Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 19 June 2013 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr N Smith (Chairman)
Ms V Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mrs B McGoun
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs V Uprichard
Officers in
Attendance:
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (SB), the Head of Finance, the
Technical Accountant, the Policy & Performance Management Officer and
the Scrutiny Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs L Brettle, Mr N Dixon, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam,
Miss B Palmer and Mr D Young
Democratic Services Team Leader (ED)
16. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Mr J H Perry-Warnes and Mr E Seward.
17. SUBSTITUTES
Mr G Williams for Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Mrs V Uprichard for Mr E Seward
18. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
19. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 May 2013 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
20. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
21. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
19 June 2013
22. PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
23. CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
24. RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
25. THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
26. 2012/13 OUTTURN REPORT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, presented this item. He explained that the
report presented the outturn position for the revenue account and capital programme for
the 2012/13 financial year. It showed an underspend of £185,662 which was being
recommended for transfer to the Invest to Save earmarked reserve. Mr Northam said
that the outturn position reflected prudent financial planning and management.
The Chairman invited Members to ask questions:
1. Mr P W Moore queried why the reserves were much higher than they had been in
previous years. The Head of Finance referred to the Budget report that went to the
Committee in February 2013. She said that the reserves were increased to £1.6m to
enable the Council to respond to significant changes and risks – such as the council
tax support scheme. The decision to include the New Homes Bonus (NHB) within the
base budget improved the Council’s financial position but there was a risk that the
NHB could be withdrawn by the Government in the future as it was essentially a
grant. Consequently it was recommended that that minimum balance for the general
reserve should be reviewed. Mr Moore replied that he was concerned that the
Council seemed to be putting money aside just in case central government did not
continue with certain funding streams. He said that it might be beneficial for the
Council to put pressure on local MPs to challenge any potential changes.
2. Ms V Gay commented on the large underspend within the Community, Economic
Development and Coast service and said that she was concerned that projects that
had been approved by members had not come to fruition. Mr Northam replied said
that in this case the resources were not available to take action and so the budget
was rolled forward. The Head of Finance added this service area included coast
protection and the Pathfinder scheme and these projects had been delayed due to
bad weather. It also included the Big Society Fund money which had been
transferred to a reserve. In response to a further question as to whether the delayed
coastal projects would be completed during the next financial year instead, the Head
of Finance confirmed that they would.
3. Mrs A Green, local Member for Great Ryburgh, said that she had received many
letters from residents asking for details of the cost of the appeal against the Judicial
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
19 June 2013
Review decision. The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick replied that the Corporate Director
(SB) had sent a letter to all members providing details and that any future
correspondence on this matter would be dealt with by him.
4. Mr D Young sought clarification on the purpose of the Invest to Save reserve. The
Head of Finance explained that it was for specific projects that were aimed at
improving efficiency and that required a one-off investment upfront, such as the work
of the Business Transformation Board which was looking at future IT projects. Mr
Young then queried why the £35,000 reserve for carbon reduction had been
withdrawn. The Head of Finance said that this work had now been completed and it
was no longer necessary to have a reserve in place. In response to Mr Young’s final
question regarding the assumption of the cost for council tax support in future years,
the Head of Finance said that a decision had yet to be taken regarding the costs of
this scheme for 2014/15 but the amount in the Budget had been based on the
previous year. Mr Northam added that the Council Tax Support Working Party would
be meeting shortly to consider next years scheme, however, the Government had
made it clear that there would be no additional money available.
5. Mrs B McGoun asked why there was no projection given for carbon management yet
there were for other areas. The Head of Finance explained that this because it was a
reserve and the figures showed the movement during 2013/14. The Budget showed
the re-allocation to the general reserve as the carbon management reserve was no
longer needed for the reasons outlined previously. In response to a further question
regarding the definition of ‘other sports’ and what this included, the Head of Finance
said that she believed that it included smaller areas such as the mobile gym but she
would confirm this following the meeting.
6. Mr P Terrington said that it was very important that reserves were brought forward to
invest in new housing. He referred to specific schemes in his ward and asked that
urgent consideration was given to such investment. Mr Moore agreed with him and
said that the housing market was very important to the local economy. Mr Northam
acknowledged his concerns and said the Council was fully supportive of the building
of new homes in the District but that they were reliant on developers to some extent.
The Scrutiny Officer added that a report on affordable housing would be coming to
the Committee in July and requested that Members should notify her if there were
any specific issues on this area that they would like to see covered. Mr T FitzPatrick
informed members that himself and the Chief Executive had recently met with the
Victory Housing Trust and exceptions housing was one of the areas they were
particularly keen to bring forward. He added that they were aware of the issues and
they were talking to developers to see if they could progress schemes more quickly.
