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
19 March 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 Wednesday 28 March
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, Mrs A Green, Mr B Jarvis, Mr P Moore, Mr J H Perry-Warnes,
Mr R Reynolds, Mr E Seward, Mr B Smith, Mr N Smith, Mr R Smith, Mr P Terrington and Mr G
Williams.
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
(attached - p.1)
(9.30 – 9.35)
To approve as correct records, the minutes of the special meeting of the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee held on 31 January 2012 and the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee held on 15 February 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
(attached – p.18)
To discuss the Forward Plan and to consider the programme of business for Cabinet,
Overview and Scrutiny, Audit and Full Council.
11.
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL TENANCY STRATEGY
(attached – p.20)
(Appendix A – page 24; Appendix B – page 27; Appendix C – p.34)
(9.40-10.10)
Summary:
Conclusions:
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12 months
of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. The Tenancy Strategy is
presented for consideration and adoption.
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12 months
of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. The Strategy encourages
social landlords in North Norfolk through the use of fixed term
tenancies, Affordable Rent and Transfers to:
•
To maintain stable and sustainable communities especially in
more rural parts of the district where local community infrastructure
such as schools and shops are supported by balanced populations
including newly forming households and young families
•
To make better use of the existing social housing stock through
enabling a reduction in under occupation
•
To ensure that specialist accommodation can be made available to
households most in need.
Recommendations:
To agree the North Norfolk District Council Tenancy Strategy and
recommend to Full Council for adoption.
Cabinet member(s):
All
Ward(s) affected:
All
12.
INTRODUCTION OF FEES FOR PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE AND “DO I NEED
PLANNING PERMISSION?” ENQUIRIES
(Cabinet Agenda – 12 March 2012, p.45)
(Appendix D – page 49)
(10.10-10.40)
Summary:
This report seeks authority for the adoption of a schedule of charges
covering pre-application advice and “Do I need planning
permission?” enquiries
Recommendations:
That Cabinet recommends to Council the adoption of these
proposals following consultation with local agents, the
development industry, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
and the consideration of the outcome thereof by the Corporate
Director and Head of Planning and Building Control in
consultation with the Portfolio Holder, prior to implementation
with effect from 1 May 2012.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Contact Officer:
Telephone number:
e-mail:
Keith Johnson
All
Steve Oxenham
01263 516135
Steve.oxenham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
13.
CAR PARKING CHARGES
(attached – p.35)
(10.40-11.00)
Summary:
The car parking charges for 2012/13 were agreed at Full Council in
December 2012. A new car parking order, consolidating the existing
orders as well as introducing new charges has been advertised. The
closing date for objections was 23rd February. 74 objections and two
petitions were received.
Conclusions:
Members may consider that the objections do not constitute
substantive reasons for not bringing the order into force. However,
given the particular concerns about the loss of free car parks in North
Walsham, Fakenham and Wells Members may wish to waive
enforcement of this aspect of the order for three months pending any
agreement with the respective town councils regarding future
management of these car parks. If alternative arrangements are
agreed whereby the car parks continue to be free, a variation order
would be prepared to reflect this.
Recommendations:
1. That the Council considers it is appropriate to make the draft
order without modification and introduce the car parking
order on 1st April, because the order as a whole reflects car
parking demand and directs vehicles to the most appropriate
car park.
2. That the Council waive enforcement of the requirement to
display season tickets on the currently free car parks for
three months at North Walsham, Fakenham and Wells,
pending further discussions regarding future management
arrangements.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected: All
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Jill Fisher
14.
STREET SIGNS
(An oral update will be made and a briefing paper will follow)
(11.00-11.15)
15.
BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 10
(Cabinet agenda – p.14)
(Appendix A – p.25; Appendix B – p.37; Appendix C – p.38)
(11.30-12.00)
Summary:
Conclusions:
This report presents the budget monitoring position for the
revenue account and capital programme to the end of period
10 (31 January 2012) and also includes a review of the
current capital programme.
The position at the end of January 2012 is showing a
Recommendations:
Cabinet member(s):
All
Contact Officer,
telephone number, and
e-mail:
projected underspend of £21,807. The overall position will
continue to be monitored over the remaining periods of the
current financial year.
It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet note the contents of the report and the
revenue account forecast for the current financial year;
2) That Cabinet note the current position in relation to the
2011/12 capital programme;
3) Delegated Authority is given to the Chief Executive
and the Strategic Director Community in consultation
with the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Members to set the
new planning fees covering pre-application and ‘Do I
need planning permission’ enquiries.
Ward(s) affected:
All
Duncan Ellis, Acting Financial Services Manager, 01263
516330, Duncan.Ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
16.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(attached – p.38)
(Appendix D – p.41; Appendix E – p.48; Appendix F – p.49; Appendix G – p.52)
(12.00-12.30)
17.
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 7C of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
18.
TO CONSIDER ANY EXEMPT MATTERS ARISING FROM CONSIDERATION OF THE
PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA
Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 31
January 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive
Members in
Attendance:
Ms V Gay, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr P High, Mr T Ivory, Mr K Johnson, Mr J
Lee, Mrs A Moore, Ms B Palmer, Mr S Ward and Mrs V Uprichard
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
117 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
118 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright
119 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Questions had been received in advance of the meeting. These were taken when the
item was considered.
120 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
31 January 2012
121 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mrs A
ClaussenReynolds
Minute No.
Norfolk Community Foundation
Mr N Smith
122 NORTH NORFOLK
FRAMEWORK
Item
North Norfolk Big Society Fund
BIG
SOCIETY
FUND
–
Interest
Personal – is an
NNDC representative
on the Fakenham
Area Partnership
Personal – is involved
with an organisation
that had received
funds via the NCF
PROPOSED
OPERATIONAL
Councillor Trevor Ivory, Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society introduced the
item. He explained that the same three funding streams were still proposed: community
grant giving, community capacity building and support for the voluntary sector. The
focus of the meeting was to consider the detail of the community grant giving aspect of
the Fund before it was presented to Full Council on 22 February 2012. The other two
streams would be provided via the voluntary sector and would be specified, costed and
monitored through a service level agreement (SLA). A three month extension to
Voluntary Norfolk’s existing contract was proposed to allow them additional time to put a
suitable support structure in place.
The Portfolio Holder drew the Committee’s attention to the allocation of the funding. The
total available for the launch in 2012/13 was £1.169 million, with £675,000
approximately being available on an ongoing basis. A remaining, unallocated sum was
from unspent funding for the Local Strategic Partnership. It was anticipated that some of
this money would be held back and used through subsequent years.
The Chairman introduced Mr Graham Tuttle, Director of the Norfolk Community Fund
(NCF). It was proposed that the funding stream for community grant giving would be
administered on behalf of the Council by the NCF. Mr Tuttle said that he would explain
the role of the Community Fund to the Committee and was willing to answer any
questions relating to their work. Several questions had been received in advance of the
meeting and it was agreed that these would be addressed by both The Portfolio Holder
and Mr Tuttle, where appropriate.
Ms Angela Simkiss, Project Manager of First Focus in Fakenham had submitted the
following questions:
a) When will there be a clear strategy for use by small charitable organisations to
enable them to present their services for commissioning opportunities and is it likely
to be before April 2014?
b) As much of the funding received by small charities from statutory bodies has now
effectively ceased and the prospect of gaining income from commissioning their
services is still very vague, could you advise as to the best way to maintain the
valuable local services currently offered by such organisations?
The Portfolio Holder said that support to charitable organisations was an important part
of the Big Society Fund and this would come through the service level agreements with
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
31 January 2012
the voluntary sector. He added that funding from the community grant giving fund was
also available to charities. In response to the second question, he said that the
commissioning of services was not within the remit of the Big Society Fund. However, it
was part of the Council’s wider agenda. It was within the corporate plan as an objective
and the County Council were also considering options.
Mrs Gloria Lisher, Chairman of the Fakenham Area Partnership had submitted the
following question:
1. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that the new organisation which
decides and distributes funding is efficient and meets the necessary criteria of giving
funding equally and fairly to voluntary organisations in the North Norfolk area?
The Portfolio Holder said that the eligibility criteria for applications to the Big Society
Fund ensured that funding would be distributed fairly. In addition, the decision-making
process for allocating grants would be politically balanced.
Several questions had been received from Janet Holdom, Coordinator of the Fakenham
Area Partnership:
1. The constant response from NNDC Members is that no funding will be given for
administration costs. What does this include? Surely telephone, broadband, IT
support, stationery, printing, postage and some organisational time are crucial to
almost every project you’re likely to be seeking support for.
The Portfolio Holder explained that core funding was not covered by the Fund.
Administration costs linked to the delivery of projects would be included but general
overheads would not. This was in-line with other grant-giving organisations.
2. Recently, when I was enquiring about the possibility of funding for marketing
software connected with the Fakenham Community Campus project, Norfolk
Community Foundation informed me that they are not accepting any funding
applications from local area partnerships (LAPs). I explained this was not in relation
to core costs but for project equipment and was told that it was not their policy to
fund LAPs for any activity
Mr Tuttle explained that the Norfolk Community Foundation was not a decision-making
body. It distributed funds on behalf of other organisations and projects needed to be in
line with the aspirations of the fund. Each year the NCF received £3m of requests for
£1.5m of funding. It was impossible to support everyone that applied but there was
definitely no bias against anyone or any organisation.
3. I am concerned that there is an inbuilt bias against LAPs within the Norfolk
Community Foundation, specifically with regard to the North Norfolk Community
Fund
Mr Tuttle said that there was no built-in bias against the Local Area Partnerships. The
NCF processed any applications they received and presented them to any eligible
panel. All applications were presented in a standard format and if they didn’t fit the
criteria then they would be signposted to a more suitable source of funding. The
Portfolio Holder added that the LAPs were encouraged to apply to the Big Society Fund
but that core funding was not covered and this applied to everyone.
4. Is the Norfolk Community Foundation the best choice to manage the new Big
Society Fund, with a history of questionable independence and neutrality?
