Please Contact: Mary Howard
Please email: mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516047
Committee Administrator: Alison Argent: alison.argent@north-norfolk.gov.uk
14 June 2012
A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of North Norfolk District Council will be held
in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Tuesday 26 June 2012 at
9.30a.m.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours. Coffee will be available in the staff restaurant at 9.30 a.m.
and at the break.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange
the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information
on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516047, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Ms V R Gay, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore, Mr J H PerryWarnes, Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mr R Smith and Mr P Terrington.
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order to attend this
meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative
format or in a different language please contact us.
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
SUBSTITUTES
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any
4.
MINUTES
(Page 1)
(9.30 – 9.40)
To approve as correct records, the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on 23 May 2012.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government
Act 1972.
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the
following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a personal or prejudicial
interest.
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
To consider any petitions received from members of the public.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A MEMBER
To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to
the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days notice, to include an item on the
agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
OR RECOMMENDATIONS
To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or
recommendations.
10.
THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
(Page 6)
To discuss the Forward Plan and to consider the programme of business for Cabinet,
Overview and Scrutiny, Audit and Full Council.
11.
LEARNING FOR EVERYONE PRESENTATION
(9.40 – 10.10)
To receive a presentation from the Learning for Everyone Team, requested by Members at
the Committee’s meeting on 17 April 2012.
12.
NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012 – 2015 (HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE)
(Cabinet Agenda – 11 June 2012 page 90)
(10.10 – 10.40)
Summary:
Conclusions:
The North Norfolk Housing Strategy 2012-2015 will consist of
3 separate documents reflecting the key areas of supporting
the delivery of new housing and infrastructure, making the
most effective use of the existing stock and supporting
independence. The first of these 3 documents sets out the
vision for the strategy and contains a detailed action plan for
the period 2012/2015 of actions which will support the
delivery of new homes across the district.
The North Norfolk Housing Strategy 2012-2015 will be a
suite of 3 documents which address the following specific
areas:
•
Supporting the delivery of new homes and
infrastructure
• Making the most effective use of the existing stock
• Supporting independence.
Each document will set the context for the area it relates to
and will include a dedicated action plan. The first document
to be completed is the North Norfolk Housing Strategy 20122015 Housing and Infrastructure document for adoption by
the Council.
Recommendations:
Cabinet recommend the adoption of the North Norfolk
Housing Strategy (Housing and Infrastructure) document
to Full Council.
Cabinet Member(s)
Keith Johnson
Ward(s) affected: All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Karen Hill, 01263 516183, Karen.hill@north-norfolk.gov.uk
13.
REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE POLICIES AND AUTHORISATIONS
(Page 9)
(10.40 – 11.00)
Summary:
The report provides an update for members on the two
Policies required by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act 2000 (RIPA) and the actual use of these policies by
Council services.
Conclusions:
There are no changes required by legislation and statutory
guidance to either Policy.
The Policies are in need of update to reflect changes in posts
and responsibilities following the management restructuring.
In the past 12 months, any Authorisations have been lawfully
undertaken.
Recommendations:
Members are asked to the report of authorisations made
in the past year and note and accept the delay to
changes made to the policy in light of the on-going
management restructuring.
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr John Lee, Cllr Trevor
Ivory
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker, ext 6221, nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
14.
2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
(Cabinet Agenda, 11 June 2012 – page 14)
(11.15 - 11.35)
Summary:
This reports presents the outturn position for the revenue
account and capital programme for the 2011/12 financial
year. Details are provided within the report of the more
significant year-end variance. The report provides details of
recommended contributions to earmarked reserves for future
spending commitments. An update to the current capital
programme is also included within the report and
accompanying appendices.
Conclusions:
The outturn position on the revenue account as at 31 March
2012 shows an underspend for the year of £241,601. This is
after allowing for a number of underspends to be rolled
forward within earmarked reserves to fund ongoing and
identified commitments. The general fund balance remains
within the current recommended level.
Recommendations:
Members are asked to consider the
recommend the following to Full Council:
report
and
a) The final accounts position for the general fund
revenue account for 2011/12;
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed in the
report;
c) Transfer the surplus to the restructuring reserve;
d) The financing of the 2011/12 capital programme as
detailed within the report;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,948,590 at 31
March 2012;
f) The updated capital programme for 2012/13 to 2013/14
and the associated financing of the schemes as outlined
within the report and detailed at Appendix E.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Karen Sly, 01263 516243, Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
15.
ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12 AND STRATEGY
UPDATE FOR 2012/13
(Cabinet Agenda, 11 June 2012 – page 69)
(Appendix G – p 81, appendix H – p 82)
(11.35 – 11.50)
Summary:
This report sets out the Treasury Management activities
actually undertaken during 2011/12 compared with the
Treasury Management Strategy for the year. An update
is included on alternative investment options for
2012/13.
Conclusions:
Treasury activities for the year have been carried out in
accordance with the CIPFA Code and the Council’s
Treasury Strategy. For the future, the Council will invest
in collective investment schemes focusing on property
investment.
Recommendations:
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that
(1) Treasury Management Annual Report for
2011/12 is approved.
(2) A proportion of the investment portfolio is
invested in the LAMIT and Lime Property
Funds.
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Wyndham Northam
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Tony Brown
01263 516126
tony.brown@north-norfolk.gov.uk
16.
DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT 2011/12
(Page 14)
(Appendix A – page 17)
(11.50 – 12.10)
Summary:
This report outlines the key elements of the Annual Report
2011/12 to be published in July 2012 for discussion and
eventual approval and presents the key contents of the
report. The Annual Report will present the key activities
carried out during 2011/12 and show achievement against
targets.
Conclusions:
The Annual Report 2011/12 concludes that North Norfolk
District Council continues to deliver good performance.
Recommendations:
It is requested that Overview and Scrutiny provide
comments on the draft Annual Report 2011/12 to be
considered prior to publication.
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Keith Johnson
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Helen Thomas, 01263 516214, helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
17.
COMPLIMENTS, COMPLAINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
(Page 20)
(12.10 – 12.30)
Summary:
This report provides Members with an overview
of compliments and complaints received by the
organisation during the period 1 April 2011 and
31 March 2012 along with an overview of recent
and forthcoming activities.
Conclusions:
This report shows that complaints acknowledged
have remained at 100% and complaints
responded to within timescale, compared to the
same period in 2010/11 have increased from
71% to 74%.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Members note the
contents of this report.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Tom
FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Estelle Packham
01263 516079
estelle.packham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Jane Wisson
01263 516096
Jane.wisson@north-norfolk.gov.uk
18.
FINAL REPORT OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT TIME AND TASK LIMITED PANEL
(Page 26)
(Appendix B page 29; appendix C – page 36; appendix D – page 39; appendix E – page
53)
(12.30 – 12.55)
Summary:
This report introduces the final recommendations of the
joint Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
That Members consider the report and make any
recommendations to Cabinet or Full Council.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mary Howard, Democratic Services Team
Leader, Tel.01263 516047, mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
19.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Page 58)
(Appendix F – page 60; appendix G – page 64; appendix H – page 65)
(12.55 – 13.05)
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with topics in
its agreed work programme (attached at Appendix F) and
invites Members to identify any arising items for future
meetings. The Scrutiny Committee’s working style and role is
attached at Appendix G
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others need to be
monitored and opportunities for scrutiny should be discussed.
Recommendations:
That Members should consider any follow-up actions
required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s)
Mr T J FitzPatrick
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mary Howard, Democratic Services Team
Leader, Tel.01263 516047, mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
20.
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if necessary:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
21.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
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
1
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
2
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
3
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
4
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
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
23 May 2012
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme & Forward Plan
For the Period 01 June to 30 September 2012
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
11 June 2012
Housing Strategy
Keith Johnson
Overview & Scrutiny
26 June 2012
Full Council
25 July 2012
Cabinet
11 June 2012
Full Council
25 July 2012
Cabinet
11 June 2012
Full Council
25 July 2012
Cabinet
11 June 2012
Key Decision
Debt Management
Annual Report
Wyndham
Northam
Treasury
Management
Annual Report
Wyndham
Northam
2011/2012 Outturn
Report
Wyndham
Northam
6
Consultations
Comments can be
sent to
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Louise Wolsey
Revenues & Benefits
Services Manager
01263 516081
Status &
Documents
Submitted
Report to
Cabinet,
Overview &
Scrutiny and
Full Council
Cyclical item
Report to
Cabinet and
Full Council
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Cyclical item
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Cyclical item
Report to
Cabinet, and
Full Council
Report to
Cabinet,
Overview &
Scrutiny and
Full Council
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme & Forward Plan
For the Period 01 June to 30 September 2012
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
11 June 2012
Big Society Fund –
large applications
(over £10,000)
Trevor Ivory
Cabinet
9 July 20112
Budget Monitoring
Period 4
Wyndham
Northam
Cabinet
9 July 2012
Angie FitchTillett
Cabinet
10 Sept 2012
Cromer Sea
Defence Scheme
Appointment of
Consultants
Allocations Policy
and Local Lettings
Agreement
Keith Johnson
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Cabinet
10 Sept 2012
Half Yearly Treasury
Management Report
for 2011/2012
Wyndham
Northam
Tony Brown
Technical Accountant
01263 516126
Cyclical item
Cabinet
10 Sept 2012
Budget Monitoring
Period 5
Wyndham
Northam
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Cyclical item
Key Decision
7
Consultations
Comments can be
sent to
Status &
Documents
Submitted
Rob Young
Coast & Community
Partnerships
Manager
01263 516162
Karen Sly
Financial Services
Manager
01263 516243
Brian Farrow
Coastal Engineer
01263 516193
Regular item
Cyclical item
North Norfolk District Council
Cabinet Work Programme & Forward Plan
For the Period 01 June to 30 September 2012
Decision Maker(s)
Meeting
Date
Subject &
Summary
Cabinet
Member(s)
Cabinet
10 Sept 2012
Housing Renewal
Policy and Housing
Enforcement
Keith Johnson
Signed
Keith Johnson, Leader of North Norfolk District Council, 1st June 2012
Key Decision
8
Consultations
Comments can be
sent to
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Status &
Documents
Submitted
Agenda Item No_______13_____
REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE POLICIES AND AUTHORISATIONS
Summary:
The report provides an update for members on the two
Policies required by the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the actual use of these
policies by Council services.
Conclusions:
There are no changes required by legislation and
statutory guidance to either Policy.
The Policies are in need of update to reflect changes in
posts and responsibilities following the management
restructuring.
In the past 12 months, any Authorisations have been
lawfully undertaken.
Recommendations:
Members are asked to note the report of authorisations
made in the past year and note and accept the delay to
changes made to the policy in light of the on-going
management restructuring.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr John Lee, Cllr Trevor
All
Ivory
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker, ext 6221, nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
Members may be aware that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
(RIPA) (“the Act”) provides a structure under which certain methods of
surveillance are controlled.
Some of these methods are used by local authorities and indeed this Council,
for a range of activities, particularly as a part of regulatory and enforcement
activity and for the purposes of preventing crime and disorder.
Clearly, there will always be concern about intrusion into people’s privacy
where any surveillance is undertaken and indeed, the Human Rights Act 1998
enshrines this issue in legislation. The Policies under consideration here seek
9
to ensure that where surveillance activity is necessary, privacy is protected
wherever possible.
The Act requires that the Council publishes two Policies for its activities in this
area which lay out a framework for authorising certain methods of
surveillance which may be necessary during activity undertaken by the
Council. The Council is required to keep the Policies under review on an
annual basis and it is the anniversary of the last report to this committee on
these policies.
The policies also require that the uses of authorisations under RIPA are
reported to this committee on an annual basis. This report provides details of
the authorisations made since June 2011.
2.
Authorisations over the past year
2.1
Worksheet 110007712-2
The application was made in respect of the use of covert motion operated
CCTV cameras installed in a property subjected to anti-social behaviour by
local youths. This was a jointly run operation as part of the OPT (Operational
Partnership Team).
Operation
Applicant
WK/110007712-2
Mark Whitmore
Authorising
Officer
Stephen Hems
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
20.07.11
14.10.11
The surveillance met its objectives in that it enabled the identification of
offenders and allowed further interventions to take place, leading to a
significant decrease in problems encountered by the victims.
2.2
Worksheet 110025071-1
The application was made following significant and repeated fly tipping of
clothing and plastic bags on a sugar beet pad. There was some pattern with
regard to the days of the week when the fly tipping took place but no
indication regarding time of night.
