Agenda Item no.______4_____
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 23 May 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 B Jarvis
Mr P W Moore
Officers in
Attendance:
Members in
Attendance:
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
The Chief Executive, the Head of Planning and Building Control, the
Development Manager, the Policy and Performance Management Officer
and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
Mrs S Arnold, Mrs H Eales, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Ms V Gay, Mrs P GroveJones, Mr K Johnson, Mr G Jones, Mrs A Moore, Mr W Northam, Ms B
Palmer, Mr R Wright and Mr D Young.
Democratic Services Officer (AA)
1
CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
The Chairman welcomed Mr N Smith who had recently joined the Committee.
2
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr P Terrington and Mr G Williams.
3
SUBSTITUTES
Ms V Gay for Mr G Williams, Mr R Wright for Mr J Perry-Warnes and Mr D Young for Mr
P Terrington.
4
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
5
MINUTES
28 March 2012, minute 155 (f) – Mr R Reynolds referred to the Joint Scrutiny with
Broadland at which it had been mentioned that the completion of the transport study
could possibly be in April. He said that he had stated it should be within the next couple
of months.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23 May 2012
Subject to the above amendment, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 28 March 2012 and of the special meeting held on 17 April
2012 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
6
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received.
7
8
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr R Reynolds
12
Community Asset Transfer
Policy
Personal – as a
member of Fakenham
Community Centre
Management
Committee
Mr P Moore
14
Planning Enforcement Progress
Report
Personal and nonprejudicial as a
practising planner
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
9
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
10 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Democratic Services Team Leader said that Cabinet’s response to the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Annual Action Plan had been reported to
Full Council on 18 April 2012.
11 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
None received.
12 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK INCLUDING PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
a) The Chief Executive explained that the report would go to Full Council and would
include the Action Plan and Performance Measures. Due to the timing, the first
quarter which was at the end of June, would be reported to Members in September.
Reports would go to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet quarterly, with
an Annual Report.
b) Mr P W Moore expressed concern at what he perceived to be a lack of definition in
the Framework. The Chief Executive explained that the quarterly reports would
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23 May 2012
c)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
include qualitative as well as quantitative information. Exception reports would be
brought to cabinet or Scrutiny on areas which were not on track.
Some were operational and some were performance measures and would be
reported on a quarterly basis. Where there was no target or it was meaningless,
progress would be measured on the direction of travel. It would also be helpful to
have comparative details with other councils. Previously, national indicators had
been used but these had gone. By September, there should be information for all
measures.
In respect of Annual Health Indicators, these included factors beyond the Council’s
control. Figures would be available in September for all but those marked NA.
Targets had only been included where the Council had a high degree of control.
The ambition for a green flag for Sadler’s Wood was welcomed. In response to a
question from Ms V Gay, it was explained that the target for Blue Flag beaches had
been set at 3 because more stringent criteria had been set for the award. This was
something which could be considered by the Sustainability Board.
The corporate targets did not preclude individual Members looking at their own areas
of interest and bringing any concerns to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
When something was not reaching its target, it could be looked at through the
Performance and Risk Management Board, Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee with a view to taking alternative action.
Mrs H Eales thanked the Policy and Performance Management Officer for all her
hard work and she also thanked the Cabinet and the Corporate Leadership Team.
The Cabinet had deliberately not set a lot of targets because of the financial
instability in the country.
It was proposed by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Mr R Reynolds and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
a) To approve the revised Performance Management Framework.
b) To approve the performance measures for the Annual Action Plan 2012/13.
Ms V Gay and Mr R Smith voted against the recommendation.
13 COMMUNITY ASSET TRANSFER POLICY
a) This item had been to Cabinet on May 14 2012. Mr W Northam suggested that this
item be noted before going to Full Council and coming back to this Committee for
amendment. The Chairman dismissed this option as the Committee needed the
opportunity to comment before going to Full Council.
b) Ms V Gay expressed concern on whether town and parish councils would receive
support.
c) Mr E Seward asked if there had been any interest in taking on these assets. Mr W
Northam replied that interest was being expressed. Mr R Smith said that
Sheringham Town Council was very interested.
e) Mr P Moore expressed concern regarding the ability of communities to take on the
assets. Mr W Northam explained that as part of the transfer process, they would
need to prove they could sustain the asset. The Chief Executive said that central
government funding was available to support the asset transfer. Potential lessees
would need to demonstrate their sustainability but each application would be looked
at on an individual basis.
f) Mr P Moore asked when the Policy would come back to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and if there would be a meaningful opportunity to make amendments.
g) The Fakenham Community Project was very supportive of the scheme.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23 May 2012
h) Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if freeholds were available and if they would e at a price
accessible to the community. The Chief Executive said that if a commercial value
was attached to an asset the Council had a duty to dispose of it at the best price
unless there was a social consideration. Freehold transfer was not precluded but
generally it would be leasehold.