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
31 January 2012
The Portfolio Holder said that various options for administration of the Fund had been
considered, including managing it internally. The NCF was able to run the Fund very
efficiently and their knowledge of other funding sources meant that the potential of the
Big Society Fund would be maximised as applicants could be signposted to other
funding sources if they did not meet the criteria or their application was unsuccessful. Mr
Tuttle added that the NCF was an independent organisation and that its aim was to get
money out to the local community. Decision making was not within its remit – it
processed the applications and presented them to the most appropriate funding panel.
The NCF worked closely with several other bodies to ensure that as many sources as
possible were available to those seeking funding.
5. Is a 12% administration charge (a potential £84000 fee) the best value for money?
Mr Tuttle said that the administration charge was 6% which amounted to £27000. This
was comparable to the amount paid by other local authorities.
6. The Norfolk Community Foundation application form is overly bureaucratic and not
very efficient in terms of time response.
Mr Tuttle explained that it was a standard application form and the same template was
used by all 57 community foundations across the country. There were 17 pages in total
including several pages of guidance notes. All the information requested on the form
was there to support the reputation of the donor and their funding. Applications took
approximately 3 weeks to process and could also be submitted online.
7. Regarding actual applications to the Big Society Fund – can a prompt and sensitive
response time be built into the application process? Regular meetings and faster
turnaround sensitive to community groups needs rather than the current funding
panel’s time management.
The Portfolio Holder explained that there were two levels of application. Requests for
over £5000 would be approved by the Cabinet at their monthly meeting. Applications for
less than £5000 would be assessed by a Committee which would meet as regularly as
necessary. The eligibility criteria had been kept to a minimum to ensure the process was
simple.
The Chairman asked whether applications that required Cabinet approval were subject
to a call in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Deputy Chief Executive
explained that requests under £10000 could be dealt with under delegation. Anything
over £10000 could be called in.
8. Regarding qualification criteria – can there be clear guidelines as to what is ruled in
and ruled out so the goal posts can’t be moved whenever it is politically expedient?
The Portfolio Holder reiterated that the criteria were not overly prescriptive so that the
application process was simple and to encourage as many people as possible to apply.
The Committee considering applications would be politically balanced. He added that
any changes to the eligibility criteria would be a decision for Full Council.
The Chairman asked the Committee whether they wished to clarify any of the issues
raised so far:
1. A Member asked where the gap would be filled for projects such as Voyager which
required significant input in terms of ideas for activities. Mr Tuttle said that funding
had been supplied for the Griffon Partnership which ran the Voyager Community
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
31 January 2012
2.
3.
4.
5.
Group. The NCF were willing to advise any project on how to fill a funding gap. They
would work with organisations to try and anticipate any future needs and find
suitable organisations that could assist.
A concern was raised that support was lacking at local level for small projects and
they would begin to disappear without the support of the Local Area Partnerships.
The Portfolio Holder said that the Local Area Partnerships would continue to
operate. The Big Society Fund was being set up in recognition of the support
needed for local projects. It was important that the community decided which
projects they would like funding for. He added that capacity building was critical in
ensuring sustainability and this was a vital part of the support structure that was
being proposed.
A Member asked whether the NCF were able to advise an applicant if the amount of
funding requested was too high. Mr Tuttle said that was not the role of the
Foundation, however, they may be aware of cheaper sources or providers for
equipment or facilities and they could advise the panel that a lower amount may be
more appropriate. The final decision would always lie with the panel.
Clarification was sought on the meaning of core funding. The Portfolio Holder
explained that projects would need to cover costs for administering an individual
project but general overheads and ongoing costs for office staff would not be
included in the funding. He said that it was important that the maximum amount of
money reached the front line and that organisations did not become dependent on
funding. It was hoped that the Big Society Fund would encourage more people to
volunteer their services and this was unlikely to happen if people were paid to take
on such roles.
A Member asked whether an organisation could reapply for funding once it had been
refused. The Portfolio Holder said that there was no limit on the number of
applications that could be made and no time limit. In response to a further question
regarding advice on altering applications to maximise the chances of obtaining
funding, Mr Tuttle said that the NCF were willing to do this. They employed 3
dedicated grants officers and they would always try and ensure that applications
were of the highest standard and went to the most appropriate fund. Sometimes
funding would be shared between panels. Voluntary Norfolk and the Norfolk Rural
Community Council (NRCC) would also help with the application process.
The Chairman asked the Committee if there were any specific questions for Mr Tuttle
relating to the Norfolk Community Foundation.
1. A Member asked how many staff were employed by the Foundation and if there
were any volunteers. Mr Tuttle confirmed that there were 5 members of staff and 5
volunteers. They were based in Norwich and had no premises costs. A donor paid
50% of Mr Tuttle’s salary. This meant that only 4-5% was spent on core costs each
year.
2. Clarification was sought regarding the application process and whether the NCF
checked to see if applicants had sought funding elsewhere. Mr Tuttle said that the
NCF was aware that people made duplicate applications to several funds. There
were 12 charitable trusts in Norfolk and they met 4 times a year. Four charities were
invited to each meeting to pitch direct for funding. The NCF recognised that there
were lots of vulnerable organisations and they would even approach them direct if
they became aware that they were struggling and offer support in obtaining funding.
3. A Member asked how easy it was for smaller groups or individuals to apply for
funding. Mr Tuttle said that the NCF supported both registered and unregistered
charities. They were the only organisation in the region to support unregistered
charities.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
31 January 2012
The Chairman asked the Committee for comments and questions relating to the
proposed operational framework of the North Norfolk Big Society Fund:
1. A Member was concerned that the profile of the Council should not disappear within
the Community Foundation’s general branding. It should be made clear to potential
applicants that the Big Society Fund was an initiative of North Norfolk District
Council. The Portfolio Holder agreed. He said that it was important that the Council
received credit for the Fund. He explained that the NCF would direct applicants to
the Council and that all information provided would be clearly branded with the
NNDC logo. Once applicants were directed to the Big Society Fund, additional
information would be requested and then explored further in dialogue.
2. It was important that the Council worked closely with the organisation responsible for
capacity building. They should work as a partnership and the terms of the Service
Level Agreement (SLA) should be negotiated rather than predetermined.
3. Links between the Council and parish and town councils were very important and
should be strengthened if the Big Society Fund was to achieve its full potential.
4. The Chairman suggested that a cap of 5% could be placed on administration costs
for each application.
5. There was no upper funding limit for the Big Society Fund but it could be made clear
to applicants that grants for large amounts would be exceptional.
6. Large projects may need funding for longer than the 1 year stated. It could be
acknowledged within the eligibility criteria that funding could be extended but that it
was dependant on the continued receipt of second homes income from the County
Council. The Portfolio Holder said that it was stated within the appendices to the
framework document that 2 years funding could be proposed, with 50% in the
second year coming from other sources.
7. The £5000 trigger for Cabinet to consider applications to the Fund could be too low
and could generate a considerable amount of work for them.
8. There should be regular reports back to the Scrutiny Committee on the progress of
the Big Society Fund.
9. A Member queried the cost of back office support for the Fund. The Portfolio Holder
said that 6% (£27000) would go the Norfolk Community Fund and £50,000 would go
towards community capacity building. In response to a further question regarding
concerns about the Voyager Project in North Walsham, he said that he would look at
their needs in further depth.
10. There was a concern that parish and town councils were not empowered enough to
represent the views of their communities. The Portfolio Holder said that it was
fundamental that more power was driven down to parish and town councils. The Big
Society Fund would encourage this by allowing them to apply for funding for
community projects.
11. It would be helpful if a detailed annual report could be produced providing an
analysis of donations. Nr Ivory explained that the Council would use its own panel to
determine applications and that a detailed report could be provided.
12. The concept of real need could be introduced to the eligibility criteria in addition to
the requirement of community support.
13. The role of Ward Members should be mentioned within the Framework document.
14. The eligibility criteria should be kept to a minimum but there did need to be a ‘driver’.
The Corporate Plan could offer guidance and help provide a framework. It was
suggested that the two Members of the Committee who would be nominated to work
on the Service Level Agreements could also consider the criteria.
15. The examples of projects eligible for funding should be carefully chosen to give real
encouragement to potential applicants.
16. It was important to clarify what the Big Society Fund would cover and when the
capacity building process would start.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
31 January 2012
17. Environmental projects appeared to be excluded from applying to the Fund. Perhaps
the eligibility criteria could be worded to indicate that they will be considered if they
are supported by the community and strengthen ties.
18. A Member asked whether grants made by the Big Society Fund would be monitored.
The Portfolio Holder said that they would be and that it was a crucial part of the
process.
19. There was a concern that there would be a disproportionate number of applications
to the Fund from the larger towns and that smaller towns and villages could struggle
to come up with ideas. The Portfolio Holder agreed that there was the potential for
too many applications but it was hoped that town councils would take the lead in
prioritising the needs of the local community. Large scale projects would be dealt
with differently as they required a lot of input from the Council and would be
resourced internally.
20. A Member asked whether the income from second homes was likely to stay at the
same level. The Portfolio Holder said that it had declined noticeably recently. It
wasn’t clear whether this was due to holiday homes switching to business rates or
whether they had been sold. The Deputy Chief Executive added that the proposal to
remove the 10% discount on second homes would mean that the income stream
would be lost as there would be no way of identifying which properties were in this
category. In response to a further question regarding the role of the County Strategic
Partnership, The Portfolio Holder said that they had previously administered the
sustainable community strategies.
21. The possibility of an application coming forward for funding late in the financial year
when available funds could be low was raised. The Portfolio Holder explained that
although there was a finite pot of money there was a reserve fund which could be
drawn on if the grants committee wished to fund a specific project. He added that
the Norfolk Community Foundation were able to signpost applicants to other
available sources of funding.
22. There was a possibility that some funding could be wasted if further follow-on
funding was not found for some projects. They may need assistance to start looking
for additional funding during the early stages of the project.
23. The general outline for the service level agreements (SLA’s) was good. They should
not be too prescriptive and need to be outcome-based. NNDC should work with the
chosen provider as a partner and negotiate the terms rather than pre-determining
them.