Mr R Reynolds said that it was not just housing associations – all house building
should be encouraged.
It was proposed by Mr R Reynolds, seconded by Mr P Terrington and
RESOLVED to support the following recommendations made by Cabinet:
a) The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2012/13;
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed within the report (and appendix C)
along with the corresponding updates to the 2013/14 budget;
c) The transfer of the surplus of £185,662 to the Restructuring and Invest to Save
Reserve;
d) The financing of the 2012/13 capital programme as detailed within the report and
at Appendix D;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,745,452 at 31 March 2013;
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
19 June 2013
f) The updated capital programme for 2013/14 to 2014/15 and the associated
financing of the schemes as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix E.
Ms V Gay, Mrs B McGoun an, Mr P Moore abstained.
27. TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13
The Portfolio Holder for Financial Services, Mr W Northam, introduced this item. He said
the report had been prepared to ensure that the Council complied with the CIPFA
Treasury Management and Prudential Codes. He drew Members attention to the decline
in interest rates which had resulted in a much lower investment income - £206,481
compared to over £1m three years ago. Mr Northam explained that the Council had
joined the LAMIT scheme in March 2013 and it was hoped that a return of 5% would be
achieved. He concluded by saying that the Council continued to take a cautious
approach with its investments and thanked the Technical Accountant and his team for
their hard work
The Chairman invited Members to ask questions:
1. Mr P W Moore said that having been the previous Portfolio Holder for Financial
Services, he fully supported the report and its recommendations.
2. Mrs B McGoun commented that the recent situation regarding the Cooperative Bank
showed that there was a risk to having a high level of reserves and that it might be
more beneficial to spend the money on local projects and schemes.
3. Mr D Young said that it might be useful to include a footnote in future Treasury
Management reports highlighting that LAMIT had a permanent life. He then queried
why it had taken so long to invest in LAMIT and whether the Council had to combine
its £5m investment with other funds. He also said that he felt that the LAMIT fund was
so il-liquid that it could compromise investments elsewhere. The Technical
Accountant confirmed that the LAMIT Fund Manager had waited for all the other
authorities who were investing to be ready and this was why there had been a delay.
He said the Council had joined the fund at a very good price and there had been no
need for the fund to sell any properties. He concluded by saying that the Council
could apply to withdraw its money at the end of each month but this would be at the
Fund Manager’s discretion.
4. Mr R Reynolds commented that the fact that the Council had no long-term debt
should be recognised and commended as it had put them in a strong position.
5. Mrs B McGoun asked what the penalty would be if the Council pulled out of the
LAMIT fund. The Technical Accountant said that there was no penalty but it would
depend on the value of the fund at the time of the withdrawal. In response to a
question from Mr D Young as to whether the Council could pull out of LAMIT without
the other investors, the Technical Accountant confirmed this was the case.
The Scrutiny Officer asked the Committee whether they wished to continue to receive
the Treasury Management reports. There had been previous discussions that they
should go to the Audit Committee instead. She pointed out that responsibility for
scrutinising treasury management was currently within the Committee’s terms of
reference and ensured that a robust process was in place. Members agreed that the
committee should continue to receive the reports in future.
It was proposed by Mr P W Moore, seconded by Mr P Terrington and
RESOLVED
To recommend to Council:
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
19 June 2013
That the Treasury Management Annual Report and Prudential Indicators for 2012/13 be
approved.
28. DEBT RECOVERY 2012-13
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services introduced this item. He said that
the target for debt recovery was very high given the economic downturn and he praised
staff for achieving 97.9% - particularly as there had been problems within the service
due to software issues. He said that the Council never stopped trying to recover money
owed to them and the staff should be commended for their excellent work.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mrs B McGoun referred to the 26 debtors mentioned within the report and asked
whether they recurring debtors. Mr Northam replied that they were usually slow
payers – particularly where business rates were concerned and confirmed that some
of them were recurring debtors.
2. Mr P W Moore acknowledged the problems that the staff faced and said that that
they all worked hard in very challenging circumstances.
3. Ms V Gay said that it was important that the Council’s success in debt recovery
should be acknowledged and perhaps something could be put on the website
highlighting the success in this area. Mr T FitzPatrick agreed, he said the Council had
the best collection rates in the country and welcomed additional publicity. Mr W
Northam added that he had met with the local press when the report was published
and he was disappointed not to see the achievements mentioned in the press.
RESOLVED
To recommend to Council:
To approve the annual report giving details of the Council’s write-offs in accordance
with the Council’s Debt Write-Off Policy and performance in relation to revenues
collection.
29. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Scrutiny Officer introduced this item.
Health update
Mr R Reynolds said that although the information that had been provided on the way
care provision was organised across the District was helpful, it would be beneficial to
have more detail on what carers actually did – the timing of their visits, how long they
spent with each patient and the quality of the service. The Scrutiny Officer suggested
that a full report was brought to the Committee, together with a presentation from a care
provider or a related organisation so that Members could have the opportunity to ask
questions and scrutinise care provision more closely. The Chairman agreed. He said
that had been concerned for some time about the standard of training given to carers.
Mr W Northam commented on the excellent care provision at a dementia home in his
ward, Mundesley. The centre he referred to was run by Norse and they had recently
received an award for their work. Mrs B McGoun said that it might useful for them to
give a presentation to the Committee so that they could see best practice in the sector.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
19 June 2013
Internal Boards
The Scrutiny Officer informed the Committee that she had been advised that the
Environmental Sustainability Board was likely to commence meeting again. Ms V Gay
said that it was important that this Board continued as it would be able to give
consideration to technological advances in the sector and the benefits that these could
offer to the District. Mr P Terrington requested that the Committee was kept updated on
any changes to the Boards.
Your Voice
The Committee confirmed that they would like to receive a brief demonstration of the
Your Voice scheme at a future meeting.
30. ANNUAL REPORT AND AMENDMENT TO ANNUAL ACTION PLAN 2013-14
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, introduced this item. He said that the Annual Report for
2012/13 demonstrated that the Council continued to deliver good performance. It was
the first Annual Report against the service priorities as set out in the Corporate Plan
2012-2015 and the activities and targets set out in the Annual Action Plan for 2012/13.
Mr FitzPatrick drew members attention to section 5 of the report which proposed that the
following activity be added to the action plan under the Localism theme – ‘We will work
with Town and Parish Councils, local organisations and community and voluntary
groups to improve health and wellbeing consistent with the aims of the Health and
Wellbeing Board’. He explained that this increased focus on engaging with the town and
parish councils was a result of recent visits that he and the Chief Executive had made to
several town and parish councils. There had been considerable interest from over 50
parish councils in receiving a similar visit in the coming months.
Mr FitzPatrick concluded by saying that the document before Members was a draft
version. The decision had been taken to circulate it at this stage because the Cabinet
wanted views and comments from members which would inform the final version. He
said that the introduction would be amended to include references to the wider economy
and the impact on the Council.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mrs B McGoun said that she was disappointed not to see the environment referred to
specifically within the Council’s priorities. She said that the Council had done a lot of
work to support this sector and that should be recognised. Mr T FitzPatrick replied
that the environment was a cross-cutting issue which underpinned everything that the
Council did. He did not feel that it was necessary to single it out as a specific issue.
The Chief Executive agreed and said that support for the environment was
embedded within many of the priorities. She added that the priorities were set out in
the Corporate Plan and this was approved in 2011.
2. Ms V Gay said that although she had a lot of sympathy with the health and wellbeing
aspect of s5.2 of the report, it should be acknowledged that many local parish and
town councils were not the embodiment of democracy that they should be. She said
that it was important to recognise their contribution but that the Council also had a
duty to increase their role. The Chairman agreed, saying that many parish councils
co-opted new members rather than electing them. Mr FitzPatrick said that one of the
reasons that he had suggested visiting the parish councils was so that the Council
could work more closely with them in the future and hopefully make them more
visible. He stressed the importance of all three tiers of local government in the region
working together and increasing their role and visibility.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
19 June 2013
3. Mr P W Moore said that he continued to have concerns about planning issues at
parish and town council level. He said that he was often asked to call in planning
applications for the Committee to consider and on many occasions this was not
appropriate. He then said that he was disappointed not to see any references to
young people within the report. Mr T FitzPatrick replied that this issue had been
discussed previously when the Corporate Plan was considered by the Committee. He
said that he felt it was not necessary to single young people out as a separate group.
Several of the priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan were aimed at helping young
people and the recent focus on apprenticeships demonstrated that the Council was
working at a practical level to support this age group. The Chief Executive added that
the Corporate Plan was not the item that was being discussed and that it had
previously been agreed that it would not be beneficial to list specific groups that the
Council wanted to prioritise. She said that the Council was undertaking some
targeted work looking at the Census figures for the District which may provide more
information on this sector.
4. Mr B Jarvis said that his own parish council had been democratically elected but no
longer reflected the needs of the community. They rejected any requests for cooption and did not appear to be accountable to anyone. Mr T FitzPatrick said that
parish councils in this situation should be encouraged to call an election. The Chief
Executive added that the Standards Committee was looking to engage with the
parish and town councils and improve their standard of conduct.
