Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Tuesday 05 January 2016 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Miss B Palmer
Mr N Dixon
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick (Chairman)
Mr W Northam
Mr J Rest
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Cox
Mr P W High
Mr N Pearce
Officers in
Attendance:
Mrs M Prior
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
The Corporate Directors, the Communications and PR Manager, the
Head of Assets and Leisure and the Democratic Services Team
Leader
The Chairman welcomed everyone and wished them a Happy New Year. He said that there
were several members of the public in attendance for Agenda item 13 and consequently this
item would be taken earlier than scheduled. Before commencing the formal business, the
Chairman informed Members that the Council had recently been awarded Investors in
People Gold status. On behalf of all Members he thanked the staff for their hard work,
particularly during a time of change.
89.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mrs J Oliver
90.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 30th November 2015 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman
91.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Three members of the public spoke in relation to Agenda item 13: Holt car park
development proposals. The Chairman informed Members that this item would be
brought forward.
Cabinet
05 January 2016
92.
HOLT CAR PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Mr Michael Hill said that he had run a business in Holt town centre for over 47 years.
He agreed with several statements within the report but could not accept the
recommendation not to commit to further investment in parking provision in Holt. Mr
Hill said that the town’s inaccessibility had resulted in a decline in customer
confidence over recent years and the report recognised that there was a
longstanding parking issue in Holt. Mr Hill concluded by saying that the highest
revenue per car parking space for the Council was generated in Holt and that this
was the time to invest in the town
Mr Duncan Baker, Holt Town Mayor and director of CT Baker spoke in a personal
capacity. He said that as an operator of a car park in the town he was aware of the
revenues that could be generated. Mr Baker said that Cabinet needed to base their
decision on a long term vision for the town and that by creating ample parking, Holt
would benefit but so would the region in general due to an influx of visitors. He said
that the claims regarding the likelihood of additional spaces across the town were
misleading and that the only solution was the Thornage Road site
Mr Michael Baker then spoke. He said that 45 years ago Holt had been
overshadowed by other towns across the District. Then the bypass was built and the
town began to grow. It had now reached capacity and investment was needed once
again. A further 500 homes were in the pipeline and there was a desperate need for
more parking. Mr Baker then referred to a previous proposal to build an additional
175 car parking spaces which had been refused by the Council due to ongoing
negotiations regarding the Thornage Road proposal. Mr Baker concluded by saying
that the Council owed Holt a car park as it had the lowest number of spaces per head
in North Norfolk.
The Chairman asked the Corporate Director (SB) to clarify why the previous
application for a car park, referred to by Mr Baker, had been turned down. The
Corporate Director (SB) said that Mr Baker had made a pre-application enquiry to
create a ‘deck’ on the existing Budgen’s supermarket car park and that there had not
been a formal proposal or a public consultation. He explained that officers had
advised that there would be an impact on the historic centre of the town and that it
was likely that they would recommend refusal of the scheme.
The Chairman invited Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for Assets, to respond to the points
raised. Mr Rest said that it was a contentious issue and that a lot of views had been
expressed. He referred to Mr Duncan Baker’s comment that the Thornage Road site
‘was not perfect’ and said that this was important. Mr Rest said that the site did not
offer value for money and that the figures in the report were correct. The owner of the
site had been very optimistic on occupancy rates and his reluctance to invest in the
scheme himself indicated that he was not confident of his projections.
Mr Rest reiterated that the Council was not currently able to commit to investing in
parking in the town. He said that Cabinet wanted to await the outcome of the various
proposals coming forward and would then consider any future proposals which were
viable.
Mr P W High spoke as the Local Member for Holt. He said that he was speaking on
behalf of residents and that many people were concerned about problems with onstreet parking in the town. He referred to a recent incident along the Cley Road when
an ambulance had not been able to get through due to parked cars. NCC Highways
Cabinet
05 January 2016
had advised they could put down a white line to deter parking but that yellow lines
were not possible until a car park was provided.
Mr High concluded by urging Cabinet to defer a decision. He offered to meet the
Leader and Mr Rest in Holt and show them where the parking issues were.