The Chairman proposed two additional recommendations to the Committee:
1. That the Group developing the formal service level agreements would also consider
the eligibility criteria for the community grant funding scheme.
2. That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would receive six monthly reports on the
operation of the Big Society Fund
RESOLVED
a) To recommend the proposed structure of the Big Society Fund to Cabinet
b) To nominate two Members of the Committee, Mr G Williams and Mr N Smith to work
with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Portfolio Member in developing a
formal service level agreement based upon the draft outcomes incorporate within
the appendices
c) That the Members listed above would also consider the eligibility criteria for the
community grant funding scheme.
d) That their conclusions on the above would be reported to Full Council on 22
February 2012.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
31 January 2012
e) To refer comments and observations to Cabinet for consideration on 6 February
2012 prior to submission of the recommended operational framework to Council
f) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive six monthly reports on
the operation of the Big Society Fund
The meeting concluded at 12.07 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
31 January 2012
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 15 February
2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr P W Moore
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Acting Financial Services Manager (for minutes 117 - 130), the Health
Improvement Officer (for minute 131) and the Democratic Services Team
Leader.
Members in
Attendance:
Mrs H Eales, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr T Ivory, Mr K Johnson and Mr W J
Northam.
Democratic Services Officer (MMH)
123 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) The Committee Room had been used for the meeting because the Council Chamber
was booked out for training. The acoustics and general accommodation in the
Committee Room were not suitable for the needs of the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee and the room must not be used for this purpose in future.
b) Mr J Perry-Warnes had undergone surgery very recently. The Leader would update
Members on his progress via the Democratic Services Team Leader.
124 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr J Perry-Warnes, Mr G Williams and Mr R Wright.
125 SUBSTITUTES
Ms V R Gay for Mr G Williams and Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
9
126 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
127 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2012 were signed as a correct record
after the following amendments had been agreed.
a) Minute 112, Environmental Sustainability Strategy Review, item 5, page 4, Back-up
Generator: to add “Mr R Reynolds suggested that obtaining a smaller generator,
capable of providing power for telephones, ICT and other essential items should be
considered.”
b) Minute 115, Waste Contract Update, item 2, page 9: to change the first sentence to
read “litter picking” instead of “street cleaning”. To add a second sentence “The
concerns had been particularly about the verges near Morrison’s, the football ground
and traveller site and on the Norwich Road but litter picking was essential to all areas
of the town.”
128 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
An oral report on the Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel was brought
forward from item 15, Overview and Scrutiny Update. This was because Ms V R Gay,
who was giving the report, needed to leave the meeting early.
The Public Transport Time and Task Limited Panel was a joint group with four Members
each from Broadland and North Norfolk District Councils. It was largely concerned with
the provision of public transport in the 2 districts and had met 4 times to date. The
membership included Councillors who regularly used public transport.
The latest meeting, on 8 February 2012, had been very useful and the Panel was
starting to coalesce. The meeting had been attended by 2 officers from Norfolk County
Council who had been able to give a comprehensive picture of provision across the
county. The County strategy appeared to be concentration on community transport. The
next step would be to question the bus operators. There had been an initial
misunderstanding that Members could not talk to the operators, but this was not so. In
response to a question from Mr P W Moore, Ms Gay said that this misunderstanding
had not prolonged the work and that the process of questioning County had been very
economical, with questions refined in advance by email.
Mr T FitzPatrick was organising a meeting of the 4 NNDC Members of the Panel to
discuss progress and the value of the work. A concern was expressed that changes of
meeting dates had prevented some Members and the officer from NNDC from attending
the Panel because of prior commitments.
129 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following Members declared interests in the items listed below:
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr R C Price
130
2012/13 Base Budget and
Projections for 2013/14 to
Personal and non
prejudicial – owns a
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
10
2015/16
Mrs A R Green
130
second home which is
registered as a
business.
2012/13 Base Budget and
Projections for 2013/14 to
2015/16
Personal and non
prejudicial – owns a
holiday letting cottage.
130 PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
The Democratic Services Team Leader updated the Committee on petitions from
members of the public. No further petitions had been received via the e-petitions facility
since the last meeting.
131 CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None.
132 RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Big Society Fund had been
forwarded to Cabinet. At the meeting of 6 February 2012 Cabinet had resolved to:
a)
consider the views of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recorded at its
meeting on 31 January 2012.
b)
give approval to the proposed operational framework but delegate to the
Portfolio Holder, Mr T Ivory and the Chief Executive, the task of reviewing the
detail of the comments received and recommend them to Full Council.
A group comprising the Leader, Portfolio Holder and 2 nominated Members of the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee had met for the first time on 14 February 2012, with
Graham Tuttle of the Norfolk Community Fund. Some of the comments from the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be incorporated into the resultant document.
133 THE FORWARD PLAN AND MANAGEMENT OF COUNCIL BUSINESS
The Committee noted the information.
134 BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 9
The Portfolio Holder reported that the Budget was on course for a balanced position at
the end of the year. The report was discussed:
a) The Acting Financial Services Manager would check with the relevant officer to clarify
a variance regarding the North Norfolk Youth Voice. There was a potential
underspend which would be rolled forward. Concern was expressed that money had
been put in the budget but remained unspent. It was explained that this was a timing
issue and that the money would be spent for the purpose it was originally budgeted
for.
b) Leisure complexes variation: a meeting was due to take place at the Splash on 15
February 2012 to discuss maintenance and upkeep in the longer term.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
11
BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12 – PERIOD 9
(Continued)
c) Budget Monitoring Position – Summary (Page 18, 6.1): the following corrections were
highlighted:
• The Service Variance Total was £56,197 not £55,197
• The General Fund Reserve was £82,493 not £84,493. This meant that there
was a minor overspend, not an underspend.
d) £10,000 was the de minimus for capital spend. Expenditure above that amount could
be capitalised but it also depended on the nature of the work.
RESOLVED
To note the contents of the report and the revenue account forecast for the current
financial year.
135 TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
STRATEGY 2012/13 TO 2014/15
STATEMENT
AND
INVESTMENT
The preparation of the Strategy Statement was necessary to comply with the Chartered
Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice for Treasury
Management in Public Services. The Code had been revised in November 2011 and this
Strategy Statement incorporated the changes which had been made. The prime
objective of the Treasury Management Strategy was to ensure the security of the
Council’s investments.
The report was discussed:
a) At the current time the Co-operative Bank plc did not meet the minimum credit criteria
of a long term rating of A- or equivalent. This was because of a number of reasons
including the size of the bank. Arlingclose was still comfortable with the bank being
used for overnight and weekend investments for a maximum sum of £500,000.
b) There was continual monitoring of all banks and investments.
RESOLVED
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that;
(a) The Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Investment Strategy and
Prudential Indicators, for 2012/13 to 2014/15, are approved.
(b) The revised Treasury Management Policy Statement is approved.
136 2012/13 BASE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
The report was introduced by the Portfolio Holder. He said that officers and Cabinet
Members had worked hard on the Budget which was fair, benefitted the Council and
residents of the District and had been achieved without an increase in Council Tax. The
Budget made savings without making enforced redundancies and despite a reduction in
government grant.
The report was discussed:
a) Mr P W Moore commended the retention of the restructuring fund. Ms V R Gay
asked why it was necessary to have money in the reserves for Restructuring and
Organisational Development. The Acting Financial Services Manager explained that
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
12
2012/13 BASE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
b)
c)
d)
e)
(Continued)
the Organisational Development reserve was set up for Pay and Grading issues. The
Restructuring reserve was to help with finance when a service was restructured.
There was a second level of management restructure still to come. This could result
in some one-off costs.
£150,000 savings had been estimated from the restructuring of the management
team. Potentially there could be a higher saving but the main priority was to get the
right structure in place for the organisation. The report made to Full Council on 14
December 2011 had given £150,000 as the minimum figure.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the Portfolio Holder said that the New
Homes Bonus was not ring-fenced but the Cabinet had decided that it should be
used for the community, in accordance with the Government’s aims. If sufficient
savings had not been made and help from the Government regarding freezing the
Council Tax had not been received Cabinet would have had to consider using the
New Homes Bonus for other purposes.
Revenue Support Grant and Business Rates: in response to a question from the
Chairman, the Acting Financial Services Manager said that the projections for 2013
onwards had been reduced based on the forecast that had been received and in the
understanding that central government might reduce the Revenue Support Grant
even further in subsequent years. A possible increase in the number of houses had
not been taken into account in the projections. There were reasons, including the
transfer of properties from Council Tax to Business rates, to be prudent.
Concern was expressed that, because North Norfolk had a significant number of
second homes and holiday homes, a switch from Council Tax to Business Rates
would impact on receipts. The Acting Financial Services Manager said that
consultations were taking place on how the new Business Rates system would work.
A scheme was being set up to provide a safety net and North Norfolk District Council
would almost certainly be in receipt of top-up.
RESOLVED
to add this topic to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
A payment of £150,000 had been received from central government because the
Council Tax had not been increased. This was for one year only and would have
implications on the 2013/14 budget if the Council Tax was to remain frozen.
g) A perceived inconsistency with Small Business Rate Relief needed further
investigation. The subject of Business Rates and Small Business Rate Relief would
be put on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme,
h) The funding for community transport such as NWACTA was in the Big Society Fund
and was secure for the coming year.
i) Mr P W Moore asked about the impact on income that might result from the abolition
of free car parks, especially in North Walsham. The people who normally used free
car parks tended to be those who worked in the town. If they bought season tickets
they could opt to park in more convenient town centre car parks, leaving less room
for shoppers. The Portfolio Holder replied that it was hoped that people would use
the Vicarage Road Car Park which tended to be under-used. He pointed out that
NNDC had to maintain free car parks although they didn’t bring in any income. The
scheme would be reconsidered at the end of the year if it proved to be unsuccessful.
The impact of increased season ticket holders on car park income was largely
unknown at present although some financial modelling had been carried out.
j) Mr P Terrington asked that, as he had to report back to his parishes, he might be
informed of the outcome of consultations on parking charge orders.
f)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
13
2012/13 BASE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR 2013/14 TO 2015/16
(Continued)
RESOLVED
to include this topic, including the outcome of consultations, for a regular update on
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme.