The authorisation was for the installation of covert motion triggered CCTV
cameras on the affected land with the objective of identifying any individuals
responsible and vehicle details used in the commissioning of the offence.
Operation
WK/110025071-1
2.3
Applicant
Rachel Smith
Authorising
Officer
Stephen Hems
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
25.10.11
04.11.11
Worksheet 110025071-2
This application related to a second piece of land which had also been
subject to fly tipping of the same type of material, close to the original site. It
10
was considered appropriate to make a second application in relation to the
site to ensure that the Council could demonstrate compliance with the
legislation. The authorisation was for the same surveillance as the other site.
Operation
Applicant
Authorising
Officer
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
WK/110025071-2
Rachel Smith
Stephen Hems
27.10.11
04.11.11
The surveillance operation met its objectives as on the first night of being in
place led to the arrest of three individuals for the fly tipping of clothes waste
on one of the sites. On the basis that the objective had been met and the
likelihood of further fly tipping was very low, the authorisation was cancelled
for both sites.
2.4
VHT/AB/01
The application was for directed surveillance to corroborate reports of antisocial behaviour and witness intimidation by Victory Housing Trust tenants
against residents of sheltered housing. The objective was to determine the
extent and seriousness of any anti-social behaviour to enable the most
appropriate course of action to prevent further occurrences.
The authorisation was for the installation of 4 CCTV covert motion operated
cameras.
Operation
Applicant
Authorising
Officer
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
VHT/AB/01
Mark Whitmore
Nick Baker
18.11.11
13.02.12
Following installation of the cameras, only one incident of anti-social
behaviour took place and so continuation of the surveillance was not deemed
necessary or proportionate.
2.5
HBC/001
The application for directed surveillance was made by the Operational
Partnership Team in order to corroborate reports of anti-social behaviour and
criminal damage associated with youths gathering on a play area adjacent to
sheltered housing. Other interventions had not led to any reduction in antisocial behaviour.
The authorisation was for the installation of two covert CCTV motion operated
cameras, sited to view the front and rear of the victim’s property.
Operation
HBC/001
Applicant
PCSO
Robotham
Authorising
Officer
Stephen Hems
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
08.03.12
07.06.12
The authorisation reached its maximum duration on the 7th May 2012. As this
was the first application made by an officer outside of the Local Authority, in
this case a member of the Operational Partnership Team, the normal internal
monitoring arrangement for review and cancellation were not used. Although
11
there have been no infringements of the Human Rights Act, as none of the
data recorded since the authorisation lapsed has been viewed, this is a
breach of the RIPA legislation by the Council. A review of the management of
the authorisations is being progressed with other members of the Operational
Partnership Team.
3.
General
There are no RIPA authorisations currently in force.
There have been no applications for the use of covert human intelligence
sources (CHIS).
There have been two instances of surveillance authorised which did not fall
under the requirements of RIPA. In both these cases appropriate signage
was erected to advise individuals that cameras were in use in the area.
There has been one breach of procedures in relation to directed surveillance
detailed under 2.5 above.
The Senior Responsible Officer has provided the Office of Surveillance
Commissions with statistical data in relation to the use of directed surveillance
and covert human intelligence sources for inclusion in the annual report to the
Prime Minister.
4.
Review of Policies
Members have previously agreed two policy documents –
•
•
Policy for Directed Surveillance and Use of Covert Human Intelligence
Sources (CHIS)
Policy on the Use of Covert Surveillance and Access to
Communications Data
Both these policies are subject to annual review by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee, the last review by this committee having been June 2011.
There have been no updates to the codes of practice covering RIPA since the
last report. On this basis the contents of both policies remain fit for purpose in
relation to compliance with legislation and good practice. Within the
documents reference is made to a number of posts which, following the
management restructure, no longer exist. As the management restructure is
not yet complete it would make sense to await the outcome, including the
potential reallocation of responsibilities, of the restructure to ensure the policy
adequately and accurately reflects posts and responsibilities under RIPA.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 1st May
2012. Part 2 of the Act covers regulation of surveillance, including
safeguards for certain surveillance under RIPA. The main effect is that any
authorisation for directed surveillance will need judicial approval before taking
effect. This means that once an Authorising Officer is satisfied that the
directed surveillance can be authorised it will need to be taken for agreement
by a Magistrates Court. Full guidance on the process and procedures for this
12
change has yet to be provided. The legislation is being introduced
incrementally and, as yet, there is no date set for implementation of the above
provision. Both policies will require further review once the provisions come
into force and this will be subject to a future report to this Committee and
subsequently through to Full Council.
5.
Conclusion
There are no changes required by legislation and statutory guidance to either
Policy.
The Policies are in need of update to reflect changes in posts and
responsibilities following the management restructuring.
In the past 12 months, any Authorisations have been lawfully undertaken.
6.
Implications and Risks
If Directed Surveillance is undertaken by the Council or its Officers which is
not in accordance with the requirements of the RIPA, proceedings or
compensation are possible under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Unauthorised Directed Surveillance may also jeopardise any prosecutions
that the Council may bring against offenders. Properly authorised activity will
protect the Council from such challenges and risks.
7.
Financial Implications and Risks
If Directed Surveillance is undertaken by the Council or its Officers which is
not in accordance with the requirements of the RIPA, proceedings or
compensation are possible under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Unsuccessful court action may result in costs being awarded against the
Council. Properly authorised activity will protect the Council from such
challenges and risks.
8.
Sustainability
There are not considered to be any Sustainability issues as these would be a
required consideration when authorising the use of RIPA Powers.
9.
Equality and Diversity
There are not considered to be any Equality and Diversity issues as these
would be a required consideration when authorising the use of RIPA Powers.
10.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
By the very nature of RIPA activity, the prevention of crime and disorder
would go to the heart of any authorisation. In addition, there is a need for
RIPA to be considered in some circumstances during the use of CCTV
operations by the Council.
13
Overview and Scrutiny Date: 26th June 2012
Agenda Item No____16________
DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT 2011/12
Summary:
This report outlines the key elements of the Annual
Report 2011/12 to be published in July 2012 for
discussion and eventual approval and presents the key
contents of the report. The Annual Report will present
the key activities carried out during 2011/12 and show
achievement against targets.
Conclusions:
The Annual Report 2011/12 concludes that North
Norfolk District Council continues to deliver good
performance.
Recommendations:
It is requested that Overview and Scrutiny provide
comments on the draft Annual Report 2011/12 to be
considered prior to publication.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Keith Johnson
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Helen Thomas, 01263 516214, helen.thomas@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Background
1.1
The key element of the draft Annual Report 2011/12, the performance against
targets, is attached as Appendix A. This represents the culmination of the
annual planning and reporting process which ensures that we manage the
performance of the Council in a robust way. Publishing the Annual Report
ensures that we comply with our Performance Management Framework and
presents information to the public to demonstrate the Council’s performance.
2.
Context
2.1
This Annual Report 2011/12 is the final Annual Report against the service
priorities as set out in ““Changing Gear: Corporate Plan 2008-2011”. The
targets set for 2011/12 were built into the Service Development Plans for
2011/12. These were designed to run for one year only in anticipation of the
revised priorities for the Council set in 2011 in the new “Corporate Plan 20122015: small government, big society”.
14
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
As a key part of the Performance Management Framework an Annual Report
provides the opportunity to;
Assess the overall impact of our actions over the past year, and
Assess the progress in achieving targets and delivering service
development plans.
3.
Managing Performance – the process for producing the Annual Report
3.1
Service Managers are continually monitoring delivery of service development
plans and have provided an annual overview of key developments in their
service. These service development plans can be viewed on the Performance
Management system which is accessible through the Intranet and Website.
3.2
Our performance in achieving targets and delivering plans has been
monitored on a regular basis by the Performance and Risk Management
Board and action taken to improve performance where necessary.
3.3
The Performance and Risk Management Board will review the final draft of
the Annual Report and any comments from Overview and Scrutiny Committee
at their meeting in July 2012 prior to sign off for publication.
4.
Content of the Annual Report
4.1
The Annual Report will consist of four elements:
4.2
Leaders introduction (to be included in the final published version) – The
Annual Report presents an introduction from the Leader of the Council
highlighting key developments and issues encountered during 2011/12.
4.3
Performance against targets (see Appendix A) – The results for all the key
performance indicators over the past year.
4.4
Financial summary appendix (to be included in the final published version) –
this will include information on the Councils spend on revenue and capital for
the year as will be reported to Cabinet, along with the source of funds for the
previous year.
4.5
Workforce profile statistics 2011/12 appendix (to be included in the final
published version) – we are required by statute to publish these statistics and
this is done through publishing them as an appendix to the Annual Report.
5.
Publishing
5.1
The Annual Report is published on our website and the performance
information is embedded on the appropriate service pages on the site.
5.2
We will not print hard copies except on request. Provision will be made to
make versions of the report available in alternative formats on request.
5.3
There is no longer a statutory requirement to publish an Annual Report and
Best Value Performance Plan on or before 30th June. However, it is still
considered to be best practice to do so and make the information available to
the public in a timely way. To this end the Chief Executive in conjunction with
15
the Leader of the Council will authorise the final version of the report for
publication as early as possible in July 2012.
6.
Implications and Risks
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
Failure to implement a robust performance management framework including
an annual report that provides evidence of performance improvements,
identifies areas that require corrective action, acknowledges achievements
and builds on good practice could have a number of consequences. These
may include:
Inaccurate or less effective decision-making
Inappropriate resource allocations
Reduced reputation arising from poor quality data or inaccuracy
Adverse comments from internal and external auditors
7.
Financial Implications and Risks
7.1
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report.
However, there are performance measures and targets, and activities
included in the annual report, that are specifically related to finance. In
addition, corrective action may have financial implications that would need to
be made clear at the time any action is agreed.
8.
Sustainability
8.1
There are considerable actions being taken as a part of the delivery of
services both to promote sustainable activity and to ensure that the Council
delivers services in a sustainable way. In addition, the Annual Report itself
will only be distributed in electronic form to reduce the need for printing.
9.
Equality and Diversity
9.1
There are no direct equality and diversity implications from this report.
10.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
10.1
There are no direct Section 17 Crime and Disorder implications from this
report.
16
APPENDIX A
Service Priorities
Performance Indicators 2011/12
Performance Indicator
Ref
2011/12 Target
2011/12 Result Status
Conservation, Design and Landscape
Conservation Areas - Character Appraisals (Was
BV 219b)
CDL 005b (A)
30.00%
30.00%
Conservation Areas - Management Proposals (Was
CDL 005c (A)
BV 219c)
30.00%
30.00%
CM 001 (A)
Yes
Yes
CS 004 (A)
500,000
792,094
Coastal Management
Coastal Zone Management Solution: Milestones Yes/No Progress Report annual
Customer Services
Number of People using Tourist Information and
Visitor Centres
Development Management
Delegation of Planning Decisions (Was BV 188)
DC 001 (A)
93.28%
Processing of MAJOR planning applications
(Annual) (Was BV 109a)
NI 157a (A)
31.58%
Processing of MINOR planning applications
(Annual) (Was BV 109b)
NI 157b (A)
72.00%
39.13%
Processing of OTHER planning applications
(Annual) (Was BV 109c)
NI 157c (A)
80.00%
53.46%
Percentage of voters participating in District and
Parish Council elections
EL 001 (A)
50.00%
50.83%
Percentage of parish councils holding elections
EL 002 (A)
30.00%
9.20%
Percentage of parish and town councils
participating in local area partnerships
EL 003 (A)
0.00% No longer relevant.
EH 003 (A)
100%
72%
1,000
966
47.50%
42.73%
5%
1%
Number of economically active people assisted into
ETD 005 (A)
work each year
50
90
The number of unemployed people receiving advice
ETD 006 (A)
and guidance
255
365
Electoral Services
Environmental Health
Flytipping investigated within 2 working days
Environmental Services
Waste - Commercial - Peak number of trade waste
ES 022 (A)
customers who recycle
Percentage of household waste sent for reuse,
recycling and composting (FY Annual)
NI 192 (A)
Improved street and environmental cleanliness
(levels of litter) (Annual)
NI 195d (A)
Economic and Tourism Development
The number of new business start-ups supported
each year
ETD 007 (A)
40
88
The number of businesses assisted to retain jobs
and/or increase employment each year.
