Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 20 September
2011 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr R Wright
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Strategic Director - Community (for Item 43), The Strategy Team
Leader (for item 43) The Deputy Chief Executive (for item 45) the
Environmental Health Manager (for item 46), the Environmental Protection
Team Leader (for item 46) and the Democratic Services Team Leader
Members in
Attendance:
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs V Gay, Mrs P Grove-Jones, Mr K Johnson, Mr G
Jones, Mr W J Northam, Mr R Shepherd, and Mr D Young
34 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore and Mr G Williams
35 SUBSTITUTES
Mr G Jones for Mr P W Moore and Mr D Young for Mr G Williams
36 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mrs G Lisher of Fakenham Town Council asked the following question: ‘Can you tell me
if the current funding arrangement between County and District Council, relating to 2nd
homes monies being allocated to affordable housing and area partnerships will continue
and is ring-fenced, and is this redistribution of funding discretionary or mandatory?
Meaning will this funding be redirected by County into their possible alternative projects?
It was agreed that the Portfolio Holder – Financial Services would respond in writing
within seven days.
37 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2011 were signed as a correct record.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
20 September 2011
38 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
39 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute No.
Item
Interest
Mr P
Terrington
43
Affordable Housing
Personal – Chairman
of Homes for Wells (a
Community Land
Trust)
40 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. Three petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility.
Two related to a proposed wind turbine in Bodham and the other concerned derelict
buildings in Oak Street, Fakenham.
41 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
42
None received.
43 THE FORWARD PLAN
Members had no comments on the Forward Plan.
44 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The Strategies Team Leader gave a presentation on the Council’s Affordable Housing
Programme. She began by focussing on the North Norfolk Local Investment Plan
(NNLIP) which gave details of schemes that could be provided across the District in the
period to 2015. She then outlined how affordable housing schemes were funded from
both public and private subsidy. It was stressed that from April 2012 there would be no
committed new funding for the Council’s enabling budget and any future funding would
need to come from the Council’s wider capital budget. The importance of a Site
Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted in February 2011) was highlighted. It
was intended that this document, together with the Local Development Framework Core
Strategy, would deliver increased numbers of affordable housing units through the
planning system. The presentation concluded by considering the issues that could
impact on the delivery of affordable housing schemes
Members discussed the presentation:
a) Further clarification was sought on the reasons for schemes being delayed. The
Strategy Team Leader said that lack of funding was the main problem. Funding from
the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) had been considerably reduced and
limited the Council’s ability to work with all the parishes who had expressed an
interest in providing affordable housing in their areas. The Strategic Director –
Community added that HCA funding for the period 2011 – 2015 was announced in
July and was currently at the negotiation stage. It was likely that Victory Housing
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
20 September 2011
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Trust (VHT) would receive funding for 150 units and Hastoe funding for up to 20
units. Broadland Housing Association had not been successful in their bid, possibly
because they had included some ‘worked up’ schemes within their submission which
on a unit cost basis were quite expensive. Mr J Archibald, Chief Executive of Victory
Housing Trust (VHT) said that they appeared to have secured the largest proportion
of HCA funding in Norfolk. He felt that this was because they had offered value for
money, partly due to their disposals strategy.
A Member asked whether the proposed simplification of the planning rules would
allow exception site housing to be combined with general housing schemes,
increasing the proportion of affordable homes for local people. The Strategy Team
Leader replied that this was unlikely. The Council had sought legal advice in the past
regarding this issue and had been advised that any such restrictions on market sites
would be in breach of equality legislation. In response to a further question as to
whether the Council would look favourably on Community Land Trust (CLT)
schemes in the future, she said that they would but that they would need to be
certain that the scheme was suitable. The HCA was also keen to support such
schemes, and discussions had been held with the Agency to establish whether the
Council could pilot an approach with them in North Norfolk.
