I think has happened in
Kettlestone – though the bus companies' records and the councils who contract with them may well be able to point out that the Kettlestone service was not well used when it was generous – but I
105
Appendix I
suspect it would take a lot of persuasiveness and time to make any service attractive to those who have become used to making their own arrangements.
It has become the fashion to say that there is no money in a very rich country, that we can't afford it and therefore something must be reduced or abandoned. There was a time, I think, when we
debated what was desirable and, when we agreed on that, then decided how and to what extent we could afford it; and I think that was a better way to do things. Why should there be a rural bus
service? Is it hoped to encourage use widespread enough to be an alternative or preferable to private cars, or is it intended to provide some mobility for those who would otherwise be limited? If it is
the latter, as I am sure it is, then Kettlestone is minimally served , but I do not know that a small improvement would be much appreciated or used.
I do not expect much change to be made from a personal beef, but here it is. By careful planning and exact timing, and maybe some luck, I could get to Norwich or Wells and back, but the current
service makes it easy enough for me to get only to Fakenham or Holt, Lynn or Cromer; and I should appreciate a rejigging of routes and timetables to widen my horizon. The route from Cromer to
Lynn was once run by one company and it was possible to have through tickets on the same bus. But now that the route has been divided I have to change, and sometimes wait, at Fakenham. The
connection between the services is now guaranteed one way only and when the bus from Lynn to Fakenham was delayed I have missed my bus to Little Snoring by a few minutes and had to wait
an hour for the next.
Rackheath `Parish
Council (BDC)
Woodbastwick Parish
Council (BDC)
The Parish Clerk to Rackheath also serving Salhouse was unable to gather information within the time allowed however, I have spoken to a couple of Parish Councillors for Salhouse who were
prepared to state that public transport appears to be satisfactory in the morning and the afternoon but is sadly lacking in the evening. Due to cutbacks. Speak to Councillor S. Buckle for a full
explanation
The Clerk to the Woodbastwick Parish Council states that public transport is unknown in this area and she has no information as to anybody requiring it
Community Transport Operators
Respondent
North Walsham Area
Community Transport
Association (NWACTA)
Community Transport
projects are heavily reliant
on volunteers; has your
scheme witnessed any
problems with recruitment
and retention?
You are right that NWACTA
is heavily dependant on
volunteers as are most other
CT schemes in Norfolk
including community car
schemes. The available
“pool” of good volunteers has
been shrinking for some
years, as we demand higher
standards of training and
more rigorous vetting. We
have recently been fortunate
to benefit from an NCC/RDC
initiative, which brought us 3
good people. It is important
not to have too many
because if not used they drift
away. Driving for CT is an
excellent voluntary activity
where people can see the
result of their labours in the
vulnerable people they help
Do you believe the
proposed changes in the
Transport Bill may help
address these problems?
Aside from volunteer
recruitment and retention
issues, are there any other
problems that you
frequently encounter?
Do you engage with other
similar schemes operating
in the County?
How do you promote your
community transport
scheme to the community?
As you know the government
have been pushing to get the
voluntary sector to take over
more public sector provision.
It’s a good deal for the
government because we take
no profits and pay no
shareholders. Also it reduces
the amount the sector needs
in funding. (See question 6)
Most of the recent changes
to the transport act, for
example enabling CT
schemes to register routes
which carry the general
public (around here it’s
Poppy bus) are towards this
end.
Most problems are covered
in other questions however
for the CT sector across
Norfolk to survive and work
together we will probably
need some standardisation of
methods and charges. NCC
are setting up a county wide
forum which hopefully will
address these issues.
Yes we do and we have a
national body the Community
Transport Association, which
lobbies the government for
not-for-profit transport
providers and keeps up with
new legislation. Locally I
chaired a North and West
Norfolk Transport Forum for
a number of years concerned
with sharing good practise
and campaigning for the
sector.
Our problem is that we have
not sufficient human
resources to continually
promote our activities. New
services are advertised using
what media we can and a
good splash can get us
started with a dozen or so
new members but over time
the numbers reduce and we
have the unfortunate fact that
our buses are going through
villages where there is need,
but the people don’t know
they can get on our bus.
106
How do you fund the
scheme within your area,
including the promotion,
service operation and
purchasing of new
vehicles?