Members considered the recommendations and voted on them individually.
a) It was RESOLVED with 3 Members voting against
To recommend to Full Council that the 2012/13 revenue account budget as
outlined at Appendix F and that the surplus of £87,975 be allocated to the
Restructuring Proposals reserve;
b) It was RESOLVED with 2 abstentions
To recommend to Full Council that the demand on the Collection Find will be
subject to any amendments as a result of final precepts;
(i)
£5,789,172 for District purposes;
(ii)
£1,561,174 (subject to confirmation of one final precept) for
Parish/Town precepts;
c) It was RESOLVED with 2 Members voting against
To recommend to Full Council the movement on the reserves as detailed at
Appendix I;
d) It was RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council the updated Capital Programme and it’s
financing for 2011/12 to 2014/15 as detailed at Appendix J and as contained
within the report along with the authority to negotiate for the purchase of a
new waste vehicle;
e) It was RESOLVED
To recommend to Full Council the new capital bids as detailed at Appendix K.
f) It was RESOLVED
To note the current projections for 2013/14 to 2015/16.
137 HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT
a) Under new legislation the Council had a large responsibility for Health and Wellbeing.
Significant work had been done with commissioning groups, 4 community gyms
(including one in the Broadland district) had been set up and the Warm Homes
Healthy People Fund had been launched. All targets were on course and some had
already been exceeded.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
14
HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT
(Continued)
b) A presentation had been made by the Health Trainer team at the Overview and
Scrutiny meeting on 25 January 2012. Health Trainers were able to refer people to
NNDC schemes via the North Norfolk Activity Referral Scheme which would be
launched at the end of February/beginning of March. To prevent inequity for some
patients it was necessary to persuade all GPs to participate in the scheme
c) The Warm Homes Healthy People Fund was funded by central government. Despite
a tight timescale NNDC officers had made a successful bid and had received
approximately £320,000 to implement the agreed projects by April 2012. NNDC
officers were now managing 2 projects across Norfolk – distribution of 7000 winter
warmer packs to vulnerable people and installation of low level insulation. Members
were shown the contents of a winter warmer pack which included thermal blanket,
hat, gloves, hot water bottle, room thermometer and chair-bound exercise DVD. The
packs had been distributed to colleagues in agencies which had contact with
vulnerable people, to ensure that they were only given to those in real need. NNDC,
via Age UK, could provide extra insulation. 25 heaters would soon arrive. These
could be distributed when necessary. There was also a bank of emergency heating
oil. Work was being done with a credit union to negotiate a scheme for cheaper
purchase of heating oil. Mr R C Price suggested that the credit union should make a
presentation to Full Council. Members supported this idea and suggested it should
be passed on to the Chair of the Council.
d) In response to a Member’s question regarding the criteria for deciding if someone
was vulnerable, the Health Improvement Officer said that generally it was people who
were old, ill or disabled. The reason the packs were being distributed by other
agencies was to ensure that they were given to the right people. Every agency had
been asked how many packs they needed. Some packs had been kept back for
people who, because of pride or other reasons, might “slip the net”. There were only
1000 packs in total, but the need was greater. If funding was still available further
applications would be made to ensure that the scheme could continue. There was
also an arrangement with other district councils to take up any under-use. Road
shows were taking place to promote use of the scheme and to encourage parish
councils to take ownership of some of the projects.
e) A concern was raised that some older people had to choose between buying food or
paying fuel bills and that there was lack of referral to the Meals-on-Wheels scheme.
The Health Improvement Officer would raise this issue with the GP Consortium.
f) Members requested that information about the Warm Homes Healthy People Fund
should be published in the Members’ Bulletin. The next Healthy Strategy report
should also include an update.
g) Rural Isolation Project: this project aimed to reduce the impact of rural isolation on
people’s physical, mental, social and economic health. The Rural Community Council
was keen to do some joint work on this.
h) North Norfolk Work Out Project: the project had been very successful. Funding ran
out at the end of June but, because of its success, the project had been identified as
one for which additional funding could be applied. Eventually it was envisaged that a
community group be set up to take on the project.
Community Hospitals: NNDC had fought hard to keep community hospitals and it
was now paying dividends. In response to a question from Mr P Terrington the Health
Improvement Officer said that Wells Cottage Hospital had not taken part in the Warm
Homes Healthy People project although packs had been distributed via Heritage
House.
i) There were no beds at Cromer Hospital and this influenced the procedures and
services which could be provided. However the GPs would have more influence on
service provision than they had in the past.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
15
HEALTH STRATEGY PROGRESS REPORT
(Continued)
j)
A suggestion was made that the Health Trainers should take part when the Olympic
Torch passed through North Norfolk. There would be 2 Health Trainers based in
each of the towns involved.
k) Concern was expressed that a disabled group had been prevented from using
facilities at Fakenham although the rationale was not known.
l) The Leader informed the Committee that a Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board was
being set up for Norfolk. The role of Health and Wellbeing Boards was to provide
leadership across health, social care and public health. They would take on a
convening role in health improvement, tackling the causes of ill-health, improving
health and social care services, and promoting integration of health and social care.
Health and Wellbeing Boards would be formal sub-committees of upper tier councils
and would be statutorily operational from April 2013. They were expected to work in
‘shadow’ form from April 2012. It was important that each district should have its own
representative. The Leader would be nominated to the Shadow Board at Full Council
on 22 February 2012. The Chairman commended this and reminded Members that
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, at the meeting of 18 October 2011, had made
a recommendation to support the Chief Executive in getting effective district
representation on the Health and Wellbeing Board.
m) The Portfolio Holder summed up by saying that the Health Improvement Officer was
demonstrating now how councils would work in the future with multi-agency cooperation and sourcing money from elsewhere.
RESOLVED
that the next Health Strategy report should include an update on the Warm Homes Healthy
People scheme and that information about the scheme should be published in the Members’
Bulletin.
138 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
a) The minutes from the meeting of 25 January 2012 had been sent to Walcott Parish
Council. The item on Flooding at Walcott had been attended by representatives from
the Environment Agency, the local community and County Councillor Paul Morse.
Following the meeting they had been able to get together and explore how to gain a
better understanding of the system and to get more people on the flood alert scheme.
This had fulfilled one of the prime aims of Scrutiny – to make a difference.
b) Planning Enforcement: Members had asked for a report to be brought to the March
meeting. However the Head of Planning and Building Control had advised, after
discussion with the Chair of the Development Committee, that it would be better to
report to the meeting on 23 May 2012. This was because a number of initiatives had
just been introduced and it was too early to evaluate their effectiveness. Members
agreed to receive the report in May.
c) In the course of the meeting 2 further topics had been identified for inclusion on the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
• The impact of second homes switching from Council Tax to Business Rates.
• Progress on car park charges and income, including outcome of consultations.
Members had also asked that the next Health Strategy Update report should include
an update on the outcomes of the Warm Homes Healthy People scheme.
d) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds attended a seminar at Westminster on 14 February 2012.
The event was organised by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and included the
opportunity to see a Parliamentary Select Committee at work and to understand the
role of forensic questioning in effective scrutiny. Mrs Claussen-Reynolds would bring
a report to the March meeting.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
16
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
(Continued)
e) Coastal issues: the Vice Chair would liaise with the Portfolio Holder about the
possibility of having an item on Coastal Issues on the work programme later in the
year, possibly in May. It was understood that the Coastal Management Board would
meet soon.
The meeting concluded at 12.15 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
15 February 2012
17
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
FORWARD PLAN
For the Period 01 March to 30 June 2012
This Plan, as required by the Local Government Act 2000, contains details of those matters
which the Leader of the Council has reason to believe will be the subject of a key decision to
be taken by the Cabinet, by Officers under delegated powers or under joint arrangement in
the course of the discharge of a Cabinet function during the period covered by the Plan.
A key decision is a decision which is likely:to result in the Council incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings
which are, significant having regard to the Council’s budget for the service or
function to which the decision relates; or
to be significant in terms of its effect on communities living or working in an area
comprising two or more wards in the area of the Council.
The Council has decided that expenditure or savings of £50,000 or more shall be
regarded as significant for the above purposes, save where such expenditure or
saving is specifically identified in the Council’s Budget.
Description of Decision
North Norfolk District Council
Tenancy Strategy:
i)
Maintain stable and
sustainable communities
especially in more rural
parts of the district
where local community
infrastructure such as
schools and shops are
supported by balanced
populations including
newly forming
households and young
families
ii)
Make better use of the
existing social housing
stock through enabling a
reduction in under
occupation
iii)
Ensure that specialist
accommodation can be
made available to
households most in
need.
Date for
Decision
April 2012
Persons to be
consulted
Signed
Helen Eales, Leader of North Norfolk District Council, 1st March 2012
18
Who to contact
for Information
Karen Hill
Housing Services
Manager
01263 516183
Introduction of fees for Preapplication Advice and ‘Do I need
Planning Permission?’ Enquiries
April 2012
Local agents,
Development
Industry,
Overview &
Scrutiny
Committee
Signed
Helen Eales, Leader of North Norfolk District Council, 1st March 2012
19
Steve Oxenham
Head of Planning
and Building
Control
01263 516135
Cabinet
12 March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
Agenda Item No_____11________
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL TENANCY STRATEGY
Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12
months of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. The
Tenancy Strategy is presented for consideration and adoption.
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12
months of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011. The Strategy
encourages social landlords in North Norfolk through the use of
fixed term tenancies, Affordable Rent and Transfers to:
•
To maintain stable and sustainable communities especially in
more rural parts of the district where local community
infrastructure such as schools and shops are supported by
balanced populations including newly forming households
and young families
•
To make better use of the existing social housing stock
through enabling a reduction in under occupation
•
To ensure that specialist accommodation can be made
available to households most in need.