Mrs M Prior, Local member for Holt, then spoke. She said that the parking issue was
not quantifiable but that she was aware of very different views from Holt residents
and that there were two sides to the issue.
Mr N Dixon, in seconding the recommendation said that he had read all of the emails
that he had received on the issue and listened very carefully to the views expressed
during the meeting. Reflecting on the town’s parking problems, he said that Holt was
not unique in this and that looking at the proposals coming forward which included
Aldi, the public speakers had implied that people visiting the store would not then
continue on into the town and this could not be assumed. He felt it was right to pause
for now and await the outcomes of the proposals in the pipeline. The situation could
be reviewed and revisited at any time and future propositions would be given due
consideration.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that the issue of parking in Holt had been around for 12 years
and that it kept coming back. She reminded Members that the Council did not have a
statutory duty to provide car parks. She said that she was hopeful of the proposals
that were in the pipeline but that the business case for the Thornage Road car park
did not make financial sense.
It was proposed by Mr J Rest, seconded by Mr N Dixon and
RESOLVED
Not to commit the District Council to making any further investment in parking
provision at Holt for the present time, recognising proposals currently under
construction and subject to detailed planning applications which would deliver over
150 new spaces to serve the town, undermining any financial investment made by
the Council in such facilities in the town. Should this position change Cabinet will be
advised so as to allow further consideration of the matter. If future proposals were to
come forward that reduced the levels of risk to the Council then these can be
considered at a future date.
Reasons for the decision:
It is recognised that there are on-going challenges faced by the town of Holt in
relation to car parking provision. However, with a number of proposals to provide
additional parking in Holt being taken forward, the level of risk associated with the
Council making an investment at this time is considered to be too high.
93.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
94.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that she had been lobbied regarding Agenda item 13 ‘Holt Car
Park Development Proposals’.
Cabinet
05 January 2016
Mr T FitzPatrick referred to Agenda Item 14: Egmere Business Zone Project. He said
that he was the local Member and knew the owners and directors linked to the
project.
95.
MEMBER QUESTIONS
The Leader confirmed that Members could ask questions as each item arose.
96.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
None
97.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None
98.
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED
a. That the amendments outlined in Appendix 4 of the report be incorporated
into the Statement of Community Involvement and that the document be
approved.
b. To delegate power to the Planning Policy Manager to commission evidence to
support the production of the North Norfolk Local Plan (2016-2036), in
consultation with the Portfolio holder.
99.
CONTAMINATED LAND INSPECTION STRATEGY
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Environment introduced this item. She said
that it was a very interesting document as it outlined the history and geology of the
District. The Strategy outlined how the Council intended to implement and manage its
inspection duties under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A review
of the existing contaminated land inspection strategy had been undertaken and
amendments had been made to bring it in line with new government guidance.
Mr W Northam agreed that it was an excellent document and suggested that all
Members should have a copy for reference.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that she found it very informative and that she would
keep it for future reference.
It was proposed by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Mrs S Arnold and
RESOLVED to
Approve the revised Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy
Reasons for the decision:
To meet the Council’s statutory responsibilities in relation to inspection and control of
Contaminated Land.
Cabinet
05 January 2016
100.
SUPERFAST BROADBAND
The Chairman, Mr T FitzPatrick introduced this item. He said that the report followed
on from the presentation by Karen O’Kane at the December meeting of Council.
Members’ views were now sought on whether to release the £1m earmarked from
District Council resources to match fund a phase 2 rollout of the Superfast Extension
Programme (SEP). Mr FitzPatrick explained that the additional funding would
increase the coverage in North Norfolk from 85% to 92%, including some key
employment sites in the District. He concluded by saying that the Council would also
be looking at emergent technology to ensure that the highest possible coverage was
achieved.
The Chairman invited Members to comment:
1. Mr E Seward referred to paragraph 4.7 of the report. He said that 8.5k properties
would be affected and he wondered who would decide which areas would
receive the funding. Mr FitzPatrick replied that the County Council would guiding
the decision on that. In response to a further question as to whether it would
come back to Cabinet for consideration, Mr FitzPatrick confirmed that it would be
a Cabinet decision.
