Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
18th December 2015
A meeting of the Cabinet of North Norfolk District Council will be held in the Council Chamber
at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on Tuesday 5th January at 2.00pm
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 516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so should inform the Chairman. If you are a
member of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that
you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Arnold, Mr N Dixon, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr W Northam, Mrs J Oliver,
Miss B Palmer, Mr J Rest,
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.
MINUTES
(page 12)
To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 30th
November 2015.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any.
4.
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.
5.
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 disclosable pecuniary
interest.
6.
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
To receive oral questions from Members, if any.
7.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR RECONSIDERATION
To consider matters referred to the Cabinet (whether by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee or by the Council) for reconsideration by the Cabinet in accordance with the
provisions within the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules or the Budget and Policy
Framework Procedure Rules.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
To consider any reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which may be
presented by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and determination
of any appropriate course of action on the issues so raised for report back to that
committee
9.
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
a) At the meeting of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party held on 9th
November 2015 the following recommendation was made to Cabinet:
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
Minute 35: Statement of Community Involvement
That the amendments outlined in Appendix 4 to the report, and as reported above, be
incorporated into the Statement of Community Involvement and that the document be
approved.
b) At the meeting of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party held on 7th
December 2015 the following recommendation was made:
RECOMMENDED to Cabinet
Minute 41: North Norfolk Local Plan Evidence Scoping
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.
10.
CONTAMINATED LAND INSPECTION STRATEGY
(page 18)
Strategy document – p. 22
Summary:
This document details how North Norfolk District Council intends
to implement and manage its inspection duties under Part 2A of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Following on from the
introduction of the new contaminated land statutory guidance
earlier in 2012. A review of our existing contaminated land
inspection strategy has been undertaken and amendments have
been made to bring it in line with new government guidance.
New guidance was introduced to improve clarity for regulators
and simplify the existing structures.
Options considered:
The revised inspection strategy is required to reflect the
changes in government statutory guidance. The implementation
of a revised strategy is required to fulfil the Councils statutory
and legal obligations under Part 2A of the Environmental
Protection Act (1990). In view of this there are no alternative
options to consider other than the approval of the revised
strategy.
Conclusions:
The revised statutory guidance was implemented in April 2012,
and in accordance with section 2.4 of the new guidance Local
Authorities are required to update their existing inspection
strategies to reflect the new guidance. Our existing inspection
strategy has been amended to account for these changes and
put before cabinet for approval.
Cabinet
Decision
Recommendations: That the revised Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy is
approved by Cabinet.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To meet the Councils statutory responsibilities in relation to
inspection and control of Contaminated Land.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance (Defra, 2012)
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (1990)
The North Norfolk Contaminated land Inspection strategy (2009)
Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2012
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer
Telephone
Email
11.
Councillor A Fitch-Tillett
All
James Wilson, James Ashby
01263 516372, 01263 516274
james.wilson@north-norfolk.gov.uk;james.ashby@northnorfolk.gov.uk
SUPERFAST BROADBAND
(page 93)
Summary:
This report summarises the current position within Norfolk, and
specifically North Norfolk in the roll out of superfast Broadband.
It also seeks Members views on whether they wish to release
the £1million earmarked from District Council resources to match
fund a phase 2 rollout of the Superfast Extension Programme
(SEP).
Conclusions:
The additional funding will increase the coverage in North
Norfolk from 85% to 92% which will include coverage of some
key employment sites within the District. This is based on
achieving the maximum coverage possible for the available
funding, which has been possible from the increased take up of
fibre services in Norfolk and match funding from Government.
Every pound that North Norfolk commits, secures a further
£2.50.
Recommendations: Cabinet is asked to resolve 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.
Cabinet Decision
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer
Telephone
Email
All
All
Sheila Oxtoby
01263 516000
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
12.
CROMER WEST PROMENADE REVITALISATION PROGRAMME
(page 98)
(Appendix 1 – p. 106) (Appendix 2 – p.124)
Summary:
This report aims to inform 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.
Approval is requested to progress the phase 1 works (which are
funded). Approval is also sought for a further £650,000 to be
allocated to the capital budget for the scheme (to be funded from
existing capital resources) to support phase 2, along with in
principle agreement for the phase 3 works which will be subject
to appropriate funding being secured and further reports.
The business case for the phase 1 improvements (appendix 1)
sets out the initial programme of works including anticipated
costs for 2016 (fully funded) and identifies the sub-projects for
phases 2 and 3 for which further funding (internal/grant/private)
will need to be identified.
The phase 1 site works are programmed to commence once the
current Volker Stevin coast defence works are completed but
approval for the plans is now sought to ensure appropriate
planning applications and tendering can be completed in
readiness.
Options considered:
The process has already involved the procurement of a Design
Team and considerable consultation with local stakeholder
groups to create a vision (Master Plan) for the Cromer West
Promenade, and various options have been considered as part
of this process.
The design incorporates a number of features and improvements
which aim to fulfil all the criteria identified in the original project
plan and also to satisfy the Council’s updated Corporate plan.
In addition the project is mindful of and flexible enough to
incorporate the Deep History Coast initiative as that programme
develops further.
Conclusions:
Cabinet
Decision
Cromer’s promenade is a District wide asset well placed to
exploit our coastline’s natural resources and tourist appeal,
providing an attractive multifunctional destination for locals and
visitors alike throughout much of the year.
The design aims to appeal to a variety of visitors, provide
opportunities for private investment and business openings as
well as a year round focus for education, entertainment, leisure
and relaxation.
The Master Plan provides the blue print for continued
development on the West promenade and will support future
funding bids. Some elements in future phasing still require
further development and refinement but these can be advanced
whilst phase 1 is implemented and will be the subject of further
reports.
The implementation of phase 1 will lay the foundations and
install key elements, including essential infrastructure, to support
future developments and maximise opportunities for asset
realisation, income generation and private investment.
Recommendations: It is recommended that Cabinet;
a) adopt the West Promenade Master Plan;
b) resolve to carry out the works identified within the
phase 1 works programme and;
c) Approve a further capital budget of £650,000 to
support delivery of the phase 2 works.
13.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
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.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer
Telephone
Email
Cllrs John Rest, Angie Fitch-Tillett and Nigel Dixon
Cromer Town
Duncan Ellis
01263 516330
duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
HOLT CAR PARK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
(page 134 )
(Exempt Appendix – p.176)
** EXEMPT APPENDIX ** NOT FOR PUBLICATION – BY VIRTUE OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF
PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 12A (AS AMENDED) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
Summary:
Options considered:
This report considers the car parking issues faced
in Holt. It is not felt that the current car parking
provision can adequately deal with demand and
therefore Members are requested to consider the
various options detailed in the report.
A number of options are considered within the
report as follows:1. Do nothing – the Council could opt to do nothing
and not get involved in any potential development
opportunities, relying on current provision or
private development bringing new sites forward.
2. Review all options to provide additional public
car parking spaces in Holt in order to inform any
future decision by the Council as to which, if any,
proposal it might wish to support moving forward.
Conclusions:
It is recognised that there is a parking issue in Holt
and that current parking provision (both on and off
street) is not sufficient to deal with current
demand.
Having reviewed the current position of public
parking in Holt and recognising that proposals
have been made for the provision of over 150
additional spaces in the town (Aldi, Greshams and
Cley Road) there is considered to be too much risk
to the Council committing financial investment to
any proposal in the town at the present time. The
Council’s position does not preclude others from
investing in any scheme to provide additional
parking in the town if they have confidence in the
viability of any scheme.
Recommendations:
Cabinet
Decision
14.
It is recommended that Cabinet does not
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
Recommendations:
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
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer
Telephone
Email
Cllr John Rest
Holt Town
Duncan Ellis
01263 516330
duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EGMERE BUSINESS ZONE PROJECT
(page 148)
(illustrative layout – p.153 ) (Exempt Appendix – p.180 )
** EXEMPT APPENDIX ** NOT FOR PUBLICATION – BY VIRTUE OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF
PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 12A (AS AMENDED) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
Summary:
This report updates Cabinet on how the District
Council might take a lead role in facilitating
development of land at the Egmere Business Zone
site by opening up an area of land for business uses
through the provision of road and utility infrastructure
and the development of a first workshop / office unit
for lease, as a catalyst for future development.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Cabinet
Decision
Reasons for Recommendations
The report proposes that:
the Council takes a head lease in respect of
1.65 hectares of land to the north of Edgar
Road and,

takes forward a programme of works to
provide road and utility services into the land
so as to provide “development ready” sites
for business related investment by third
parties, and

subject to agreeing terms with an interested
party, develop a workshop / office facility for
lease, as a first development on the site
That Cabinet:
welcomes the recent designation of the
Egmere Business Zone site as an
Enterprise Zone by HM Government,

notes and welcomes 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,

resolves to provide road and utility
infrastructure into an area of land at
Egmere, so as to provide serviced land for
future development by third parties,

notes 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.