To agree the North Norfolk District Council Tenancy
Strategy and recommend to Full Council for adoption.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
All
All
Contact Officer, telephone
number, and e-mail:
Karen Hill, Housing Services Manager, 01263 516183
Karen.hill@north-norfolk.gov.uk
20
Cabinet
12 March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
1.0
Introduction
1.1
The Government’s consultation document ‘Local decisions: a fairer future for
social housing’ issued in November 2010 included proposals for a package of
reforms to give local authorities and social landlords flexibility to make the best use
of their social housing stock in a way which best meets the needs of their local
area. Included in the consultation were proposals to:
•
give greater flexibility to social landlords, enabling them to offer lifetime security
where it is needed but to set shorter tenancy terms where it makes more sense
•
introduce an Affordable Rent tenancy at a higher rent than social rents up to a
maximum of 80% of local market rents
•
make it easier for existing social housing tenants to move within the social sector
by removing constraints on tenants without a housing need transferring.
1.2
The changes necessary to implement these reforms were made in the Localism
Act 2011. The Act requires local authorities to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12
months of its enactment. The Tenancy Strategy should set out the broad
objectives to be taken into consideration by individual social landlords in the area
covered by the local authority when developing their policies on the granting and
re-issuing of tenancies (Tenancy Policy). A Tenancy Policy should set out the
circumstances in which lifetime tenancies and the new fixed term tenancies will be
granted and in the latter case their duration and the circumstances in which
tenancies will be re-issued at the end of the fixed term.
2.0
North Norfolk District Council Tenancy Strategy
2.1
North Norfolk District Council does not own any social housing since its housing
stock was transferred to Victory Housing Trust (formerly North Norfolk Housing
Trust) in February 2006. There are a number of social housing providers in
addition to Victory Housing Trust who manage social housing in the North Norfolk
District who will also be required to have regard to this Tenancy Strategy.
2.2
North Norfolk District Council has an extremely high level of housing need for
social housing which can be evidenced from the District Wide Housing Needs
Survey undertaken in 2006 and the numbers on the North Norfolk Housing
Register which as at 1 January 2012 were 3984.
2.3 The Council would like social landlords with properties in the North Norfolk district
to use fixed term tenancies, Affordable Rent and transfers as outlined in its
Tenancy Strategy to achieve the following objectives:
•
To maintain stable and sustainable communities especially in more rural parts of
the district where local community infrastructure such as schools and shops are
supported by balanced populations including newly forming households and young
families
•
To make better use of the existing social housing stock through enabling a
reduction in under occupation
•
To ensure that specialist accommodation can be made available to households
most in need.
3.0
Risks
21
Cabinet
12 March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
3.1
The Council will not be complying with its statutory duty if it fails to agree a
Tenancy Strategy within 12 months of the enactment of the Localism Act 2011.
Social landlords are required to have regard to the Tenancy Strategy of the local
housing authority when developing their Tenancy Policy. There is a risk that social
landlords with properties in the North Norfolk District Council area could develop
their Tenancy Policies without having regard to the Council’s Tenancy Strategy
particularly if a strategy has not yet been agreed. The Council will not therefore be
able to influence how the social housing stock is used to meet housing need and
any wider objectives.
4.0
Financial implications
4.1
There are no direct financial implications to the Council from the Tenancy
Strategy. There are likely however to be positive indirect financial implications
resulting from better use of the social housing stock and the generation of income
from the use of Affordable Rent to deliver more new affordable housing.
5.0
Sustainability
5.1
One of the main aims of the Tenancy Strategy is to maintain stable and
sustainable communities. The Tenancy Strategy seeks to achieve a balance
between making best use of the existing social housing stock and enabling tenants
to remain in their homes for at least 5-6 years (assuming that 12 month starter
tenancies are also used) before a review of their circumstances is undertaken. The
Council would only want social landlords to ask social housing tenants to leave
their home at the end of a fixed term tenancy if the tenant was able to purchase a
property in the local housing market. The Tenancy Strategy also supports the
facilitation of tenants moving to alternative properties within the social housing
sector when the type or size of property being occupied is no longer required and
can be better utilized by a household in need. The use of transfers enables
tenants to move to accommodation more suited to the needs of their household or
to a location which is more sustainable due to family support or employment. The
use of Affordable Rent generates income to sustain a development programme for
new affordable housing which allows the needs of more households to be met.
6.0
Equality and diversity
6.1
The Council in developing its Tenancy Strategy has undertaken an Equality Impact
Assessment and does not consider that there are any adverse impacts for those
who might have a protected characteristic. The Council is advocating that fixed
term tenancies are used by social landlords universally across all the social
housing stock in the district with the exception of sheltered accommodation and
Housing with Care where it advocates that lifetime tenancies should be offered.
The housing circumstances of tenants in sheltered housing and Housing with Care
are less likely to change and there is limited opportunity to use this type of housing
to meet the needs of a wider range of household types in housing need and there
is therefore little merit in reviewing such tenancies at fixed intervals. The Council is
not advocating the use of variable fixed terms for different household types.
6.2
The Council is promoting the use of Affordable Rent universally across all property
types and locations to maximize the generation of income to support the delivery
of new affordable housing. The Council will seek to influence how this income is
spent and will where possible ensure that new affordable housing is delivered to
meet a range of identified needs.
22
Cabinet
12 March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
6.3
The Council is promoting the use of the North Norfolk Your Choice Your Home
scheme for all transfers to ensure transparency and fairness and to enable
monitoring of equality and diversity.
7.0
Conclusion
7.1
The Council is required to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12 months of the
enactment of the Localism Act 2011. The Strategy encourages social landlords in
North Norfolk through the use of fixed term tenancies, Affordable Rent and
Transfers to:
•
To maintain stable and sustainable communities especially in more rural parts of
the district where local community infrastructure such as schools and shops are
supported by balanced populations including newly forming households and young
families
•
To make better use of the existing social housing stock through enabling a
reduction in under occupation
•
To ensure that specialist accommodation can be made available to households
most in need.
8.0
Recommendation
•
To agree the North Norfolk District Council Tenancy Strategy and
recommend to Full Council for adoption
Appendices:
Appendix A - North Norfolk District Council Tenancy Strategy
Appendix B - Equality Impact Assessment
Appendix C - Responses to the Tenancy Strategy
23
APPENDIX A
North Norfolk District Council Tenancy Strategy
The Localism Act 2011 requires local authorities to have a Tenancy Strategy within 12
months of its enactment. The Tenancy Strategy should set out the broad objectives to be
taken into consideration by individual social landlords in the area covered by the local
authority when developing their policies on the granting and re-issuing of tenancies (Tenancy
Policy). A Tenancy Policy should set out the circumstances in which lifetime tenancies and
the new fixed term tenancies will be granted and in the latter case their duration and the
circumstances in which tenancies will be re-issued at the end of the fixed term.
Background
The Government’s consultation document ‘Local decisions: a fairer future for social housing’
issued in November 2010 included proposals for a package of reforms to give local authorities
and social landlords flexibility to make the best use of their social housing stock in a way
which best meets the needs of their local area. Included in the consultation were proposals to:
•
•
•
give greater flexibility to social landlords, enabling them to offer lifetime security where it is
needed but to set shorter tenancy terms where it makes more sense
Introduce an Affordable Rent tenancy at a higher rent than social rents up to a maximum
of 80% of local market rents
Make it easier for existing social housing tenants to move within the social sector by
removing constraints on tenants without a housing need transferring
Introduction
North Norfolk District Council does not own any social housing since its housing stock was
transferred to Victory Housing Trust (formerly North Norfolk Housing Trust) in February 2006.
There are a number of social housing providers in addition to Victory Housing Trust who also
manage social housing in the North Norfolk District who will be required to have regard to this
Tenancy Strategy.
North Norfolk District Council has an extremely high level of need for social housing which
can be evidenced from the District Wide Housing Needs Survey undertaken in 2006 and the
numbers on the North Norfolk Housing Register which as at 1 January 2012 were 3984. The
high level of housing need is due to high house price to income ratios with ratios varying
across the district from 5.71 in Scottow ward to 18.40 in High Heath ward (based on lower
quartile prices).
House prices in parts of North Norfolk are inflated due to strong demand for properties for
holiday and second homes and from in-migrants, mainly retirees, with higher spending
capacity than local people. Demand is also high for privately rented properties which are also
often unaffordable to local people particularly those on low incomes.
The Council would like to achieve the following objectives through its Tenancy Strategy:
24
•
To maintain stable and sustainable communities especially in more rural parts of the
district where local community infrastructure such as schools and shops are supported
by balanced populations including newly forming households and young families
•
To make better use of the existing social housing stock through enabling a reduction in
under occupation
•
To ensure that specialist accommodation can be made available to households most in
need.
Fixed term tenancies
The Council supports Social Housing Providers in giving fixed term tenancies in certain
circumstances and expects:
• that fixed term tenancies for general needs housing stock for all household types would
be no less than 5 years (or a 2 year fixed term tenancy in those limited circumstances
where this is more appropriate)
• lifetime tenancies to be used for tenants of sheltered housing or Housing with Care
unless a shorter tenancy is required where the long term demand for a scheme is low.
Where Fixed Term Tenancies are used, they will be reviewed 6 months prior to the expiry of
the term. At review, the Council expects that fixed term tenancies will be renewed unless the
circumstances of the social tenant have:
• improved allowing them to be able to purchase an appropriate property on the open
market or afford to rent an appropriate property in the private rented sector
• changed and they no longer require the property size or type that they occupy.
The Council believes that such an approach will make the most effective use of the social
housing stock and provides flexibility to move social tenants who no longer require the size
and type of property they occupy. This flexibility must however, be balanced against the
needs of applicants on the housing register to ensure a tenant is not moved from a lower
demand property to a higher demand property required by an applicant with more housing
need. In using these flexibilities it is especially important to the Council that they are used:
• to ensure that larger properties (with 4 or more bedrooms) and specialist properties in
particular wheelchair accessible properties are made available for re-letting when they
are no longer required by the tenant.
To support social housing providers undertaking fixed term tenancy reviews the Council will
provide:
• guidance on levels of demand for different sizes and types of social housing.