ETD 008 (A)
15
88
The number of quality assured accommodation
providers
ETD 009 (A)
Number of estimated visitors to the
'Visitnorthnorfolk.Com' website
ETD 012 (A)
877
300,000
17
475,849
APPENDIX A
Performance Indicator
Ref
Number of properties registered with the Visit
Britain QIT Scheme
ETD 029 (A)
2011/12 Target
655
2011/12 Result Status
577
Financial Services
Corporate Efficiency Target (£)
Formal reporting of corporate
efficiency targets is no longer
applicable, however the need to
4.00% demonstrate efficiency as part of
service delivery remains critical to
the financial planning and budget
process.
FS 001 (A)
Percentage of invoices paid on time (Was BV 008) FS 002 (A)
100.00%
96.60%
Housing Services
Affordable dwellings built (Was PL 001)
HO 001 (A)
Number of households from the housing register
rehoused (Was H 005)
HO 005 (A)
Number of Disabled Facilities Grants allocated
(Was H 007)
65
400
477
79 allocated by NNDC
140 minor adaptations
144 major adaptations
34 Housing options advice
11 Welfare Benefits advice
30 signposted to other services
HO 007 (A)
150
Number of currently empty properties in the private
HO 010 (A)
sector brought back in to use
10
1
Percentage of Households in Temporary
Accommodation rehoused through the Your Choice
HO 011 (A)
Your Home scheme within 26 wks (Replaces SH
009)
95.00%
100.00%
Leisure and Cultural Services
Green flag accreditation: Holt Country Park
LC 001 (A)
Yes
Yes
Blue flag accreditation: Resort Beaches
LC 002 (A)
4
4
Participation at NNDC Sporting Facilities
LC 004 (A)
508,000
556,041
Cromer Tennis Club Participation - Annual
LC 004k (A)
16,405
17,560
Number of Events Organized at Country Parks
LC 005 (A)
50
52
Number of new play and leisure facilities provided
for young people
LC 006 (A)
1
0
OD 001 (A)
8
5.17
Organisational Development
Working Days Lost Due to Sickness Absence
(Whole Authority) (Was BV 012)
Planning Policy
Plan-making: Milestones - Yes/No (Was BV 200b)
PP 001 (A)
Awaiting information
New Homes on Previously Developed Land (Was
BV 106)
PP 002 (A)
50.00%
90.00%
Percentage of Council Tax Collected (Was BV 009) RB 009 (A)
98.60%
98.60%
Revenues and Benefits
18
APPENDIX A
Performance Indicator
Ref
2011/12 Target
Percentage of Non-domestic Rates Collected (Was
RB 010 (A)
BV 010)
Housing Benefit Security - Prosecutions and
Sanctions (Was RB 025)
RB 021 (A)
Key
Significantly below target
Slightly below target
On or above target
19
2011/12 Result Status
99.20%
98.84%
52
52
Agenda Item No_____17_______
COMPLIMENTS AND COMPLAINTS MONITORING REPORT
Summary:
This report provides Members with an overview of
compliments and complaints received by the
organisation during the period 1 April 2011 and 31
March 2012 along with an overview of recent and
forthcoming activities.
Conclusions:
This report shows that complaints acknowledged have
remained at 100% and complaints responded to within
timescale, compared to the same period in 2010/11
have increased from 71% to 74%.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Members note the contents
of this report.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Tom FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Estelle Packham
01263 516079
estelle.packham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Jane Wisson
01263 516096
Jane.wisson@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
This report provides Members with an overview of the corporate compliments
and complaints results during the period 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012.
2.
Current Situation
2.1
Complaints are being analysed to identify areas that need improvement. This
information is then used to decide what action needs to be taken. For
example this could be additional training for an individual or a change within a
process.
20
2.2
Service areas have a Complaints Coordinator who liaises with the Complaints
Champion (Jane Wisson – Customer Services Team Leader) on a regular
basis. This ensures that the administration, learning and actions are carried
out as appropriate.
3.
Next Steps
3.1
There is one service area, Environmental Health, where not all complaints are
logged within the corporate database. This is because if the complaints go
direct to the service area they are logged on their own Customer
Management System. To avoid duplication of work integration between the
two systems is currently being explored. Although on the ICT work
programme for future development it has been re-scheduled due to the
Revenues & Benefits shared services project.
3.2
In order to demonstrate to our customers that the Council is listening to the
issues they raise with us, we need to communicate where changes are being
made in order to benefit our customers, for example the redesign of a
process. This will help to improve the perception of the Council.
3.3
A review of corporate compliments and complaints will be completed between
July and September of this year. The review will include…
• The procedure including the number of stages
• Documentation
• Management of the process
• Develop a culture to focus on delivering outcomes
• Creating consistency
3.4
To assist the Compliment and Complaints Champion with the review, Local
Government Ombudsman training will be undertaken.
4.
Feedback Analysis
4.1
Complaints Coordinators are now reporting on the learning outcomes for the
complaints received within the organisation. However with such small
volumes in each service area commonalities where best practise can be
identified and shared are limited.
5.
Complaints
5.1
For the twelve month period 1 April 2011 to the 31 March 2012 the Council
received 124 complaints in relation to a range of services.
5.2
Of those 124 complaints there is evidence that 100% were acknowledged in
writing within timescale.
5.3
74% of all complaints were responded to within our target timescale. This
shows that responses to complaints have increased by 3%.
5.4
In the same period we also received correspondence on 14 complaints
referred to the Local Government Ombudsman. 12 of these have been
responded to within timescales (86%). This shows an increase of 4%.
21
6.
MP Correspondence
6.1
In the period between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012 the Council received
186 letters from all MP’s 116 of which (62%) were answered within 28 days.
7.
Compliments
7.1
A total of 40 compliments were received across all service areas during the
twelve month period. These reflected how well our colleagues dealt with an
enquiry and how we met or exceeded our customers expectations.
8.
Implications and Risks
8.1
Compliments and complaints represent an opportunity for the Council to
reflect on the way it provides its services to customers. It is important that we
are able to undertake timely and effective analysis in order to effect
appropriate service improvements thereby reducing the risk of further related
complaints.
8.2
The organisation has implemented and will continue to develop an ethos of
welcoming and encouraging feedback. We need to ensure that we
consistently and continually use this feedback to improve our services and
that we communicate this effectively in order to maintain and enhance our
reputation.
9.
Financial Implications and Risks
9.1
Some service delivery failures have the potential to lead to claims against the
Council for compensation, damages or restitution. For example, we have
examples when the Local Government Ombudsman has recommended a
financial remedy to satisfy a complaint. It is important to recognise that
effective complaints management can make a significant contribution to our
risk management strategy.
10.
Equality and Diversity
10.1
An equality impact assessment will be completed before a review of the
Compliments and Complaints process which is due to take place between
July and September 2012.
22
Feedback Overview 2011-2012
November
December
January
February
March
Total
6
13
10
13
11
14
124
Complaints
acknowledged within
timescale
6
5
11
10
11
14
6
13
10
13
11
14
124
Complaints responded
to within timescale
6
5
11
8
7
10
5
9
7
5
8
11
92
Type of Complaints
May
June
December
March
Attitude
1
2
Service Delivery
1
3
2
3
3
5
3
4
5
6
6
1
3
5
1
2
1
Competence
2
5
10
5
Total
October
14
February
September
11
January
August
10
November
July
11
October
June
5
September
May
6
August
April
Number of Complaints
July
Volumes and Response
Times 2011 - 2012
April
Complaints Overview
28
13
60
4
Other
9
2
2
2
2
5
3
1
1
31
Awaiting Training
Contact Service
Provider
Review Process
13
11
February
10
January
13
December
6
November
14
October
11
September
10
August
11
July
5
June
Actions Taken
6
May
Total
April
Timeliness
1
1
14
124
Total
4
March
Process
0
0
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
9
Training given
0
No Further Action
5
2
8
10
11
14
5
11
10
13
11
13
113
Total
6
5
11
10
11
14
6
13
10
13
11
14
124
Actions taken had been added since April 2011. Contact Service Provider are where we are working in
partnership with other service providers eg. Kier
23
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
2
1
5
1
4
1
6
2
2
Total
May
3
March
April
Benefits
February
Complaints by Service
Area
2
4
33
1
2
1
CEO
Community
0
1
Customer Services
1
Environmental Health
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
15
HR
0
1
Leisure
Planning
1
2
Property Services
1
1
2
Revenues
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
4
3
2
4
2
1
3
18
1
1
3
11
2
2
3
31
2
Strategic Housing
Tourism
Total
1
6
5
11
10
2
1
11
14
2
4
6
13
10
13
11
1
8
14
124
April
May
June
July
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
Total
Letters received
21
14
17
8
36
15
19
13
20
14
9
186
Letters responded to
within timescale
17
12
5
7
18
6
13
10
17
8
3
116
July
December
September
October
November
January
February
March
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
14
Complaints responded
to within timescale
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
12
24
Total
June
Complaints received
Ombudsman
Complaints
August
May
August
MP Letters
April
Environmental Health statistics do not include those complaints that go direct to the service area - these
are added to their own system (M3)
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
Total
4
5
6
10
3
4
1
1
2
1
40
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
Competence
Meeting or Exceeding
Service Delivery
Other
1
Service delivery
1
20
0
2
2
4
2
1
2
1
15
0
3
Timeliness
Total
1
Total
June
3
June
Attitude
May
Type of Compliments
April
No Of compliments
May
April
Compliments Received
4
1
0
3
4
5
6
25
10
3
1
4
1
1
2
1
40
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26 June 2012
Agenda Item No____18________
FINAL REPORT OF THE JOINT PUBLIC TRANSPORT TIME AND TASK LIMITED
PANEL
Summary:
This report introduces the final recommendations of the
joint Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
That Members consider the report and make any
recommendations to Cabinet or Full Council.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mary Howard, Democratic Services
Team Leader, Tel.01263 516047, mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The report, attached at Appendix B, summarises the outcomes of the Joint
Time and Task Limited Panel and made recommendations to the Overview
and Scrutiny Committee at Broadland District Council to endorse and
recommend to Cabinet.
1.2
The Joint Panel consisted of four Members from Broadland and four
Members from NNDC – Ms V R Gay, Mrs B A McGoun, Mr R Reynolds and
Mr T FitzPatrick. The Panel had met 6 times. During the review the Panel had
met with the Assistant Director of Travel and Transport Services at Norfolk
County Council as well as the Portfolio Holder for Planning and
Transportation. The Panel had also questioned parish and town councils,
community transport providers and bus operators (appendices C, D and E)
2.
Final Report
2.1
Recommendations
The report went to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Broadland
26
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26 June 2012
District Council on 29 May 2012. The recommendations covered matters that
were achievable for both District Councils and purposely avoided the more
strategic areas, where the County Council was the lead transport authority.
The recommendations were as follows:
a) The Council could do more to raise the profile of Community Transport
Schemes available including what the benefits are to using community
transport
b) Consider ring-fencing funding to support community transport
schemes and encourage new providers to come forward. Schemes
that would assist local businesses to pick up employees would be
particularly supported.
c) Provide supported funding or sponsorship to community transport
providers to obtain new vehicles
d) Ensure that transport providers are aware of the Bus Service
Operators Grant and help them to meet the criteria to apply
e) Ensure that Parish/Town Councils are informed with the correct
information about services available e.g. up to date bus timetables,
factsheets on SureStart services and how to access them, community
buses, particularly evening services and the Kickstart moped scheme;
and encourage them to disseminate the information proactively.
f)
The Council to support and encourage Community Transport
Providers to reach out to young people who need a service in the
evenings in order to attend groups/clubs/socialise with each other.
g) Persuade Bus Operators to provide double decker buses on the most
popular and logical routes to maximise patronage. For example X29
Norwich to Kings Lynn/Fakenham.
h) Provide bus timetables at local shops/village halls/central notice
boards/libraries/schools/doctors surgeries not just parish councils.
Providing the information where people are most likely to access.