Agrees, 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.
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 member(s):
Ward member(s)
Cllrs John Rest, Judy Oliver, Nigel Dixon
Primarily Walsingham, but some implications for
the Priory ward through use of facilities at the
Port of Wells
Steve Blatch
01263 516232
steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Contact Officer
Telephone
Email
15.
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
(page 154)
(Exempt Appendix – p.171)
** EXEMPT APPENDIX ** NOT FOR PUBLICATION – BY VIRTUE OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF PART 1
OF SCHEDULE 12A (AS AMENDED) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
Summary:
This report provides an update for Members on the work
of the Enforcement Board over the past six months and
also gives an assessment of progress made by the
Board on the difficult enforcement cases since its
inception.
In broad terms, at the time of writing, the Board has
considered 127 cases, of which all but six have seen
positive action. Wherever possible, the Council seeks to
recover as much of the cost of such action as possible
and almost all of the cost associated with the Board’s
work has been or will be recovered.
The Board is now leading on a number of compulsory
purchase cases, which have arisen as last resort for
dealing with certain properties, and a further
recommendation is included at Appendix 3 for future
similar action.
In addition, a number of complex enforcement cases are
detailed in the Confidential Appendix, with an associated
recommendation for funding a range of non-recoverable
enforcement costs.
Conclusions:
Recommendations
Cabinet
Decision
The Enforcement Board continues to make significant
progress towards its objectives of dealing with difficult and
long-standing enforcement cases and bringing long term
empty properties back into use across all areas of the
District, with both social and economic benefits to the
community, and financial benefits to the Council.
1. That Cabinet notes the progress made to date
by the Enforcement Board.
2. That, on the basis that the costs are nonrecoverable, Cabinet
approves 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. That Cabinet authorises 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. 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
Recommendation
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.
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.
16.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
17.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 30 November 2015 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Miss B Palmer
Mr N Dixon
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick (Chairman)
Mr W Northam
Mrs J Oliver
Mr J Rest
Also attending:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr V FitzPatrick
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
Mr N Pearce
Officers in
Attendance:
74.
Mrs M Prior
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Finance,
the Head of Environmental Health, the Leisure and Cultural Services
Manager, the Policy and Performance Management Officer and the
Democratic Services Team Leader
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
75.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 2nd November 2015 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman
76.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
77.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
78.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
Cabinet
12
05 October 2015
79.
MEMBER QUESTIONS
The Leader confirmed that Members could ask questions as each item arose.
80.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
None
81.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None
82.
BIG SOCIETY FUND GRANTS PANEL
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel meeting held on 29th
June 2015.
83.
MEMBER DEVELOPMENT GROUP
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the Member Development Group meeting held on 8th July
2015
84.
PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party meeting
held on 17 August 2015
85.
SKY LANTERNS
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Environment introduced this item. She
explained that the report provided details of concerns raised about the public use of
sky lanterns and the mass release of balloons, and recommended a ban on their
release from Council owned and controlled property and land and at any events
organised and run by the Council.
Mrs Fitch-Tillett said that she was pleased to see this item coming forward for
consideration. She drew Members’ attention to paragraph two of the report which
highlighted the serious problems caused by sky lanterns. She then read out an email
from the Marine Conservation Society which stated that they were pleased to see the
issue being addressed.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that she was very supportive of the proposals but she
wondered why they had not come forward earlier. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett replied that she
had initially intended to bring it forward during the summer but that it had taken some
time to undertake research into the approach taken by other local authorities.
Cabinet
13
05 October 2015
Mr N Dixon, in seconding the recommendations, said that there was a very strong
case for the banning of sky lanterns and the mass release of balloons as
demonstrated by the dangers to air, sea and land.
It was proposed by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Mr N Dixon and
RESOLVED that
1. The Authority as from the date of this resolution (therefore with immediate
effect) bans the release of sky lanterns and the mass release of balloons
on Council owned or controlled land or at events organised and run by the
Council
2. The Authority supports the call by The Marine Conservation Society and
National Farmers Union for a nationwide ban on the release of sky lanterns
or mass release of balloons.
Reasons for the decision:
To reduce the impact from the release of sky lanterns and mass release of balloons
on the environment and dangers associated with the resultant deposit of debris.
86.
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION PROGRAMME (DTP) UPDATE
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick introduced this item. He explained that this was the 4th
six monthly update on progress within the Digital Transformation Programme (DTP)
in accordance with the original Cabinet resolution.
Mr FitzPatrick said that the programme continued to progress well and was now
moving to service and process reviews. These would identify the best ways of
utilising the technology to drive improvements and efficiencies. The first such review,
in the Planning service, was progressing well and revised ways of working had been
approved with a target completion date of spring 2016.
Mr FitzPatrick concluded by saying that the report also identified a requirement for
short term specialist resource to assist in the commissioning and configuration of the
infrastructure necessary to agile working, electronic document management and the
website upgrade. In addition, temporary staff resources had been identified to
support the planning business process review implementation.
Mr J Rest, in seconding the proposals, said that it was very important that the Council
invested in technology and that planning and preparation was vital.
The Leader invited Members to speak:
1. Mr R Reynolds said that there were concerns regarding the ‘bedding in’ of new
systems and processes and he wondered how long the change-over from paper
to electronic would take. Mr FitzPatrick replied that it was an ongoing process
and there was no target date. In response to a further question from Mr Reynolds
regarding whether the aim was for the Council to go fully electronic, Mr
FitzPatrick said that there was no target date set but the Council was currently
half way through a four year programme.
Cabinet
14
05 October 2015
2. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that the new web form for reporting fly-tipping
was an excellent idea and that she was interested in seeing how well it was
used. The Corporate Director (NB) said that it had only been up and running for
a few weeks but that he would be able to provide figures once there was enough
information to draw on.
The Leader reminded Members that this was a report on a specific project and that if
they had queries relating to operational issues it would be better to contact the
relevant officer direct for information.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr J Rest and
RESOLVED:
1. That Cabinet notes the progress made on the Digital Transformation
Programme.
2. That Cabinet approve the release of £35,000 from the Invest to Save budget
to allow for the contracting of technical specialist resource to facilitate
upgrades and enhancements to the IT infrastructure.
3. That Cabinet approves the release of £93,000 from the Invest to Save
budget for the provision of temporary staffing to map key processes and
produced scripts, for the Planning BPR project.
4. That Cabinet approve a capital budget of £52,000 in the current year to be
funded from the Invest to Save capital budget to fund additional back up
storage capacity for the Council’s IT system and delegates authority to the
Corporate Director to complete the necessary procurement process.
Reasons for the decision:
1. To provide appropriate governance and oversight of the Digital Transformation
Programme.
2. To provide funding to allow the provision of specialist technical resources to
support the roll-out of the infrastructure to support the Digital Transformation
Programme.
3. To provide funding to allow the provision of staff to support Implementation of the
Planning service BPR.
4. To ensure capacity for daily back up of data contained on the Council’s IT
systems, thus reducing the risk of data inaccessibility.
87.
MANAGING PERFORMANCE Q2 2015/16
The Leader introduced this item. He said that it was a second quarter progress report
on the performance of the Council. Of the 18 performance indicators where a target
had been set, 12 were on or above target. Where assessment against the same
period last year was possible (21 indicators) eight were improving, seven were static
and six were worsening.
Mr FitzPatrick concluded by saying that the delivery of the Annual Action Plan
2015/16 was progressing according to plan and where there were performance
issues, any associated action was outlined within the report.
Cabinet
15
05 October 2015
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mrs J Oliver and
RESOLVED
To note the report, welcome the progress being made and endorse the actions laid
out in Appendix B being taken by management where there are areas of concern.
88.
INDOOR LEISURE FACILITIES STRATEGY
Miss B Palmer, Portfolio Holder for Leisure, introduced this item. She explained that
the report was being sent back to Cabinet to regularise the position as an earlier
strategy document had been incorrectly attached to the previous report. This report
updated Members with the correct version of the strategy.
The final version of the consultant’s report contained a more detailed version of the
action plan as well as approximate costs for each project.
Miss Palmer went onto say that the strategy did not prioritise the building of a new
swimming pool in Fakenham. However it does stress the need for work to be done to
investigate the possibility of reopening the pool at Fakenham Academy and as such,
a meeting of stakeholders had been set up for December.
It was proposed by Miss B Palmer, seconded by Mrs S Arnold and
RESOLVED
1. To adopt the North Norfolk Indoor Leisure Facilities Strategy to provide an
evidence base which the Council and other leisure facility providers can utilise
to access external funding
2. To task the Corporate Director (SB), working under direction from the
Portfolio Holder, to identify and agree the relevant project work streams
required to take forward the recommendations contained in the Strategy
Reasons for the decision:
1. To provide the Council with a high level guide to the future options for Indoor
Leisure Facilities provision across the district and to assist in accessing funding for
such facilities.
2. To ensure sound management of the Council’s Sports and Leisure assets; coordination and promotion of existing indoor sports facilities to ensure value for money
provision and good levels of participation in sport and leisure given the demographic
profile of the district, in support of the Council’s Corporate Objective in promoting
health and wellbeing; inform future investment decisions regarding provision and
operation of new indoor sports facilities in the district over the next 20 years.
The Meeting closed at 10.20 am
Cabinet
16
05 October 2015
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
17
05 October 2015
Agenda Item No____10_______
Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy
Summary:
This document details how North Norfolk District Council
intends to implement and manage its inspection duties
under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Following on from the introduction of the new
contaminated land statutory guidance earlier in 2012. A
review of our existing contaminated land inspection
strategy has been undertaken and amendments have
been made to bring it in line with new government
guidance. New guidance was introduced to improve
clarity for regulators and simplify the existing structures.
Options considered:
The revised inspection strategy is required to reflect the
changes in government statutory guidance. The
implementation of a revised strategy is required to fulfil
the Councils statutory and legal obligations under Part
2A of the Environmental Protection Act (1990). In view
of this there are no alternative options to consider other
than the approval of the revised strategy.
Conclusions:
The revised statutory guidance was implemented in
April 2012, and in accordance with section 2.4 of the
new guidance Local Authorities are required to update
their existing inspection strategies to reflect the new
guidance. Our existing inspection strategy has been
amended to account for these changes and put before
cabinet for approval.
Recommendations:
That the revised Contaminated Land Inspection
Strategy is approved by Cabinet.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To meet the Councils statutory responsibilities in
relation to inspection and control of Contaminated Land.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)
Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance (Defra, 2012)
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (1990)
The North Norfolk Contaminated land Inspection strategy (2009)
Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2012
18
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Angie Fitch-Tillett
All wards
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
James Ashby
Contaminated Land Officer
james.ashby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
01263516372
James Wilson
Environmental Protection Manager
James.wilson@north-norfolk.gov.uk
01263516274
1.
Introduction
1.1
Land contamination is primarily a legacy of our industrial heritage and occurs
through the deliberate or accidental release of chemicals into the
environment. In most cases contamination is naturally present as a
consequence of complex geology or diffuse human pollution. However in
some circumstances contamination derived from industrial activities can be
present at concentrations which represent a significant risk to human health
and the wider environment.
1.2
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) came into force in 2000
and was introduced as a means of dealing with unacceptable risks associated
with land contamination. The overall objectives of Part 2A are to identify and
remove unacceptable risks to human health and the environment and seek to
ensure that contaminated land is made suitable for use.
1.3
The principle enforcement responsibilities of Part 2A fall to Local Authorities,
who are required to inspect their districts for Contaminated Land. All Local
Authorities must publish and work in accordance with a written inspection
strategy, which follows the principles set out in the Contaminated Land
Statutory Guidance (Defra, 2012).
2.
Government Review of Contaminated land Statutory Guidance
2.1
The Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance has recently been revised as
part of a government consultation. This Guidance replaces the previous
Statutory Guidance which was published as Annex 3 of Defra Circular
01/2006.
2.2
The main purpose of the review was an attempt to improve the existing
guidance, which was seen to be overly complex and failed to provide
sufficient clarity to regulators. Regulators were criticised for using an overly
cautious approach, which resulted in the inefficient use of resources, and a
failure to deal with contaminated land in a reasonable time frame.
2.3
It was recognised that the failure of Local Authorities to investigate and
remediate a site in a reasonable time frame, enhanced social anxieties,
increased incidences of land blight and led to unnecessary expenditure.
19
2.4
In response the guidance was rewritten to provide further clarification on how
to decide when land is not contaminated and enable Councils to take a more
targeted approach. The new guidance emphasises the need to focus upon
those sites demonstrating the highest level of risk and re-emphasised that
under Part 2A the starting point should always be that land is not
contaminated land unless there is reason to consider otherwise.
2.5
Since the publication of this new guidance in April 2012, the Council has been
working to amend its existing inspection strategy and bring it in line with new
guidance.
3.
Current Progress
3.1
Since 2000 the Council has been undertaking a district wide risk assessment
of potentially contaminated land. In this time approximately 2000 sites have
been risk assessed and recorded. Of these 2000 sites approximately half
have been re-assessed as low risk, and as such, have been deemed to be
suitable for the existing land use.
3.2
Those sites that have been prioritised high risk and are currently recorded
within a prioritisation list on the Council database. Since the establishment of
this list the Council has been undertaking detailed inspection of these sites.
To date the Council has undertaken and managed the following detailed
investigations:

North Walsham gas works (Mundesley Rd car park)

Mill Rd gas works (Mill Rd Cromer)

Happisburgh Lighthouse

Fisons Pest Control (Whitelands Estate Fakenham)

Iron Eagle Works (Foundry Close Sculthorpe)
3.3
All these sites were considered to represent a potential human
health/controlled water risk. Detailed inspection generally involved a tiered
investigation process, involving intrusive soil sampling and the publication of
scientific reports. Funding for these investigations was primarily been derived
from Central Government as part of the Contaminated Land Capital Grants
Program with some contribution from Council funds. To date £50,000 has
been spent on detailed inspections.
3.4
These initial investigations attracted a certain degree of public attention,
specifically for those individuals affected. However all investigations were
successful and ended with favorable outcomes. In respect to each site,
contamination (as defined by the legislation) has not been confirmed which
has directly resulted in 75 properties being declared fit for human habitation
and eliminated any liability that may have existed for the land owners
concerned.
3.5
One exception to this is the Mundesley Road car park as the Council is the
principle land owner, however the process of investigation has provided the
Council with a greater degree of understanding regarding the risks associated
with the site and any liabilities involved. This initial work should provide some
technical basis should redevelopment of the site be considered in the future.
20
4.
Conclusion
4.1
In response to the introduction of new statutory guidance the Council has
been undertaking an in depth review of our Contaminated Land Inspection
Strategy. In view of this our Inspection Strategy has been amended and rewritten to account for the changes in the new guidance and bring our
procedures in line with wider Government values.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
The publication and formal adoption of a Contaminated Land Inspection
Strategy is a legal requirement under Part 2A. The strategy sets out the
Councils formal responsibilities and provides a rational and consistent
approach for the identification and remediation of contaminated land. Failure
to implement the strategy would not only constitute a failure in the Councils
legal responsibilities, but could have wider implications within the district. In
general the likely consequences could:

Impede the regeneration of brownfield land

Supress land values

Generate social stress and anxiety

Endanger human health and the wider environment
5.2
The failure to maintain a coherent strategy can in the worst case also expose
the Council to significant financial risk and litigation. This is clearly illustrated
in the Corby Steel Works regeneration project, which was initiated in the early
1980’s by Corby District Council. The Council failed to properly manage the
Contaminated Land issues resulting in health related litigation at cost to the
authority of approximately £6.5millon.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
The new statutory guidance has been revised to incorporate the
Government’s wider principles of sustainable development.
6.2
Implementation of the Councils Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy will
compliment and assist the wider aim of brownfield regeneration, a goal
specified within the National Planning Policy Framework. This will seek to
regenerated brownfield land and bring it back into wider use.
6.3
With the current economic climate in mind it is also worth noting that new
Guidance also specifies that when enacting Part 2A, Local Authorities must
ensure that the burdens faced by individuals, companies and society as a
whole are proportionate and manageable.
7.
Equality and Diversity
None
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
None
21
Contaminated Land
Strategy
North Norfolk District Council
22
Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Regulatory context 1.1 General policy of North Norfolk District Council 1.3 Development of the strategy 2. Characteristics of the North Norfolk District 2.1 Geographical location 2.2 Description and history 2.3 Geological and soil characteristics 2.4 Hydrogeological characteristics and key water resource/protection issues 2.13 Action already taken to deal with land contamination 2.6 Key property types 2.7 Population and geographical distribution 2.8 Details of publicly owned land 2.9 Current land use characteristics 2.10 Current and past industrial history 2.11 Known information on potential contamination and specific local features 2.12 Redevelopment history and controls 2.5 Protected ecological systems 3. Priority Actions 3.1 Priorities 4. Procedures 4.1 Internal management 4.2 Local authority interest in land 4.3 Information collection 4.4 Information and reports of alleged contamination 4.5 Information evaluation 4.6 Details of previous remediation 4.7 Interaction with other regulatory regimes 5. Liaison and Communication 5.1 Local authority contacts 5.2 Consultation with stakeholders 5.3 Polluter and/or owner/occupier consultation 5.4 Local community awareness 5.5 The public register 6. Programme for Inspection 6.1 Methods of Inspection 6.2 Arrangements for external consultants and contractors 6.3 Risk communication strategy North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 23
1
6.4 Frequency of inspection 6.5 Format of inspection resulting from inspection 7. Review Mechanisms 7.1 Triggers for Inspection 7.2 Triggers for reviewing inspection decisions 7.3 Reviewing the strategy 8. Information Management 8.1 General principles 8.2 Information content/ the public register 8.3 NNDC Storage systems 8.4 Administration 8.5 Confidentiality of information 8.6 Arrangements for giving access to information/ dealing with requests for information 8.7 Provision of information to the Environment Agency 9. Glossary of Terms Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 List of Figures North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 24
2
1.Introd
duction This doccument details how Nortth Norfolk D istrict Counccil intends to
o implementt its inspectio
on duties regardin
ng Part IIA of the Environmental Proteection Act 19
990 (1). It reco
ognises the rrequirementt not only to produ
uce details on inspectio
on arrangem
ments and procedures, p
but also a jjustification for, and transparrency in the d
decisions ma
ade by the Coouncil on ho
ow it will insp
pect the distrrict for conta
aminated land. General policy of North
h Norfolk Disstrict Council 1.1 The regu
ulation of contaminated land within the North Norfolk districct will be maanaged in accordance with con
ntaminated land legislattion, and wi ll be guided
d by objectivves of the N
North Norfolk District Councilss Corporate P
Plan 2015‐20
019(2). 1.2 Regulatory context 1.1.1 The regimee aminated lannd came into
o force on The statutory regimee for the identification a nd remediattion of conta
minated Landd England Regulations 1 April 22000. The primary legislation is suppl emented byy the Contam
2012 (3) aand by the Co
ontaminated
d Land Statuttory Guidancce (4). The Stattutory Guidance (4) has tw
wo functionss. Firstly, it in
ntroduces th
he statutory guidelines w
which are an essen
ntial part off the regime
e; secondly, it sets out the way in which the regime will work by providing: overnment P
Policy in this field. • A summary of Go
North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
25
3
• A deescription of the regime. • A gu
uide to the Reegulations. 1.1.2 Regime Ob
bjectives d by land The main purpose of Part 2A leggislation is too identify and deal with unacceptabl e risks posed
es of the reggime are: contamination. The key objective
uman health and the envvironment • To identify aand remove unacceptablle risks to hu
ontaminatedd land is mad
de suitable fo
or use • TTo seek to ensure that co
t
the burrdens faced by individuals, compan
nies and socciety as a whole w
are • TTo ensure that proportionatte, managea
able and com
mpatible with
h the principlles of sustainnable develo
opment Under P
Part 2A the sstarting point should be that land is not contam
minated unleess there is rreason to considerr otherwise and Part 2A should onnly be invoked in circu
umstances w
where no alternative solution exists. 1.1.3 Regulatoryy roles Part 2A is primarily regulated by the Local Authority, although a
a certain degreee of respon
nsibility is nment Agenccy. Part 2A ccomplimentss the Counccil’s existing functions asssociated held by the Environ
ority, while the Environm
ment Agency provides with stattutory nuisance and its rrole as a Pla nning Autho
a supporrtive role and is the prim
mary authoriity for dealin
ng with special sites and controlled w
waters. A summary of function
ns for each authority is d etailed below
w: Provide site‐s pecific guidancce to the Council.
To undertakke an inspectionn regime a
and identify contaminated
d land within thhe district
Assist the CCouncil in identtifying contaminated land especiallyy in cases where waterr pollution is invvolved.
To determine whether any Environm
ment particular site is Authority
Local A
Agencyy
contamin
nated land
Responsiblee for the allocattion of funding undeer the Capital P
Projects PProgramme
To act as enfforcing authoritty for all conttaminated land,, unless design
nated as a ‘speccial site’
Act as the ennforcing autho
ority for land, which has been designated as a ‘special site’. North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
26
4
1.1.4 Definition of Contaminated Land Section 78A (2) defines contaminated land for the purposes of Part IIA as: ‘any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that: a) Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused; or b)
Pollution of controlled water is being, or is likely to be, caused’. 1.1.5 Contaminant linkages and risk assessment The statutory guidance (4) document for contaminated land states that in order for land to be contaminated a proven pathway must be first established between a known contamination source and a known receptor. If all three elements of a contaminant linkage exist then a risk assessment will be undertaken to determine the likelihood of the contaminant linkage resulting in any of the following: • Significant harm being caused to the receptor • Significant possibility of significant harm being caused to the receptor • Significant pollution of controlled waters • Significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters It must be emphasised that if a pathway or linkage cannot be proven, then the level of risk posed to a receptor is deemed to be negligible and the site will not be classed as contaminated land (Figure 1). Source
Pathway
Receptor
Contaminated
Source
?
Receptor
Not contaminated
North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 27
5
Figure 1. Contaminant linkage As part of any assessment, receptors will generally include ecological systems, property & infrastructure, controlled waters and human health. A full expansion on these receptors can be examined within Appendix 5 The pathway will be dependent upon the chemical characteristics of the contaminant, and physical environment in which it is found, these two factors are key considerations when quantifying risks within a particular site. 1.16 The strategic approach The statutory guidance (4) requires local authorities to take a strategic approach to the inspection and identification of contaminated land. This should be undertaken in accordance with the principles set out below: • Be rational, ordered and efficient. • Reflect local circumstances • Be proportionate in relation to the actual or potential risk. • Prioritise sites that demonstrate the highest risks first • Ensure that resources are efficiently used and targeted 1.3 Development of the strategy Statutory Guidance (4) requires that the local authority should set out its approach in a written strategy, which should be formally adopted and published to a time scale, set by the authority. In accordance with this, a strategy has been developed to meet these requirements and is structured around the strategic objectives described below: Objectives of the strategy • Introduce the Councils procedure for the strategic and detailed inspection of contaminated land. • To introduce the relevant aspects of the North Norfolk geographical area. • To inform all the stakeholders of the authority’s intentions, policies and procedures. • To identify liability issues on existing land for land owners, including those areas currently owned by North Norfolk District Council. Clarification of these issues can be examined within Appendix 1. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 28
6
2. Characteristics of the North Norfolk District 2.1 Geographical location The North Norfolk District Council area covers 96,547 ha (965.5 km2) in the northern part of the county of Norfolk (figure 2). The district is bounded by 73 km of North Sea coastline between Holkham in the west and Horsey in the south‐east. North Norfolk District
Broadland District
Borough Council of
Kings Lynn &
Gt
West Norfolk
Yarmouth
Norwich City
Breckland District
South Norfolk District
Figure 2. Map of Norfolk with District Councils 2.2 Description and history 2.2.1 Description of North Norfolk In a national context, North Norfolk is considered to be outstanding for both its geology and its landforms. The low‐lying coast, the coastal cliff sections and the inland landforms are some of the finest of their kind in the British Isles. Much of the area along the North Norfolk coastline from Holkham to Cley is designated as being of international and national importance for nature conservation. A large part of this area is salt marsh with some areas of freshwater marsh. The highest land of East Anglia (92 m) is the 14 km long Cromer Ridge, which when viewed from the north, the steep wooded slopes form an impressive feature behind the low lying coast, while the widespread cover of bracken and gorse contrasts markedly with the cultivated fields of the surrounding lowlands. The central area consists of a rolling North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 29
7
landform with small rounded hills and shallow valleys. Open arable farmland is the main landscape type of this area. The western area is dominated by arable landscapes with some small areas of woodland. To the south of the west the River Wensum has cut a distinctive valley through the chalk which has produced the Wensum Valley character area. The valley floor has permanent and improved pasture and marshland with scattered woodlands. Walsham Plain lies between the rolling landform of the western parts of North Norfolk and the very low‐lying areas around the Norfolk Broads. This landscape is dominated by open arable farmland with very few hedgerows. Fenland Levels are mainly characterised by permanent pasture with some fenland and areas of heathland. 2.2.2 History of North Norfolk It is thought that the first humans inhabited Norfolk during the Palaeolithic period before the advent of the first major glaciation, but there is no definite evidence. During the long span of time between the first glaciation and the last cold period, small groups of people have intermittently occupied the area that is now Norfolk, evidence of this being substantiated by the unearthing of stone tools. During this time, a land connection with the continent existed, except at times of very high sea level. The humans living in Norfolk during the Mesolithic period were small groups of hunter gatherers. Kelling Heath near the North Norfolk coast is one of the richest sites of this time in terms of the amount of flint work that is found there. It is thought that the clear view across the wide plain that is now sea allowed the hunters to spot herds of animals grazing there. When much of the polar ice sheet melted, the sea level rose. By about 6500 BC, Britain was an island and the coastline of Norfolk was little different from that of today. From about 4500 BC, during the Neolithic period, there were more settled communities partly or fully dependent on arable farming or stock‐raising. Their flint and stone axes have been found all over North Norfolk. Information from pollen records of the Bronze Age show that woodland was being extensively cleared as arable farming and pasture were expanded to provide for an increasing population. During the Iron Age, British Blacksmiths learnt how to work iron but because of rust few iron objects survive. Iron Age people lived in a tribal society with most people living in round houses. They kept cattle, sheep, pigs and horses and grew cereals, particularly spelt (wheat) and barley. The area under cultivation expanded during this period, leading to the permanent clearance of woodland. There is evidence also of woodland management. The Roman period started with the conquest of Britain in 43AD, which saw the absorption of southeast England into the Roman Empire. The principal Roman roads formed the infrastructure for the development of a more comprehensive road network linking the major towns and larger villages. Most of the population of Roman Norfolk lived in the countryside with an economy based on agriculture and animal husbandry. During the Anglo‐Saxon period, North and West Norfolk had a lower population than South and East Norfolk. By Medieval times, much of Northern Norfolk was relatively treeless. It is thought that during this time there was an increase in the percentage of arable land compared to grassland. Population change in the first half of the 19th century was characterised by rapid growth, continuing a trend that had been taking place since about 1740. At this time, the seaside was becoming an important factor, with Cromer beginning to function as a holiday resort and continuing to develop. Fishing and maritime trade boosted population growth in some coastal villages. Between 1851 and 1951, there was a general decline in the population of rural North Norfolk. This was due mainly to the loss of jobs in agriculture, but many villages also lost some of the trades which had made them more self‐sufficient in the mid‐19th century. Many of the towns experienced an increase in North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 30
8
population and the expansion in holidays and tourism
m also broug
ght populatiion growth to many coastal aareas. This pattern p
of population p
inncrease and decrease re
emained sim
milar during the time period 11951 ‐ 1981. mes, man ha
as had a groowing influen
nce on the appearance a
on of the and conditio
From the earliest tim
d farming lan
nd, building dwellings an
nd making ro
outes througgh the counttryside to area by clearing and
ns and villages and indusstrial works. link town
Geological aand soil characteristics
2.3 a level, and m
moulded to make the present landsccape, were all formed The rockks that outcrop above sea
‘recentlyy’ within thee last 135 million years. M
Mostly soft aand sedimen
ntary, they w
were laid dow
wn in the great preehistoric seaas, which oncce covered EEast Anglia. 2.3.1 Solid geolo
ogy Jurasssic
Mudsstones
Creta ceous
ks
Chalk
Neo
ocene
Gra
avel Sand & Silts
Figuree 5 Solid Geoloogy Map of Norfolk ology of Norrth Norfolk generally g
coomprises of glacial and post‐glacial sediment, overlying The geo
much old
der rocks of the Crag Gro
oup and Cha lks from the cretaceous period (Figu re 5). Chalk underlies the Cragg and glaciall deposits accross the enntire North Norfolk N
area
a. Flint noduules are foun
nd in the Upper Chalk layer. Seee 2.5.1 for hydrogeologgy aquifer de
etails. North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
31
9
The rocks of the Crag Group were laid down on top of the Chalk, but only to the east of a north‐south line through Weybourne. These rocks were formed in marine, estuarine and river environments, depositing sands, gravels, silts and clays. North Norfolk glacial deposits consist mainly of sands, gravels, till, clays and silts related to various glacial events which have occurred in the last 500,000 years. The water melting from the ice sheets deposited the glacial‐fluvial sands and gravels. Direct glacial deposits laid down beneath the ice sheets or dropped from the surface of the ice sheet as the ice melted produced till which has a variety of sized particles randomly distributed throughout it. In some area of still water clays and silts were laid down. The elevated topographic feature referred to as ‘Cromer Ridge’ formed where two ice sheets met and pushed up and contorted deposits. Melt water carried material south away from these ice sheets to produce a massive area of sands and gravels stretching from Cromer southwards towards the River Bure area. Since glacial deposits cover much of North Norfolk, they have exerted a strong influence on the soils and have significantly influenced both the early colonisations of the area and subsequent agricultural development. Post‐glacial deposits in North Norfolk include river terrace deposits which are composed of river deposited fluvial sands and gravels, alluvium which are deposits of sand, silt or clay on river flood plains and peat which is also generally found associated with river valleys. Head was produced near to ice sheets through the passage of time since the last ice age. It formed as a result of the slow movement down slopes of surface material, which was due to the alternate freezing and thawing of the water, contained in it. In places it blankets valley sides and bottoms. Its components include sand, gravel, silt and clay and can be important conduits for fluids. Wind‐transported sands and silts cover much of the district. These deposits are called loess. The sand and silt were derived from the vegetation free areas around ice sheets. The loess is not of uniform thickness due to the strength of the wind and the topography at the time of deposition. It forms a blanket of 4‐5 m in some valleys and 0.5 m on some crests. This loess is the parent material of soils in many places. 2.3.2 Soils Contamination affects soil quality and can prevent soil from carrying out its functions effectively. In particular, it may affect soil fertility, reduce crop yields, damage the ecosystems dependent upon soil and reduce its ability to filter substances from water and the atmosphere. Contaminants may be transferred to the food chain with implications for human and animal health, and may lead to other forms of pollution, such as water pollution and odour nuisance. The Ground Water Vulnerability maps (5) have grouped soils into three soil vulnerability classes High, Intermediate and Low leaching potential based on the soil’s physical and chemical properties which affect the downward passage of water and contaminants. Descriptions of these soils can be examined in Table 1 below: North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 32