Traditionally CT schemes
benefited from local authority
support for their core funding
mixed with capital and
revenue grants from
organisations such as the
Rural Development
Commission then later the
Countryside Agency for
project funding. These
agencies no longer exist and
the Lottery has all but
withdrawn recently (in my
opinion) so CT schemes and
the voluntary sector in
general are resorting to
adopting the business model
of trying to generate budget
surpluses by taking on
contract activity.
Appendix I
Continued Questions…..
In your experience what
are the main problems that
established schemes
encounter?
How willing do you find
local groups are to be
involved with community
transport projects?
If these services ceased to
operate, what would be the
implication for people
living in these
communities?
North Walsham Area
Community Transport
Association (NWACTA)
It is going to get worse for
rurally isolated people as
more cuts are made to the
rural bus subsidy and less
public transport is available
to them. NNDC should help
us to spread the word that,
as much as possible, CT can
help people get to essential
services
While there is an acceptance
that public transport in rural
areas needs ongoing subsidy
to operate, community
transport is seen as having a
lower cost base because of
the use of unpaid volunteers.
In my experience there has
always been reluctance from
funding bodies to invest in
core activities. Some CT
schemes employ staff to
provide their services and all
of them suffer from ever
higher running costs and an
inability to replace vehicles
CT provides low cost
transport solutions for many
groups supporting
vulnerable people across all
disciplines and there is good
interaction between
organisations
How do community-based
schemes fund the
purchase of vehicles, and
have any of them
experienced difficulties in
raising the necessary
capital?
The criteria for using free
(PTS) hospital transport have
recently been tightened
leaving many more people
stranded. CT schemes
including community car
schemes will try and help but
can only do so much. Any
reduction in these important
door to door services will
increase feelings of isolation
and social exclusion and
reduce health well being for
vulnerable people
Do you believe the funding
of community based
schemes could be
simplified at a local and
national level?
Are there any community
based transport schemes
either in Broadland/North
Norfolk or from another
area that you feel are
particularly successful?
Pressure on district and
county budgets will impact on
support for the voluntary
sector in the coming years.
Better evidence of the value
and social return derived
from demand responsive,
accessible transport will help
the sector to survive. The
Government have dedicated
some money to county
councils to help build
sustainability in community
transport and we look
forward to seeing how this is
spent
What do you think the District Council could do to assist the sustainability and future of community transport?
This question was not answered
General Comments
Norwich River Bus Service
In brief a proposed ferry service from a regeneration site, once occupied by the electricity power station across the River Wensum to a development site in Trowse, standing in for bridge.
The ferry service has plans to carry passengers from Trowse to New Mills( near to Oak Street Norwich) and return. Dredging by New Mills ( the turning point for the ferry service) is proving to
be a sticky point with the Norwich City Council and the Broads Authority
107
Appendix I
Private Companies
Norfolk Green on behalf of Coasthopper Service
These responses are global views but with specific reference to Coasthopper, 29, X8 and X29, all of which provide core transport services in North Norfolk. 1. Public transport is often seen as the ‘last resort’ option; what do you think
could be done to improve the public perception of public transport and,
therefore, increase patronage?
Insofar as we are concerned I cannot accept that our routes are seen as the choice of
last resort, although I accept that the political perception is misguidedly so. Given that
our fare-paying (ie not free travel over-60s) customer base is consistently growing by
between 8% and 15% a year, there are two scenarios that are causing this. Firstly, that
there is a striking growth in deprivation in the area (of which I see no evidence) or that
the premise behind this question is arguable or wrong.
We achieve this growth by tailoring service patterns and offers to meet demand, and
then advertising our product as widely as we can afford, putting a higher percentage of
overall spend into advertising than does the industry generally
2. Cost is frequently raised as a barrier to using public transport, especially for
younger people, how can this situation be improved?’
We have a policy of charging affordable fares. Our preference has always been for fuller
buses at lower fares as we believe that that serves the market best.
According to concessionary reimbursement consultants MCL (first employed by the
Districts when responsible for reimbursement) and now the County as it moved to being
their responsibility, our fares are adult 25% below the average of the County's other
operators.
We have provided a universal 20% off for all 16 to 19 year olds across our network
since 2005. This is at all times, not just for those in education, and is based on a no-ID
card basis. We were first in the UK to do so, and now at last some other operators are
starting to follow suit.
The combination of our adult fare policy and this means that the cost of travel for a 16 to
19 year old on our buses is about 40% below the average of other operators in the
county who do not offer such a discount.
Insofar as our business model is concerned, therefore, I do not believe that there is
much of an issue (we receive very little comment to that effect) and I think there is little
more that we can reasonably and affordably do.