2. Mr R Reynolds said that he was fully supportive of the proposals and that
progress was faster than envisaged. Broadband was essential for businesses,
schools and residents.
3. Mr N Dixon said that as Portfolio Holder for Business and Economic
Development, he welcomed the proposals.
4. Mrs S Arnold said that broadband was vital and the lack of consistent provision
was frustrating. Anything that could be done to support increased provision
should be encouraged.
5. Mrs H Cox said that mobile phone reception was also poor, particularly along the
coast.
Miss B Palmer, in seconding the proposal, said that several residents in her ward had
brought up issues with poor broadband and this report would address this.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Miss B Palmer and
RESOLVED to
Release the £1million funding allocated to Broadband in an earmarked reserve to
match fund the delivery of BBfN2 Part 2 as detailed within the report.
Reasons for the decision:
To increase Broadband coverage in North Norfolk from 85% to 92%.
101.
CROMER WEST PROMENADE REVITALISATION PROGRAMME
The Chairman advised Members that there was a change to one of the
recommendations. Recommendation C was now a recommendation to Council rather
than a Cabinet decision:
c) to approve a further capital budget of £650,000 to support delivery of the phase 2
works.
Cabinet
05 January 2016
Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for Assets, then introduced the report. He said that it
informed Members of the progress in relation to the development of a ‘Master Plan’
and the programme of works to help revitalise Cromer’s West promenade following
the devastation caused by the tidal surge of December 2013. He thanked the
Property, Project and Programme Manager for all her hard work and said that the
suggested approach was a good one as it would enable the work to be done properly
and in a timely manner.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for the Coast, said that she endorsed the
comments made by Mr Rest. Work had started on repairing the sea walls on the west
promenade just before the tidal surge of 2013 and the Council had taken the time to
fully assess the situation to ensure that a proper job was done and to spread the
work along the Cromer seafront.
Mr N Dixon said that he also supported the proposals. From a business and tourism
perspective it was right to take time and reflect on the best approach and to build in
resilience. Mr Dixon said that he welcomed the opportunity to link the promenade to
the car park and to release the full potential for the future.
Mrs H Cox, local Member for Cromer Town, said that this was an excellent piece of
work that would enhance the town and extend the holiday season. She thanked all
the staff involved.
It was proposed by Mr J Rest, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
a) To adopt the West Promenade Master Plan;
b) To carry out the works identified within the phase 1 works programme and;
That the following recommendation is made to Council:
c)
to approve a further capital budget of £650,000 to support delivery of the phase 2
works.
Reasons for the decision:
To enable officers to proceed with the West Promenade revitalisation programme
(phase 1) for 2016 and continue work to define and fund phases 2 and 3 of the
Master Plan.
102.
EGMERE BUSINESS ZONE PROJECT
The Chairman advised Members that there was a change to one of the
recommendations. The following was now a recommendation to Council rather than
a Cabinet decision:
That subject to any necessary revision to the budget and policy framework, the
establishment of a capital budget of up to £1.445 million (£450k from external
resources and £995k from NNDC capital resources) to support delivery of the project.
Mr J Rest, Portfolio Holder for Assets, then introduced the item. He said that the
report provided an update on how the Council could take a lead role in facilitating
development of land at the Egmere Business Zone by opening up an area of land for
business use through the provision of road and utility infrastructure and the
development of a workshop/office unit for lease as a catalyst for future development.
Mr Rest concluded by saying that he felt that this was the direction in which the
Cabinet
05 January 2016
Council should be going – a commercial approach which embraced growing
technology.
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick commented on Egmere’s proximity to the port at Wells.
He said that there were already 96 jobs there and it was anticipated that there would
be work for the next 40 years. The establishment of a Local Development Order
(LDO) had encouraged businesses to invest and this had been followed by the recent
bid to become an Enterprise Zone.
The Chairman invited Members to speak:
1. Mr R Reynolds said that he supported the proposals. Job creation was very
important for the West of the District.
2. Mr R Shepherd agreed. He said that anything that attracted more businesses
was to be welcomed, particularly with the proposals to build lots more homes in
nearby Fakenham.
3. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett reiterated how important it was to support the port of Wells as
it was the only safe haven between Great Yarmouth and Boston. She added that
Egmere was also closer to key routes such as the A10, A11 and A! Than
anywhere else in the District.
It was proposed by Mr J Rest, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED to

welcome the recent designation of the Egmere Business Zone site as an
Enterprise Zone by HM Government,

note and welcome the support for the delivery of a project to provide road and
utility infrastructure into 1.65 hectares of land at Egmere through the £450,000
grant secured from the Norfolk Business Rates Pool fund,

provide road and utility infrastructure into an area of land at Egmere, so as to
provide serviced land for future development by third parties,

note the interest of an established business working in the offshore renewables
sector in occupying workshop and office premises at the Egmere Business Zone
site and, subject to agreeing terms and following consultation with relevant
portfolio-holders, resolves to build and lease such a facility as a first
development on the wider site, as part of the Council’s Investment Strategy.
Make the following recommendation to Council:

that subject to any necessary revision to the budget and policy framework, to the
establishment of a capital budget of up to £1.445 million (£450k from external
resources and £995k from NNDC capital resources) to support delivery of
project.
Reasons for the decision:
To maximise the opportunities presented by the Enterprise Zone status awarded to
the Egmere Business Zone site, supporting new job-creating investment in the
District
Cabinet
05 January 2016
103.
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
The Chairman advised Members that there was no need to exclude the press or
public as there would be no discussion of the exempt appendices.
Mrs S Arnold, Portfolio Holder for Planning introduced this item. She said that the
report updated Members on the work of the Enforcement Board over the previous 6
months and gave an assessment of progress made on difficult enforcement cases
since its inception. Mrs Arnold said that a lot of ground had been covered in the last
12 months and that things were definitely moving in the right direction.
Mr J Rest said that it was a very encouraging report and that the Enforcement Board
was a very valuable resource for the Council.
Mr R Reynolds said that as Chairman of the Development Committee he was aware
of the hard work carried out by the Enforcement Board.
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick said the Board had had great success in bringing empty
homes back into use.
It was proposed by Mrs S Arnold, seconded by Mr J Rest and
RESOLVED
1. To note the progress made to date by the Enforcement Board.
2. That, on the basis that the costs are non-recoverable, to approve Planning
Enforcement costs for the properties described at Confidential Appendix 1 up to a
maximum value of £20,000, to be funded from the Enforcement Board reserve.
3. To authorise acquisition of 37 Beeston Road, Sheringham subject to formal
valuation, and in respect of this, authorises the following specific actions:
3a. That, following a formal valuation, officers are authorised to seek a voluntary
agreement from the owners of 37 Beeston Road, Sheringham, to sell the
property to the Council stating clear timescales for the owners to respond and to
complete the sale.
3b. That if no such agreement is reached, that officers are authorised to proceed
with a Compulsory Purchase Order on the property from the Secretary of State.
3c.That officers are authorised to take necessary steps for the acquired property
to be sold on at the earliest opportunity with binding conditions that will make
clear the Council’s expectation for the property be returned to use as soon as
realistically achievable.
3d.That the purchase will be funded from capital resources from which virement
of the necessary funds is authorised.
3e.To cap the CPO costs at the valuation level plus the CPO application costs at
the upper limit of £35,000 as identified in Appendix 3.
Reasons for the decision:
1. To ensure appropriate governance of the Board’s activities.
2. To enable appropriate enforcement action to be completed through the use of
additional, external professional support.
3. To seek a formal valuation and acquire 37 Beeston Road:
3aThere is an expectation by the Secretary of State that Councils will seek to
reach voluntary agreement on purchase prior to a Compulsory Purchase being
authorised.
Cabinet
05 January 2016
3b To enable the property to be brought back into use, thus reducing the
number of long-term empty properties in the area and increasing housing
provision.
3c As 3b above.
3d To make the necessary financial provision for purchase.
3e To ensure CPO remains a cost effective option
.
The Meeting closed at 14.57 pm
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
05 January 2016