Agenda item…………….
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 28 March 2012
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
The Corporate Director (Steve Blatch), the Head of Planning (for minute
151), the Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager (for minute 152), the
Housing Services Manager (for minute 150), the Acting Financial Services
Manager (for minute 154) and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Mrs H Eales, Mr K Johnson, Mrs A Moore and Mr W J Northam.
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
139 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman welcomed back to the Committee Mr J Perry-Warnes. Mr Perry-Warnes
thanked everyone for their kindness. The Democratic Services Team Leader said that
Mr N Smith had informed her that he had been transferred to Basildon Hospital for
treatment and was keen to return to being a Councillor.
140 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr B Jarvis and Mr N Smith.
141 SUBSTITUTES
None.
142 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
143 MINUTES
The minutes of the special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 31
January 2012 and of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15
February 2012 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
Mr B Smith referred to minute 138 e) Coastal Issues. He had not yet been able to
speak to the Portfolio Holder about the possibility of having an item on Coastal Issues
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
on the work programme later in the year possibly May, but would contact her as soon as
possible. It was noted that the next meeting of the Coastal Issues Forum would be
dependent upon the restructuring of the Senior Management Team and May might not
be possible. It was more likely to be held in June or July. The timing of the coastal item
was to be discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Workshop on 17 April.
144 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
145 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr P Moore
151
Introduction of Fees for PreApplication Advice and “Do I
need planning permission?”
enquiries
Personal and nonprejudicial as a
practising planner.
146 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
No petitions had been received. It was noted that there was no legislative requirement
for this item to be on the agenda. The Monitoring Officer considered that this should be
addressed by the Constitution Working Party and how the Council dealt with petitions.
147 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
148 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
149 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
The Committee noted the information. The Forward Plan and Democratic Services
Work Programme were both being overhauled so a more comprehensive and readable
picture would be available soon.
150 NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL TENANCY STRATEGY
The Housing Services Manager drew out the main points of the report.
The report was discussed:
a) Mr R Reynolds sought clarification that there was no possibility that tenants would be
expected to move house. The Housing Services Manager explained that the Council
could not control what tenancy controllers put in their Registered Providers Tenancy
Policy. Victory Housing Trust was currently producing its strategy. Other providers
worked across a wider area and the Council would have considerably less influence
there. She considered that Victory Housing Trust would move to fixed term
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
tenancies, but the Council would have the opportunity to comment on their policy
proposals. It was to make best use of housing stock, but a review had to take into
account people’s circumstances. The new policy would apply to new tenants only
and existing tenants would retain life-time tenancies.
Mr P Moore expressed concern about the shortage of social housing and what
progress was being made towards new houses being built. The Corporate Director
said that the Government recognised the huge pressure on social housing and that
the Housing Services Manager and Registered Providers and other parties had
sought to discuss these issues. There was an aspiration to make better use of
limited housing stock.
It was recognised that people moving out was very disruptive to the social fabric, as
people were more likely to be good citizens if they knew they could live in a house for
as long as they wanted to. The Corporate Director said that the issues of anti-social
behaviour and community stability had been considered. To maintain stable
communities had been identified as a key aim by Cabinet.
Mr P Terrington asked if more social housing needed to be ring-fenced for local
people. The Housing Services Manager said that the Tenancy Strategy wouldn’t
come into operation for 5 or 6 years. The Council however, was seeking guidance on
the possible extension of the local lettings agreement to all stock in the area to give
greater priority to local people.
Mr G Williams expressed concern that the Strategy was no more than aspirational.
The responses from RSLs had not been very positive regarding the Fixed Term
Tenancy. The Housing Services Manager said that NNDC was happy with the way
things were working generally but that a Fixed Term Tenancy provided more options.
There were already policies in place regarding down-sizing. There was a certain
nervousness from Registered Providers and tenants about Fixed Term Tenancies.