10
Table 1 Soil Vulnerability Classifications: Soil survey for England and Wales 1983 (6) High Leaching Potential “soils with little ability to attenuate diffuse source pollutants and in which non‐adsorbed diffuse source pollutants and liquid discharges have the potential to move rapidly to underlying strata or to shallow groundwater” Association ID Location
Description Newchurch 2 814c Newmarket 1 & 2 343f,g River Thurne in the far south east of the district Around the river Stiffkey in the north west of the district Newport 4 551g Sheringham stretch of the coast
Sandwich 361 Barrow 581 Wick 2 & 3 541 Blakeney Spit and the coastline running between Waxham & Horsey Letheringsett, Wiverton and Langham East of the district
deep, stoneless, mainly calcareous, clayey soils well drained calcareous sandy and coarse loamy soil over chalk glacial‐fluvial deposits and is described as deep well‐drained sandy soils deep well drained calcareous and non‐calcareous sandy soils coarse loamy, coarse loamy over clayey and sandy soils well‐drained, coarse, loamy, often stoneless soils Intermediate Leaching Potential “Soils of intermediate leaching potential have a moderate ability to attenuate diffuse source pollutants or in which it is possible that some non‐adsorbed diffuse source pollutant and liquid discharges could penetrate the soil layer” Association ID Location
Description Altcar 2 1022 b Deep peat soils Burlingham 1 & 3 572 n, p around the Broads where the water level is often high found in the west of the district
Hanworth 871 c around the river valleys in the east of the district Chalky till and glacial‐fluvial drift deposits Peaty or humose surface Horizon and some associated peat soils Low Leaching Potential “Soils of low leaching potential are soils in which pollutants are unlikely to penetrate the soil layer because either water movement is largely horizontal, or they have the ability to attenuate diffuse pollutants” Association ID Location
Description Beccles 1 & 2 711 r, s, v south west of the district and around the Broads area Wallasea 1 & 2 813 f, g situated around the mouth of the Stiffkey River and Blakeney Marshes Seasonally waterlogged, loamy soils over clayey soils. Deep stoneless non calcareous and calcareous clayey soils. Soils locally have humose or peaty surface horizons 2.4 Hydrogeological characteristics and key water resource/protection issues 2.4.1 Groundwater Groundwater is contained within underground strata (aquifers) of various types. The information on the Groundwater Vulnerability Maps states that groundwater is usually of high quality and often North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 33
11
requires little treatment prior to use. It is, however, vulnerable to contamination from both diffuse and point source pollutants, from direct discharges into groundwater and from indirect discharges into or onto land. Aquifer remediation is difficult, prolonged and expensive and therefore the prevention of pollution is important to protect drinking water supplies and water resources. It is North Norfolk District Council’s view, in consultation with the Environment Agency, that when relating to contaminated land investigations, groundwater will be defined as only the saturated zone of the underground strata. Above that, contamination will be considered as being within the soil only. Referring to the Groundwater Vulnerability map, the entire district has a geological class of Principle Aquifer. The Chalk and the Crag Formations (excluding mudstones) are the main aquifers in the district. These aquifers are highly permeable formations that support large abstractions for public and private supplies as well as industrial and agricultural use. These Groundwater Vulnerability maps assess the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination by overlaying an assessment of the overlying physical and chemical properties of the soils onto the underlying geological information including rock type and permeability characteristics. The majority of the east of the district is classed as high vulnerability. The river valleys and the Broads area are classed as being intermediate to low vulnerability. Most of the west of the district has a class of intermediate and low vulnerability with some areas of high vulnerability around the coastal area. 2.4.2 Special sites and controlled water Regulation 2 of the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations (2012), defines land which should be designated as a Special site. This includes situations where controlled waters are at greater risk due to underlying geology. For full details of the various types of Special site please see chapter 5 Liaison and Communication. The pollution of controlled waters relating to the underlying geology is defined in regulation 3(c)(ii) as:‐ ‘land, where controlled waters are being affected by the land and the waters, or any part of the waters, are contained within underground strata which comprise wholly or partly any of the formations of rocks listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1’. The Upper Cretaceous Chalk and the Pleistocene Norwich Crag are listed in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. Therefore, if any of the groundwater in these aquifers in North Norfolk District Council area are contaminated, this is classified as ‘pollution of controlled waters’ and should be designated a ‘special site’. The Environment Agency does enforce special sites but NNDC is required to declare them to the Environment Agency. Please refer to chapter 5 Liaison and Communication for full details of liaison between local authorities and the Environment Agency. 2.4.3 Public water supply The water company Anglian Water supplies the mains water to the district. Anglian Water has 13 source points spread over the district. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 34
12
2.4.4 Abstraction licenses All abstractions of surface or underground water normally require a licence issued by the Environment Agency. However, there are a number of exceptions that include abstractions up to 20 cubic metres per day. The Environment Agency has informed us that there are over 100 abstraction points. These licences mainly cover abstractions used for industry, agriculture and larger private water supplies. 2.4.5 Private water supplies
There are approximately 420 private water supplies situated within the district. These serve a residential population of approximately 1,700 people. The water is mainly supplied from boreholes or wells at varying depths. The Private Water Supplies Regulations 2009 (7) regulate these supplies. 2.4.6 Groundwater Source Protection Zones The Environment Agency has defined Source Protection Zones (SPZ) for groundwater sources used for public drinking water supply and larger licensed groundwater abstractions used in breweries and for food processing etc. According to information from the Environment Agency Internet site (8), there are 15 complete or partially complete groundwater source catchments located within the district. Most of the source catchments in the district are subdivided into three zones, which the Environment Agency defines as follows: The Inner Protection Zone is defined by a travel time of 50 days or less from any point within the zone at, or below, the water table. Additionally, the zone has as a minimum, a 50‐metre radius. It is based principally on biological decay criteria and is designed to protect against the transmission of toxic chemicals and water‐borne disease. The Outer Protection Zone is defined by the 400 day travel time, or 25% of the source catchment area, whichever is larger. The travel time is derived from consideration of the minimum time required to provide delay, dilution and attenuation of slowly degrading pollutants. The Total Catchment Zone is defined, as the total area needed to support the abstraction or discharge from the protected groundwater source. The shape and size of the zones is controlled by many factors. Some of these reflect natural hydrogeological conditions, other environmental factors and the operation of the groundwater abstraction. The SPZ relates purely to groundwater flow below the water table and does not take into account the depth to groundwater and the nature of the overlying soils and rock. It is therefore useful to use the Groundwater Vulnerability maps as these take into account the influence of the overlying rocks and soils on the groundwater vulnerability. 2.4.7 Surface waters The district also has many areas of environmentally sensitive surface waters such as the rivers, streams and coastal waters. Base flow discharges to streams from the saturated zone of the underground strata thus maintaining the flow during dry weather. Streams are a sensitive receptor of North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 35
13
contamination and those supplied with base flow could be affected by contaminated land some distance away. Due to the geology, soil and hydrology characteristics of the North Norfolk District Council area, the threat of contamination to the groundwater is potentially very serious. 2.5 Protected ecological systems 2.5.1 Sites of International importance The UK is a contracting party to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, which it ratified in 1982. The first conference of the Convention was held in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. Consequently, Ramsar is the term by which sites identified under the Convention have become known. Ramsar sites include rare wetlands of international importance with particular reference to wildfowl populations. Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated by member states under Article 4 of the European Community Wild Birds Directive, are designed to conserve the habitat of rare or endangered birds, or birds whose habitat is threatened, by protecting habitats from pollution, disturbance or deterioration. The North Norfolk Coast Ramsar Site and SPA covers eight parishes and the Broadland Ramsar Site and SPA covers part of the parish of Potter Heigham on the edge of the district. Some of Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA is within the North Norfolk District Council area. Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are European designated sites and include species and/or habitats of European importance. The sites will also already be SSSIs. There are currently eight SACs within the North Norfolk District (Appendix 2). There is a category called candidate SACs, which are SACs that have not yet been ratified. SPAs and SACs together make Natura 2000, which is an overall network of protected areas throughout Europe. 2.5.2 Sites of National importance The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (9), Section 35, gives Natural England the power to designate areas of land that contain flora, fauna, geological or physiographical attributes of national interest as National Nature Reserves. There are 7 National Nature Reserves in the district listed in Appendix 2. There are currently 44 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in the North Norfolk District. These are areas of land which Natural England has deemed to be of special interest by reason of their flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features (Listed in Appendix 2). These sites are notified under Sections 28 or 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 2.5.3 Sites of regional/local importance The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (10), Section 21, empowers local authorities to provide for the establishment of Local Nature Reserves and their management. There are six Local Nature Reserves situated in North Norfolk (Listed in Appendix 2). Protected ecological systems are potential receptors for contamination and their proximity to contamination or a pathway of contamination will be taken into account when risk assessing potentially contaminated land sites. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 36
14
2.6 Key property types Buildings of particular importance are identified as Listed Buildings. There are over 2000 Listed Buildings which are separated into the three grades of I, II* and II. There are 84 Scheduled Ancient Monuments in the North Norfolk District (Listed in Appendix 2). A Scheduled Ancient Monument may also be a Listed Building. The proximity of Scheduled Ancient Monuments to potentially contaminated land sites will be included as a factor in the risk assessment. Conservation Areas are areas of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which is desirable to preserve or enhance. There are 80 Conservation Areas in the district There are many Archaeological Sites, Historic Parks and Gardens, Buildings at Risk and National Trust sites in the District. The County Sites and Monuments Record contains information on over 3000 entries of archaeological interest in North Norfolk. These include only the known sites and there may be many more as yet undiscovered. There are 33 Historic Parks and Gardens identified in North Norfolk. 2.7 Population and geographical distribution The District had an estimated resident population of 100,800 taken from the 2007 ONS population The principal settlements of the District are its seven towns, namely North Walsham, Cromer, Fakenham, Sheringham, Holt, Stalham and Wells Next to the Sea. However, 56% of the District’s population lives in the many villages, hamlets and scattered dwellings that are dispersed throughout rural North Norfolk. 2.8 Details of publicly owned land 2.8.1 NNDC currently owned land The Property and Estates department hold details of the land currently in NNDC ownership on the Councils Geographical Information System (GIS), annotated maps and other systems. The use of this land includes Council housing, car parks, amenity land and Surveyors’ Allotments. There are 87 Surveyors’ Allotments recorded in North Norfolk. They were historically used to provide material for road building when they became disused they were often used as waste tips. Many of them are unknown filled ground or quarrying of sand and gravel. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 37
15
2.8.2 NNDC previously owned land The area of land sold off over the past 100 years is approximately 176.5 ha. Some has been sold for building residential properties, some near to towns for industrial estates and about 4000 council owned properties have been sold under the Right To Buy scheme. Each NNDC owned area of land has a Title Deeds packet held in the Legal Section. New owners of a NNDC previously owned plot of land are written onto the Title Deeds. 2.8.3 Common land Norfolk County Council (NCC) holds the original copy of the Common Land Register for Norfolk. A copy of the information about common land in the North Norfolk District Area is held in nine files in the Strong Room at the Council Offices in Cromer. Norfolk County Council sends updates of the Register to NNDC when any changes have occurred. NCC, NNDC, Parish Councils, or private owners may own the Common Land. If there is no known owner, NNDC may have responsibility for the land. 2.8.4 NCC owned land Norfolk Property Services (NPS) is a trading unit of NCC that owns land in the NNDC area. This includes schools, fire stations, highways, depots and libraries. Information about these sites is held in hard copy in the Environmental Health Division at NNDC. NPS do not have a list of land previously owned by NCC, but do have records going back to the 1980s which could be searched for an individual site. NPS also holds records for Rural Estates owned by NCC and leased to tenant farmers in the NNDC area. 2.8.5 Parish and Town Council owned land North Norfolk District Council does not currently hold information about land owned or previously owned or occupied by Parish and Town Councils. This information will be collated in due course. 2.8.6 Land ownership searches To find information concerning the ownership of land, the first step is to check if the land is owned by NNDC using the GIS system and liaising with the Property & Estates Dept. In addition, information should be gained from NCC or Parish and Town Councils. If the land is owned by NNDC, the Title Deeds can be used to gain more information. If NNDC or another Council does not own the land, the next step is to undertake a Land Registry search to identify the private landowner. Land Registry searches are generally conducted through an online service for which NNDC has access. There has been a voluntary registration of land since the 1920s: it makes land easier to sell. Norfolk has only had compulsory registration since the early 1990s; hence a great deal of land may not be registered. If the land were not registered then other enquiries would need to be instigated. 2.9 Current land use characteristics A large proportion of the land within North Norfolk area is utilised for farming & agricultural activity. Wheat and barley production occupies the largest percentage of agricultural land, with sugar beet, potatoes, and field beans and livestock production representing a smaller proportion of the total agricultural land. Good agricultural practice is important to ensure diffuse inputs of pollution are minimised. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 38
16
Other non‐agricultural land includes ten sites of Ministry of Defence currently owned land, areas of woodland and Heathland and properties and gardens in and around the villages. Urban land is associated with the seven main towns in the district. 2.10 Current and past industrial history 2.10.1 Textiles The manufacture of textiles was for many centuries the most important industry in Norfolk. There are records of Worstead and linen weavers in North Norfolk between 1370 and 1800. 2.10.2 Tanning Tanners and tanning are recorded in North Norfolk during the 17th century until around 1850. We are aware of a site believed to be used for leather tanning and dressing with a date of 1905. The numbers recorded are low but there may have been smaller businesses not recorded. Tanning needed oak bark for the tar pits, fresh water for washing the hides in the pits and lime for slaking the raw hides. They were mainly situated away from houses due to the unpleasant smell. The chemicals, such as the tanning agents, biocides, metal compounds and methods used in the tanning process, have implications for contaminated land. As most of this type of industry were in operation earlier than current records, data research into their locations needs to be undertaken. 2.10.3 Brewing In the 18th century, brewing and malting consisted of many small‐scale operations but at the end of that century the numbers had decreased until only a few larger businesses supplied public houses. This trend has continued until the present day. There are three brewing and malting sites dated between 1888 and 1958, one of which was recorded in 1985. One is still in operation at Great Ryburgh. 2.10.4 Metal industry Iron founders and agricultural engineers were important industries in North Norfolk in the 19th century, especially due to the manufacture of agricultural implements. As the products were difficult to transport, the foundries were initially small and supplied products such as fire grates, drain covers and gateposts to the local community. As transport improved, the number of foundries reduced. There are currently no operating foundries in North Norfolk. There are two ‘heavy product manufacture’ sites and four ‘metal casting/foundry’ known between the dates of 1988 and 1952. 2.10.5 Timber manufacture There are nine sites of sawmills and timber treatment dating from 1889 to 1990. 2.10.6 Railways Railway building started in North Norfolk in the 1850s. Some of the lines and freight yards and depots are now disused. The railway land in North Norfolk is classed as potentially contaminated land. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 39