5. Mr R Reynolds commented that he felt the five Corporate Plan themes could tie-in
more with tourism which was of vital importance to the District.
6. Mr G Williams had several points to make. He began by saying that there seemed to
be some confusion about the difference between the Corporate Plan, the Annual
Action Plan and performance indicators. He said that an annual report was a record
of what had been done. All of the facts were in the draft version of the report but they
were not always easy to find and some statements didn’t lie well together. He
stressed that the Annual Report was an aid to transparency and the Council shouldn’t
be afraid of listing what hadn’t gone well and the areas where they needed to work
harder – recognising this would build trust with the reader. Finally he said that the
appendix with the performance indicators could be improved to make it more userfriendly. The Chief Executive thanked him for his comments and said that she would
look at refining some of the information so that there was not just a statement but
additional, relevant information – for example the County Council’s work on improving
Broadband across the region. She said that the performance indicators would be
looked at again to see if they could be presented more effectively. Mr G Williams
replied that an electronic version could include hyperlinks that would enable the
reader to expand on specific points.
RESOLVED
To support the Cabinet decision:
1) To note the contents of this report.
2) To give authority to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to approve the
final public version of the report.
3) To give authority to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to approve the
communications plan for the Annual Report 2012/13.
4) To approve the addition of an activity to the Annual Action Plan 2013/14 as shown in
paragraph 5.2
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
19 June 2013
30. DEVELOPMENT OF THE OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY SECTOR OFF THE NORTH
NORFOLK COAST – A REPORT ON THE COUNCIL’S ACTIVITY IN SUPPORT OF
THE SECTOR SINCE APRIL 2012
The Committee had requested this report. It was presented by the Corporate Director
(SB). He started by explaining that the offshore wind energy sector off the North Norfolk
coast presented a significant opportunity to broaden the district’s economy through the
attraction of new investment, skilled employment and supply chain opportunities. He
outlined three offshore wind energy schemes which had been granted consent off the
North Norfolk coast:



The 317MW Sheringham Shoal development
The 560MW Dudgeon wind energy scheme
The 580MW Race Bank scheme
As the Council was a small organisation, it was important that it was able to work closely
with partners to ensure engagement with local communities. To help achieve this,
NNDC had become a member of the Norfolk and Suffolk Energy Alliance, alongside
Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Waveney
District Council. The Alliance recognised that the energy sector in its widest sense
formed a significant element of the economies of Norfolk and Suffolk and was working to
develop links with the East of England Energy Group (EEEGr) and the New Anglia Local
Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to present a strong case to both Government and energy
sector companies that Norfolk and Suffolk had particular strengths in terms of
established companies, skills and sites to support future investment and development in
the energy sector.
The Corporate Director then outlined how the Council had worked with local partners,
the Wells Harbour Commissioners and the Holkham and Walsingham Estates under the
umbrella of the North Norfolk Renewables Group to promote the facilities at the Port of
Wells and the land and premises opportunities to businesses involved in the offshore
energy sector. Key outcomes achieved by the Group over the last year included:




Development of the proposal to establish a Local Development Order (LDO) at
Egmere
Development and launch of the North Norfolk Renewables website
Having a stand at the EEEGr Soutern North Sea Conference event in March 2013
Raising the profile of the Wells/North Norfolk offer to offshore wind companies and
their suppliers through engagement with partners to the Norfolk and Suffolk Energy
Alliance, so that the complimentary nature of the services available through the port
of Wells are clearly understood in the context of the port facilities at Great Yarmouth
and Lowestoft.
The Corporate Director concluded by saying that for a relatively modest cost the Council
had taken forward a positive programme of activity in promoting the potential of the
District as a place for investment by offshore wind energy companies and their suppliers
and contractors.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Mr P W Moore commented that one of the objectives of the North Norfolk
Renewables Group, as outlined in the terms of reference, seemed to contradict the
feelings and attitudes of local communities regarding renewable energy technology.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
19 June 2013
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
He referred to recent planning decisions which had rejected applications for onshore
wind turbines and solar panels. The Corporate Director agreed and said that Cabinet
had requested that an energy strategy report was prepared at corporate level to
clarify the Council’s position on this.
Mrs B McGoun said that tide and wave energy had not been mentioned and she
asked whether there had been any interest in this sector. The Corporate Director
replied that there had not been any interest locally but it was anticipated that this
would change.