3. Why have there been so few cases of subsidised routes becoming
commercial, enabling the subsidy money to be reinvested into other routes?’
I don't accept this in respect of our operations, with two general exceptions below. Nor
do I recognise the point nationally. Insofar as our operations are concerned, in the past
two years we have commercialised a number of routes or part-routes that have saved
the three County Councils with which we contract a total of £0.5m between them. If the
Counties have decided, as they mostly have, to not reinvest the savings, that is a matter
for them to answer for.
Further, the Panel should not ignore that as passenger revenues rise from increased
ridership, so, as contracts are re-tendered at five year intervals, this leads to real term
reductions in the contract price, accruing further savings to the county concerned. So
even if the route remains contracted, it doesn't mean that the County does not benefit; it
is a matter of taking a series of steps towards commerciality.
108
Appendix I
There are two general exceptions. One is, as in April 2012 and again in April 2013,
central government decides to change the rules to force up our operating costs (eg the
reduction in grant from this April to offset part of the fuel duty paid on bus routes, which
has increased duty by 58% this month). Secondly, if an operator is marketing its
services so as to grow passengers, government requires local authorities not to fully
reimburse operators for new free travellers thereby generated.
As a consequence these types of measures by government militate against
commercialization
4. To what extent do the operators see themselves as competitors to each other
as distinct from colleagues with a common aim of maximising ridership?
The answer is both but with a much heavier bias towards being competitors with each
other. There is a widely held belief in the industry that this is not right but it results from
excessive attention to the industry over a lot of years. Only last December, the
Competition Commission concluded the most major inquiry into the market ever
undertaken, and, controversially concluded that buses do not compete with other forms
of transport, rather they compete within a distinct market of bus users.
I do not accept this any more than my industry colleagues, but the corporate and
personal penalties for ignoring it by co-operating with each other "too much", which can
lead to fines of 10% of company turnover, are disproportionate and excessive. Further,
the industry regulator, in a case in Wales, has fairly recently then determined that the
named person on the Operator Licence may not be a fit and proper person to run a bus
company and barred from doing so for up to life.
These draconian and largely unnecessary European requirements ensure that
operators are extremely cautious about what the authorities might, in retrospect,
determine to be undue and therefore anti-competitive co-operation
5. What do operators think they could do better than they do now?
There are many things that operators could do better, so long as they can afford to do
them better. However, as an industry we do not exist in a vacuum. The past decade
was characterised by central government consistently and repeatedly increasing costs
through excessive regulatory zeal, impacting all labour-intensive industries (such as
NHS, Royal Mail and buses) negatively. Now, the current government is busy stripping
out subsidy, creating a double hit. Reducing profits in this way feeds through to reduced
investment, whether in hardware such as fleet, or innovation in service design and
pricing.
The method central government requires for free travel reimbursement also impacts.
The Department for Transport issued a press statement only last month crowing that it
had changed how we are paid, and congratulating itself on the windfall (its words) it had
created for local authorities. That windfall simply means less investment by operators.
Few businesses in any sector will invest in "doing things better" in such a massively
hostile trading environment created by elected representatives (actually mostly by the
European Commission).
Further, all the public signals sent by government are pro-motorist, and added to
decisions by them not to invest capital in bus schemes for rural areas, leads to the
conclusion that private motoring is the preferred means of rural transportation
109
Appendix I
6. Do you engage with other transport schemes operating in the County?
We do, to the extent that they exist, but in practice it is to a very limited extent indeed
7. What could the District Council do differently to what we do now that would
help to increase patronage of your service?
District Councils have responsibility for well-being policies, planning and parking
policies.
In the matter of the first mentioned, they are uniquely placed to use their powers to
maximise use of buses, which are now largely easy access design, including for
wheelchairs, by minimising use of taxis or non-emergency ambulances for outpatient
clinic or hospital visits.
As the planning authority, your guidance to developers is crucially important. It is my
experience that ensuring that private sector developers are guided appropriately but
that this rarely is the case for public sector developments, from village surgeries to
district council offices, which are increasingly not well located with regards to either
existing bus routes or sustainable new ones. The North Norfolk District offices at
Cromer are possibly the most extreme example of this.
The local framework plans set the scene, and I noted in the North Norfolk draft plan no
regard was had for local bus service provision or termini, rather it majored only on
parking capacity and protecting land for a future possible rail route, sending a very clear
signal to bus operators that their contribution to the local economy, or environmental
improvement, was not wanted. This does nothing to encourage investment.