17
2.10.7 Extraction industries Chalk has been quarried for lime production to use as blocks for building, for road building and to extract flint. Historically lime was manufactured in North Norfolk by burning chalk in lime kilns. The main uses of lime were in agriculture, to increase the pH of the soil, in making mortar and lime wash and also in the tanning process. Lime was difficult to transport so it was produced close to where it was required, therefore the kilns were often near to the chalk pits. Flint was the most commonly used building material in North Norfolk due to the lack of hard rock in the area. Gravel was historically quarried from small pits for a village to use for road making and mending, known as Surveyors’ Allotments. Currently there are six active mineral workings in the district. Five sites are extracting sand/gravel and one is extracting chalk. Brick making reached its peak in Norfolk around the middle of the 19th century. Brick earth was excavated and fired in temporary clamps or permanent kilns. There are records of some parishes in North Norfolk having up to three brickyards and Wells is recorded as having four or five. There are up to 48 sites of clay brick and tile manufacture, but none are known to be in operation in the present day. Some of the agricultural land in North Norfolk is acidic sandy soil which was historically improved by spreading on chalky clay called marl. Marl had been used as far back as the 13th century and its increased use in the late 18th and 19th centuries led to pits being dug on most farms where it was found. 2.10.7 Landfill Information on active landfill sites is taken from the current Norfolk County Council list. There is only one designated household waste landfill site within the district (Edgefield). There are no facilities for disposing of liquid, clinical and/or special waste, but there are five household waste recycling centres in the district. Active waste handling sites do not come under the Contaminated Land regulations (3) as the Environment Agency already regulates them. There are a large number of closed landfill sites currently within North Norfolk, some are still undergoing monitoring by either NCC or NNDC, while the remaining sites are distributed across the district. The current Norfolk County Council data base indicates that approximately 28 closed land fill sites currently exist, a number that is likely to increase. 2.10.8 Brownfield sites A Brownfield Site has been defined as ‘any land or premises which has previously been used or developed and is not currently in use, although it may be partially occupied or utilised. It may also be vacant, derelict or contaminated’. The National Land Use Database (NLUD) includes a National Brownfield Sites Survey. Identified sites in NNDC have been collated and are held as paper copies in the Forward Plans Department. 2.10.9 Factory or works There are about 27 Factory or works, use not specified sites dated between 1950 to 1993. These sites will require further investigation to identify their past and current uses. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 40
18
2.11 Known information on potential contamination and specific local features Natural levels of arsenic within North Norfolk soils have been known to exceed screening values associated with contaminated land assessment criteria, including the CLEA guidance values. In the event that this situation were to arise, reference can be made to the British Geological Society who have published a range of geochemical maps providing data on background concentrations of Arsenic (12)
The large number of extraction pits in the district have an important implication for the contaminated land investigation due to the possibility of uncontrolled infilling and dumping of rubbish in these pits. Most of these sites are quarrying of sand and clay or unknown filled ground. The large area of intensively farmed land in North Norfolk and hence the large number of farmyards need to be taken into consideration with relation to potential land contamination by chemical and fuel storage, pesticide application etc. All sites currently owned by the Ministry of Defence will be classed as ‘Special Sites’. However a number of former military sites have been disposed of by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, including airfields and radar installations etc. 2.12 Redevelopment history and controls Planning conditions have been attached to planning consents where there have been concerns that land may have been potentially contaminated. Such conditions will have required a site investigation and remediation measures as appropriate. These sites will be risk assessed and inspected as part of our contaminated land programme. This is to ensure that sites are suitable for their current or consented use and that any remediation undertaken is appropriate. In addition advisory notes have been attached where conditions are not appropriate e.g. non‐invasive works as such as change of use. The Environmental Health Department has provided advice and information on contaminated land for Local Plan allocations and development briefs produced by the Planning Departments Forward Plans section. Building control consents may have requested investigation and remediation measures for potentially contaminated land. Liaison has occurred with Environmental Health on this issue. 2.13 Action already taken to deal with land contamination The purchase of data for the GIS system (as described in chapter 8 Information Management) has been very useful in highlighting potentially contaminated land to NNDC. This has enabled automatic consultation requests to be produced by the Planning Department’s Development Control section in connection with 2.12 above. In addition, the database stored on GIS has been utilised by Land charges to answer the new Land Charges questions and provide information on known previous or current land uses. In recent years, following reports from the public, the Environmental Health Department has been involved in case studies and investigations of alleged statutory nuisance, involving contamination or possible contamination of land. These have been dealt with as necessary to resolve the urgent issues at the time. They may not have addressed any underlying contamination issue. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 41
19
3. Priority Actions 3.1 Priorities It is recognised that dealing with inspection and remediation of land will be a progressive activity. One of the primary purposes of this strategy document is to set out how sites are to be dealt with in an appropriate order and to identify those sites representing the greatest risks. While undertaking this process we recognise the dangers associated with creating ‘land blight’ and we will seek to minimise the potential for this to occur as far as possible. The setting of priorities for an inspection programme is influenced by the following: • Knowledge of former land use and the potential for contamination in the District as a whole. • The need for preliminary inspection of the District. • The need to address individual contaminated land problems currently in hand which are known to the authority or have arisen through the planning process. • The resources available to undertake inspections. The underlying theme for any prioritisation scheme must be to address those issues posing the greatest risk to health or the environment. For any given contaminated site the key threats are posed by: 1. Physical exposure to the contaminants on the site by current occupiers/users of the site. 2. Physical exposure to the contaminants on the site not currently a problem but likely to become a problem in the future to occupiers/users of the site in any redevelopment of the site (change in pathway/receptor). 3. Physical exposure to the contaminants on a site by current occupiers/users of neighbouring sites. 4. Physical exposure to the contaminants on the site not currently a problem but likely to become a problem in the future to occupiers/users of neighbouring sites in any redevelopment of the site (change in pathway/receptor). 5. Contaminants from a given site migrating to other land (primarily through leachate) currently affecting occupiers/users of the other land. 6. Contaminants from a given site migrating to other land (primarily through leachate) affecting occupiers/users of the other land at some future date. It is recognised that the factors above are likely to change overtime for any given site. In view of this the Council recognises the need to reassess each site as an when changes occur (see section 7). The initial prioritisation process for each site will be via the NNRAPP procedure, which is fully described in Appendix 3. The priorities and timescales for dealing with land once it has been identified as contaminated are a separate issue outside the scope of this document. It is essential that the scheme of land inspection and the timescale involved is not adversely influenced by the need to allocate resources to deal with or remediate known contaminated land. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 42
20
4. Procedures 4.1 Internal management The NNDC Contaminated Land Officer is responsible for inspecting the district and identifying contaminated land. This initially consists of conducting a ‘desk based’ generic risk assessment of each identified site, followed by a site inspection to corroborate conclusions of the desk based assessment. Once inspected, sites will be categorised according to a perceived level of risk and entered into the risk assessment prioritisation tool (CLAND software). 4.2 Local authority interest in land In terms of council ownership, there will be no biased distinction when dealing with land as a whole and an even‐handed approach will be maintained for all land within the district. The initial risk assessment and site prioritisation process will be adhered to, thus allowing both external bodies and the general public to have confidence in the Council’s decisions regarding contaminated land. The Council will act in accordance with the DEFRA advice that ‘The duties of an authority as a regulator should be kept clearly separate from the responsibilities which arise as a landowner or polluter’. As such, it is believed that the Estates and Property department should have the responsibility for undertaking any site investigations and remedial works as is required after the site specific risk assessment has been conducted by the Contaminated Land Officer. When the Council is to purchase or lease land the appropriate department will contact the Contaminated Land Officer who can provide further details as to the history of the site and advise on any contamination issues, thus reducing the Council’s liabilities to a minimum. It is also essential that the Contaminated Land Officer is consulted prior to any development or groundwork that is to be conducted on any land that the Council currently owns, so that any potential contamination issues can be dealt with. 4.3 Information collection During the identification of potential sources and receptors, a large amount of information is required from many different sources. As a guide many of these sources are listed in Table 2. This information is used to form the basis of the Councils own risk assessment, NNRAPP. The initial risk assessment form and the hazard score sheet for NNRAPP are set out in Appendix 3. 4.4 Information and reports of alleged contamination It is likely that the Council will receive reports or enquiries regarding areas of contaminated land from members of the public, businesses and community groups. These reports or enquiries could possibly impact on the strategic approach to inspection thus the following procedures are to be adopted to minimise this affect. Table 2 Sources of Information on Potential Contaminated Land North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 43
21
Information Source North Norfolk District Council Environment Agency Norfolk County Council Landmark British Geological Survey (BGS)
Ministry of Defence Details
Private Water Supplies Local Plan Planning Records Part B Process Site Investigation Reports Corporate GIS (e.g. ecological systems) Council owned land details Location of abstraction licence points (groundwater & surface water) Source Protection Zones Known water pollution incidents LA‐IPPC Register Waste Management Licences Hydrogeological Information Landfill data (closed & open)
Previous land use data
Geological Information (drift & solid)
List of current and previously owned land Used to identify Potential pathways and receptors Potential receptors Potential sources & receptors Potential sources Potential sources & pathways Potential sources & receptors Potential sources & receptors Potential pathways & receptors Potential pathways & receptors Potential pathways & receptors Potential sources Potential sources Potential pathways & receptors Potential sources Potential sources Potential sources & pathways Potential sources & receptors 4.4.1 Reports of alleged contamination All reports received by the Environmental Protection Team will be passed on to the Contaminated Land Officer for further inspection. Details of the report will be recorded on the Protection Team M3 computer system. If required, an initial site investigation will be undertaken by the Contaminated Land Officer, allowing the site to be allocated a risk category. The overall process is schematically described below (Figure 6). It is quite possible that the final risk assessment of a site will not be carried out until a number of years after the initial risk assessment has been undertaken. If circumstances change within that time then the initial risk assessment will be undertaken again to see if the site priority changes. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 44
22
4.4.2 Information received by internal notifications Information that is passed to the Contaminated Land Officer via internal notification will not be dealt with as a reported case. The information will be filed in the case file and a GIS polygon generated if there is one not currently on the system. This information will then be used as part of the initial generic risk assessment to be undertaken on the site. (See chapter 7 Review Mechanisms) Report received and recorded on M3 No instant problem. Initial risk Instant problem: Initial risk assessment on site undertaken assessment undertaken within as and when 7 days Site plotted onto GIS system if necessary or not plotted already Site specific risk assessment undertaken Reporter informed of outcome of assessment Figure 6. Reports procedure If the information provided deems the site an urgent problem then the fast track procedure within Figure 7 should be used. This will be down to the Contaminated Land Officers’ discretion. The individual who provided the information will only be informed of the outcome of the risk assessment and any further actions if they express so on the original notification form. 4.4.3 Confidentiality In line with the Council’s current procedures all reporters’ identities shall be kept confidential. The only circumstance where the information might be made public is where a remediation notice has North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 45
23
been appealed in a court of law and the main reason for the designation of the land was its adverse effect on the reporters’ health. When any report is received all reporters will be made aware of this fact. In some circumstances, information may be deemed too commercially sensitive or will affect national security. This information will be assessed and if the Council agrees then it will be kept confidential, in line with the statutory guidance (4). Internal notification received Site plotted onto GIS system and new file created if necessary.
Urgent route No initial risk assessment undertaken Initial risk assessment already undertaken. Information provided would change category of site. No further action necessary Inform officer if they asked to be kept informed of outcome. Initial risk assessment completed as and when Risk assessment undertaken within 7 days Site allocated category inform officer if necessary Site specific risk assessments undertaken to inform officer of outcome if necessary. Figure 7. Information received from internal notification 4.4.4 Information (voluntary) If information that is passed to the Council from an individual or organisation about contaminated land does not directly affect the latter, this is not dealt with as described in the procedure outlined in Figure 6, but will follow the procedure as outlined in Figure 7 above. The information provided will be filed on the case file and a GIS polygon will be generated if one is not already on the system for that site. This information may then be acted upon when the initial risk assessment is undertaken. The Council will inform the provider of the information with the outcomes of the risk assessment but only if the provider expresses an interest in knowing when providing the information. 4.4.5 Information (anonymously) It is general practice within the Council that investigations based on anonymously supplied information are not undertaken. This will be adopted for the contaminated land regime. The information will be filed on the case file and may be acted upon after initial investigations have North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 46
24
confirmeed this info
ormation. Th
his does nott rule out investigation
i
n of anonym
mous inform
mation in exceptio
onal circumsttances. This w
would norm ally be on th
he severity off the claims m
made. his informatio
on will be re
ecorded on tthe case file. A GIS polyg
gon will be ggenerated iff deemed Again th
necessarry and the in
nformation w
will be used dduring the rissk assessmen
nt of the sitee. 4.5 Information
n evaluation
n The info
ormation prrovided on substances that may cause c
significant harm or pollution
n will be evaluateed against current c
govvernment guuidelines an
nd other ap
ppropriate i nformation. Current guidelinees are issueed by DEFRA
A and form the basis of o contaminated land eexposure asssessment (CLEA). TThe focus of current guid
dance is speccifically direccted towardss human hea lth. When itt is not app
propriate to use or the substancess in question
n are not ccovered by the t CLEA guidelinees then thee Council will w make rreference to
o other guiideline valu es issued by b other professio
onal bodies and organisa
ations such aa CLAIRE, LQ
QM and ATKIN
NS. When ussing these alternative values tthe Council will have to bear in m
mind how these values are deriveed and provvide valid justificattion for theirr use. When risk assessingg information on polluti on to contro
olled waterss primarily aadvice will be b sought from thee Environmeent Agency. The informaation will be
e evaluated in accordancce with Enviironment Agency guidance do
ocument – ‘Methodologgy for the derivation d
of Remedial Targets for Soil and water to prottect Water SSources’(13). Groundw
4.6 Details of p
previous rem
mediation When th
he Council receives information on previous rem
medial actio
on on a site, it must satisfy itself that the land in queestion is in a condition thhat is ‘SUITA
ABLE FOR US
SE’. As the sttandards of clean up and the industrial practices p
of the past maay be subject to lesser controls, it is possible that the remediation may no
ot be up to today’s staandards. Info
ormation on the date aand type of remedial action w
will be record
ded and subsequent site iinvestigation
ns taken into