Timetables for Bus Operators and times/contact information for
Community Transport Providers displayed together. This should
include information within the bus stops of which buses stop there.
i)
Relax criteria to achieve funding for community transport schemes,
providing bespoke support to applicants to help them to complete a
successful application form.
j)
District Councils to support Community Transport Providers with their
long-term running to enable the service to remain sustainable and
deliverable e.g. charitable trusts/cooperatives etc
k) District and County Councils to provide more positive advertising of
the uses of public transport and how to access it. This to also include
basic information operator information and a link to ‘Travel Line’ on the
Council’s website
27
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
l)
26 June 2012
Ask the Leader to write to the Government outlining the consultation
undertaken and request them to consider an alternative regulatory
framework and public transport funding systems that is accessible to
both voluntary sector and private sector.
m) The Council to encourage Bus Operators to provide safer collection
points in areas where the main roads are dangerous and instead take
the bus through village centres to collect patrons instead of bypasses
etc (where possible).
n) County/District/Parish or Town Councils to consult with communities
to fully identify their needs and find ways of providing community bus
sharing schemes and supporting voluntary drivers to provide the
service to begin with, for example through Neighbourhood Planning
exercises.
o) Negotiate with Bus Operators to be consistent in how they provide
information and what they include with it. A lot of information is
bundled together which do not relate and causes confusion.
p) Support and promote the new river ferry service being provided from
the old power station to Trowse (Broadland/City area).
q) Convey to any public transport provider that it is important for drivers
to be courteous, welcoming and helpful. These simple behaviours are
extremely valued by service users and can influence their use of the
service.
r) Encourage Community Transport Providers to use regular bus routes
in addition to providing bespoke trips for individuals.
s) Consider the provision of service delay information direct into bus
stations/bus stops and in addition, the Councils to provide those
updates on their social media outlets. This could be achieved through
partnership liaison with the Police, Fire Services, Highways Agency
and County Council.
2.2
Decision
Members agreed
(1)
to request that Cabinet endorse the recommendations above;
(2)
that a progress report be made to the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee in six months time and that Cabinet review the
recommendations in 12 months time to ensure implementation.
28
APPENDIX B
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
TIME AND TASK LIMITED PANEL PUBLIC TRANSPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Portfolio Holders: All
Wards Affected:
All
1
SUMMARY
1.1
In September 2011, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed that
Broadland Scrutiny Members would work jointly with Members from North
Norfolk District Council’s Scrutiny Committee to review public transport
arrangements for Broadland and North Norfolk. The joint Time and Task
Limited Panel met for the first time on the 26 October 2011.
1.2
This report provides the outcomes achieved by the Joint Time and Task
Limited Panel and conveys their recommendations for the Committee’s
endorsement.
2
BACKGROUND
2.1
The Time and Task Limited Panel were tasked to undertake the following:
•
Identify gaps in the public transport services provided (Bus, Rail and
Water)
•
Identify services that are under threat to continue or to be reduced
•
Conduct a Rural Proofing assessment which can be presented to the
County Council as evidence to support continuing services in rural areas
and where applicable invest in them
•
Review the impacts on access to the SureStart centre being set up in
Cawston, accounting for the cuts proposed to the bus services
•
Investigate access to bus stops in terms of older people and disabled
people capabilities, identifying possible improvements to be made
•
To identify specific problems with public transport services for the elderly
and the disabled
•
To investigate how opportunities for employment were restricted by
access to public transport in rural areas
29 May 2012
29
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
2.2
During their review the Panel have met with the Assistant Director Travel and
Transport Services, Tracey Jessop, from the County Council along with the
Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation, Graham Plant. They
discussed the proposed budget cuts and changes to bus services outlining to
them the potential impacts to communities, especially those within rural areas
already struggling with fair and reasonable access to services. The outcome
from the discussion was that Ms Jessop and Mr Plant took on board our
comments and fed them into the ongoing county consultation. Shortly
afterwards the proposed changes to bus service concessions for blind users
were withdrawn.
2.3
Three sets of questions were put together for three audience types:
Parish/Town Councils, Community Transport Providers and Bus Operators.
These sets of questions enabled the Panel to engage with various groups
about the impacts of bus services. The questions aimed to discover how
services are offered to the public and what challenges they face. The
feedback received was valuable; Community Transport Providers identified
that the priorities are identifying and maintaining a database of volunteers to
help deliver the service and achieving funding from the County Council and
District Councils.
2.4
Each Member of the Panel was allocated a Parish Council, a transport
provider and a bus operator to consult with. Evidence from those experiences
is appended to this report for information. Broadland Members have
contacted:
2.5
•
Norfolk LINk
•
City Boat river buses
•
Aylsham ACT
•
Anglian Buses
•
Coast Hopper
•
Norwich Dial a Ride
•
Parish Councils: Acle, Hevingham, Rackheath, Salhouse, Woodbastwick,
and Aylsham Town Council.
One Member contacted the Surestart Centre based in Cawston and was
informed that they do not expect service users to travel to Cawston, the centre
there is a ‘homing base’ for the Surestart staff who will deliver the service
across the district and visit the service users. After receiving this information
29 May 2012
30
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
it was agreed that there are no specific public transport concerns for this
centre or for service users accessing the service.
2.6
The Panel received a written briefing from the Norfolk Rural Community
Council Chief Executive, Jon Clemo, outlining what a rural proofing exercise
would consist of. The Panel were also informed that the NRCC are already
conducting a rural proofing exercise for the County Council contributing to
their overall review of bus services. To that end the Panel agreed that the
cost of the rural proofing exercise could not be justified and likely to duplicate
the information being gathered for the County Council. When the Panel met
with Ms Jessop she agreed to share the findings from the rural proofing report
that involve areas in Broadland and North Norfolk. This has been honoured
by the County Council and the information provided has been interesting but
not overly concerning.
2.7
Discussion regarding low level kerbs and raised kerbs at bus stops was
discussed at length with the County Council colleagues as well as assistance
for careers, mothers with pushchairs and blind people for getting onto buses.
Confirmation was given that the Capital Programme has restricted the
provision of raised kerbs in rural areas and given the increase in Demand
Responsive Transport (DRT) which picks up passengers from their homes
this has become a lower priority.
2.8
A copy of the Joint Panel’s project plan can be found with this report under
Appendix 1. The project plan outlines the activities of the panel in order to
achieve their objectives.
3
PROPOSED ACTION
3.1
Given all the information the Panel has learnt over the past 7 months, their
collective recommendations can be summarised as:
a) The Council could do more to raise the profile of Community Transport
Schemes available including what the benefits are to using community
transport
b) Consider ring-fencing funding to support community transport schemes
and encourage new providers to come forward. Schemes that would
assist local businesses to pick up employees would be particularly
supported.
c) Provide supported funding or sponsorship to community transport
providers to obtain new vehicles
d) Ensure that transport providers are aware of the Bus Service Operators
29 May 2012
31
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Grant and help them to meet the criteria to apply
e) Ensure that Parish/Town Councils are informed with the correct
information about services available e.g. up to date bus timetables,
factsheets on SureStart services and how to access them, community
buses, particularly evening services and the Kickstart moped scheme;
and encourage them to disseminate the information proactively.
f) The Council to support and encourage Community Transport Providers
to reach out to young people who need a service in the evenings in
order to attend groups/clubs/socialise with each other.
g) Persuade Bus Operators to provide double decker buses on the most
popular and logical routes to maximise patronage. For example X29
Norwich to Kings Lynn/Fakenham.
h) Provide bus timetables at local shops/village halls/central notice
boards/libraries/schools/doctors surgeries not just parish councils.
Providing the information where people are most likely to access.
Timetables for Bus Operators and times/contact information for
Community Transport Providers displayed together. This should
include information within the bus stops of which buses stop there.
i) Relax criteria to achieve funding for community transport schemes,
providing bespoke support to applicants to help them to complete a
successful application form.
j) District Councils to support Community Transport Providers with their
long-term running to enable the service to remain sustainable and
deliverable e.g. charitable trusts/cooperatives etc
k) District and County Councils to provide more positive advertising of the
uses of public transport and how to access it. This to also include basic
information operator information and a link to ‘Travel Line’ on the
Council’s website
l) Ask the Leader to write to the Government outlining the consultation
undertaken and request them to consider an alternative regulatory
framework and public transport funding systems that is accessible to
both voluntary sector and private sector.
m) The Council to encourage Bus Operators to provide safer collection
points in areas where the main roads are dangerous and instead take
the bus through village centres to collect patrons instead of bypasses
etc (where possible).
29 May 2012
32
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
n) County/District/Parish or Town Councils to consult with communities to
fully identify their needs and find ways of providing community bus
sharing schemes and supporting voluntary drivers to provide the
service to begin with, for example through Neighbourhood Planning
exercises.
o) Negotiate with Bus Operators to be consistent in how they provide
information and what they include with it. A lot of information is
bundled together which do not relate and causes confusion.
p) Support and promote the new river ferry service being provided from
the old power station to Trowse (Broadland/City area).
q) Convey to any public transport provider that it is important for drivers to
be courteous, welcoming and helpful. These simple behaviours are
extremely valued by service users and can influence their use of the
service.
r) Encourage Community Transport Providers to use regular bus routes
in addition to providing bespoke trips for individuals.
s) Consider the provision of service delay information direct into bus
stations/bus stops and in addition, the Councils to provide those
updates on their social media outlets. This could be achieved through
partnership liaison with the Police, Fire Services, Highways Agency
and County Council.
3.2
Members of the Panel consulted with various community transport providers
and Parish Councils using a set of agreed questions, for information those
questions are included with this report as Appendix 2. Given the responses
received from those organisations as listed under paragraph 2.4, Members
feel that the level of responses was representative and the Panel extended
their sincere thanks to all those who contributed to this review. A summary of
all responses received accompanies this report under Appendix 3.
4
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
4.1
There are minimal resource implications within this report. The delivery of
recommendations to improve advertising and raising awareness will require
officer time, any literature about available services or grants or volunteer
schemes can be included within existing Council publications like Broadland
News and Parish Pages and Broadland Business Focus. Leaflets from
community transport providers could be obtain from the providers directly and
supplied at community events across Broadland or relevant to those operator
areas at no cost to the Council.
29 May 2012
33
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
5
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1
There are no legal implications associated with this report.
6
CONCLUSION
6.1
In conclusion the Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to support the
below recommendations agreed by the Joint Time and Task Limited Panel
and refer them onto Cabinet for adoption.
7
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
The Panel wish for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to accept the
following recommendations:
a) The Committee to agree the recommendations outlined under 3.1 in this
report and ask the Cabinet to endorse them
or
b) The Committee to agreed alternative recommendations asking the Cabinet
to endorse them
or
c) The Committee ask the Time and Task Limited Panel to revisit their review
and find an alternative conclusion
and
d) The Committee to recommend to Cabinet that the delivery of these
recommendations is reviewed in 12 months time to ensure implementation
Councillor P Balcombe
Chairman of Joint Time and Task Limited Panel Public Transport
Background Papers
Minutes from the Joint Time and Task Limited Panel 26 October 2011, 21 November
2011, 11 January 2012, 8 February 2012, 21 March 2012 and 25 April 2012.
29 May 2012
34
Overview & Scrutiny Committee
For further information on this report call Stacy Cosham on (01603) 430567 or
e-mail stacy.cosham@broadland.gov.uk
29 May 2012
35
APPENDIX C
Appendix 2 – Public Transport Review. Questions
Time and Task Limited Panel – Review of Public Transport
Questions submitted to stakeholders and organisations
To the Public and/or Parish Councils:
1. In your opinion what are the good and bad aspects of public transport in
Broadland/North Norfolk? (delete as appropriate)
2. How do you see a way forward to get people to use public transport?
3. How could we improve our current system of public transport in Broadland/North
Norfolk? (delete as appropriate)
4. When you think about public transport what do think about most – bus, rail,
community schemes, car sharing, water buses or something else?
5. Other than the cost of travel, what do you feel is the most problematic element of
using public transport?
6. How do you think that problem(s) could be overcome and by who?
7. What do you think of the quality of public transport in Broadland/North Norfolk
today? (delete as appropriate)
8. In your opinion, what is the role of the District Council in helping rural communities
gain access to bus services?
To Community Transport Operators:
1. Community Transport projects are heavily reliant on volunteers; has your scheme
witnessed any problems with recruitment and retention?
2. Do you believe the proposed changes in the Transport Bill may help address these
problems?
3. Aside from volunteer recruitment and retention issues, are there any other problems
that you frequently encounter?
4. Do you engage with other similar schemes operating in the County?
5. How do you promote your community transport scheme to the community?
6. How do you fund the scheme within your area, including the promotion, service
operation and purchasing of new vehicles?
7. In your experience what are the main problems that established schemes
encounter?
8. How willing do you find local groups are to be involved with community transport
projects?