NNDC probably had more influence over Victory Housing Trust and possibly
Broadland Housing.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to page 25 “To ensure that specialist
accommodation can be made available to households most in need” and asked how
this could be achieved. The Housing Services Manager said that if tenants were in a
position to move on they would be offered alternative accommodation. The
Corporate Director said that if a household’s circumstances had changed and there
were other households in greater need of the property it was possible to discuss
alternative accommodation. It was recognised that this was a sensitive issue.
A high turnover in tenancies could result in anti-social behaviour because there would
be little incentive to invest in garden maintenance.
In reply to a question from Mr R Smith, the Housing Services Manager said that the
Council would have no problem with Registered Providers retaining lifetime
tenancies. There would be more concerns if Registered Providers were too harsh.
The Strategy could be reviewed at any time.
In response to a question from Mr B Smith about difficulties faced by people on low
incomes in renting property, the Housing Services Manager explained that affordable
rents were fully covered by Housing Benefit. Private rents weren’t. Central
Government was pushing for affordable rent. Most of the Registered Providers with a
contract with the Homes and Communities Agency were developing new homes with
affordable rents. At present Victory Housing Trust were charging social rent on the
properties they had taken over at the Housing Stock Transfer and affordable rent on
properties built since then would be charged on re-let. Members expressed concern
that there would be increasing demands on Housing Benefit.
The recommendation to Full Council was endorsed.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
151 INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE AND “DO I NEED
PLANNING PERMISSION?” ENQUIRIES
The report was discussed:
a) The schedule of proposed fees had been discussed at the last agents’ meeting –
agents were Planning’s principle customers. They understood the reasons for the
proposal but they did not welcome it. Fifty-six agents and eighteen developers had
been consulted. To date only three responses had been received which did not
support the proposal. The consultation closed on 30 March 2012.
b) At the request of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee the Portfolio Holder had
written to Mr Pickles in December 2011 regarding the local setting of Planning Fees.
c) The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was aware that there was already pressure
on Planning. In response to a question from the Chairman, the Head of Planning and
Building Control said that he wouldn’t know if there were resources to implement the
new scheme until it was tried. It should be monitored nine months after it was begun.
d) The Planning Service was costly. This needed to be considered as well as the
current workload.
e) A concern was expressed that the new scheme could lead to an increase in
enforcement cases. The Corporate Director reminded Members that NNDC had a
strong policy framework which could be viewed online.
f) “Do I need planning permission?” enquiries: if a letter was sent to an applicant it cost
the Council money. However, the opinion expressed in the letter did not prevent the
Council carrying out enforcement at a later stage, eg if the proposed construction
turned out to be larger or different.
g) Mr P W Moore told the Committee that he was not a member of the agents’ group.
He said that his main concern was not the financial aspect of the proposed scheme,
but the timescale. He asked that this should come back to the Committee for review.
h) The Head of Planning and Building Control said that he had been asked to prepare a
paper for CLT on capacity in Planning.
i) Members needed to be reassured that the Council was providing a better Planning
service.
j) There was a concern that the duty officers might get overloaded with work. However,
this could be self-regulating because people would have to wait in a queue. The
Head of Planning and Building Control was reluctant to extend the time allocated for
duty officers.
k) In response to a question from Mr P Terrington, the Head of Planning and Building
Control said that pre-application enquiries were in the public domain. Major preapplication enquiries were published on the website.
l) In response to Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds’ concern about the potential of extra
pressure on town and parish councils, the Head of Planning and Building Control said
that legislation did not permit the public to circumvent the Planning process by going
to their town or parish council regarding personal planning permission.
m) Some members of the public would approach their local Member. Although Members
had direct access to officers they were asked to be conscious of the pressure on
them.
RESOLVED
The Committee supported the introduction of Fees for Pre-Application and “Do I need
Planning Permission” in principle.