A Member commented on the disparity between the large number of people on the
housing register and the number of affordable homes built each year and he was
concerned that the current policy towards limiting development in villages was
hindering the provision of affordable homes. He referred the Committee to work
undertaken in 2003/04 by the Policy Development and Consultation Committee on
affordable housing and suggested that the same format could be considered for the
future. The Chairman requested that a copy of the documents relating to this work
was circulated to members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for
consideration. The Strategic Director – Community responded by commenting that
affordable homes could be developed in locations across the district under the rural
exceptions policy. The issue raised by the Member envisaged a small number of
people building houses for family members. This did not meet the definition of an
affordable home. He added that in 2003 the Council had been able to allocate
significant funds to resource the development of the LDF which had been designed
to address the need for affordable housing. He also advised Members that the
Coalition Government had recently published a draft National Planning Policy
Framework which could allow the Council to review such policies moving forward.
The Strategy Team Leader agreed to a request for a list of all the exception sites
currently under consideration to be circulated to Councillor Young. In response to a
further question regarding the enabling budget and whether this year’s commitments
would also be rolled over, she replied that the Council would definitely fund the
schemes for 2011/12 as they were already committed to do so and added that
£800,000 had been held back until there was certainty regarding the enabling
budget resourcing in 2012/13.
A Member asked how the Council could encourage private developers to build more
affordable homes in the District. The Strategy Team Leader said that the new Site
Allocations Development Plan played a vital role and the Council had already
received several enquiries from developers regarding these sites. In response to a
further question regarding the sale of the Lockerbie Flats in Sheringham and
whether the money could be allocated to the enabling budget, the Strategic Director
– Community said that no decision had been taken regarding the receipt for the
Lockerbie flats yet and that Cabinet would consider this in due course.
The issue of the requirement for affordable housing in villages was raised. A
Member was concerned that it was too high in his ward. The Strategy Team Leader
replied that the policy was 50% in service villages and coastal villages subject to
viability. However, the allocation could be reduced if necessary to ensure the
viability of the scheme. The Strategic Director – Community advised that where a
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
20 September 2011
disagreement on the level of viability existed this would be referred to the
Development Committee for consideration.
The Chairman thanked the Strategy Team Leader for an informative presentation. He
said that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee wanted to be constructive and
suggested that himself and the Vice-chairman meet with the Portfolio Holder – Strategic
Housing and consider the way forward.
AGREED
That the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman would meet with the Portfolio Holder –
Strategic Housing and report back to the Committee at a future date
45 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team leader updated the Committee on progress with topics
in its agreed work programme:
a) The Scrutiny Training day on 16th September had been well attended. A summary
would be included in the Overview and Scrutiny Update for October 2011
b) The Corporate Plan would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at
a special meeting on 4th October.
c) The February meeting of Full Council would need to be rescheduled to accommodate
the setting of the council tax, the change meant a clash with the Overview and
Scrutiny meeting
d) A report on Partnerships and the Partnership Risk Register had been received by the
Audit Committee on 13 September 2011 and was available on the Intranet.
e) A report on Crime and Disorder would come to the Committee in November 2011.
This had been postponed from October to allow the new Anti-Social Behaviour
postholder to settle in.
f) A letter had been sent to the Chief Executive of Victory Housing Trust following his
presentation to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 20 July 2011. The letter
summarised the main points raised.
g) A report on the Community Infrastructure Levy had been postponed until 18 October
at the request of the Portfolio Holder and with the agreement of the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny.
h) The Scrutiny training day had highlighted concerns about planning performance. The
Chairman had suggested that the quarterly planning performance updates presented
to the Development Committee could also be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
i) An invitation had been received from Broadland District Council to participate in a
joint scrutiny of public transport to be carried out by a Time and Task limited panel.
The Terms of Reference were agreed on 25 August by the Chairs and Vice Chairs of
both committees and approved by Broadland District Council on 6 September 2011.
Membership of the Panel was not limited to Scrutiny Committee members and a total
of four nominations were required. Councillor Wright proposed that the nominations
should be made according to the political balance of the Council. The proposal was
not seconded, and was therefore lost.
AGREED
1. That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting scheduled for 22 February 2012
should be brought forward to 15 February 2012
2. To receive a quarterly update on planning performance.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
20 September 2011
RESOLVED
1. To undertake a joint scrutiny review with Broadland District Council according to the
Terms of Reference set out in Appendix F and to appoint 4 Members to the Time and
Task Limited Panel.