o account. Interaction with other rregulatory reegimes 4.7 erlap betweeen existing environmenta
al regulationns and Part 2
2A, this is There is a certain deegree of ove
bed in Figure
e 8 below annd further de
escribed in th
he following sub sectionss: schemattically describ
EDR Planning
Parrt 2A LAPPC IPP
PC
Waste Managem
ment Licensingg Building Control Water W
Resources R
Figure 8. Regulation ovverlap on Strategy
North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
47
25
4.7.1 Planning Contaminated land is a material planning consideration. It is expected that for the redevelopment of Brownfield sites the primary mechanism for dealing with contaminated land will be the planning process, not part IIA. The Councils GIS system will allow any areas of potential contamination (which are plotted on it as polygons) to be seen by the development control officers within the planning section. The system will produce an automatic consultation for these sites so that the Environmental Protection Team can attach appropriate conditions or notes. 4.7.2 Building control The Building Regulations 2010 (14) (made under the Building Act 1984) can require measures to be taken to protect the fabric of new buildings and their future occupants from the effects of contamination found on or under the ground. Approved Document Part C: Site Preparation and Resistance to Moisture (15) gives guidance on these requirements. The Environmental Protection team will liaise with Building Control on issues relevant to Contaminated Land. Arrangements have been made for Building Control to access the GIS system to view any areas of potential contamination which are plotted as polygons. 4.7.3 Water Resources The Environment Agency has powers to deal with pollution of controlled waters caused by contaminated land under the Water Resources Act 1991 (16). Part IIA does not actually revoke these powers but will work in tandem with them. In cases where pollution of controlled waters is being caused, irrespective of which Authority identifies the problem, full cooperation and notification between the Local Authority and Environment Agency shall ensue. This will ensure that the appropriate remediation is undertaken and the correct entries are recorded within the contaminated land register. 4.7.4 Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) IPPC is concerned with controlling the environmental impact of installations which carry out any activities listed under the heading “Part A (2)” in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010 (17). Within the district there has been only a small amount of large‐scale industrial development. There are currently 25 Integrated Pollution Prevention & Control (IPPC) Processes. There are 33 at Bacton gas terminal where North Sea gas is processed, and 19 which are predominantly pig and poultry farms and landfill sites. These sites are permitted by the Environment Agency. Current and new sites where breaches of conditions have occurred which have affected the quality of the land will be dealt with under the IPPC regime, however clean up relating to a site will only be to the standard it was prior to the commencement of operation on the site. It will not go as far as the suitable‐for‐use approach to be used under Part IIA. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 48
26
4.7.5 LAPPC Sites LAPPC is concerned with controlling the environmental impact arising from pollution emitted into air from installations listed under the heading “Part B” in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2010. At the time of writing there are 50 Part B processes in the District, permitted by North Norfolk District Council. These consist of mainly cement batching plants, concrete crushers, waste oil burners and petrol stations. A number of small industrial estates have developed in many of the major towns. 4.7.6 Waste Management Licensing (Part II EPA 1990) There are three areas where the Part IIA regime and the waste management licensing system could interact: • Where significant harm or pollution of controlled waters has arisen from land holding a site licence under Part IIA, it cannot be classified as ‘contaminated land’ but would be dealt with through a condition attached to the site licence. However, Part IIA does apply if the harm or pollution has been caused by an activity authorised by the licence or it is attributable to a cause other than a breach of the site licence. • The enforcing authority acting under Part IIA cannot serve a remediation notice in any case where the contamination has resulted from an illegal deposit of controlled waste. This is investigated by the Environment Agency. • It is likely that remediation activities that are undertaken on contaminated land may be subject to the licensing requirements of the Waste Management Licensing System. 4.7.7 Environmental Damage Regulations (2009) EDR regulations 2009 (18) are designed to deal with and ensure the remediation of sites where environmental damage has occurred. The legislation is applicable to operators of any economic activity (specifically schedule 2 activities), whether public or private and whether or not the activity is carried out for profit. This legislation is not applicable to cases where environmental damage occurred prior to 1st March 2009) and should only be used in circumstances where there is an imminent environmental threat to species & habitats, land, and controlled waters. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 49
27
5. Liaison and Communication 5.1 Local authority contacts Identification and enforcement Environmental Health Service (Environmental Health) Contact: Contaminated Land Officer Telephone: (01263) 516372 Building Control Contact: Building Control Manager Telephone: (01263) 516132 Development /Planning Contact: Head of Planning Telephone: (01263) 516135 Civil Contingencies Contact: Civil Contingencies Manager Telephone: (01263) 516269 Landowners Leisure Contact: Leisure and Locality Services Manager Telephone: (01263) 516002 Property Services Contact: Assets and Property Programme Manager Telephone: (01263) 516210 Public information/education Land Charges Contact: Property Information Team Leader Telephone: (01263) 516013 Media and Communications Contact: Communications and PR Manager Telephone: (01263) 516344 Legal Contact: Legal Services Manager Telephone: (01263) 516045 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 50
28
5.2 Consultation with stakeholders As part of the assessment of potentially contaminated sites, it is preferable to identify all individuals and groups which may have an interest in the site. These are known as stakeholders. They can be people with professional or financial interest. They may also be members of the local community. The stakeholders may not be situated in the local area or within the District Council boundary. They may be a receptor at the destination of a pathway or they may be a national group with a local interest. 5.2.1 Regularly consulted bodies Liaison between the local authority and other organisations with an interest in a particular site is of key importance. This will prove useful to both sides in obtaining all the relevant information about a potentially contaminated site. These organisations include: • The Environment Agency (EA) The Environment Agency is the primary regulatory body for ‘special sites’. Special sites are designated if the land is contaminated and they fall within one or more of the following listed within the Table 3 below: Table 3. Determination process
Site Examples Water‐pollution cases ‐Wholesomeness of drinking water ‐Surface‐water classification criteria ‐Major aquifers Industrial cases ‐Waste acid tar lagoons ‐Oil refining ‐Explosives ‐IPPC sites ‐Nuclear sites Defence cases ‐Current military, naval and air force bases ‐Manufacture, production and disposal of chemical and biological weapons Adjoining or adjacent land becomes a special site if it receives substances from the original special site. The Environment Agency is responsible for the adjacent land so a split in regulatory control does not occur. The Environment Agency already has wide powers to regulate land used for waste management. For additional information or any queries please contact the Environment Agency’s Waste Licensing Team in Norwich. Designation of a special site involves liaison between the Environment Agency and the local authority. The first point of contact will be the Contaminated Land Officer. If the local authority finds North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 51
29
a site, which believes to be a special site, it must inform the Environment Agency. Notification allows the Environment Agency to decide whether: a) The land should be designated b) It wishes to provide site‐specific guidance on remediation c) It requires further information from the local authority in order to prepare its national report. If the Environment Agency does not agree with the designation, it must inform the local authority within a period of 21 days after the initial notification. The Environment Agency must also copy the notification and statement to the Secretary of State. The local authority must then refer all decisions to the Secretary of State. However, if the Environment Agency agrees with the decision or does not contact the local authority within 21 days, the area is designated as a special site. The Environment Agency may also discover potential special sites. These have to be made known to the local authority. If the local authority agrees, the area is designated as a special site. If the local authority disagrees, there is a period of 21 days for the Environment Agency to reaffirm its decision. After this time, the decision is made by the Secretary of State. After a site has been designated, the appropriate people must be contacted and the information placed on the public register. • English Heritage This organization is concerned with the historic environment. It exists to protect historic landscapes, buildings and archaeological sites. English Heritage may be aware of any possible contamination on sites, which they protect. They may have uncovered possibly contaminated sites during archaeological digs. Due to the presence of a large number of historical sites in North Norfolk, English Heritage will be an important contact. • Natural England Natural England promotes conservation of wildlife and natural features. It is responsible for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Ramsar sites and National Nature Reserves (NNRs). North Norfolk has many SSSIs and NNRs which cover large areas of land. English Nature is likely to be aware of any contamination present on this land. See Appendix 2 for full detail on these sites. • Norfolk County Council The County Council is involved in contaminated land primarily as a landowner. The Council owns fire stations, police stations, schools, libraries, car parks, closed landfill sites and household waste recycling centres. The Council also own rural estates. For more information on the responsibility of the County Council, see Chapter 2, Characteristics of the local authority area. • Victory Housing Trust Victory Housing Trust formerly North Norfolk Housing Trust is a charitable registered social landlord which owns and manages over 4,700 properties in the North Norfolk area and has offices located in North Walsham and Fakenham and serve over 10,000 residents. •
The Food Standards Agency The Food Standards Agency will be contacted if a contaminant is found to be affecting a food source. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 52
30
•
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Under the Food Standards Act 1999, DEFRA may be designated as an enforcement authority to prohibit specified agricultural activities to protect consumers from exposure to contaminated food. 5.2.2 Other consulting bodies This group includes businesses, voluntary groups and members of the public who may have an interest or an in depth knowledge in a particular site. Any extra information they may have on the history of a site will ensure a fuller picture to be built up and help speed up the investigation. These groups may be harder to contact. They may not be aware of the contaminated land strategy or the responsibilities of the Council in dealing with the issue. These include: The Broads Authority The eastern part of the district covers the top of the Broads National Park. For this reason, the Broads Authority is an essential consultee. The authority will have extensive knowledge on this section of the district. They will be able to comment on remediation methods for contaminated land within the area. The Broads Authority also has responsibility as the local planning authority for the National Park area. Health Protection Agency The Council has direct access to specialist medical advice from the Norfolk Health Authority. They provide the first source of medical information relating to human health issues. • The National Farmers Union (NFU) • Trade Bodies • The Ministry of Defence (MoD) • Railways • Town/Parish Councils • The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) • Norfolk Archaeological Society 5.2.3 Contacting consultees Communication with some of the consultees mentioned above will occur before a specific site is examined (see appendix 4 for contact details). This is to gain general information about sources of contamination. For instance, contact will be made with the MoD to ascertain historical information. Relevant consultees will be contacted during site investigations to provide site‐specific details. Consultees may be involved in site meetings with the owner/occupier of the land to discuss the contamination problem. Consultees will also be contacted to find out whether they still own land that is potentially contaminated and if they own any other land of which the Council is unaware. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 53
31
5.3 Polluter and/or owner/occupier consultation The Contaminated Land Officer will consult with all known polluters and/or owners/occupiers of sites under investigation. If remediation is required, a notice will be served on the person who is responsible for causing the contamination. This may be a person or a business that has owned the land previously or it may be the current owner. If no polluter can be found, the owner/occupier may become responsible for the remediation. It is preferable that the polluter/landowner undertakes remediation voluntarily. If the work is not carried out, the Council has the authority to take enforcement action. Voluntary remediation has the added incentive that any waste removed will be exempt from landfill tax. If enforcement is necessary, this incentive is withdrawn. 5.3.1 Timescales Designating an area of contaminated land The Contaminated Land Officer will communicate openly with owners/occupiers or polluters regarding its investigations/inspections, which will include: • Write to the polluter and/or owner/occupier of the land at least 7 working days prior to designation, explaining in summary the reason for designation • Write to the polluter and/or owner/occupier explaining that the land has been designated as contaminated land and appropriate remediation without service of a notice is being sought • If requested, dispatch a copy of the written risk assessment to the polluter and/or owner/occupier of the land within 7 working days of receipt of a request • Write to the polluter and/or owner/occupier of neighbouring properties and/or the complainant within 7 working days of designation Serving a remediation notice • Provide a written remediation notice to the polluter and/or owner/occupier specifying action required • Write to the polluter and/or owner/occupier of neighbouring properties and/or the complainant within 7 working days of the notice being served • Should an urgent designation of contaminated land be required, these steps will be observed as far as practicable although some deviation from the timescales specified is to be expected 5.4 Local community awareness When a parcel of land is assessed, it is likely to draw attention from the local community. As people are concerned about unfamiliar issues, they may perceive a greater risk than is actually present. Therefore, it is necessary that people become more familiar with the problem so that they feel in control of their individual exposure. To make this possible, the Council will inform and educate quickly and efficiently in a way which will involve the local community. The Council will produce leaflets and issue press releases in order to inform people about land contamination. If necessary, for site specific cases, the Council will debate any conflicts of interest with relevant parties and to try to resolve arguments through compromise where possible. The Council aims to maintain a policy of openness through contact with an appointed case officer. The officer will be sympathetic to the concerns of local residents and try to explain any queries they North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 54
32
may have as clearly and transparently as possible. Appropriate advice on health issues will be given with consultation with the Council’s health advisors. The majority of people would expect an unnaturally occurring substance to be removed if it was in close proximity to their property. However, a contaminant will only be removed if there is a significant health, property or ecological risk or financial concern. The public, therefore, have to understand that if the contaminant is inert and there are no pathways to the receptors or no receptors, then no action will be taken as there is no contaminated land. 5.5 The public register If the public or commercial enquirers wish to enquire about a parcel of land, they may access the Public Register. This contains information relating to each investigation of contaminated land and will be available at the District Council offices in Cromer. The register will include: • Remediation notices served by the authority • Appeals against remediation and charging notices • Notification from the owner/occupier served with a remediation notice • Remediation statements/declarations • Site sampling reports • Designation/termination of ‘special sites’ • Convictions Also available to the public and commercial enquirers on a site‐specific basis is historical land use data stored on the GIS, as described in chapter 8 Information Management. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 55
33
6. Progrramme for Inspection This chapter deals w
with the criterria for selectting areas an
nd individual sites and thee subsequen
nt methodss of inspectio
on. 6.1 Methods o
of inspection
ncil will be undertaking ttwo modes oof inspection, firstly strategic inspectiion, which w
will refer The coun
to the diistrict wide id
dentification
n of potentia lly contamin
nated land an
nd subsequeent prioritisattion and secondlyy; detailed in
nspection, w
which refers tto the processs whereby p
prioritised sittes are invesstigated further tto demonstraate the prese
ence of conttamination.
6.1.1 Strategic In
nspection e general Strategicc inspection precedes the initiation oof any detailed inspection of prioritissed sites. The
process of strategic iinspection iss revealed wiithin diagram
m below: •Information sourced from intternal notificatio ns
•Information sourced from exxternal notificatioons
Identify sitee •information sourced from lan
nd searches undeertaken by the co
ontaminated land
d officer
Review
Undertake NNRAPP
•Cross check all new entries w
with exisiting entrries to prevent du
uplication
•Conduct histtroical land searcch to corroboratee notifications •Undertake N
NNRAPP on each identified site in accordance with
h the proceedure
e detailed in Appeendix 3
•Create file and insert entry on to the Councilss GIS system
Data Entryy
Visit
Prioritisation
•Perform preeliminary site visitt to corroborate N
NNRAPP assessm