RESOLVED
That this topic return to the Work Programme for July 2012.
14 A POLICY ON SECTION 106 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS
No retail development had been expected before 2016 but the Council had received a
significant number of applications. It was essential the Council adopted the policy
outlined in paragraph 4.1 of the report.
RESOLVED
To support the recommendation.
15 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
a) The report had been to the Development Control Committee on 3 May. Since then
there were 182 enforcement cases outstanding with 95 being more than 3 months
old. This number was higher than at the end of the last quarter.
b) Enforcement was managed by the Team Leader – Enforcement and Special Cases.
His workload was heavy with special cases. For this reason the Development
Manager had been involved in enforcement. A planning officer was also spending
50% of her time on this work, but application processing work (on which she spent
the balance of her time) was also under pressure.
c) There had been restructuring in the Planning Service in 2010. One of the posts lost
had been the Senior Enforcement Officer. There had been a build-up of cases since
the post was lost. Enforcement cases could be difficult to close and could lead to titfor-tat complaints that the Council was nevertheless obliged to investigate.
d) The Chairman of the Development Committee expressed her support for the
enforcement team. She asked Members to be as supportive of the team as possible.
e) Officers were consulting ward Members regarding enforcement cases. They would
identify cases where there had been a breach but it wasn’t expedient to take action.
If the Ward Member(s) and the Committee Chairman agreed, the case would be
closed. This would allow concentration on more important issues. This method was
preferable to bringing minor complaints en bloc to Committee and saved report
writing and taking up of Committee time.
f) Officers were to produce a prioritisation plan which would need to be agreed with
Members.
g) In every case an Officer would need to assess whether there had been a breach of
planning control and whether an application should be invited to enable conditions to
be imposed or whether enforcement action should be taken.
h) Ms V Gay welcomed the report. She supported robust enforcement and was pleased
that senior planning officers were overseeing it. She agreed there should be a
prioritisation arrangement.
i) Some cases were at least two years old and some were civil issues rather than
planning matters.
j) Whenever possible, enforcement complaints were passed onto other agencies.
k) The serving of a Section 215 notice was used in some cases.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23 May 2012
l) The Local Enforcement Plan would set the Council’s priorities and how the service
would be managed. It was a substantive task and would take 6 months to complete.
It would provide a way forward in the long term and would be discussed at Cabinet.
In the short term consideration was being given to provide a temporary resource.
m) Enforcement had to back up the planning officers and the Development Committee.
The Council needed to demonstrate that it had a policy that would be effective in
dealing with planning control.
n) Mr P Moore expressed concern that the public might not perceive consultation with
the local member as being fair. There was also a need to take into account time
limits for enforcement, so fast action may be needed. Planning officers could decide
whether it was expedient to take action.
o) The Development Manager explained that local Members would only be consulted in
those cases where it was not considered expedient to take action. Most authorities
had a points system for prioritisation.
p) Ms V Gay considered that the serving of a Section 215 notice in appropriate cases
demonstrated that the Council was responding to an enforcement issue and this was
good for the reputation of the Council.
q) A few cases went to the Magistrates’ Court as most people genuinely didn’t know
they had committed a breach. It took several months for a case to reach court.
r) The Development Manager agreed with Mr D Young that it would be helpful if the
local Member could check on long-term cases to see if there was still an issue.
RESOLVED
a) To welcome the production of a Local Enforcement Plan and prioritisation
arrangement sooner rather than later.
b) To welcome the exploration of a short-term resource to support the service.
16 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The Democratic Services Team Leader informed the meeting that Mr James Bacon
of Norfolk Credit Union would be attending the Committee’s meeting on 24 July
2012. She would email all Members to ask them for any questions which she could
forward to Mr Bacon in advance.
b) The final report for the Public Transport Panel had been received from Broadland
District Council and was going to Broadland’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee on
29 May. It would be included on the agenda for 26 June 2012. The four Members
from NNDC would be asked for their comments to be included on the agenda.
c) The Committee approved the revised work programme.
d) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds had spent some time with the Ambulance service and
would write a report for the Committee. Ms V Gay and Mr E Seward expressed
appreciation for the reports provided by Mrs Claussen-Reynolds.
e) A report on Outside Bodies was going to Full Council on 30 May 2012. One of the
recommendations was that some of the Outside Bodies should be reviewed by the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
f) Housing Strategy: a workshop would be held for all Members on 20 June 2012. The
event was in the evening, time to be confirmed.
g) Mr G Jones referred to a Museums Task and Finish Group at Norfolk County
Council. He believed that Members should express an opinion. The Chief
Executive suggested that he should write a report for the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
The meeting concluded at 11.55am.
_________________________
Chairman, 26 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
23 May 2012