• advice on whether a tenant has the means to purchase a property on the open market
or rent an appropriate private rented property.
Affordable Rent
The Council supports the:
• use of Affordable Rent tenancies in newly built social housing where this reduces the
need for public subsidy
• conversion of Social Rent tenancies to Affordable Rent tenancies where possible to
generate funds to support the provision of new social housing
• use of Affordable Rent on market developments to improve the viability of developing
social housing in accordance with the Council’s targets.
25
This recognises the reduction in funding available to subsidise social housing from both
Government through the Homes and Communities Agency and from the Council.
Transfers
The Council administers the North Norfolk Your Choice Your Home Choice Based Lettings
scheme and Housing Register on behalf of the social housing providers operating in the North
Norfolk area. Tenants both in housing need and not in housing need wishing to transfer are
able to join the housing register which provides for more transparency and ensures that
tenants can access all social housing stock irrespective of who their landlord is. The Council
wants to:
• retain tenant transfers within the Your Choice Your Home scheme or equivalent.
Consultation
The Council has consulted with social housing providers and relevant stakeholders including
applicants on the principles underpinning this Tenancy Strategy.
Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment
An Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment has been undertaken in respect of this strategy.
Monitoring
The Council will monitor the outcomes of the Tenancy Strategy through the North Norfolk
Your Choice Your Home Partnership Board and will monitor:
•
•
•
•
The tenancy policies of social housing providers operating in North Norfolk to ensure that
the Council has been consulted and that they have had due regard to the Council’s
Tenancy Strategy
The use of fixed term tenancies
The use of Affordable Rent
The use of transfer only adverts in the North Norfolk Your Choice Your Home scheme.
Review
The Tenancy Strategy will be reviewed on an annual basis or earlier if required.
January 2012
26
Appendix B
Equality Impact Assessments Equality
Impact Assessment
Record Form
A practical step-by-step approach
to conducting
Equality Impact Assessments
North Norfolk District Council Page 1 27
28
Equality Impact Assessments Directorate
Title of the
assessed
policy
being
Service
Person
Date
responsible for assessment
the assessment completed
Housing Services
Housing
Manager
Services
21/02/12
North Norfolk District Council Tenancy Strategy
The status of the policy
New Strategy
1. What are the aims,
objectives and purposes
of the policy?
Statutory Requirement of Localism Act 2011
Sets out broad objectives to be taken into consideration by individual social landlords in the North
Norfolk area when developing their Tenancy Policies on the granting and re-issuing of tenancies
2. Does the policy support
other objectives of the
council?
Housing and infrastructure
3. Who is intended to
benefit from the policy,
and in what way?
Households in housing need seeking affordable housing in North Norfolk
4. What outcomes are
anticipated from the
policy being in place?
Better use of existing social housing stock
Maintaining sustainable communities
North Norfolk District Council Page 3 29
5. Identify and select your
assessment team.
Name
Role
Responsibilities
Karen Hill
Nicola Turner
6. What data have you
gathered for this
assessment?
How have you analysed
this data?
7. Who are the main
stakeholders of this
policy?
Source and
Age of Data
District Wide Housing
Needs Survey 2006
Strategic
Housing
Market
Assessment
2006
Housing
market
analysis – Hometrack
2011/12
North Norfolk Housing
Register January 2012
North
Norfolk
Your
Choice
Your
Home
lettings data 2011/12
Community
Owner
Housing Services
Housing Services
Data Gaps
Levels of housing need
Pressures within North
Norfolk Housing Market
House price to incomes
ratios
Numbers
on
the
Housing Register
Proportion of transfers
Staff/Members
North Norfolk residents
8. Are there any concerns
that the policy could have
a negative impact with
regard to race and
ethnicity?
Findings
none
Partners
Social landlords
What evidence (actual data or assumptions) do you have to support this?
Advocates universal policy
No
30
9. Are there any concerns
that the policy could have
a negative impact with
regard to gender?
10.Are there any concerns
that the policy could have
a negative impact with
regard to disability?
11.Are there any concerns
that the policy could have
a negative impact with
regard to age?
12.Are there any concerns
that the policy could have
a negative impact with
regard to religion/belief?
13.Are there any concerns
that the policy could have
a negative impact with
regard to sexual
orientation?
14.Could the negative impact
you have identified in
questions 8 - 13 lead to
the potential for adverse
impact if the policy is
implemented?
What evidence (actual data or assumptions) do you have to support this?
No
Advocates universal policy
What evidence (actual data or assumptions) do you have to support this?
No
Advocates universal policy
What evidence (actual data or assumptions) do you have to support this?
No
Advocates granting lifetime tenancies for sheltered housing and Housing with
Care which are restricted to over 60s
What evidence (actual data or assumptions) do you have to support this?
No
Advocates universal policy
What evidence (actual data or assumptions) do you have to support this?
Yes/No
Advocates universal policy
n/a
Can this adverse impact
be justified on the
31
grounds of promoting
equality of opportunity for
one group?
Or any other reason?
Can the impact be
mitigated by existing
means?
If yes, what actions will
you undertake to mitigate
these impacts and revise
the policy?
15.Describe the
arrangements for
reporting and publishing
this assessment.
Has this assessment been
undertaken by a minimum of
two staff?
Appendix to Cabinet Report
Published in accordance with Corporate procedures
Has this assessment been scrutinised by your
Directorate Steering Group?
Yes
If the policy is new, or requires a decision by Councillors to revise, has this Equality Impact Assessment
been included with the report?
Have any actions identified in this assessment been included in your service equality and diversity action
plan?
Completed by:
Signed off by:
Karen Hill
Housing Services Manager
32
Steve Blatch
Corporate Director
Corporate
Director
Yes
n/a
Equality Impact Assessments Produced by
David Lloyd associates
In partnership with
North Norfolk District Council
May 2008
North Norfolk District Council Page 7 33
Responses from Housing Associations on the draft North Norfolk
Tenancy Strategy
Broadland Housing Association
Happy with strategy position on fixed term tenancies. Supports 5 year
tenancies in most cases and pleased with expectation that tenants will not be
asked to move on at the end of 5 years unless their circumstances warrant it.
Support moving families to smaller accommodation when available therefore
freeing up properties for those in need.
Supports the use of Affordable Rent on general needs properties to generate
finance for additional social housing.
Happy for transfers to be completed within Your Choice Your Home scheme
and want to retain flexibility for urgent moves.
Cotman Housing Association and Places for People
Not intending to introduce fixed term tenancies at this time as they have
concerns at sustainability and the social capital that tenants will invest in their
neighbourhood and likelihood of tenant being formally involved with the
association if they feel their residence will be short lived. They have noted the
Council’s views.
Support the use of Affordable Rents as a means of generating new affordable
housing provision. No plans for development in North Norfolk at present but
would let on Affordable Rents if they did.
Support the principle of retaining all transfers in the Your Choice Your Home
scheme. Want to ensure tenants facing genuine hardship as a result of
welfare reform are able to downsize and as long as policies and procedures
allow this the principle of one list for all will allow (with 20% tenant only quota)
a realistic pool of properties to transfer to.
Flagship Housing
Flagship has not yet made a decision whether to use Fixed Term Tenancies
but supports the use of lifetime tenancies for sheltered housing.
Flagship is considering using Affordable Rents on properties which are of the
Intermediate Rent tenure and will consider further options in the future.
Support 20% of vacancies being advertised for tenants only but does not want
transfers limited to 20%. Wants to retain flexibility of direct lets and does not
want this adversely affected if all transfers remain through the Your Choice
Your Home scheme.
Riverside ECHG
No concerns for the stock in North Norfolk. Only 8 properties let on assured
tenancies.
Victory Housing Trust
Registered Providers need to “have regard to” tenancy strategies of local
authority partners. NNDC’s strategy recommends landlords use the flexibility
afforded to them in issuing fixed term tenancies. There are no adverse
comments to make on the strategy other than the view that it is appropriate to
consider private rented accommodation as an alternative to social housing or
owner occupation.
34
Note: At the moment up to 20% of all properties (not new build) can be
advertised as tenant only. Overall 28% of all lets are made to existing tenants.
35
Cabinet
March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny
28 March 2012
Agenda Item No______13_______
Car Parking Charges
Summary:
The car parking charges for 2012/13 were agreed at Full Council in
December 2012. A new car parking order, consolidating the existing
orders as well as introducing new charges has been advertised. The
closing date for objections was 23rd February. 74 objections and two
petitions were received.
Conclusions:
Members may consider that the objections do not constitute
substantive reasons for not bringing the order into force. However,
given the particular concerns about the loss of free car parks in North
Walsham, Fakenham and Wells Members may wish to waive
enforcement of this aspect of the order for three months pending any
agreement with the respective town councils regarding future
management of these car parks. If alternative arrangements are
agreed whereby the car parks continue to be free, a variation order
would be prepared to reflect this.
Recommendations:
1. That the Council considers it is appropriate to make the draft
order without modification and introduce the car parking
order on 1st April, because the order as a whole reflects car
parking demand and directs vehicles to the most appropriate
car park.
2. That the Council waive enforcement of the requirement to
display season tickets on the currently free car parks for
three months at North Walsham, Fakenham and Wells,
pending further discussions regarding future management
arrangements.
Cabinet member(s):
Contact Officer, telephone number,
and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected: All
Jill Fisher
1 Background
1.1
Full Council agreed the car parking charges for 2012/13 at the Council meeting on 14
December 2011. Subsequently, the legal process of preparing and advertising the order took
place. This order is a consolidation of the existing order of 1992, which has been subject to a
number of variations since that time.
36
Cabinet
March 2012
Overview and Scrutiny
28 March 2012
1.2
The statutory process for making a Car Parking Order requires a local authority to allow
at least 21 days for any person to make a written objection to the draft proposals and to place
the draft proposed order and existing parking places orders on deposit for public inspection
during the objection period. At the end of the objection period, a Council’s duty is to ‘consider all
objections duly made and not withdrawn’ and before making the final order a local authority may
modify the order in consequence of the objections. This report provides Members with a
summary of the objections.