ment
•Gather visuaal, olfactory evide
ence
•Identify sourrces of local know
wledge
•Alter prelimiary NNRAPP riskk score if necessa ry and categorise
e according to pre
eliminary risk
•Place entry iinto CLAND prioritisation tool
Full proccedures regaarding the ide
entification oof potential sites are desscribed withiin section 4.4
4. It must be emph
hasised thatt alongside the t identificaation processs officers will w be conduucting a disttrict wide search fo
or any additiional suspectt sites as parrt of their general duties within the ddistrict. RAPP • NNR
RAPP (appenddix 3), is in tthe form of a desktop sttudy and use
es all the The initial risk assessment, NNR
or, which whhen present together data set out in Tablee 1. It identiifies any souurce, pathwaay or recepto
m a contaminant linkage
e. The asses sment also d
determines tthe presencee of special sites and may form
controlleed waters which, w
if foun
nd, will be fforwarded to the Enviro
onment Age ncy. Once a a site has North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
56
34
been asssessed in this way it is given a categoory accordingg to risk. Cattegory A is thhe highest risk group, categoryy D is the low
west. • Site Inspection The NND
DC Contamin
nated Land O
Officer will ccarry out visu
ual site inspe
ections on aall sites priorr to more invasive methods. These T
site inspections arre designed to add to the t informattion gained from the orroborate tthe conclusioons of the NN
NRAPP assesssment. The Officer will w
work to a desktop study and co
a close to or on the w
way to planned visits. list of sittes within a parish. They will visit ssites which are They wiill collect as much infformation a s possible from local residents aand from th
heir own observattion, which m
may include a walkover tthe site wherre possible.
It is NND
DC’s policy tto inform the
e landownerr/occupier b
before gainin
ng access to the land in question where p
possible. How
wever, if thiss person objjects, the Co
ouncil can usse its ‘Statuttory Powers of Entry’ under SSection 108 of the Environment Acct 1995. Ho
owever there must be enough information gathered
d to assume that the land
d is potentiaally contamin
nated. • Prioritisation NRAPP has b
been underta
aken and sitee inspection has been co
ompleted, deetails will be
e entered Once NN
into the CLAND systtem which iss a risk priorritisation mo
odelling tool. The modell will identify sites in descending order of o risk, and therefore allow detaiiled inspection to be ffocussed up
pon sites demonsttrating the h
highest level of risk. 6.1.2. Detailed Insspection on is revealedd within the diagram bellow: The proccess of detailed inspectio
PRA
Review
Intrusivee
DQRA
•Undertake preliminary risk a
assessment (asseessment)
otential pathwayss
•Identifiy po
•Re‐evaluatee, is further investigation necessarry?
•what is the liklihood of pathways being preseent?
•Strong posssibilty of pathwayys being present •Undertake intrusive investig
gation
•Determine the presence of ccontaminants
•Re‐evaluatee, is there enough
h evidence to dettermine the presence of contamin
nation and plausaable contamination pathways
•If there is enough evidence tto proceed to a ddetermination the
e appropriate pe
erson must be ideentified and notiffied
Notify
•Proceed witth dermination
Determin
ne
North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
57
35
• Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) will be conducted in accordance with ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land (19). This assessment will identify potential contamination sources, pathways and receptors that are specific to the inspection site. Emphasis will be placed upon producing a conceptual site model (CSM) to identify potential contamination pathways. In the event that plausible contaminant pathways become identified, further intrusive investigation will be undertaken to establish the likely presence of these pathways. • Intrusive Investigation In the event that the required information on the site already exists elsewhere or if the landowner/occupier volunteers the information then the need for intrusive investigation will be reassessed. Officers of the Council will not undertake a great amount of intrusive sampling. In most cases assistance will be sought from professional contractors to undertake intrusive work in accordance with an agreed scope of works. Further details can be examined within section 6.1.5. Before a site is accessed, a risk assessment must be completed relating to issues such as hazardous substances (chemicals) and any unsafe features (water, derelict buildings). Machinery taken onto the site must be calibrated where necessary and tested for electrical safety. The results of inspections and maintenance must be recorded. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) must be worn when appropriate but should not compensate for lack of other safety measures. Officers will comply with the Council’s health and safety policy and procedures. • Quantitive Risk Assessment Following the intrusive investigation, all the results will be collated and examined in conjunction with the PRA. A quantitive risk assessment (GQRA or DQRA) will be undertaken, the results of which will aid the council in identifying the presence or absence of prominent contamination pathways. The following outcomes are likely to manifest: o Sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the site is not contaminated o
Sufficient evidence exists to concluded that the site is contaminated o
Existing evidence is insufficient and further investigation will be necessary It is likely that in order to make an assessment a wider source of knowledge may be required, most likely from scientific journals, research papers, professional bodies and government. In addition the use of generic assessment criteria (GACs) and other technical tools may also be required. • Determination Decision At this stage sufficient evidence should be available to make a decision in respect to the site. Statutory guidance (4) requires the local authority to place land within 1 of 4 categories depending upon the evidence available (see Table 4). North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 58
36
Table 4 Determination Strategy Category (Human health) 1 The local authority should assume that a significant possibility of significant harm exists in any case where it considers there is an unacceptably high probability, supported by robust science based evidence that significant harm would occur if no action is taken to stop it. 2 Land should be placed into Category 2 if the authority concludes, on the basis that there is a strong case for considering that the risks from the land are of sufficient concern, that the land poses a significant possibility of significant harm 3 Land should be placed into Category 3 if the authority concludes that the strong case for contaminated land does not exist, and therefore the legal test for significant possibility of significant harm is not met 4 The local authority should not assume that land poses a significant possibility of significant harm if it considers that there is no risk or that the level of risk posed is low Category (Controlled waters) 1 This covers land where the authority considers that there is a strong and compelling case for considering that a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters exists. In particular this would include cases where there is robust science‐
based evidence for considering that it is likely that high impact pollution would occur if nothing were done to stop it. 2 The authority considers that the strength of evidence to put the land into Category 1 does not exist; but (ii) nonetheless, on the basis of the available scientific evidence and expert opinion, the authority considers that the risks posed by the land are of sufficient concern that the land should be considered to pose a significant possibility of significant pollution of controlled waters on a precautionary basis 3 This covers land where the authority concludes that the risks are such that (whilst the authority and others might prefer they did not exist) the tests set out in Categories 1 and 2 above are not met, and therefore regulatory intervention under Part 2A is not warranted 4 This covers land where the authority concludes that there is no risk, or that the level of risk posed is low The general procedure adopted by NNDC will follow the flow diagram specified within Figure 9; the conclusion of the process will result in three possible outcomes: North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 59
37
o
o
Outcome 1 The sitee is identifie
ed as a Cattegory 1 site
e in respectt to controllled waters and the environm
ment agencyy is notified to undertakke enforcement action, ffull details in
n respect to this process are given in sectioon 7.1.3. Outcome 2 TThe site is identified as a Categoryy 1 site in re
espect to hu
uman health . As specifie
ed within (4)
sstatutory gu
uidance the appropriatte person (p
polluter) must be identiffied and info
ormed at least 7 dayss prior to an
ny announceement. A riskk summary must be pubblished to ju
ustify the d
decision to d
determine and should b e scientifically robust, le
egally defenddable and be
e written cclearly so that members of the geneeral public caan understan
nd. Upon dettermination, an entry w
will be placeed within the Contaminaated Land Public registe
er. Please noote that this decision may be neegated unde
er certain circumstancces either where w
the appropriate
e person undertakes vvoluntary remediation oor the council recognisess that a prom
minent conta
aminated land linkage would only exist if the laand use were
e to change. O
Once record
ded the authority can prooceed with tthe remediation notice, details regarding the remediation process and
d identificatioon of approp
priate person
ns can examiined in appe
endix 1. o
Outcome 3 ed as either a Category 2
2, 3 or 4 site
e or deemedd suitable forr use, the If the sitte is identifie
land ow
wner should be notified to the decission and a statement s
w
will be issued
d to that effect an
nd also added as a GIS enntry (see exaample below). ns of Part2A oof the EPA, N
North Norfolk District Couuncil has insp
pected “Under tthe provision
and risk assessed thiis site in resppect to conta
aminated land. The findinngs of this assessment have ideentified the ccontaminatio
on risk as insiignificant. Onn this basis n
no further w
work is justiffied and the ssite is deemeed suitable fo
or its proposeed use”. pecial sites 6.1.3 Potential sp
Prior to formal designation of a Specia l site, the co
ontaminated
d land officeer will liaise with the Environment Agency informally regardinng identificattion of a Special site. Thee notification
n process ation. for SSpecial sites is described in chapter 55 Liaison and Communica
If th
he site is dettermined as a special siite the Envirronment Agency will ca rry out enfo
orcement actio
ons in place of the local authority. TThe local authority should authorise a person, no
ominated by th
he Environm
ment Agency, to exercise powers of en
ntry. See chapter 5 Liiaison and C
Communicatiion for full d
details on dia
alogue betw
ween local au
uthorities and the Environm
ment Agencyy. North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
60
38
Outcome 1 Is there direct evidence for significant harm occurring to receptors? No
Is there direct evidence for significant possibility of significant harm? No
The site is not capable of being classified as SPOSH and does not currently meet the legal definition of contaminated land but would be expected to do so if a more sensitive receptor were to arise
No
The site is not capable of being classified as SPOSH and does not currently meet the legal definition for contaminated land irrespective of sensitive receptors No
The site risks are identified as being low and no plausible contamination linkages could be identified. SPOSH is unlikely to exist Yes Inform and notify Environment Agency SPECIAL SITE Category 1 site Outcome 2
Yes
Yes Category 1 site Yes
Category 2 site Is the primary receptor controlled waters? No
Produce risk assessment summary Inform appropriate persons within 7 days Record entry into contaminated land register Issue remediation notice Outcome 3 Yes Category 3 site Yes
Category 4 site Inform land owners Figure 9. Determination process 61
Make risk assessment and results available to the land owner if requested Provide statement regarding Council Decision 6.2 Arrangements for external consultants and contractors In some circumstances during detailed inspection, it is likely that external contractors may be called upon to undertake work on behalf of NNDC, especially in circumstances where the Council does not possess the expertise or appropriate equipment to undertake work effectively. All appointments will be made to ensure that the council obtains best value for money and the following procedures apply: Up to £5,000.00 £1,000 or less ‐ single supplier sufficient. £1,001 ‐ £5,000 ‐ 2 verbal quotes, at higher end best practice of 3 verbal quotations. Shortlisted by the appropriate officer £5,000.01 ‐ £10,000.00 Best practice to obtain a minimum of 3 written quotations, evidenced by letter, e‐mail etc. Shortlisted by the appropriate officer and Line Manager £10,000.01 ‐ £50,000.00 Obtain a minimum of 3 written quotations. Must be in writing, to originator and on the supplier's headed notepaper. Formal contract conditions apply. Shortlisted by the appropriate officer and Line Manager £50,000.01 ‐ EU Threshold Full tender procedures apply, to be sent out in accordance with Contract Procedure Rules, replies to Legal Services. Shortlisted by the appropriate officer, Line Manager, Legal Services Manager and Procurement Officer •
Above EU threshold EU Procedure or, where this does not apply, Invitation to Tender by Advertisement/List to at least six Candidates. Consult the Legal Services Manager and Procurement Office. All contractors have a responsibility to ensure the health and safety and welfare of their own employees and the health and safety of any other persons who may be affected by their work. However, the Council will check that the contractor has reasonable procedures in place to provide for their employees on site for the duration of the contract. This duty will also extend to other persons who could be affected by work carried out by the contractor as part of the contract. To this end, the following procedure will be followed by the Contract Supervising Officer: ‐ 1) Reasonable enquiries must be carried out to ascertain that the contractor has taken suitable steps to meet his health and safety duties, as indicated above and has satisfied his legal responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. In particular, that the contractor has a suitable Health and Safety Policy in place and that duties in relation to Risk Assessment have been met. 2) Before the contract commences, the contractor must be advised of any of our procedures which are necessary to ensure the health and safety of the contractors employees whilst they are on site. The contractors are responsible for the waste they create whilst undertaking the intrusive sampling and also the remediation works. If material is cleaned and replaced in‐situ no problems are caused. 62
However, if material is moved from the site and deposited elsewhere, a licence is required. Waste management licences can be obtained from the Environment Agency. If the Council is responsible for the site then they have a duty to obtain this licence. 6.3 ‘Risk communication’ strategy See chapter 5 Liaison and Communication 6.4 Frequency of inspection See chapter 7 Review Mechanisms Each site is to be visited once for a preliminary inspection then again depending on the risk category it is placed in. However, the frequency of inspections depends on the individual site. For instance, if land use and therefore receptor is changed, the desktop study will have to be repeated to reassess the risk category. 6.5 Format of information resulting from inspection Data gathered from inspections will be kept in hanging files in parish order and also some details will be recorded on the textual records of the GIS database held by the Environmental Protection Team. Soil or material samples from site investigations may be retained for the appropriate time period. Such samples will be stored and recorded in accordance with a relevant procedure. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 63
1
7. Revieew Mechan
nisms Assumpttions and insspection prio
orities shoul d be checke
ed and review
wed at interv
rvals according to the statutoryy guidance (4). Strategic inspectionns are carried out according to tthe Risk Asssessment Procedure (NNRAPP
P). Sites with
h the highesst initial risk assessmentt are inspectted and investigated first. How
wever, theree are circumsstances whicch can influence this proccess. 7.1 Triggers forr Inspection Figure 10. Triggers for inspection
which these ffactors may trigger a revview of the in
nspection prrogramme iss found in The mecchanism by w
chapter 5 Procedurees. Triggers forr reviewing inspection deecisions 7.2 on Strategy
North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
64
2
The seco
ond way in w
which the insspection proogramme can
n be influencced is wheree inspection decisions have alreeady been undertaken. T
The factors bbelow fall intto this category. These m
may require a
as review of previo
ous decisionss including re
egulatory deecisions. Figure 11
1. Triggers foor reviewingg inspection decisions In the eevent of thee factors in Figures 10 and 11 occcurring, the Contaminatted Land Offficer will undertakke the proceedures in cha
apter 4, secti on 4.4 and rrevise them w
where necesssary. 7.3 Reviewing tthe strategy This straategy will be reviewed as requiredd, by officerrs on an annual basis aand reported to the Council’ss appropriate committee
e. North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
65
3
8.Information Management 8.1 General principles A variety of data will be compiled from each site investigated. These need to be assembled into a format, which can be easily accessed by the general public and anyone else who may have an interest in a particular site. 8.2 Information content/ the public register The details of the required contents of the public register can be found in chapter 6 Liaison and Communication The public register lists certain regulatory action, e.g. whether a piece of land has been determined contaminated or any specified remediation notices have been served. 8.2.1 The public register The public register can be accessed in two ways: 1) Internally via links to the GIS system. This is how the new Land Charges search question (known as Question 16A) relating to contaminated land will be answered. This is triggered by the existence of certain trail entries, e.g. regulatory actions on the main system. Links with other NNDC colleagues also exist via this system, e.g. development control, building control etc. 2) The Environmental Health Department will hold the contaminated land public register. This will exist as a paper and electronic file. Arrangement will be made to ensure that the public register is updated at regular intervals and that it will match the information on the computer based public register ‘trail’, e.g. updated last note ‐ on file front page. A procedure note to detail how inspection outcomes and decisions will be recorded on the public register will be required. Please see section 8.6 for details on access to requests and/or information. 8.3 NNDC Storage systems 8.3.1 The GIS system The locations of potentially contaminated and contaminated sites will be stored on the NNDC computer based Geographical Information System (GIS), as a ‘polygon’. Each of these polygons has a unique reference – a CTML number. This is in the format of CTML/ parish number/site number for parish. Each polygon/site on the GIS has an associated ‘textual record’ which allows selected written details to be viewed, i.e. former land usage etc. The main computer service acts as a database associated with GIS. Textual records and other details, e.g. photographs can be stored here. The main computer system has a ‘trail’ facility to record certain actions that are undertaken. It is intended that these will be regulatory actions required for the public register which must be linked to the computerised public register and the Council’s land charges service, e.g. the regulatory details that are required for the public register. It is intended that the production of notices will occur using only the main system. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 66
