Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 22 June 2011 in
the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
1
The Financial Services Manager (for Item 11), the Technical Accountant
(for item 12), the Deputy Chief Executive (for item 13) The Environmental
Health Manager (for items 14 and 15), The Strategic Director –
Environment (for item 16) and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Mr G Jones, Mrs A Moore, Mrs B McGoun, Mr W J Northam, Mr R Price
INTRODUCTION TO OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
The Democratic Services Team Leader gave a brief introduction to Overview and
Scrutiny. She outlined the legislative functions of the Committee and stressed the
different working style compared to other committees. The main training session was
scheduled to take place in September 2011.
A Member asked for further information on the Councillor Call for Action. The Chairman
replied that it was a cumbersome process and should only be used if all other means to
resolve an issue had been exhausted.
2
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr R Wright
3
SUBSTITUTES
Mr R Price for Mr R Wright
3
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
22 June 2011
4
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 05 April 2011 were signed as a correct record.
5
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
6
7
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mr R Price
Minute No.
9
Item
The Forward Plan
Mr R Price
13
Debt Recovery 2010-11
Interest
Personal – is a
member of the
Coastal Management
Board
Personal - owns
properties for holiday
letting
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received
8
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received. The Democratic Services Team Leader agreed to provide further
information to all Members on this item via the Members’ Bulletin.
9
THE FORWARD PLAN
The Committee discussed the Forward Plan and its Work Programme:
a) A Member commented on the lack of detail within the Forward Plan. The Democratic
Services Team Leader replied that it could be difficult to get the relevant information
from Officers to compile the Plan and that it may be useful for all Members to
receive the ‘Management of Council Business’ matrix in future to keep them
informed of reports to the various committees.
b) It was suggested that the Committee could look at the production of the Forward
Plan and the items on it as part of the work programme. The Chairman replied that
this could be considered at the training session in September.
10 NOMINATION OF A REPRESENTATIVE TO THE NORFOLK HEALTH OVERVIEW
AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
The Committee could not agree on a nomination for a representative to the Norfolk
Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A Member suggested that the Leader should
select a nominee with relevant experience and knowledge for the role and notify the
Chairman. The Democratic Services Team leader reminded the Committee that the
nomination would be ratified by Full Council on 28 June.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
22 June 2011
AGREED
To delegate to the Leader the nomination of a representative to the Norfolk Health
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
11 2010/11 OUTTURN REPORT
The report presented the outturn position for 2010/11 for both the general fund revenue
account and capital programme. It included details of where contributions had been
made to earmarked reserves for future spending commitments.
The Financial Services Manager explained that the report and the accompanying
appendices were very detailed due to the prescriptive nature of Local Government
Finance. The Outturn position reported would be used to produce the statutory
Statement of Accounts for 2010/11.
Members discussed the report:
A concern was raised regarding the issue of slippage within the affordable housing
programme. The Member felt that there may be a systemic problem within the section
that needed to be looked at and he suggested that the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee could examine the way housing projections and plans were produced and
then carried out. A comparison with other local authorities could prove useful. The
Chairman responded that it would be considered as a topic for the committee work
programme. The Financial Services Manager added that some of the projected
underspend within housing had been flagged up and she was still in the process of
working with service managers to identify whether there were ongoing savings or if they
had already been factored into the 2011/12 budget. Several Members agreed with the
concerns raised regarding slippage in the affordable housing programme. The Chairman
said that he felt it was a housing issue rather than a financial one. Concern was also
expressed that Victory Housing might be selling properties to the private sector.
RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND to Full Council
a) The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2010/11;
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed in the report;
c) The transfer of the surplus of £328,111 for the year to the general reserve;
d) The financing of the 2010/11 capital programme as detailed within the report;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,328,018 at 31 March 2011;
f) The updated capital programme for 2011/12 to 2012/13 and the associated
financing of the schemes as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix I to
the report.