2 Objections
2.1
The period for objections ran from 27 January to 23 February 2012. In total 74
letters/emails were received and two petitions, one submitted by North Walsham Chamber of
Trade (1,327 signatures) and one by North Walsham Community Association (327 signatures).
Of the 74 individual objections;
o 1 objected specifically to the evening charge
o 62 objected to the removal of free parking (22 Fakenham, 39 North Walsham, 1 Wellls)
o 11 were general objections
In addition;
o 1 petition made objection to all charges (1,327 signatures)
o 1 petition specifically objected to the evening charge (327 signatures)
There were no specific objections received regarding the tariff split between ‘resort’ towns and
‘other’ towns. There was no objection from the Highway Authority or the Police. A file and
schedule containing copies of the objections is enclosed and has been placed on deposit in the
members’ room.
3
3.1
4.
4.1
5
Equality and Diversity and Sustainability
There are no direct equality and diversity issues or sustainability issues arising from the
car parking order although parking in towns has wider implications in relation to
accessibility.
Risks
There is a financial risk to the Council if the new charging regime is not introduced on 1st
April 2012 as a result of possible loss of income that would result from not introducing the
new charging regime. Members should however note that it is possible to delay the making
of an order for up to two years from the start of the objection period.
Crime and Disorder
5.1.
Anti-social behaviour is likely to be reduced with the introduction of evening charging
and enforcement.
6
Conclusions
6.1
The objections received do not raise substantive reasons for not introducing the car
parking order. However, Members will note that there has been particular concern regarding the
introduction of “season-ticket only” restrictions. As such, Members may wish to bring the order
into force, but to waive enforcement of the requirement for season tickets on the currently free
car parks for three months, pending any agreement whereby management or financial support
of the car parks can transferred to the Town Councils of North Walsham, Fakenham and Wellsnext-the-Sea. If during this time it is decided that these car parks should remain free, a variation
order to amend the order now proposed could be introduced within a short time.
37
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
28 March 2012
Agenda Item No______16______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
Summary:
This report updates the Committee on progress with
topics in its agreed work programme (attached at
Appendix D) and invites Members to identify any
arising items for future meetings. The Scrutiny
Committee’s working style and role is attached at
Appendix E
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
A suggestion from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that a presentation
on credit unions should be made to Full Council has been communicated to
the Chairman of the Council. He does not support the idea believing that
presentations before Full Council can elongate the meeting to a level that is
unacceptable to Members. At the April workshop the Committee may wish to
consider having a presentation on credit unions at Overview and Scrutiny.
38
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2.2
28 March 2012
Task and Finish Group
The notes of the Task and Finish Group meeting held on 24 January 2012 are
attached at Appendix F
A following meeting was held on 27 February 2012. Work identified at this
meeting included further revision of the report template and consultation with
the Leader, Chairman of Scrutiny, Chief Executive/S151 Officer and the
Monitoring Officer.
Any further progress will be reported to the Committee on 28 March 2012.
2.3
Workshop
Members are reminded of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Workshop
on 17 April, 10.30 to 12.30 in the Council Chamber. The Chief Executive has
been invited and will be speaking to Members at the beginning of the session.
2.4
Public Transport Task and Finish Group
The Public Transport Task and Finish Group is due to meet on Wednesday 21
March 2011. An oral report will be made to the Committee.
3.
3.1
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme
Domestic Violence
The Community Liaison Officer, who is the Council’s contact with the relevant
agencies, has started her maternity leave. Members are recommended to
remove this item from the Work Programme as no progress is likely to be
made in the foreseeable future.
3.2
Coastal Issues
This item was requested by Mr P Terrington. It is recommended, subject to
discussion at the Workshop, that it be placed on the Work Programme for
June or July.
3.3
Items added and deferred
At the Overview and Scrutiny pre-Agenda meeting on 12 March 2012 the
Chair and Vice Chair agreed some alterations to the Work Programme. The
report on the Car Park Order which went to Cabinet on 12 March 2012 has
been added, following a request by Members at last month’s meeting of
Overview and Scrutiny that this topic should be monitored. Charging for
Planning Enquiries has also been added because it is a recommendation to
Full Council on 18 April 2012. At the suggestion of the Chief Executive, the
Tenancy Strategy has also been added to the March meeting. This item went
to Cabinet on 12 March 2012 and will go to Full Council in April.
To alleviate the weight from the March Work Programme the Compliments,
Complaints and Suggestions report and the update on Revenues and
Benefits Shared Services have been deferred to May.
39
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
28 March 2012
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
The Outcomes and Actions from the Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny
Committee (NHOSC), 1 March 2012, have been provided by Mrs A ClaussenReynolds and are attached at Appendix G Mrs Claussen-Reynolds has also
forwarded the slides from a presentation made to NHOSC by the East of
England Ambulance Service. This has been placed in the Members’ Room.
5
Report from the Norfolk Scrutiny Network 14 March 2012
5.1
Scrutiny of Crime and Disorder Issues
In June 2011 the Home Secretary gave permission for the seven Community
Safety Partnerships (CSPs) in Norfolk to formally merge into one Countywide
Community Safety Partnership (CCSP). With the shift from district to
countywide it was logical to carry out scrutiny at county level and this role has
been undertaken by the Community Services Overview and Scrutiny Panel. It
is the view of the Portfolio Holder for Community Protection that the most
appropriate means for scrutiny of crime and disorder issues would be to form
a sub-panel. Best practice suggests that the sub-panel should comprise
Members from each of the 7 District Councils, the County Council and the
Police Authority.
A letter inviting nominations to the sub-panel is being sent out to Chief
Executives. The nominated Member does not need to be on the Overview and
Scrutiny Committee and can even be drawn from the Executive.
5.2
Norfolk County Strategic Partnership Joint Scrutiny Panel
The Panel has not met for a year because the County Strategic Partnership
Board has been working in more informal ways to consider its future. It is likely
that the Board might decide to cease meeting formally and that the Joint
Scrutiny Panel will end. Mr E Seward currently represents NNDC on the Joint
Scrutiny Panel.
40
Appendix D
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME 2011/2012
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
March 28 Budget
2012
Monitoring Period
10
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Street Signs
Update
Scott Martin/John
Lee
Car Parks
Jill
Fisher/Wyndham
Northam
Tenancy Strategy
Karen Hill/Keith
Johnson
Priority
Impact on
District/
Community
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
First class
resource
management
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
First class
resource
management
To monitor
progress
First class
resource
management
19
41
How/where/
when
Cyclical
Annual
update
Date of
Meeting
Topic
March 28 Introduction of
2012
Fees for Preapplication
Advice and “Do I
need Planning
Permission?”
Enquiries
April 17
2012
May 23
2012
Workshop
(Possibly to
include the
Annual Plan)
Waste Contract
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Steve
Oxenham/Keith
Johnson
Priority
Impact on
District/
Community
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
First class
resource
management
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
How/where/
when
To review the
work
programme
John Lee/Barry
Brandford
First class
resource
management
Planning
Enforcement
Keith
Johnson/Steve
Oxenham
First class
resource
management
Compliments,
Complaints and
Suggestions
Estelle Packham/
Tom FitzPatrick
First class
resource
management
6-monthly
review,
deferred from
28 March
Shared Services
including ICT
procurement for
Revenues and
Benefits
replacement
systems
Wyndham
Northam/Louise
Wolsey
First class
resource
management
Quarterly
review
deferred from
28 March.
20
42
To be
reviewed
Date of
Meeting
Topic
June 26
2012
Treasury
Management
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Priority
Impact on
District/
Community
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
First class
resource
management
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
How/where/
when
Annual
Debt
Management
Annual Report
Louise Wolsey/
Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
RIPA/
Surveillance
Nick Baker/John
Lee
First class
resource
management
Outturn report
2010/11
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
Annual
Performance
Management
Annual Report
Helen
Thomas/Keith
Johnson
All
Cyclical
Gypsy and
Traveller Site
Update
Steve Hems/John
Lee
First class
resource
management
Shared Services
including ICT
procurement for
Revenues and
Benefits
replacement
systems
Wyndham
Northam/Louise
Wolsey
First class
resource
management
6 month
update
requested by
Members
Quarterly
review
requested by
Members
21
43
Annual
Date of
Meeting
Topic
July 24
2012
Environmental
Sustainability
Update
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
John Lee/Helen
Dixon
Priority
Impact on
District/
Community
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
First class
resource
management/
Protecting the
Environment
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
How/where/
when
To monitor
progress
Six monthly
update
Civil
Contingencies
and Business
Continuity Update
(To include
progress at
Walcott)
Health Strategy
Update (to
include update
on Health
Trainer work
and warm
homes scheme)
Budget
Monitoring Period
4
Richard
Cook/John Lee
First class
resource
management
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
Compliments,
Complaints and
Suggestions
Estelle Packham/
Tom FitzPatrick
First class
resource
management
6-monthly
review
Animal Control
Nick Baker/ John
Lee
First class
resource
management/
Protecting the
Environment
Annual
review
22
44
Six-monthly
update.