The Committee was anxious to ensure that there were sufficient resources and would
review the situation in January.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
152 CAR PARKING CHARGES
a) The Pay and Display signs had been changed, and warning notices had been
posted.
b) There had been no increase in ticket charges since 2009 and since 2010 for season
tickets.
c) A 50p charge for a 30 minute stay had been introduced for all car parks.
d) Parking would cost an extra 10p per hour on coastal car parks.
e) Town car parks in Cromer, Holt, Sheringham and Wells would be charged at £1 for
the first hour and 70p per hour thereafter.
f) An evening charge of £1 had been introduced and would apply to the hours 6-11pm.
g) North Walsham and Fakenham Town Councils had met with Officers regarding the
free car parks. They had been fruitful meetings but decisions had not yet been made
by the town councils. There would be no charging on these car parks until the
situation was resolved. Wells Town Council would discuss car parking at its meeting
in April.
h) The Car Park Order had been published in the local press. There had been no
legislative requirement to carry out a more formal consultation. The decision had
been made at Full Council in December and had been in the public domain.
i) The Chairman said he had received complaints that there was nothing on the
Council’s website explaining the changes to parking charges and who the public
could write to expressing views. Legal notices in car parks were too complex and
unlikely to be read. The Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager noted the point for
future consideration.
i) In reply to a question from Mr G Williams, the Coastal, Localities and Assets
Manager said that a full set of responses had been available in the Members’ Room.
Everybody was entitled to raise an objection but it would require a substantive reason
to change the Order. This might be something like a Highways objection regarding a
traffic obstruction.
j) In reply to a question about enforcement, the Coastal, Localities and Assets Manager
said that this year’s income from enforcement using King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
showed that enforcement was working.
k) Mr W J Northam said that the changes in the charging regime would be reconsidered
if it wasn’t effective.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.20am and reconvened at 11.35am.
153 STREET SIGNS
The Chairman read out a written response from the Corporate Director, Nick Baker, who
was unable to attend the meeting:
a) The number of signs outstanding: 7 currently on order from supplier.
b) The number of new signs erected this year was 189 – a mixture of new signs and
replacement for damaged signs.
c) The budget that was left for this year was £5000 revenue due to efficiencies from a
vacant post being covered by the contractor and £25,825 in the capital budget. The
capital was being rolled forward into the budget for next year.
d) The revenue budget for 2012/13 was £37,906 which was split as follows:
• Direct costs - £27,436
• Support costs - £510
• Depreciation - £9,960
e) To report a damaged or missing sign, Members should contact the Environmental
Services Team on ext 6302 streetsign.maintenance@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
154 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 10
a) The final recommendation was no longer required. It had been superseded by the
Head of Planning and Building Control’s report.
b) The Car Park Charges did not come into effect until 1 April 2012. They would be
included in next year’s budget monitoring.
155 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) Credit unions: an invitation would be made to make a presentation to the
Committee. All Members would be invited.
b) Community safety: discussion should wait until the Chief Executive’s report was
received.
c) County Strategic Partnership Joint Scrutiny Panel – agreement had been sought
from member Councils that this body should disband. The Leader and Chair of
Scrutiny supported this.
d) A special meeting was to take place on 17 April, before the workshop, to discuss the
Annual Plan before it went to Full Council.
e) Mrs A Claussen- Reynolds gave a report on the CfPS seminar, attached at Minutes
Appendix A.
f) Mr R Reynolds reported on the Joint Scrutiny with Broadland. They had discussed
many issues with a view to completion of the transport study, possibly in April. At
this meeting they discussed contact with the bus companies for our areas and a
questionnaire had been produced to approach the management of local companies.
Also, a questionnaire has been produced for several town and parish councils to
complete (probably the clerks). They discussed as to whether the moped loan
scheme was working – this to be investigated further. They also discussed the
important of extending railway lines in the future.
g) Mr P W Moore updated Members on the work of the Task and Finish Group. The
aim was to rationalise the way the Committee worked, including eliminating “Council
jargon” from reports. The Group was also looking at the sequencing between
Cabinet, Scrutiny and Full Council. A meeting was still to take place between the
Chair of Scrutiny, the Leader and the Chief Executive. There was no projected date
for the completion of the work. The Group felt it was more important to get it right!
There would be consultation with the Chief Executive to refine proposals.
The meeting concluded at 12.05pm.
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012