9. If these services ceased to operate, what would be the implication for people living
in these communities?
10. How do community-based schemes fund the purchase of vehicles, and have any of
them experienced difficulties in raising the necessary capital?
11. Do you believe the funding of community based schemes could be simplified at a
local and national level?
12. Are there any community based transport schemes either in Broadland/North
Norfolk or from another area that you feel are particularly successful?
36
Appendix 2 – Public Transport Review. Questions
a. If so, can you explain why these groups have succeeded?
13. What do you think the District Council could do to assist the sustainability and future
of community transport?
To Private Sector Operators
1. Public transport is often seen as the ‘last resort’ option; what do you think could be
done to improve the public perception of public transport and, therefore, increase
patronage?
2. Cost is frequently raised as a barrier to using public transport, especially for
younger people, how can this situation be improved?’
3. Why have there been so few cases of subsidised routes becoming commercial,
enabling the subsidy money to be reinvested into other routes?’
4. To what extent do the operators see themselves as competitors to each other as
distinct from colleagues with a common aim of maximising ridership?
5. What do operators think they could do better than they do now?
6. Do you engage with other transport schemes operating in the County?
7. What could the District Council do differently to what we do now that would help to
increase patronage of your service?
To County Council Planning and Transportation Department Manager and Portfolio
Holder:
1. Please can you brief the panel on progress that has been made against the service
review since July 2011
2. Please confirm whether bus services in rural areas have moved towards a more
Demand Response Transport model?
3. How will you continue to encourage bus use when making the many necessary
cuts? Please demonstrate with an example
a. Is there evidence that it is no longer viable for some people to work as a
result of the cuts to services?
4. What has been the impact on disabled workers since the changes to concessionary
fare times?
a. How are you supporting disabled people to access their employment through
other means e.g. bespoke community transport?
5. What specific savings have been made since making the changes to the terms of
concessionary fares?
6. What have been the achievements or progress made by the Community Transport
Provider Forum since its creation?
7. Is it possible to distinguish between disabled and elderly bus pass users?
a. Can it be established what groups are more reliant on the service?
8. Any plans for a bus usage audit to determine how many users are disabled and the
frequency of their use – monitored over a set period of weeks?
37
Appendix 2 – Public Transport Review. Questions
9. Could you please provide the Equality Impact Assessment carried out after
consultation to highlight any outcomes or actions arising from it
10. What has been the outcome from the volunteer driver campaign?
a. How will these numbers be maintained?
b. How will additional volunteer schemes continue to be facilitated?
11. Can you provide a list of which organisations are accessing the £480k ring-fenced
funding for Community Transport?
12. What is the status of the Norfolk Community Transport Association – has it been
endorsed?
a. If not, when is it likely to be set up?
13. What efforts are being made to link them into existing community transport forums?
E.g. Community Rail Partnership?
14. Can you demonstrate any impacts on retail businesses since the closure of park
and rides in Postwick and Costessey, late night restrictions of use?
15. Can you demonstrate the impacts of the closure of public amenities at park and
rides e.g. complaints received from bus users?
38
APPENDIX D
Appendix 3 Public Transport Review
Summary of Stakeholder Responses
Parish Councils
Respondent
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
Horning Parish
Council (NNDC)
What's good? Well, it
exists! If only in a
small way. The bus is
not too expensive.
There are
concessionary fares.
What's bad? Services
are not coordinated to
link with each other.
Provision is by
competition, not need.
Bus and rail are not
coordinated
Fakenham Town
Council (NNDC)
The infrequency of the
bus service and no
alternative i.e. rail etc.
The Coasthopper bus
appears to be very
popular
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
It has to be improved
and integrated better,
a service to the rail
station in Norwich and
the airport, and better
facilities in the buses
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
Coordinate as above.
All providers should
be able to sell a
"through ticket" which
would cover bus and
rail. (In Switzerland
we can buy tickets
which will cover all
parts of the journey
rail, boat, bus from the
rail station) More
publicity of timetables,
both on the route and
for connections.
Flexible "put down
stops". More bus
shelters, even modest
ones! Overall services
need to be more user
friendly
By looking at
integration
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Bus firstly then rail
Public Transport –
means rail and
community transport
39
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Select from previous
answer!
By getting all
providers together to
address the problems.
This would have to be
driven by NNDC.
Like the Curate's egg,
parts of it are
excellent, but it
doesn't hang together.
See 6 above and by
giving such support as
is possible.
Lack of transport after
a certain time in the
evening, if visiting the
theatre etc.
Very difficult in these
new austere times,
with finance tight. An
entrepreneur is
required, someone
like Virgin boss, who
can invest without
worrying if some
routes do not make a
profit initially
The quality is
reasonable it caters
for wheelchairs, etc.
but should have
facilities on board
As an enabler and
collation of information
Respondent
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
North Walsham Parish
Transport to and from
Council (NNDC)
Norwich is a strength;
transport to villages is
a weakness
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
Frequency and
integration are the
keys to persuading
more people to use
public transport.
Better technology and
clean bus shelters
would be an
improvement. "No
one wants to wait in
the rain for a bus that
may or may not
arrive". The
technology would
allow people to check
the whereabouts of
their bus. Whereas
this technology is now
commonplace in
urban areas, it's most
needed in the
countryside.
The verdict on this
was divided between
buses and trains, both
of which we have in
North Walsham. The
view was expressed
that older people think
in terms of buses, and
try to organize their
travel around them, as
they are free and
more likely to take you
into the centre of a
town or city.
The most problematic
elements of public
transport are
frequency, reliability
and, in relation to
buses, the attitude of
some drivers which
can be brusque and
unhelpful.
As above, the
provision is better in
market towns than in
villages, where it can
be non existent.
Here it was suggested
that while district
councils have no
direct responsibility for
transport, they might
lobby more vigorously
and, in particular, they
might do a better job
of understanding the
services in their area
and monitoring them.
40
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Respondent
Aylsham Town
Council (BDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
Good
Fares – joint ticketing
using Bure Valley
Railway, currently
being explored
following Urban
Delivery report
approved BDC
cabinet. Day tickets
More services into the
villages – especially
early morning for
commuters. Would
save residents coming
into towns to “park
and catch the bus”
and would therefore
leave more car
parking for shoppers.
Better service to
NNUH other than
having to go into and
out of Norwich – many
people in this area
rely heavily on
Aylsham Care Trust
voluntary drivers
Predominantly bus,
but it is possible – if
you have time – to get
from Aylsham to
Norwich by train,
using the Bure Valley
Railway and
connecting to Poppy
line at Wroxham. Car
sharing does happen,
more should be made
of the liftshare
scheme. Community
buses are a lifeline in
the villages for
shopping trips.
Kickstart scheme that
provides mopeds has
assisted people in
rural areas to travel to
employment more
cheaply, especially if
in younger age groups
where cost of cars –
and in particularly
insurance – are very
high in comparison
with wages for
inexperienced workers
or those in lower
skilled posts
Timings – other than
from main centres.
E.g. I live in
Banningham and work
in Aylsham – this is
not possible by public
transport especially if
add evening meeting
requirements into the
mix. Lack of use of
services through
villages has led to
their demise. Fuel
costs may reverse this
trend
More “joined up
thinking” – liaison
between authorities at
all levels, community
groups, and the
voluntary sector.
“Grow Your
Community” project
(BDC) with focus on
Aylsham has collated
information in this way
Service and quality
good from main
points, not so from the
villages, although
easier to access if
drive into Aylsham,
park and pick up the
bus
Regular daily service
from Aylsham to
Norwich and Aylsham
to Cromer. Also
service to North
Walsham using bus
that goes to Paston
college and does
come through some of
the villages en route
Sanders coaches
to/from Carrow Road
on matchdays are
very popular! Now
use a double decker
service – used to be
single decker. Also
accepts
concessionary
passes!
Bad
From a NorthNorfolk
perspective, it is
difficult to get to
Norwich and Cromer
direct – people can
wait by the roadside
on the A140, but this
is dangerous. For
both Broadland and
NorthNorfolk, buses to
and from North
Walsham are
infrequent.
North Norfolk –
regular through
services to
Norwich/Cromer
Better service to N
Walsham and across
county – especially
with relocation of
some hospital
services from
Aylsham to N
Walsham
With particular
reference to the relocation of SureStart
from Aylsham to
Cawston – access to
the office will be
difficult other than by
car
Cannot easily use
public transport to
work unless working
in Norwich/Cromer
Evening services
could be improved
41
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
The “Grow Your
Community” project in
Aylsham has already
started to expand the
District Council’s role
as a facilitator.
Respondent
Acle Parish Council
(BDC)
Barshams (NNDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
Some main towns and
villages have excellent
public transport e.g.
Acle. Smaller
communities often
served by much fewer
services with much
longer journey times
as bus routes seek to
maximise passenger
numbers at the
expense of useful
journey times
Address points 1 and
Transport must be
2 above
available at the times
people want to use
them. Commuters
need to know they can
either get to work or to
another transport hub
at the beginning and
end of the day and
shoppers need
services that allow
them the choice of
more than one service
out of and back to
their starting point.
Bus and rail; how
good the park and ride
services are for
people able to access
them
Access to services
from rural locations.
Rather than providing
long rural routes that
go right into Norwich
maybe shorter route
services from rural
locations into the Park
and Ride sites could
be an answer then
increase the number
of buses from the
Park & Ride sites.
ALL problems can be
overcome with the
right amount of
funding or the better
distribution of existing
budgets. This will
involve all financial
contributors to the
transport 'pot'. Maybe
there are some new
contributors available?
How about major
employers who could
benefit from their staff
access to public
transport making
some contibution
possibly in the form of
company subsidised
season tickets
Good, where people
have access to
transport, West and
North Barsham have
none.
People use it where it
is available.
Local access
Public consultation
Good points are
frequency of buses
in/around Fakenham.
Bad point is that
double deck buses
should be used on
X29 to Norwich and
aren’t!
Public transport exists
to Norwich and
King’sLynn, but have
to get the 4 miles to
Fakenham first.
Difficult as it is likely
that buses coming to
smaller villages would
not be cost effective.
BUS, the nearest train
station is 20 miles
away, sadly.
Extension of NNR and
MNR to create the
Norfolk Orbital
Railway
Go to more places
and with times
suitable for all.
Nothing to Swaffham
etc
Pick up points,
Inconvenient times,
Delays
Bus firms.
Government needs to
invest more in
Railways!
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Generally good.
Ensuring the
provision of suitable
transport services by
liaison with other
providers, NCC bus
companies etc. and
funding provision of
services and ticket
schemes where
appropriate and
affordable. The
District Council should
NOT pursue in any
form at all wasteful but
possibly vote winning
transport schemes of
any sort
Good where it exists,
but many villages do
not have public
transport.
Impossible to please
all, but fuel costs are
now so high that some
pensioners
will be forced to stay
at home as they
cannot access public
transport
on foot.
X29 Fakenham to
Norwich/29 to King’s
Lynn. Frankly, poor.
Being able to get out
of their homes is the
only social
contact some people
have in their lives, and
allow them to maintain
their
independence
Survey the
prospective use of
transport to see what
is needed.
Give rural
communities
timetables etc so that
potential users are
aware of what exists
currently
42
Respondent
Great Snoring
(NNDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
No good points except
ramps installed for
wheelchairs but no
buses
Buses need to be
regular so people can
use them everyday to
go to and from work
More regular services
should be provided so
people want to use
them
Bus, mainly rail but it
is necessary to go in a
car in order to be able
to go on a train
Lack of flexibility
Poor
There is no public
transport in Great
Snoring
Provide transport to
this village
Pilot bus/taxis that go
off-route on request
etc. Carry out surveys
to see if that is more
cost-effective for the
operators.
Some rarely use
public transport since
the hub for accessing
it is nearly three miles
away
You need more buses
at more times, but if
people don’t use them
then they won’t run,
so the solution is in
our hands
It is really a county
level problem, so
although the district
councils can comment
it is a county problem
Difficult to get any
public transport
information
Better marketing and
information relating to
the services which do
exist
Remove the subsidy
for bus passes (over
60s) on the Coast
Hopper and re-direct
the funds to rural
buses
The fact that it takes
an extra three hours
to get to where you
want if you go by
public transport
The necessity to drive
to the bus stop (2½ to
3½ miles away) or the
train (25 miles to
either mainline
station) and then have
to park
Try to find effective
private enterprise
alternatives
Needs a complete rethink by both national
and local government.