Budget
Monitoring
Cyclical
Date of
Meeting
Topic
July 24
2012
Shared Services
including ICT
procurement for
Revenues and
Benefits
replacement
systems
Nov 21
2012
Budget
Monitoring Period
6
Karen Sly/
Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
Cyclical
Half Yearly
Treasury
Management
Report for
2012/2013
Tony
Brown/Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
Cyclical
2012/13 Revised
Budget
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
Cyclical
Shared Services
including ICT
procurement for
Revenues and
Benefits
replacement
systems
Wyndham
Northam/Louise
Wolsey
First class
resource
management
Quarterly
review
requested by
Members
Budget
Monitoring Period
9
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
First class
resource
management
Cyclical
Dec 18
2012
February
20 2013
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Wyndham
Northam/Louise
Wolsey
Priority
Impact on
District/
Community
23
45
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
First class
resource
management
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
How/where/
when
Quarterly
review
requested by
Members
Date of
Meeting
Topic
February
20 2013
2013/2014 Base
Budget and
Projections for
2014/15 to
2016/17
TBA
Review of
effectiveness of
Norfolk
Development
Company
Robin Smith/Tom
FitzPatrick
Requested
by Members
March 2011
Economic
Development
Strategy
Robin Smith/Tom
FitzPatrick
Requested
by Members
4 October
2011
Annual Plan
(Corporate Plan)
Sheila
Oxtoby/Helen
Eales
Jill Fisher/Angie
Fitch-Tillett
Shoreline
Management
Plan
Suicide/Mental
Health
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Karen
Sly/Wyndham
Northam
Priority
Impact on
District/
Community
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
First class
resource
management
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
How/where/
when
Cyclical
All
Sonia
Shuter/Angie
Fitch-Tillett
Requested
by Members
Business Rates
and Second
Homes Council
Tax
The impact of car
park charges
24
46
Date of
Meeting
Topic
June or
July
Coastal Issues
Item on
All
Scrutiny
agendas
Scrutiny
Committee Work
Programme
Organisation/
Officer/
Responsible
Portfolio Holder
Eric Seward/
Scrutiny Officer
Priority
High
Impact on
District/
Community
Impact on
Equality and
Diversity
Links with
Changing Gear
and Work of the
Cabinet
Objectives and
Desired
Outcomes
How/where/
when
Helping the
District
reach its full
potential
and improve
services
Ensuring
that the
Council’s
Services are
relevant and
accessible
to all
All
Keep the
Scrutiny Work
Programme
under review
At
Committee
25
47
Appendix E
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.
26
48
Appendix F
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Group
Notes from the meeting held on 24 January 2012 at 10.00 am in the
Council Chamber
Members: Mr P W Moore (Chair)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Smith
Mr G Williams
Officers: Emma Denny and Mary Howard
1.
Election of Chairman
Mr P W Moore was elected to the Chair.
2.
Apologies for absence
None received.
3.
Terms of Reference and Methodology
a) The aim of the Group was to help the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to be more effective. The Committee needed to know why
they were looking at a topic and to be sure that there would be a good
outcome. It was important that the work programme and template
contributed to the process and made it slicker. The work of the Group
should impact the whole Council by increasing the efficiency of the
scrutiny function.
b) Although not originally within the remit of the Group there was a need
to consider the format in which reports were written and find a way to
simplify them so that they were written in plain English without Council
jargon. Short concise reports were desirable.
c) A revised report template was about to be launched for Cabinet,
Scrutiny and Full Council and would be strictly enforced by the
Democratic Services Team. However, Members were concerned that
officers might be ticking boxes without full understanding of the
purpose. There was a need for training.
d) The Group decided that one meeting would not be enough to
complete the work. At this initial meeting they would discuss their
ideas and proposals. Members accepted an offer by Mr G Williams to
work with officers to draft a report for another meeting. When the
Group was satisfied with the proposals a final report would be made to
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A discussion should also be
held with the Chief Executive when the work was more refined.
Corporate Leadership Team needed to be kept informed about the
work and give it their backing.
4.
The Template
a) The Democratic Services Team Leader explained the difference
between the reports template and the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee template. The first was for the use of report writers and
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Group
24 January 2012
49
1
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Topic and Date
Organisation/
Officer/Responsible
Portfolio Holder
5.
was prescriptive for Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny and Full Council.
The second was for the use of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
to aid them in evaluating topics and filtering out subjects which would
not add any value. Members perceived that there was a link between
the two and suggested that officers consider this further.
Although not originally within the remit of the Group there was a need
to consider the format in which reports were written and find a way to
simplify them so that they were written in plain English without Council
jargon. Short concise reports were desirable and easier to understand.
Members considered the headings on the Overview and Scrutiny
template:
• Equality and Diversity was already covered by the report and
template and did not need to be duplicated.
• Links with the Corporate Plan and the work of the Cabinet: this
heading needed to be retained so that Members could
consider the policy justification for pursuing a topic.
Occasionally, however, there would be an issue which didn't fit
under that heading but was none the less valid.
• Objectives and desired outcomes could be combined with
How/when/why.
• Priority/urgency etc could be combined with Interesting and of
public concern.
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee needed to know that the work
they had done had made a difference. An “Outcome” box should be
introduced. A report could be written by the Scrutiny Officer to
summarise the outcomes.
Concern was expressed that the agenda tended to get bogged down
with cyclical reports. It was suggested that there should be a cut-off
date for the continuing receipt of such reports.
The revised template would be brought back to the Group and tested.
The chart (below) reflects some of the changes suggested by
Members.
Objectives/
Desired
Outcomes/
Proposed
Process
Resources
required
Priority/
urgency/
strategic
impact on
District/
community/of
public concern?
Links with
The Corporate Plan
and the Work of the
Cabinet
Outcomes to date
Sequencing of Meetings
a) Ideally, provided that Cabinet wanted the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to look at a report, it should go from Cabinet to Scrutiny
then back to a following meeting of Cabinet before presentation to Full
Council. There was a need to change the culture so that officers
began the process early enough for this to happen. This wouldn’t be
possible if a matter was urgent but “urgent” should not be used as a
smokescreen for bad management!
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Group
24 January 2012
50
2
b) Overview and Scrutiny agendas were full and often questions from
Members had to be curtailed because of lack of time. A possible
solution would be to have more meetings, making use of General
Reserve Days. The Democratic Services Team Leader said that her
team would fully support a move towards extra meetings although
support would be limited by the resources available.
c) Cabinet could use Scrutiny for pre-scrutiny (a draft report going to
Overview and Scrutiny before Cabinet) or to ask for comments on a
more detailed piece of work. The nature of the work required should
be clearly defined and Cabinet must provide this information to
Overview and Scrutiny in advance. This should link to the Forward
Plan. The Forward Plan needed to be much more comprehensive and
the backing of Corporate Leadership Team was essential if this was to
be achieved.
d) A draft sequence of meetings would be produced for the Group, to be
worked on and refined.
6.
Witness Protocol
a) As well as a witness protocol it would be desirable to produce
guidance for public speakers. Some Members thought that the 3
minute time limit should be reconsidered and that the length of public
questions should be at the discretion of the Chair.
b) The protocol should be for councillors as well as witnesses.
c) An amendment was suggested to item 3. It was not considered
practical to provide witnesses with a list of questions in advance, but
the line of questioning could be provided whenever possible. Item 2
could be combined with item 3.
d) Item 5: a week was too short a deadline for a presentation. This
should be changed to 2 weeks.
e) Sensitivity was necessary when questioning young or vulnerable
witnesses. Questions should be adapted to the needs of the witness.
f) Members questioned if the section on questioning skills was
necessary. The Democratic Services Team Leader explained that this
had been integral to all the models she had looked at.
g) The Guidance for Witnesses section needed to be more friendly and
personal.
h) It was noted that few public speakers attended Overview and Scrutiny.
The Group should give consideration to raising the public profile of
Scrutiny and increasing community involvement. Where appropriate
meetings could be taken out of the Council Chamber and held in a
community venue.
The meeting closed at 12 noon.
_________________________
Chairman
27 February 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee Task and Finish Group
24 January 2012
51
3
Appendix G
Outcomes and Actions
Norfolk Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1 March 2012
Agenda Report Title
Item
Number
Outcomes and Actions
7.
The Committee noted that integration of services is continuing to be
rolled out following the integrated care pilots.
8.
Integration of service delivery
(integrated care pilots)
Children’s autism services
Action By Whom
Michael Scott was asked to provide information on the continuing care
budget.
Michael Scott
(Info already
provided – MO)
NHOSC supported the proposed dedicated post of Pathway Coordinator and agreed there should be investment in this post and in
the capacity to run Early Bird, Early Bird Plus and other programmes
to support families.
Maureen Orr
(to inform NHS
Norfolk & Waveney
and the Autistic
Spectrum Disorders
Steering Group)
The Committee requested a further report in late Autumn 2012 on
progress with:•
•
•
•
The post of Pathway Co-ordinator and the capacity to run Early
Bird, Early Bird Plus and other programmes to support families.
The full implementation of the new ASD pathway agreed
between Norfolk County Council and NHS Norfolk, and
compliant with NICE guidance by June 2012.
The newly-created Norfolk Additional Needs and Disability
Partnership.
The overdue White Paper outlining firm proposals for reform
which was expected in December 2011.
52
9.
Same day admission
processes at Norfolk’s acute
hospitals
The Committee agreed the terms of reference for a task and finish
group scrutiny with the following amendments:•
Under the title of the scrutiny add that it is about same day
admissions for elective surgery where patients are expected to
stay in hospital for a number of days after their operation. It not
about emergency admissions or day procedures where the patient
is not expected to stay overnight following their operation.
•
Under ‘Issues and questions to be addressed’ add ‘How does the
same day admissions process relate to number of available
hospital beds’.
The Committee nominated the following Members to a task and finish
group:John Bracey
Michael Chenery of Horsburgh
Steve Dorrington
Nigel Legg
Shirley Weymouth
Tony Wright was nominated as a substitute Member.
10.
Forward work programme
Patrick Thompson to provide a nomination from Norfolk LINk.
Patrick Thompson
Agendas for the task and finish group’s meetings should be copied to
other HOSC members to give them the opportunity to attend if they
wish.
Maureen Orr
The Committee agreed to add ‘Beechcroft Surgery, Costessey’ and
Maureen Orr
‘NHS Norfolk and Waveney – service developments’ as potential items
for the April meeting or for later meetings if required.
53
Agreed that ‘District Nursing’ should be added to the May agenda and
the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) should be invited to speak about
their report on staff reductions. The RCN report should be circulated
to the Members in advance.
Agreed that a seminar should be held towards the end of 2012, open
to all County Councillors and District Councillors on NHOSC, on the
provisions of the new Health and Social Care Act and associated
Regulations.
Agreed that the Committee should be informed about the new
arrangements for provision of the Learning Difficulties service by
Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation, either as part of the report
on the merger of Norfolk and Suffolk Mental Health Trusts in May
2012, or as a separate item.
Ambulance turnaround times in Norfolk and dignity and compassion in
hospitals were also suggested as potential items for the forward work
programme.
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
54