It was further RESOLVED
To request a report on slippage within the Affordable Housing programme for the next
meeting
12 ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2010/11
The report set out the Treasury Management activities undertaken during 2010/11
compared with the Council’s Treasury Management strategy for the year. Treasury
activities for the year had been carried out in accordance with the CIPFA Code. The
Technical Accountant explained that the Council’s priority was security and liquidity
rather than the rate of interest received on investments.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
22 June 2011
Members discussed the report:
a) A request was made for the Council’s treasury advisors, Arlingclose to give a
presentation to Members as they had done in previous years. The Technical
Accountant replied that he was organising this for all Members. It was agreed that
Members would notify the Democratic Services Team Leader if there were any
specific areas they would like to see covered.
b) A Member asked whether the Council had considered investing in commercial
property within the district’s town centres to boost regeneration. The Technical
Accountant said that investing in property funds had been considered previously but
not individual properties. Another Member added that the Council owned several
commercial properties across the district which generated a rental income and
created local employment. The Chairman suggested that it might be useful for the
committee to receive a report on the Council’s property assets and investments at a
future meeting.
c) The issue of investment in counterparts was raised. A Member asked whether the
Council had considered investing in Building Societies. The Technical Accountant
replied that the Council has, among other measures, a minimum credit rating when
selecting suitable investment counterparties and that only one building society, the
Nationwide met this minimum rating.
Agreed
To receive a report on the Council’s property assets and investments
RECOMMENDED to Full Council that
1. The Treasury Management Annual Report for 2010/11 is approved.
2. The maximum period of investment for non-UK banks is reduced from 2
years to a maximum of 1 year.
13 DEBT RECOVERY 2010-2011
This was an annual report which detailed the Council’s collection performance and debt
management arrangements for 2010/11. The report included a summary of debts
written off in each debt area showing the reasons for write-offs and values, collection
performance for Council Tax and non-domestic rates, level of arrears, outstanding and
the level of provision for bad and doubtful debts.
The Portfolio Holder – Financial Services presented the report and said that the Council
had again achieved good collection rates on both council tax and business rates. The
collection for council tax was 98.6%, the third highest in Norfolk and above the Council’s
target figure for 2010/11. Good collection rates were supported by maximising the
number of payers who pay by direct debit The Council currently had 77.74% on direct
debit. The business rates collection for 2010/11 was 99.1%, the second highest in
Norfolk. The Council currently gave 2,587 (just over 44% of our business rated
properties) small business rate relief.
Members discussed the report:
a) A Member queried the level of business rate relief for village halls. He felt that some
small villages were charged disproportionately particularly as there were often no
other facilities within the village. The Deputy Chief Executive replied that the policy
on discretionary relief had been reviewed in 2010.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
22 June 2011
b) The issue of council tax rebates for holiday lettings was raised. A Member felt that a
rebate in council tax for some holiday lettings could be better applied elsewhere.
The Deputy Chief Executive replied that only those holiday lets that paid business
rates received a council tax rebate. Discounts for council tax were only available
where seasonal prohibitions were in place.
c) The Chairman asked about the reduction in the empty property relief threshold for
business properties and whether it encouraged landlords to leave properties empty.
The Deputy Chief Executive responded that it was too early to tell and the Council
had limited the empty rate charge to six months to try and ensure that didn’t happen.
d) A Member asked whether Victory Housing received a dispensation for their empty
properties. The Deputy Chief Executive said that council tax was payable on empty
properties except for the first six months.
e) It was acknowledged that although there was no longer a requirement for
performance indicators to be produced, they provided a useful comparison with
other local authorities. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed. The current practice was
to contact other Councils and request their performance figures.
Agreed
1) To continue to receive performance indicators and comparison data for debt
recovery
2) 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
3) To approve the revised Corporate Debt Management and Recovery Policy
RECOMMENDED
That future debt recovery reports contain relevant data from other District Councils in
Norfolk on debt recovery rates.
14 BUSINESS CONTINUITY UPDATE
The Environmental Health Manager updated the committee on the current situation
regarding emergency planning and business continuity.