A 100% increase in
council tax for 2nd
homes and the
removal of the subsidy
from the Coast
Hopper would help
funding issues
Little public transport
and it is limited.
Use powers to alter
funding and raise new
funding from 2nd home
increase in council
tax.
Use council powers
and lobbying abilities
to central government,
to make the regulatory
framework easier,
within which the
private operators run
the system.
Reduce bureaucracy.
Give operators the tax
breaks they need etc.
Realise that councils
will not be able to do
anything themselves,
as they do not run
buses and trains
43
Respondent
Walsingham (NNDC)
In your opinion what
are the good and
bad aspects of
public transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
How do you see a
way forward to get
people to use public
transport?
How could we
improve our current
system of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk?
Good: Coast
Hopper service –
Norfolk Green to be
congratulated on
this excellent
example of a
regular, reliable
service, using clean,
level-entry buses,
driven by courteous
and considerate
drivers.
Provide more
appropriate bus
services in rural
locations. Make
savings on main
routes by reviewing
timetables where
services are
unjustifiably
frequent, or which
duplicate routes,
e.g. Sheringham /
Holt, Sheringham /
Cromer.
(Please see item 2
above)
Bad: Sanders
buses – at best
unable to tick many
of the foregoing
boxes.
Loss of subsidy for
community transport
from County to
provide transport to
Heritage House at
Wells means that
many elderly are
unable to attend the
Day Centre
When you think
about public
transport what do
think about most –
bus, rail, community
schemes, car
sharing, water buses
or something else?
Other than the cost
of travel, what do
you feel is the most
problematic element
of using public
transport?
How do you think
that problem(s)
could be overcome
and by who?
Buses
The lack of positive
advertising to bring
awareness of the
many benefits of
using public
transport. As fuel
costs rise this is
particularly poignant
Market research to
(As 1 above)
establish which
routes and
timetables would be
supported, together
with wide publicity
about the purpose of
the exercise.
Involve all
stakeholders, i.e.
NCC, NNDC, Parish
/ Town Councils
Charge fees to outof-county bus pass
holders who use
buses in Norfolk –
this is especially
applicable to the
Coast Hopper buses
that get
overcrowded with
pensioners on
holiday in North
Norfolk
What do you think of
the quality of public
transport in
Broadland/North
Norfolk today?
In your opinion,
what is the role of
the District Council
in helping rural
communities gain
access to bus
services?
Any initiative would
be welcomed.
Isolation of the old
and the worst off
when transport is
not provided and
any initiatives which
would allow them to
keep in touch with
the wider world
would be useful
Provide at least a
limited service for
villages which no
longer enjoy any
form of public
transport
General Comments made:
Horning Parish
Council (NNDC)
As oil prices rise and £ v $ continues to deteriorate, the cost of personal transport will become out of reach for many in the rural community. Furthermore, carbon emissions from single occupancy
cars will become unsustainable. Although now is not an opportune time to act, it is now that we need to start the planning for the next decade. This will to include the structure of provision and
publicity to change the perception of public transport. How about a few free "try it" tickets? Whatever you think, do it now! (Or at least soon)
North Walsham
Parish Council –
footnote
The mayor and the deputy mayor shared the view that public transport was of great importance and that it would be a good thing if more people were to use it. They believe, as do many others in
the town, that we need a later train on Friday and Saturday nights on the Bittern Line. They are both passionate advocates of the North Walsham Area Community Transport Association and
believe it to be a great asset for North Walsham and its surrounding villages. They would like to see its services increased rather than reduced. One of the interviewees commented that
community transport is often regarded as a service for the elderly, but that its long term survival would depend on its extending its work in the direction of young people.
Kettleston (NNDC)
I find it difficult to answer this questionnaire under these headings, but I reply in case what I say can be sifted for useful facts or opinions.
I am retired, living alone, without a car for the last three years, in Kettlestone. The village now has two buses a week running through it – on Thursday to Fakenham and back (three years ago it had,
I think, six a day) – and on the main road, about half a mile from my house, there is the hourly service between Holt and Fakenham. I use the Thursday bus regularly for shopping. The Thursday bus
is also used fairly regularly or occasionally by two or three other villagers. I also sometimes catch the bus on the main road if I want to travel further afield, and that, though it usually picks up or
drops passengers from Little Snoring, is seldom, as far as I know, used by people from Kettlestone, at least not at the times I use it.
At the moment I am more like a hermit than a gadabout and I adapt to what is available. But I can see that if I were less able or were someone with greater family commitments the present supply of
public transport would be difficult, intolerable or impossible. There is a circle by which poor service makes for fewer users and fewer users encourage a poorer service, as I think has happened in
Kettlestone – though the bus companies' records and the councils who contract with them may well be able to point out that the Kettlestone service was not well used when it was generous – but I
44
suspect it would take a lot of persuasiveness and time to make any service attractive to those who have become used to making their own arrangements.
It has become the fashion to say that there is no money in a very rich country, that we can't afford it and therefore something must be reduced or abandoned. There was a time, I think, when we
debated what was desirable and, when we agreed on that, then decided how and to what extent we could afford it; and I think that was a better way to do things. Why should there be a rural bus
service? Is it hoped to encourage use widespread enough to be an alternative or preferable to private cars, or is it intended to provide some mobility for those who would otherwise be limited? If it is
the latter, as I am sure it is, then Kettlestone is minimally served , but I do not know that a small improvement would be much appreciated or used.
I do not expect much change to be made from a personal beef, but here it is. By careful planning and exact timing, and maybe some luck, I could get to Norwich or Wells and back, but the current
service makes it easy enough for me to get only to Fakenham or Holt, Lynn or Cromer; and I should appreciate a rejigging of routes and timetables to widen my horizon. The route from Cromer to
Lynn was once run by one company and it was possible to have through tickets on the same bus. But now that the route has been divided I have to change, and sometimes wait, at Fakenham. The
connection between the services is now guaranteed one way only and when the bus from Lynn to Fakenham was delayed I have missed my bus to Little Snoring by a few minutes and had to wait
an hour for the next.
Rackheath `Parish
Council (BDC)
Woodbastwick Parish
Council (BDC)
The Parish Clerk to Rackheath also serving Salhouse was unable to gather information within the time allowed however, I have spoken to a couple of Parish Councillors for Salhouse who were
prepared to state that public transport appears to be satisfactory in the morning and the afternoon but is sadly lacking in the evening. Due to cutbacks. Speak to Councillor S. Buckle for a full
explanation
The Clerk to the Woodbastwick Parish Council states that public transport is unknown in this area and she has no information as to anybody requiring it
Community Transport Operators
Respondent
North Walsham Area
Community Transport
Association (NWACTA)
Community Transport
projects are heavily reliant
on volunteers; has your
scheme witnessed any
problems with recruitment
and retention?
You are right that NWACTA
is heavily dependant on
volunteers as are most other
CT schemes in Norfolk
including community car
schemes. The available
“pool” of good volunteers has
been shrinking for some
years, as we demand higher
standards of training and
more rigorous vetting. We
have recently been fortunate
to benefit from an NCC/RDC
initiative, which brought us 3
good people. It is important
not to have too many
because if not used they drift
away. Driving for CT is an
excellent voluntary activity
where people can see the
result of their labours in the
vulnerable people they help
Do you believe the
proposed changes in the
Transport Bill may help
address these problems?
Aside from volunteer
recruitment and retention
issues, are there any other
problems that you
frequently encounter?
Do you engage with other
similar schemes operating
in the County?
How do you promote your
community transport
scheme to the community?
As you know the government
have been pushing to get the
voluntary sector to take over
more public sector provision.
It’s a good deal for the
government because we take
no profits and pay no
shareholders. Also it reduces
the amount the sector needs
in funding. (See question 6)
Most of the recent changes
to the transport act, for
example enabling CT
schemes to register routes
which carry the general
public (around here it’s
Poppy bus) are towards this
end.
Most problems are covered
in other questions however
for the CT sector across
Norfolk to survive and work
together we will probably
need some standardisation of
methods and charges. NCC
are setting up a county wide
forum which hopefully will
address these issues.
Yes we do and we have a
national body the Community
Transport Association, which
lobbies the government for
not-for-profit transport
providers and keeps up with
new legislation. Locally I
chaired a North and West
Norfolk Transport Forum for
a number of years concerned
with sharing good practise
and campaigning for the
sector.
Our problem is that we have
not sufficient human
resources to continually
promote our activities. New
services are advertised using
what media we can and a
good splash can get us
started with a dozen or so
new members but over time
the numbers reduce and we
have the unfortunate fact that
our buses are going through
villages where there is need,
but the people don’t know
they can get on our bus.
45
How do you fund the
scheme within your area,
including the promotion,
service operation and
purchasing of new
vehicles?
Traditionally CT schemes
benefited from local authority
support for their core funding
mixed with capital and
revenue grants from
organisations such as the
Rural Development
Commission then later the
Countryside Agency for
project funding. These
agencies no longer exist and
the Lottery has all but
withdrawn recently (in my
opinion) so CT schemes and
the voluntary sector in
general are resorting to
adopting the business model
of trying to generate budget
surpluses by taking on
contract activity.
Continued Questions…..
In your experience what
are the main problems that
established schemes
encounter?
How willing do you find
local groups are to be
involved with community
transport projects?
If these services ceased to
operate, what would be the
implication for people
living in these
communities?
North Walsham Area
Community Transport
Association (NWACTA)
It is going to get worse for
rurally isolated people as
more cuts are made to the
rural bus subsidy and less
public transport is available
to them. NNDC should help
us to spread the word that,
as much as possible, CT can
help people get to essential
services
While there is an acceptance
that public transport in rural
areas needs ongoing subsidy
to operate, community
transport is seen as having a
lower cost base because of
the use of unpaid volunteers.
In my experience there has
always been reluctance from
funding bodies to invest in
core activities. Some CT
schemes employ staff to
provide their services and all
of them suffer from ever
higher running costs and an
inability to replace vehicles
CT provides low cost
transport solutions for many
groups supporting
vulnerable people across all
disciplines and there is good
interaction between
organisations
How do community-based
schemes fund the
purchase of vehicles, and
have any of them
experienced difficulties in
raising the necessary
capital?
The criteria for using free
(PTS) hospital transport have
recently been tightened
leaving many more people
stranded. CT schemes
including community car
schemes will try and help but
can only do so much. Any
reduction in these important
door to door services will
increase feelings of isolation
and social exclusion and
reduce health well being for
vulnerable people
Do you believe the funding
of community based
schemes could be
simplified at a local and
national level?
Are there any community
based transport schemes
either in Broadland/North
Norfolk or from another
area that you feel are
particularly successful?
Pressure on district and
county budgets will impact on
support for the voluntary
sector in the coming years.
Better evidence of the value
and social return derived
from demand responsive,
accessible transport will help
the sector to survive. The
Government have dedicated
some money to county
councils to help build
sustainability in community
transport and we look
forward to seeing how this is
spent
What do you think the District Council could do to assist the sustainability and future of community transport?
This question was not answered
General Comments
Norwich River Bus Service
In brief a proposed ferry service from a regeneration site, once occupied by the electricity power station across the River Wensum to a development site in Trowse, standing in for bridge.
The ferry service has plans to carry passengers from Trowse to New Mills( near to Oak Street Norwich) and return. Dredging by New Mills ( the turning point for the ferry service) is proving to
be a sticky point with the Norwich City Council and the Broads Authority
46
Private Companies
Norfolk Green on behalf of Coasthopper Service
These responses are global views but with specific reference to Coasthopper, 29, X8 and X29, all of which provide core transport services in North Norfolk. 1. Public transport is often seen as the ‘last resort’ option; what do you think
could be done to improve the public perception of public transport and,
therefore, increase patronage?
Insofar as we are concerned I cannot accept that our routes are seen as the choice of
last resort, although I accept that the political perception is misguidedly so. Given that
our fare-paying (ie not free travel over-60s) customer base is consistently growing by
between 8% and 15% a year, there are two scenarios that are causing this. Firstly, that
there is a striking growth in deprivation in the area (of which I see no evidence) or that
the premise behind this question is arguable or wrong.
We achieve this growth by tailoring service patterns and offers to meet demand, and
then advertising our product as widely as we can afford, putting a higher percentage of
overall spend into advertising than does the industry generally
2. Cost is frequently raised as a barrier to using public transport, especially for
younger people, how can this situation be improved?’