2. That those Members be Mr T FitzPatrick, Ms V R Gay, Mrs B A McGoun and Mr R
Reynolds.
46 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 4
The report presented the budget monitoring position for the revenue account and capital
programme to the end of period 4 (31 July 2011) and also included a review of the
current capital programme. The overall position at the end of July 2011 showed an
underspend for the current financial year.
Members discussed the report:
1. The Chairman asked about government proposals for the localisation of business
rates and the possible implications for the Council. The Deputy Chief Executive said
that it was a very complex scheme aimed at incentivising growth. If it went ahead
external income would be fixed and there would be a top-up scheme for local
authorities receiving less than they currently did and a levy for those generating
more income. As the Council did not set the level of business rates, the only way to
increase revenue was to attract more new businesses into the district. The Portfolio
Holder – Financial Services added that there was a concern that the district could
see a reduction in business rates income as tourism was the predominant business
sector.
2. A Member commented that there appeared to be a discrepancy between business
rates charged at shops in his local town. The Deputy Chief Executive said that she
could not comment on individual cases but that businesses could apply for small
business rate relief and there was also a local scheme aimed at providing
discretionary relief. She added that business rates were based on the rateable
value of a property which was set by the Valuation Office and a multiplier was then
applied to establish the rate charged. There was an appeal process if businesses
were unhappy with the rate set.
3. In response to a question about maintaining the current level of council tax, the
Deputy Chief Executive said that the council tax would be set in February 2012 and
savings would need to be achieved if no increase was to be made. An additional
paper explaining this would be circulated with the Corporate Plan.
AGREED
To note the contents of the report.
47 ANIMAL CONTROL
The Environmental Protection Team Leader updated the committee on the work of the
Animal Control Team:
1. The size of the Team had reduced considerably in recent years and consequently
the level of service offered was significantly less. However, since residents had used
external pest control services there had not been a noticeable increase in pests.
2. The Council currently had contracts with Norstead Hall Kennels and Pest Express
Ltd. Both contracts were out of time and needed renewal. Tender paperwork had
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
20 September 2011
been completed for the kennelling contract and two kennels were in the final stages
of evaluation prior to recommendations being made to Council. With regards to the
Pest Express contract, as the Council received no money from either residents or
Pest Express, the only risk to the Council was reputational. Re-tendering the
contract would probably result in an increase in costs to residents. As the current
contract had expired, there were only two options – to withdraw from the agreement
in its entirety or continue with the current prices for as long as the contractor was
prepared to stand by them.
3. The Council still had a number of pest control contracts with local businesses that it
serviced. These were relics of the previous in-house pest control service and they
had been retained as they generated income. However, the number of contracts had
declined to 10 would now raise just under £2000 this year.
4. The Team had carried out a campaign on responsible dog ownership – focussing in
particular on holiday strays. Part of the campaign had involved distributing ‘holiday
tags’ via local businesses. As a result, the team had been placed as runners-up for
an innovations award.
Members discussed the update:
a) With regards to pest control, a Member asked whether it would be fairer to refer
residents to more than one provider. The Environmental Health Manager said that
they had gone through a tendering process and Pest Express had met all the
criteria. Residents were able to use any provider they wanted to, the Council had
just wanted to avoid an open market situation. By referring residents to a particular
provider, residents could be certain that they would be offered a guaranteed reduced
price.
b) A Member asked whether the Council continued to record requests for pest control
services. The Environmental Protection Team Leader said that Pest Express did
record the number of requests received but that there had been a gap last year
when the company was bought out by new management. The Environmental Health
Manager added that the number was much lower than when the Council offered a
free baiting service. When the initial low charges were introduced requests dropped
by 90%.
c) The issue of stray dogs was raised. A Member asked what happened after the dogs
had been held for seven days and whether any effort was made to advertise which
dogs were being held. The Environmental Health Manager said that the Council had
a legal obligation to keep dogs for seven days then they could be disposed of. The
Council vested ownership of the dogs to the kennels and if they were not claimed
they were re-homed via a local charity. A donation of £25 was paid to the charity to
cover costs. Stray dogs were not advertised at all to avoid attracting attention –
particularly to pedigree breeds. Experience showed that most owners who wanted to
recover their dog would make considerable efforts to trace them.