Mrs V Uprichard commented that renewable energy encompassed much more than
wind power and yet this was not reflected in the report. The Corporate Director said
that there was no commercial interest beyond the wind energy sector at present,
although there was interest in solar PV energy nationally and it was possible that this
sector would grow in the future.
Ms V Gay commented on the confidential status of the minutes of the North Norfolk
Renewables Group. She had concerns that this could put local members who were
able to see the minutes on a false footing as it prevented open discussion with
constituents. The Corporate Director replied that the minutes were confidential as
commercial investments were discussed during the Group’s meetings. He
acknowledged that there was concern in Wells regarding the use of the harbour for
commercial purposes. He explained that small boats accessing the sites from Wells
harbour were suitable at the present time but this could change in the future as the
schemes moved further offshore following Government pressure for a significant
reduction in the operating costs over the lifetime of offshore wind schemes. So, Wells
currently had a locational advantage but this may be short-lived.
Mr P Terrington, local member for Wells, said that he also had concerns about the
openness and transparency of the North Norfolk Renewables Group. He said that he
did receive the minutes of the meetings and acknowledged that their confidential
status put him in a difficult position. He said that he didn’t feel the content warranted
confidentiality and that the minutes should be in the public domain. He went on to say
that he had been persuaded about the merits of the Local Development Order and
his concerns were now mainly about the role of the North Norfolk Renewables Group.
The fact that the website made no mention of protecting the heritage coastline
indicated that its remit was simply to attract investment. He concluded by saying that
he was also concerned that SCIRA contributed less than 1% of their income to
supporting local communities. He felt that this should be much higher but
acknowledged that operators should not be deterred from bringing their schemes to
the District. The Chief Executive replied to Mr Terrington’s point regarding the North
Norfolk Renewable Group’s minutes. She said that generally minutes would not be
confidential, they could be redacted but they would still be subject to a Freedom of
Information request. The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick, added that he was also affected
by the confidentiality issue and he sympathised with Mr Terrington’s concerns but
that it should be appreciated that there needed to be some confidentiality to ensure
commercial advantage. He concluded by saying that he agreed with the comments
regarding the level of contributions from the wind energy companies and said that the
Council would continue to fight for a share of the benefits.
Mr G Williams said that the report showed that the Council had been very effective in
gaining investment from the renewable energy sector. He asked the Corporate
Director to give the Committee an indication of where the Council was currently
focussing its efforts. The Corporate Director said that he had met with
representatives of the Dudgeon scheme recently and they were hoping to discharge
all their planning conditions to start the onshore cable route from October 2014. It
was anticipated this would take about 2 years. They were also considering whether to
use mono-pile or suction cup technology to reduce the damage to the chalk-bed
when the turbines were installed. He added that the Government’s demand for a
reduction in costs for such schemes meant that turbines would be larger in the future
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
9
19 June 2013
and probably fewer in number. The Dudgeon scheme would be the main focus for the
next 12-24 months and it was possible that they would need suitable sites for office
accommodation in the District. The Centrica scheme was about 6-12 months behind
Dudgeon and would have less of an impact on the district as the cable would make
landfall in the Fens. He concluded by saying there would be ongoing engagement
with the statutory marine bodies.
7. Mrs V Uprichard said that the Continent seemed to be moving away from wind farms
and she wondered whether this had any long-term implications for the sector. The
Corporate Director replied that renewable energy was part of a national policy
debate. There was no security around energy production and the only way this could
be achieved was through a better mix of energy production. Gas production was still
a viable option but there had been a loss of confidence in this sector following
changes to the tax regime. He acknowledged that offshore wind schemes were more
acceptable than onshore due to the impact on the landscape. As the offshore wind
energy sector was already up and running it was important that the Council
positioned itself to capture the benefits. Looking to the future, various proposals for
anaerobic digesters and Solar PV farms would probably be coming forward. Mr T
FitzPatrick added that on the Continent there were more onshore wind turbines but it
was widely agreed that the coast was preferable to land and 60% of the capacity for
wind production in Europe was around the UK and Ireland. It was acknowledged that
the UK had failed to become involved in the production of turbines and consequently
there was now a commitment that the UK would increase its production of turbine
parts. He concluded by saying that all the servicing for the turbines could be done
from Europe so it was important to ensure that the bases for supporting wind energy
schemes were sited in North Norfolk.
The Chairman said that he was pleased to see young people attending the meeting. He
requested that in future it might be beneficial if advance notice was given of such visits
so that the agenda could be re-arranged to ensure that it was suitable.
Members thanked the Chairman for handling the meeting so well.
The meeting concluded at 12.1 0 pm.
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
10
19 June 2013