We have a policy of charging affordable fares. Our preference has always been for fuller
buses at lower fares as we believe that that serves the market best.
According to concessionary reimbursement consultants MCL (first employed by the
Districts when responsible for reimbursement) and now the County as it moved to being
their responsibility, our fares are adult 25% below the average of the County's other
operators.
We have provided a universal 20% off for all 16 to 19 year olds across our network
since 2005. This is at all times, not just for those in education, and is based on a no-ID
card basis. We were first in the UK to do so, and now at last some other operators are
starting to follow suit.
The combination of our adult fare policy and this means that the cost of travel for a 16 to
19 year old on our buses is about 40% below the average of other operators in the
county who do not offer such a discount.
Insofar as our business model is concerned, therefore, I do not believe that there is
much of an issue (we receive very little comment to that effect) and I think there is little
more that we can reasonably and affordably do.
3. Why have there been so few cases of subsidised routes becoming
commercial, enabling the subsidy money to be reinvested into other routes?’
I don't accept this in respect of our operations, with two general exceptions below. Nor
do I recognise the point nationally. Insofar as our operations are concerned, in the past
two years we have commercialised a number of routes or part-routes that have saved
the three County Councils with which we contract a total of £0.5m between them. If the
Counties have decided, as they mostly have, to not reinvest the savings, that is a matter
for them to answer for.
Further, the Panel should not ignore that as passenger revenues rise from increased
ridership, so, as contracts are re-tendered at five year intervals, this leads to real term
reductions in the contract price, accruing further savings to the county concerned. So
even if the route remains contracted, it doesn't mean that the County does not benefit; it
is a matter of taking a series of steps towards commerciality.
47
There are two general exceptions. One is, as in April 2012 and again in April 2013,
central government decides to change the rules to force up our operating costs (eg the
reduction in grant from this April to offset part of the fuel duty paid on bus routes, which
has increased duty by 58% this month). Secondly, if an operator is marketing its
services so as to grow passengers, government requires local authorities not to fully
reimburse operators for new free travellers thereby generated.
As a consequence these types of measures by government militate against
commercialization
4. To what extent do the operators see themselves as competitors to each other
as distinct from colleagues with a common aim of maximising ridership?
The answer is both but with a much heavier bias towards being competitors with each
other. There is a widely held belief in the industry that this is not right but it results from
excessive attention to the industry over a lot of years. Only last December, the
Competition Commission concluded the most major inquiry into the market ever
undertaken, and, controversially concluded that buses do not compete with other forms
of transport, rather they compete within a distinct market of bus users.
I do not accept this any more than my industry colleagues, but the corporate and
personal penalties for ignoring it by co-operating with each other "too much", which can
lead to fines of 10% of company turnover, are disproportionate and excessive. Further,
the industry regulator, in a case in Wales, has fairly recently then determined that the
named person on the Operator Licence may not be a fit and proper person to run a bus
company and barred from doing so for up to life.
These draconian and largely unnecessary European requirements ensure that
operators are extremely cautious about what the authorities might, in retrospect,
determine to be undue and therefore anti-competitive co-operation
5. What do operators think they could do better than they do now?
There are many things that operators could do better, so long as they can afford to do
them better. However, as an industry we do not exist in a vacuum. The past decade
was characterised by central government consistently and repeatedly increasing costs
through excessive regulatory zeal, impacting all labour-intensive industries (such as
NHS, Royal Mail and buses) negatively. Now, the current government is busy stripping
out subsidy, creating a double hit. Reducing profits in this way feeds through to reduced
investment, whether in hardware such as fleet, or innovation in service design and
pricing.
The method central government requires for free travel reimbursement also impacts.
The Department for Transport issued a press statement only last month crowing that it
had changed how we are paid, and congratulating itself on the windfall (its words) it had
created for local authorities. That windfall simply means less investment by operators.
Few businesses in any sector will invest in "doing things better" in such a massively
hostile trading environment created by elected representatives (actually mostly by the
European Commission).
Further, all the public signals sent by government are pro-motorist, and added to
decisions by them not to invest capital in bus schemes for rural areas, leads to the
conclusion that private motoring is the preferred means of rural transportation
48
6. Do you engage with other transport schemes operating in the County?
We do, to the extent that they exist, but in practice it is to a very limited extent indeed
7. What could the District Council do differently to what we do now that would
help to increase patronage of your service?
District Councils have responsibility for well-being policies, planning and parking
policies.
In the matter of the first mentioned, they are uniquely placed to use their powers to
maximise use of buses, which are now largely easy access design, including for
wheelchairs, by minimising use of taxis or non-emergency ambulances for outpatient
clinic or hospital visits.
As the planning authority, your guidance to developers is crucially important. It is my
experience that ensuring that private sector developers are guided appropriately but
that this rarely is the case for public sector developments, from village surgeries to
district council offices, which are increasingly not well located with regards to either
existing bus routes or sustainable new ones. The North Norfolk District offices at
Cromer are possibly the most extreme example of this.
The local framework plans set the scene, and I noted in the North Norfolk draft plan no
regard was had for local bus service provision or termini, rather it majored only on
parking capacity and protecting land for a future possible rail route, sending a very clear
signal to bus operators that their contribution to the local economy, or environmental
improvement, was not wanted. This does nothing to encourage investment.
As the parking authority, you face conflicting pressures from raising revenue for
yourselves and from businesses wanting below-cost or free parking as a means of
boosting their businesses. Whichever level of parking charge is chosen, there is rarely
or ever any regard for the impact on the sustainability of local bus services. On the
Coasthopper route there is also the matter of restricting parking in places where local
bus service punctuality or access can be severely undermined, such as at Salthouse
and Cley. Whilst this may be a highway authority (ie County Council) matter, there is
scope for the Districts to be much more proactive.
In all these three areas, Districts could do significantly more to assist retention of local
bus services to the benefit of local residents
49
50
51
52
APPENDIX E
Time and Task Limited Panel – Public Transport
Project Plan the Public Transport Review
Which specific areas will be the focus for the Panels review?
Fakenham, North Walsham, Acle and Coltishall.
Cross country routes such as Beighton, Upton and Woodbastwick and between Aylsham and Wroxham.
What type information is to be collected?
Diagrammatic map of bus services across the districts, routes by operator, which services are subsidised by County Council, how is the
subsidy apportioned, who uses public transport? (demographic and socio-economic profiles), figures for concessionary fares across the
two districts, policies of transport companies.
Which operators do you wish to meet with?
To meet with operators after an initial meeting with a transportation officer from the County Council
• Norwich Door to Door (Community Transport)
• First Buses
• Aylsham Care Transport (Community Transport)
• Sanders
• Dial-a-Ride
• Anglian
• Norfolk Green Coast Hopper
• National Rail
• Reeves
• Our Hire
Do you wish to undertake a rural proofing exercise with the Norfolk Rural Equality Council? (Costs)
Revisit this once more information has been collected and reviewed by the panel. It may become appropriate to do a rural proofing
exercise or it could become obsolete.
What has been done elsewhere in terms of transport reviews?
Norwich City Council joint review 2007/08
Cardiff Council reviewed their whole countywide system
Which transport will the review mostly focus upon – buses, rail, community transport schemes, private hire, water buses?
Bus
Rail
Roadmap: Items shaded grey have been completed but are included for information only.
53
Actions agreed on the 26 October 2011
Time and Task Limited Panel – Public Transport
Terms of Reference Objectives:
•
Identify gaps in the public transport services provided (Bus, Rail and Water) COMPLETED
•
Identify services that are under treat to continue or to be reduced COMPLETED
•
Conduct a Rural Proofing assessment which can be presented to the County Council as evidence to support continuing services in rural
areas and where applicable invest in them. AGREED THIS WOULD COST TOO MUCH AND DUPLICATE WORK ALREADY BEING
PREPARED FOR THE COUNTY COUNCIL.
•
Review the impacts on access to the SureStart centre being set up in Cawston, accounting for the cuts proposed to the bus services
COMPLETED
•
Investigate access to bus stops in terms of older people and disabled people capabilities, identifying possible improvements to be made
COMPLETED
•
To identify specific problems with public transport services for the elderly and the disabled COMPLETED
•
To investigate how opportunities for employment were restricted by access to public transport in rural areas COMPLETED
54
Actions agreed on the 26 October 2011
Time and Task Limited Panel – Public Transport
Task
Gather information and send to members
ahead of the next meeting
Responsibility
Stacy/Mary
Supply information on public transport
overseas
Cllr Shaw
Invite colleague from Norfolk County Council
to address Panel concerns, explain
methodology used to determine service
changes and cuts, explain alternative
schemes being put in place.
Members of the Panel to review the content
of the Civitas website – links circulated by
email (BDC) and report back to next
meeting
Investigate what other forms of transport
were subsidised e.g. taxi tokens and other
alternatives to buses
The Chairman to draft a formal letter to LINk
to request information on problems
encountered by people with medical needs
when using public transport.
Stacy BDC
Deadline
21 November
Progress
The information has been requested from
the County Council. They have
acknowledged the email and are compiling
the information. The majority of information
needs to be pulled across sections and may
take time to be provided. The maps are
being combined into a countywide map due
for publishing in Feb/March 2012.
COMPLETED
21 November
Links to Civitas were circulated via email.
Panel are encouraged to review their
website in more detail between 21 Nov and
the next meeting. COMPLETED
2pm 10 Jan 12
Tracey Jessop has provided a written
update of progress made by the County
Council of their bus services review. Tracey
unable to attend the meeting on the 10
January COMPLETED
2pm 10 Jan 12
Members have reviewed the website and
feel that the UK is seriously lacking behind
other economies. Members will view the
website again for reference. COMPLETED
Papers 4 Jan 12
In Mr Bracey’s absence (11 Jan) the Panel
Meeting 2pm 10 Jan 12 have deferred this update until the next
meeting. COMPLETED
Papers 4 Jan 12
Presented to meeting 11 Jan 2012.
Meeting 2pm 10 Jan 12 COMPLETED
All Members
Cllr Bracey
Cllr Balcombe
55
Actions agreed on the 26 October 2011
Time and Task Limited Panel – Public Transport
Task
How are routes subsidised with bus
operators? County to provide a breakdown
as to which routes are commercial and
which are subsidised.
Investigate if a link was apparent between a
lack of public transport, and a rise in antisocial behaviour
Responsibility
Stacy BDC
Mary NNDC
Deadline
Progress
Papers 4 Jan 12
This information has not been provided by
Meeting 2pm 10 Jan 12 County Council at this time. COMPLETED
Stacy BDC
Mary NNDC
Consider conducting a survey on the quality
of bus services
Stacy BDC
Mary NNDC
Identify which bus companies operated in
each of the two districts and verify if there
was a monopoly on the rural bus routes
Stacy BDC
Mary NNDC
Circulate the questions for bus operators
and community transport providers
Stacy BDC
Mary NNDC
Establish what other areas provide
alternative subsidy transport and whether
the same could be delivered locally
Chairman to report response to his letter to
Link asking to share data relating to
problems of people struggling to reach
appointments related to public transport.
Cllr Bracey
Papers 4 Jan 12
After consulting the Community Safety
Meeting 2pm 10 Jan 12 Coordinator she confirmed that there has
not been a direct or indirect link between
the removal/reduction of transport to ASB.
ACCEPTED
Papers 4 Jan 12
Draft survey questions have been prepared
Meeting 2pm 10 Jan 12 and will be tabled at the meeting for
consideration Questions were reviewed,
final draft to be circulated by email before
sending out. COMPLETED
Papers 4 Jan 12
Operators across Norfolk are: Anglian Bus;
Meeting 2pm 10 Jan 12 Coach Services; First; Konect Bus; Norfolk
Green; National Express; Sanders
Coaches; Simonds Country Link; Coast
Hopper. There is not information online
about where exactly these companies
operate and they do not use LA Boundary
information to set routes. COMPLETED
2pm 8 Feb 2012
Draft questions were discussed at the 11
Jan meeting, they have been updated and
circulated to Members for approval via
email 31 Jan. COMPLETED
2pm 8 Feb 2012
Cllr Balcombe
2pm 8 Feb 2012
56
A response had not been received from
LINk by the 21 March, the Chairman agreed
to contact LINk again for a response by the
final meeting date in April. COMPLETED
Actions agreed on the 26 October 2011
Time and Task Limited Panel – Public Transport
Task
Meet with Community Transport Providers
to seek their views on providing their
services and the rate of usage of their
service, using the questions drafted and
circulated at the beginning of February.