d) A Member asked about the out of hours service. The Environmental Health Manager
said that a 24 hours service was provided. The kennels was shut at weekends and
the Council did not provide a reception centre. Any callers were referred to two local
vets who would provide space temporarily, if available. He added that Broadland
District Council provided no out of hours service.
e) The issue of the Council’s own pest control contracts was raised. A Member
suggested that it may not be the best use of staff time to service such small
contracts. The Environmental Health Manager responded that the amount of work
generated by these contracts was not significant as they tended to be serviced when
staff dealt with the Council’s own bait stations.
f) A Member asked for further information about the £12,000 budget for the kennel
contract. The Environmental Protection Leader said that the £12,000 was budget
provision. The owner paid the full cost for the kennelling of stray dogs but unclaimed
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
20 September 2011
dogs did incur a cost to the Council. In response to a further question about dog
fouling, the Environmental Health Manager confirmed that it was managed by the
Animal Control Team. It was now part of the Council’s ‘Greener and Cleaner’
Agenda. Efforts had been made recently to make the enforcement team more
visible. Money generated from the fixed penalty notices had been used to purchase
bikes and new uniforms and there were now regular patrols of hotspot areas.
AGREED
that the current situation with Pest Express was working well and should continue as
long as possible
47 CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, COMPLIMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
The report provided Members with an overview of customer compliments, complaints
and suggestions (CCS) received by the Council during the period 1 February 2011 and
31 July 2011, along with a summary of recent and forthcoming activities. The report
showed that complaints acknowledged have remained at 100% and complaints
responded to within timescale have increased from 73% to 91% since the last report to
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in March 2011. The CCS process was centralised
within Customer Services during 2009/10 and this together with the creation of a CCS
‘Champion’ has meant that the recording and monitoring of complaints has become
more consistent across the organisation. The CCS champion was now responsible for
MP complaints and it was intended that this would help identify potential duplication of
complaints – where a customer has sent a complaint to the Council and their MP on the
same issue. Ombudsman complaints continued to be handled by the Chief Executive’s
office but they were now logged on within the corporate database to ensure a full audit
trail of any complaint that reached this stage. Environmental Health continued to log
complaints on their own Customer Management System. To avoid duplication of work,
integration between the two systems was being explored.
The Customer Services Team Leader added that the level of complaints was very low –
just 45 during the 6 month period to the end of July 2011. Most complaints were
procedural and there was often no commonality across service areas. During the period
there were also 17 compliments and 100 letters from all MPs.
Members discussed the report:
1. The Chairman asked whether telephone complaints were logged. The Customer
Services Manager said that the system could record telephone complaints but was
not currently active and would rely on the person dealing with the complaint logging
it. Where possible, telephone complaints were resolved immediately. Serious
complaints tended to be put in writing.
2. A Member asked whether emails from MP’s caseworkers were recorded. The
Customer Services Team Leader said all MPs letters were recorded and forwarded
to the relevant service area. If applicable, some would be referred to the Chief
Executive’s office.
3. In response to a question regarding the sort of response customers got when they
made a complaint, the Customer Services Manager said that it varied according to
the type of complaint but that if it related to a member of staff then the issue would
be investigated by their manager and the manager would then report back to the
complainant.
4. A Member asked for further information on the complaints category called ‘process’
The Customer Services Team Leader explained that such complaints related to the
processes involved in particular service areas – such as Benefits or Planning. They
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
20 September 2011
usually concerned the time taken to process an application or the perception that
procedures had not been followed correctly.
5. Further clarification was sought on the category ‘other’ listed within type of
complaints. The Customer Services Team Leader said that she would look into it
and report back.
6. The Chairman asked how the results of complaints to the Ombudsman were fed
back to the Council. The Customer Services Team Leader said they were handled
via the Chief Executive’s Office and she would look into how they were fed back.
Mary Howard would update the committee on this at the next meeting on 18 October
2010.
The meeting concluded at 12.45pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
20 September 2011