There had been little progress made in taking business continuity issues forward due to
the vacancy of the Civil Contingency Manager post. Discussions had been ongoing for
some time to investigate shared service arrangements with Norfolk County Council and
other districts. Following withdrawal of funding for the joint posts by the County Council,
it had been decided that North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) would continue to work
in collaboration with other councils but would not join a shared service. Recruitment for
the Civil Contingencies Manager post was therefore now progressing. It would be a
priority of the new manager to re-establish the Business Continuity Working Group
(BCWG) at the Council.
The reciprocal ICT service agreement between the Council and Victory Housing to allow
IT provision in the event of a major disruptive event had been completed. Notice had
now been given to Norfolk Fire Service to cancel the previous arrangement with them.
The provision of a separate BT switch providing 4 telephone lines within an emergency
control room in the Committee Room had also been cancelled.
The Multi-Agency Flood Plan had been revised but was subject to review by the Norfolk
Resilience Forum.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
22 June 2011
There had been a successful test of plans associated with major flooding in March 2011.
This had provided flood wardens and residents with assurance that plans were
adequate.
Members discussed the update:
a) A Member asked how the Council had dealt with the recent failure of the phone
system. The Environmental Health Manager replied that a lot of staff had relied on
their mobile phones. General calls were re-routed to two lines at the Fakenham
office to maintain a flow of information. In response to a further question regarding
notifying the public to the loss of phone lines, he said that the system had gone
down overnight and arrangements had been put in place as soon as possible.
b) The issue of using radios during a flood exercise was raised. The Environmental
Health Manager said they were not issued as standard. Walkie-talkies had been
provided but the range had proved too limited. Flood wardens in Wells had
purchased their own radios and the systems they had in place had worked well
during the recent exercise. In other areas there was an established line of
communication flow and police officers used their radios when necessary.
c) A Member asked whether the Senior Flood Wardens Liaison Group reported
regularly to the Coastal Issues Forum. The Environmental Health Manager said that
Tony Aberdein attended both meetings and reported back to each accordingly.
d) A concern was raised regarding community resilience and how small communities
would cope with a disruptive event whilst evacuation measures were being put in
place. The Environmental Health Manager said that several Environmental Health
officers had been trained to bronze (at the scene) or silver (tactical) level, so there
was some degree of resilience in place. The Chairman added that it might be useful
for a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to attend meetings of the
BCWG.
e) A Member asked if the Council would receive any of the £1m fine levied on Shell
following the Bacton gas explosion. The Strategic Director – Environment explained
that this would go to central funds. He said that the Council would only receive
funding if a disaster was ongoing, when the Bellwin Scheme would come into effect.
15 GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITES UPDATE
The Environmental Health Manager provided an update on the use of the Temporary
Stopping Places at Cromer and Fakenham from the date of opening until 31st March
2011. The most important feature of this provision was to enable the Council to move
travellers from unauthorised encampments and officers have already had success in
this regard.
Use of the Cromer site had been limited, with some groups preferring to use the site at
Fakenham. It was clear that the management of the sites was problematical due to the
lack of ability to control who occupied the site and, in the case of Fakenham the
remoteness from the office. An additional problem was the low level of contributions
collected. Officers sought contributions at a similar level to those collected by the
County Council – typically £10 per week per van but this was often difficult to collect due
to people not being present on site during officer visit times. In future the level of
contributions collected from occupants would be increased but officers would use their
discretion where it appeared that the level of contribution would result in the relocation
to an unauthorised encampment.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
22 June 2011
Members discussed the update:
a) A Member asked if it was worth looking at how other Counties managed their sites
for solutions to the some of the problems. The Environmental Health Manager
replied that he had looked at the charges levied by other local authorities but there
were not many other Temporary Stopping Places to make a comparison with. Many
authorities tried to limit staying times to 3 weeks maximum and several did not
charge at all.
b) The issue of anti-social behaviour was raised and whether any consideration had
been given as to how to manage it. The Environmental Health Manager said that
tyre burning would be dealt with via the criminal process. Issues regarding toilet use
were more complex and often rooted in cultural beliefs. The sites had been designed
to try and keep waste within the boundaries. Any waste dumped on adjacent
farmland would be cleaned up and the costs passed on to the travellers responsible.
c) A Member queried the length of time travellers were allowed to stay at the
Temporary Stopping Places and how quickly they could return once they had left.