Responsibility
All Members to meet
with providers
individually
Deadline
Between February and
March. Report to Panel
key messages
Stacy BDC
Mary NNDC
Between Feb and Mar
meetings
Chairman to attend the County Planning
Cllr Balcombe
Transport Development Committee to ask
questions (public speaking). Report back
response to questions at next meeting
Review the outcomes and responses from
All Panel Members
the Stakeholder survey sent out in February.
Agree outcomes from this review
(recommendations)
All Panel Members
2pm 14 March
The chairman reported his experience from
the meeting but felt that the content added
little value to this review. COMPLETED
2pm 25 April 2012
Panel Members have been encouraged to
send survey responses to Stacy Cosham
for inclusion within the final
recommendations report.
The recommendations from the review
have been drafted into a report to be
agreed by the Panel.
2pm 25 April 2012
57
Progress
Providers to meet with:
North Walsham
Aylsham Care Trust (PB)
Norwich Door to Door (JB)
Cawston SureStart Centre (PB/LH)
COMPLETED
Actions agreed on the 26 October 2011
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26 June 2012
Agenda Item No____19________
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix F) and invites Members to identify any arising
items for future meetings. The Scrutiny Committee’s
working style and role is attached at Appendix G
Conclusions:
That progress is being made in some areas, others
need to be monitored and opportunities for scrutiny
should be discussed.
Recommendations:
That Members should consider any follow-up
actions required on these topics.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Mr T J FitzPatrick
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Mary Howard, Democratic Services
Team Leader, Tel.01263 516047, mary.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Scrutiny Update report is a standing item on all Overview and Scrutiny
Committee agendas. The report updates Members on progress made with
topics on its agreed work programme and provides additional information
which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.
1.2
The report is prepared by the Democratic Services Team Leader whose role
includes that of Scrutiny Officer.
2.
Progress on topics since the last meeting
2.1
Credit Unions
James Bacon of Norfolk Credit Union will attend Overview and Scrutiny on 24
July 2012. An invitation will be extended to all Members to attend the meeting
and submit questions in advance.
58
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
26 June 2012
3.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme
3.1
Community Asset Transfer Policy
This item will now be reported to the meeting on 25 September 2012, not July
as previously discussed. This is because the Policy is currently out to
consultation with a closing date of 20th July, which is too close to the date of
the July meeting.
3.2
Civil Contingencies and Business Continuity
Members have agreed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should no
longer receive regular updates on Civil Contingencies and Business
Continuity, to avoid duplication with the work of the Audit Committee. The
next report will be going to the Audit Committee on 18 June 2012 and can be
found on the intranet and public website.
3.3
Review of Outside Bodies
At Full Council on 30 May 2012 it was resolved to refer the following Outside
Bodies to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for review:
a) Norfolk Playing Fields Association
b) Norfolk Rural Community Council
c) Norfolk Tourism
d) North Norfolk Community Transport Partnership
e) North Norfolk Skills Partnership
Members are asked to consider a timescale for this review.
4
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
The Outcomes and Actions from the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny
Committee (NHOSC), 24 May 2012, have been provided by Mrs A ClaussenReynolds and are attached at Appendix H.
59
APPENDIX F
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
2012/2013
GUIDANCE FOR REVIEWING THE WORK PROGRAMME
In setting future Scrutiny topics, the Committee is asked to:
a) Demonstrate the value any investigation would have to the Council’s Community
Leadership Role.
b) Consider the relationship any future topic may have with the work of the Cabinet’s Work
Programme and the Council’s Corporate Plan
c) Be mindful of the public’s priorities.
d) Provide reasons for the investigation (so that Officers/Witnesses can assist Members to
reach an outcome).
e) Consider the outcomes required before commencing an investigation.
f) Balance the need for new topics with existing items on the Scrutiny Work Programme.
g) Consider whether it would be helpful to time limit investigations or break down some topics
into smaller areas.
h) Provide sufficient notice, where possible, in order that the Cabinet Member with
responsibility for the subject, Officers and outside witnesses/attendees can fully assist the
Committee.
Date of
Meeting
Topic
June 26
2012
Performance
Management
Annual Report
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Helen
Thomas/Keith
Johnson
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Delivering the
Vision A - E
Annual – report on
2011/12 Performance
Complaints,
Compliments
and
Suggestions
Tom
FitzPatrick/Estelle
Packham
Delivering the
Vision B
To be taken in
conjunction with
Performance
Management Report.
RIPA/
Surveillance
Nick Baker/John
Lee
Annual
Public Transport
Time and Task
Panel
Mary Howard
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
Delivering the
Vision
Housing
Strategy
Karen Hill/Keith
Johnson
Housing and
Infrastructure
A–E
A workshop for all
Members to be
arranged before this
date.
(Outturn Report)
Final Accounts
2011/12
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision A - E
Annual
Learning for
Everyone
Presentation
John
Morgan/Tom
FitzPatrick
Jobs and the
Local Economy
B
Presentation requested
by Members
60
Final Report
Date of
Meeting
Topic
July 24
2012
Budget
Monitoring
Period 4 (April –
July)
Sept 25
2012
Nov 21
2012
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Animal Control
Nick Baker/ John
Lee
Delivering the
Vision D, E
Briefing paper
Waste Contract
John Lee/Barry
Brandford
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
6 monthly
update
Shared Services
including ICT
procurement for
Revenues and
Benefits
replacement
systems
Wyndham
Northam/Louise
Wolsey
Delivering the
Vision E
6-monthly
review
Coastal Issues
Angie FitchTillett/Rob Young
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage B
Health Strategy
Angie FitchTillett/Sonia
Shuter
All
Community
Asset Transfer
Policy
Wyndham
Northam/Martin
Green
Performance
Management
Framework
Helen
Thomas/Keith
Johnson
Delivering the
Vision A - E
Customer
Access Strategy
Tom
FitzPatrick/Estelle
Packham
Delivering the
Vision B
Budget
Monitoring
Period 6 (April –
September)
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Planning
Application
Performance
Steve
Oxenham/Keith
Johnson
Housing and
Infrastructure
A, B,D
61
Norfolk County Council
to make a presentation
on the work of the
Health and Wellbeing
Board.
Members requested
that this topic returns to
the Work Programme.
Figures for first quarter.
Cyclical
Date of
Meeting
Topic
Dec 18
2012
2012/13
Revised Budget
January
23 2013
Planning Fees
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Keith
Johnson/Steve
Oxenham
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Housing and
Infrastructure A
Review after 9 months,
requested by Members
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
February
20 2013
March 20
2013
April or
May 2013
Shared Services
including ICT
procurement for
Revenues and
Benefits
replacement
systems
Wyndham
Northam/Louise
Wolsey
Delivering the
Vision E
6-monthly update
Waste Contract
John Lee/Barry
Brandford
Coast,
Countryside and
Built Heritage A
6 monthly update
Environmental
Sustainability
Update
John Lee/Helen
Dixon
Delivering the
Vision E
Annual update
Budget
Monitoring
(October –
December)
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
2013/2014 Base
Budget and
Projections for
2014/15 to
2016/17
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Budget
Monitoring
Period 10
(January –
March)
Health Strategy
Update
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Delivering the
Vision E
Cyclical
Angie FitchTillett/Sonia
Shuter
All
6 monthly update
Wyndham
Northam/
Corporate Asset
Management
Delivering the
Vision E
Review requested by
Members
Car Park
Charges
62
Date of
Meeting
Topic
Possible
topics for
future
meetings subject to
further
scoping by
a Task
and Finish
Group
Big Society
Leisure Services
Building Control
Information and
Media
Legal Services
The Commercial
Team
Property
Services/Asset
Management
Plan
Economic
Development/
Regeneration
Performance of
Annual Plan
Learning for
Everyone Team
Community
Transport Joint
Scrutiny – final
outcomes
Item on
All
Scrutiny
agendas
Scrutiny
Committee
Work
Programme
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Links with
Corporate Plan
Notes
Topics identified at
Overview and Scrutiny
Committee Workshop
17 April 2012
Tom FitzPatrick/
Mary Howard
63
All
At Committee
APPENDIX G
Working Style of the Scrutiny Committee
Independence
Members of the Scrutiny Committee will not be subject to whipping arrangements by party groups.
Member leadership
Members of the Committee will take the lead in selecting topics for scrutiny and in questioning
witnesses. The Committee will expect members of Cabinet, rather than officers, to take the main
responsibility for answering the Committee’s questions about topics, which relate mainly to the
Council’s activities.
A constructive atmosphere
Meetings of the Committee will be constructive, and not judgmental, accepting that effective
scrutiny is best achieved through challenging and constructive enquiry. People giving evidence at
the Committee should not feel under attack.
Respect and trust
Meetings will be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and trust.
Openness and transparency
The Committee’s business will be open and transparent, except where there are sound reasons
for protecting confidentiality. In particular, the minutes of the Committee’s meetings will explain
the discussion and debate in a balanced style, so that they could be understood by those who
were not present.
Consensus
Members of the Committee will work together and, while recognizing political allegiances, will
attempt to achieve consensus and agreed recommendations.
Impartial and independent officer advice
Officers who advise and support the Committee will give impartial and independent advice,
recognizing the importance of the Scrutiny Committee in the Council’s arrangements for
governance, as set out in its Constitution.
Regular review
There will be regular reviews of how the scrutiny process is working, and a willingness to change
if it is not working well.
Programming and planning
The Committee will agree the topics to be included in its published work programme and the
extent of the investigation to be undertaken in relation to resources, and the witnesses to be
invited to give evidence.
Managing time
The Committee will attempt to conclude the business of each meeting in reasonable time. The
order of business will be arranged as far as possible to minimize the demands on the time of
witnesses.
64
26
APPENDIX H
Outcomes and Actions
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
24 May 2012
Agenda Report Title
Item
Number
Outcomes and Actions
Action By Whom
1.
Election of Chairman and
Vice Chairman
Chairman – Mr Michael Carttiss
Vice Chairman – Mr John Bracey
7.
Chairman’s announcements
Members will be emailed with a list of vacant HOSC positions and
asked to express an interest in any that they would like to take up.
The Chairman will appoint Members to any positions that need to be
filled before the committee next meets and the remaining
appointments will be made at the meeting on 12 July 2012.
Members were invited to attend a seminar on Quality Assurance and
Safeguarding in Care Providers to be held in the Edwards Room,
County Hall from 10.00 – 12.30pm on Wednesday 30 May 2012.
Members who wish to attend should contact Stephanie Gallop on
01603 224213.
8.
Beechcroft surgery, New
Costessey
Maureen Orr
Members
Noted that NHS Norfolk and Waveney (NHS N&W) is working to
engage an interim provider at Beechcroft and that Norfolk LINk will be
involved in the process. The interim provider is to be identified in June
and to start service in October 2012 for a period of 12 months, during
which time NHS N&W will run a full procurement process to secure a
long term provider.
NHS N&W and the Taverham Partnership were asked to give the
Committee early notice if it is decided that Beechcroft surgery has to
close or if the service provided at Beechcroft has to change
65
Dr Victoria Stanley
Dr Samita
Mukhopadhyay
Andrew Stronach
significantly, so that NHOSC can consider the matter before the
change takes place.
Dr Alistair Lipp
Bob Purser
NHOSC is to receive a progress update in its July 2012 internal
Briefing.
Maureen Orr
9.
Mental health trusts merger
The Committee noted progress since the merger.
10.
District nursing
The Committee noted the position in respect of district nursing in
Norfolk, including plans to fund and introduce a third out of hours
district nursing team. Norfolk Community Health and Care was asked
to work with Norfolk LINk on the question of out of hours district nurse
staffing levels. Norfolk LINk was invited to inform NHOSC of any
concerns about the out of hours service later in the year.
11.
Forward work programme
Becky Cooper
David Russell
Information to be requested from the Norfolk and Norwich University
Hospital NHS Foundation Trust on orthopaedic surgery waiting lists
and the 18 week referral to treatment target.
Maureen Orr
The Head of Democratic Services to bring a paper to July 2012
NHOSC meeting on the possibility of adding an additional meeting of
the committee to the Norfolk County Council programme of meetings.
Chris Walton
Copied to:Chairman of Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC)
District Council Members of NHOSC
Member Support Officer - Christine Byles
NHS Norfolk and Waveney
Norfolk LINk
66