As the parking authority, you face conflicting pressures from raising revenue for
yourselves and from businesses wanting below-cost or free parking as a means of
boosting their businesses. Whichever level of parking charge is chosen, there is rarely
or ever any regard for the impact on the sustainability of local bus services. On the
Coasthopper route there is also the matter of restricting parking in places where local
bus service punctuality or access can be severely undermined, such as at Salthouse
and Cley. Whilst this may be a highway authority (ie County Council) matter, there is
scope for the Districts to be much more proactive.
In all these three areas, Districts could do significantly more to assist retention of local
bus services to the benefit of local residents
110
Appendix I
111
Appendix I
112
Appendix I
113
Appendix J
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2013
Item no ..
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
ACTION REQUIRED
Members are asked to suggest issues for the forward work programme that
they would like to bring to the committee’s attention. Members are also
asked to consider the current forward work programme:° whether there are topics to be added or deleted, postponed or brought
forward;
° to agree the briefings, scrutiny topics and dates below.
Proposed Forward Work Programme 2013
Meeting
dates
Briefings/Main scrutiny topic/initial review of
topics/follow-ups
17 Jan 2013
Access to hospital for non emergency treatment – a
report on the availability of NHS funded transport to
hospital for patients who are otherwise unable to access
treatment.
Administrative
business
Wheelchair provision by the NHS – a report on the
assessment of patient needs and the process of
provision of wheelchairs and their reclamation when no
longer required. The report will include details of future
commissioning arrangements for the service.
Joint scrutiny committee with Suffolk on the radical
redesign of mental health services – details regarding
the proposed joint committee.
7 March 2013 Ambulance turnaround times at the Norfolk and Norwich
hospital – progress report from the East of England
Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Norfolk and Norwich
University NHS Foundation Trust and NHS Norfolk and
Waveney following full implementation of the rapid
assessment and treatment service at the N&N.
New health scrutiny Regulations – a briefing by the
Scrutiny Support Manager (Health)
Nomination of formal link Members between the
Committee and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs)
– nominations of Members to attend and observe the
CCG Board meetings held in public.
11 April 2013
Access to NHS dentistry - the potential effects of the
114
)
)Items subject to
) agreement by
) Committee
)
)
)
Appendix J
new dental contract on the accessibility of the service
and an update on progress with providing domiciliary
dentistry for people who cannot travel to a dental
surgery.
NOTE: These items are provisional only. The OSC reserves the right to
reschedule this draft timetable.
Provisional dates for update / briefing reports to the Committee
11 July 2013 – Same day admissions at Norfolk’s acute hospitals – an
update from the three acute hospitals in Norfolk on progress with
implementing NHOSC recommendations which were accepted by the
hospitals and on other changes to the same day admission process.
NHOSC Members on Regional Joint Scrutiny Committees (task & finish
basis)
Joint Committee (task &
finish)
Liver Re-section services
(joint committee with Suffolk
and Cambridgeshire)
NHOSC Membership
Progress
Cllr Jenny Chamberlin
Cllr Michael Chenery of
Horsbrugh
Cllr David Harrison
The Joint Committee is
expected to start in autumn
2012 (at earliest).
(Substitute for all
Members:Dr Nigel Legg)
Radical redesign of mental
health services
(joint committee with Suffolk)
To be decided at
NHOSC meeting
17 January 2013
NHOSC Members co-opted to Norfolk LINk Working Groups
• Older People’s Health and Social Care – John Bracey (substitute – Michael Chenery
of Horsbrugh)
• James Paget Hospital – Acute Services – Marlene Fairhead
• Adult Mental Health (from July 2010) – Michael Chenery of Horsbrugh
115
Appendix J
Outcomes and Actions
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
22 November 2012
Agenda Report Title
Item
Number
Outcomes and Actions
Action By Whom
6.
Radical redesign of mental
health services
Agreed to approach Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee with a
proposal to form a joint overview and scrutiny committee to examine
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust’s proposals when its
current staff consultation has concluded.
Maureen Orr
7.
Forward work programme
Agreed the items on the current forward work programme. Members
are to email Maureen Orr with suggestions for other items to add to
the forward work programme in 2013.
All Members
Copied to:Chairman of Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC)
District Council Members of NHOSC
Member Support Officer - Christine Byles
NHS Norfolk and Waveney
Norfolk LINk
116