The Environmental Health Manager replied that legally it was hard to enforce a
defined time limit. It was intended that they would be assessed on an individual
basis – particularly if the alternative was an unauthorised encampment nearby.
d) The frequency of police visits was raised. The Environmental Health Manager said
that they would only visit when necessary and that the level of crime within the
travelling community was not always higher than that of the settled community.
The Chairman asked the Committee whether they wished to continue receiving an
annual update on the Gypsy and Traveller sites or whether they would prefer them more
frequently. The Environmental Health Manager said that six monthly updates should be
timed to coincide with budget updates.
Agreed
1. To receive an update on Gypsy and Traveller sites every six months
2. That the next update would include the allocation of Capital Grant expenditure
on the sites and the underuse of the Cromer site
16 REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE POLICIES
The report provided an update on the two policies required by the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). A number of minor amendments were required
to comply with statutory guidance issued over the previous year and the transfer of
responsibility from the Monitoring Officer to the Strategic Director – Environment. The
new policy would be presented to Full Council in towards the end of 2011.
An external Audit had been carried out by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
This was satisfactory with no issues to be resolved.
The Strategic Director – Environment outlined the two authorisations that had taken
place since April 2010. One involved fly-tipping and the other an alleged illegal tattooist.
Both had been lawfully undertaken.
Members discussed the report:
a) The Chairman asked for a clarification of the differences between the two policies.
The Strategic Director – Environment said that Appendix 2 referred specifically to
gathering communications data – as required by the Act. The Chairman suggested
that the final version of the policies could come back to the Committee for prescrutiny before going before Full Council.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
22 June 2011
b) A Member asked how quickly the Council could react to a problem and implement
the use of surveillance. The Strategic Director – Environment said that
proportionality was paramount. Surveillance would only be used if absolutely
necessary. Once the decision was made the authorisation was given immediately
and surveillance undertaken. The results however, could take weeks to recover.
c) The Chairman asked whether the Council had received any complaints regarding
the use of surveillance. The Strategic Director – Environment replied that concerns
had been raised regarding the use of fixed CCTV cameras and intrusion into their
hotel room. This had been checked and was not the case. He added that the Police
could use ‘overt’ CCTV cameras for covert surveillance but only with the
Authorisation of the District Council.
d) A Member asked how long the Council retained CCTV footage for. The Strategic
Director – Environment said that it was a matter of weeks but that he would check
and confirm this after the meeting.
Agreed
To receive a report on the final version of the surveillance policies for pre-scrutiny by
the Committee
17 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Committee discussed the work programme and agreed on the following:
a) Domestic Violence would be removed from the Work Programme as there was no
longer a member of staff in place to report on it.
b) A report on the Waste Contract would be received at the next meeting of the
Committee. The Chairman requested that it included waste collection, street
cleaning, public conveniences, bottle banks and grounds maintenance
c) Pest control and animal control would be covered by one report to be presented at
the September meeting of the Committee.
d) An update on the Active Communities restructure would come to the next meeting of
the Committee.
e) A report on the role of Local Area Partnerships should come before the Committee
as soon as possible. The Democratic Services Team Leader said that there was a
report on this being prepared for Cabinet. She would ask if it could come to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee too.
f) Coastal issues would be considered as a future topic for scrutiny. The Chairman
added that focus of the Council post-Pathfinder was something that could be
considered.
g) Affordable Housing was a priority and a report should come to the Committee as
soon as possible. It was suggested that Victory Housing should be invited to attend
to answer Members’ questions.
The meeting concluded at 1.15pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
22 June 2011