4
8.3.2 The CLAND System It is intended that the complete record of actions for each polygon will be recorded in the CLAND system. Each polygon will be allocated a ‘location’ referred to by its CTML number in the relevant parish general street record. Actions will be recorded on this location, including those relating to complaints and enquiries. 8.3.3 Historical land use The polygons are based on historical and current land use information. Enquirers will be provided with access to this information on a site specific enquiry basis as detailed in section 9.6. The historical land use data (Landmark) was acquired in spring 2000. The data is divided into a diverse list of current and historic land use types, which may potentially result in contamination. To enable these plots of land to be recognised by the GIS system, the information has been ‘plotted’ on the GIS contaminated land layer, as two plotted layers called ‘Contaminated Land and Buffer Zone’. (There is small buffer around the polygons; the purpose is to ensure that enquiries regarding land adjacent to plotted sites can be revealed during automatic enquiries.) Any additional potentially contaminated sites will be plotted as and when their existence is discovered. 8.3.4 Reports of alleged contamination and enquiries. Records of reports and enquiries will be stored on the M3 system. This is where all requests for service for the Environmental Health Department are stored. 8.3.5 The Inspection programme The inspection programme is based on the initial risk assessment process detailed in chapter 4 section 4.3, chapter 6 and appendix 3. The Inspection programme will be stored on an NNDC computer database. 8.3.6 Other relevant geographical information To assist with the Inspection process, the GIS also include other relevant geographical information, such as geology, soils, boreholes, abstraction points etc. 8.4 Administration 8.4.1 The public register and the GIS system. The Contaminated Land Officer will ensure that any changes and additions to either the register or the GIS system are carried out. Any additional sites requiring inspection will be added at specified intervals, in accordance with the Procedure in chapter 4 8.4.2 Site inspections Records of site inspections will be kept as part of a working file along with relevant paper work. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 67
5
8.5 Confidentiality of information There are restrictions to the information which can go into the public register. The first is the issue of national security. The decision as to what information comes under this heading is made by the Secretary of State. The second restriction is due to commercial confidentiality. Information which relates to the affairs of any individual or business, or is commercially confidential to an individual conducting that business, may not be released in line with specified guidelines. 8.6 Arrangements for giving access to information/ dealing with requests for information 8.6.1 The public register Information on land contamination will be available to the public as an electronic based public register, available at the NNDC Web page, and paper based copies will be provided on request. 8.6.2 Site specific enquiries Site specific enquiries for information regarding suspected or known current or historical land‐use will be revealed to public, commercial or internal enquirers. These may be directed by invitation in order to seek further advice during land charge replies or may be direct enquirers with the Environmental Health Department. Requests for information will be acknowledged with a standard format letter. This letter will say whether or not: 1) There is any land use that may potentially cause contamination on a specific site according to our records stored on GIS. The letter will include a statement that the site investigation has not been completed and that the Council’s records may not include all potentially contaminated sites within the District. Or 2) That an inspection of the site has taken place and the resulting outcome. Arrangements will be made to update the existing procedure, as appropriate. There is a potential charge for this service; however the introduction of a fee will depend upon the level of detail required for an inquiry. 8.7 Provision of information to the Environment Agency Please refer back to Liaison and Communication (chapter 5, section 5.21). North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 68
6
9. Glossary of Terms This Glossary contains terms and phrases associated with this strategy document and other documents relating to the contaminated land regime. The references in the text can be found in section 57 of the Environment Act 1995 and section 78 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (1). References in the text are to this legislation. Apportionment: defined as: ‘two or more appropriate persons liable to bear the cost of any particular thing which is to be done by way of remediation, in proportions determined by the enforcing authority’. Appropriate Person: defined in section 78A(9) as: ‘any person who is an appropriate person, determined in accordance with section 78F…, to bear responsibility for anything which is to be done by way of remediation in any particular case’. Attribution: the process of apportionment between liability groups. Paragraph D.5(e) Caused or Knowingly Permitted: test for establishing responsibility for remediation, under section 78F(2); ‘Caused – person concerned was involved in some active operation, to which the presence of the pollutant is attributable’. ‘Knowingly Permit – requires both the knowledge that the substances in question were in, on or under the land and the possession of the power to prevent such a substance being there’. Class A Liability Group: a liability group consisting of one or more Class A persons. Paragraph D.5(c). Class A Person: a person who is an appropriate person by virtue of section 78F(2) (that is, because he has caused or knowingly permitted a pollutant to be in, on or under the land). Paragraph D.5(a). A liability group consisting of one or more Class B persons. Class B Liability Group: Paragraph D.5(c). Class B Person: A person who is an appropriate person by virtue of section 78F(4) or (5) (that is because he is the owner or occupier of the land in circumstances where no Class A person can be North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 69
7
found with respect to a particular remediation action). Paragraph D.5(b). CLEA: Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment. A methodology for carrying out a risk assessment. Contaminant: a substance, which is in on or under the land and which has the potential to cause harm or to cause pollution of controlled waters. Paragraph A12. Contaminated Land: defined in section 78A(2) as: ‘any land which appears to the local authority in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on or under the land, that‐ (a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused, or; (b) pollution of controlled waters in being, or is likely to be, caused’. Controlled Waters: defined in section 78A(9) by reference to Part III of the Water Resources Act 1991. Includes: Cost Recovery Decision: (a) inland waters (streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, canals) (b) groundwaters (any water contained in underground strata, wells or boreholes) (c) territorial waters (the sea within three miles of a baseline) (d) coastal waters (the sea within the baseline up to the line of highest tide, and tidal waters up to the fresh water limit) any decision by the enforcing authority whether: (a) ‘to recover from the appropriate person all the reasonable costs incurred by the authority in carrying out remediation’, or (b) ‘not to recover those costs or to recover only part of those costs’. Paragraph E.8 Enforcing Authority: defined in section 78A(9) as: (a) ‘in relation to a special site, the Environment Agency; (b) in relation to contaminated land other than a special site, the local authority in whose area the land is situated’. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 70
8
Exclusion: any determination by the enforcing authority under section 78F(6) (that is, that a person is to be treated as not being an appropriate person). Paragraph D.5(d) GIS: Hardship: Geographical Information System a factor underlying any cost recovery decision made by an enforcing authority under section 78P(2). Harm: defined in section 78A(4) as: ‘harm to the health of living organisms or other interference with the ecological systems of which they form part and, in the case of man, includes harm to his property’. Local Authority: defined in section 78A(9) as meaning ‘any unitary authority, district council, the Common Council of the City of London, the Sub‐Treasurer of the Inner Temple and the Under‐
Treasurer of the Middle Temple’. Orphan Linkage: Owner: Part IIA: ‘a significant pollutant linkage for which no appropriate person can be found, or where those who would otherwise be liable are exempted by one of the relevant statutory provisions’. Paragraphs D.12, D.14 and D.17 defined in section 78A(9) as: ‘a person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who, whether in his own right or as trustee for any other person, is entitled to receive the rack rent of the land, or where the land is not let at a rack rent, would be so entitled if it were so let’. Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This deals with contaminated land. Pathway: one or more routes or means by, or through, which a receptor: Contaminant Linkage: (a) is being exposed to, or affected by, a contaminant, or (b) could be so exposed or affected. Paragraph A.14 Pollution of Controlled Waters: the relationship between a contaminant, a pathway and a receptor. Paragraph A.17 defined in section 78A(9) as: ‘the entry into controlled waters of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter’. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 71
9
Receptor: defined as either: (a) ‘a living organism, a group of living organisms, an ecological system or a piece of property which: (i) is in a category listed in Table A in Chapter A as a type of receptor, and (ii) is being, or could be, harmed by a contaminant:’ or (b) ‘controlled waters which are being, or could be, polluted by a contaminant’. Paragraph A.13 Register: the public register maintained by the enforcing authority under section 78R of particulars relating to contaminated land. Remediation: defined in section 78A(7) as: (a) ‘the doing of anything for the purpose of assessing the condition of‐ (i) the contaminated land in question; (ii) any controlled waters affected by that land; or (iii) any land adjoining or adjacent to that land; (b) the doing of any works, the carrying out of any operations or the taking of any steps in relation to any such land or waters for the purpose‐ (i) of preventing or minimising, or remedying or mitigating the effects of any significant harm, or any pollution of controlled waters, by reason of which the contaminated land is such land; or (ii) of restoring the land or waters to their former state; or (c) the making of subsequent inspections from time to time for the purpose of keeping under review the condition of the land or waters’. Remediation Declaration: defined in section 78H(6) as a document prepared by the enforcing authority where: (a) ‘the enforcing authority is precluded by virtue of section 78E(4) or (5) from specifying in a remediation notice any particular thing by way of remediation which it would otherwise have specified in such a notice’. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 72
10
Includes: “(i) the reasons why the authority would have specified that thing; and (ii) the grounds on which the authority is satisfied that it is precluded from specifying that thing in such a notice.” Remediation Notice: defined in section 78E(1) as ‘a notice specifying what an appropriate person is to do by way of remediation and the periods within which he is required to do each of the things so specified’. Remediation Package: the full set or sequence of remediation actions, within a remediation scheme, which are referable to a particular significant linkage. Paragraph C.8(b). Remediation Scheme: the complete set or sequence of remediation actions (referable to one or more significant pollutant linkages) to be carried out with respect to the relevant land or waters. Paragraph C.8(c). Remediation Statement: defined in section 78H(7) as a document prepared by the enforcing authority where: (a) ‘the enforcing authority is precluded by virtue of paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection 78(H)5 from serving a remediation notice’. Includes: (i) ‘the things which are being, have been, or are expected to be, done by way of remediation in the particular case; (ii) the name and address of the person who is doing, has done, or is expected to do, each of those things; and (iii) the periods within which each of those things are being, or is expected to be, done’. Risk: defined as the combination of: (a) ‘the probability, or frequency, of occurrence of a defined hazard (for example, exposure to a property of a substance with the potential to cause harm); and (b) the magnitude (including the seriousness) of the consequences’. Paragraph A.9 Shared Action: a remediation action, which is referable to the significant pollutant in more than one significant pollutant linkage. Paragraph D.21(a). North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 73
11
Significant Harm: defined in section 78A(5). Any harm which is determined to be significant in accordance with the statutory guidance (4) Source Protection Zone: Special Site: Protection zones around certain sources of groundwater used for public water supply. Within these zones, certain activities and processes are prohibited or restricted. defined by section 78A(3) as: ‘any contaminated land – (a) which has been designated as such a site by virtue of section 78C(7) or 78D(6)…; and (b) whose designation as such has not been terminated by the appropriate Agency under section 78Q(4)…’. The effect of the designation of any contaminated land as a special site is that the Environment Agency, rather than the Local Authority, becomes the enforcing authority for the land. SSSI: Substance: Site of Special Scientific Interest defined in section 78A(9) as: ‘any natural of artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour’. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 74
12
Reference List 1.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk 2 http://www.northnorfolk.org 3 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13735cont‐land‐guidance.pdf 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 5 http://maps.environment‐agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e 6 Soil survey for England and Wales (1983) 1:250,000 soil map. 7 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 8 http://maps.environment‐agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=maptopics&lang=_e 9 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 10 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 11 http://www.statistics.gov.uk 12 Rawlins, B G, McGrath, S P, Scheib, A J, Breward, N, Cave, M, Lister, T R, Ingham, M, Gowing, C and Carter, S. 2012. The Advanced Soil Geochemical Atlas of England and Wales. (Keyworth, Nottingham: British Geological Survey.) 13 Environment Agency (2006), R & D Publication 20, http://publications.environment‐
agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO0706BLEQ‐E‐E.pdf 14 http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/buildingregulations/brlegislation/ 15 http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDFs_ADC_2004.pdf 16 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 17 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 18 http://www.legislation.gov.uk 19 Environment Agency (2004), CLR 11 ‐ Model procedures for the management of contaminated land. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 75
13
Bibliography Dymond, D. (1985) The Norfolk Landscape, Hodder & Stoughton Wade Martins, S. (1997) A History of Norfolk, 2nd Edition, Phillimore Wade‐Martins, P. (ed.) (1994) An Historical Atlas of Norfolk, 2nd Edition, Norfolk Museums Service The North Norfolk Natural Area Profile, English Nature Fakenham Sheet 146 Solid and Drift Geology Map, British Geological Survey Mundesley and North Walsham Sheets 132 and 148 Solid and Drift Geology Map, British Geological Survey East Anglia Solid Geology Map, British Geological Survey Chatwin,C. (1961) British Regional Geology East Anglia and Adjoining Areas, HMSO Soils of England and Wales Sheet 4 Eastern England, Soil Survey of England and Wales Hodge, C.A.H et al., (1984) Soils and their Use in Eastern England, Harpenden 1999 Pesticide Survey Report, North Norfolk District Council North Norfolk Local Environment Agency Plan –April 1998 – June 1999, Environment Agency Broadland Rivers Local Environment Agency Plan – June 2000, Environment Agency North Norfolk the facts – A Demographic Study, North Norfolk District Council Hydrogeological Map of Northern East Anglia, Institute of Geological Sciences North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 76
14
Appendix 1 Liability Determining Liability If voluntary remediation is not undertaken, a remediation notice must be served. The enforcing Authority must determine whom, if anyone, is liable for remediation of the contaminated land and therefore, whom the notice should be served against. Section 78F(2) states that ‘any person who caused or knowingly permitted the substance by reason of which the CONTAMINATED LAND in question is such to be in, on or under that land, is an APPROPRIATE PERSON’. An appropriate person who has caused or knowingly permits contamination comes into Class A. There may be more than one person responsible for the contamination. In this instance, these appropriate persons would be known as a Class A liability group. This may occur when there is more than one SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANT LINKAGE or where more than one person is responsible for one pollutant linkage. If no Class A person is found and the contamination is solely related to the pollution of controlled waters rather than causing significant harm, it is classed as an ORPHAN LINKAGE. If no Class A person can be found and the contamination is causing significant harm, then liability passes to Class B. Class B is an appropriate person who can bear responsibility for the things which are to be done by way of remediation. The owner or occupier of the land in question is an appropriate person. If no Class A or Class B can be found, it is classed as an ORPHAN LINKAGE. Shared Liability The first stage of determining liability is to attribute responsibility. If there is a single Class A person then they carry the full cost. Where there are two or more, they share the cost. Where no Class A person can be found, the owner/occupier/s pay, i.e a Class B person. If a party is not responsible for the contamination, according to the exclusion tests set out in the statutory guidance (4), then they can be excluded from the liability group. This may occur when a pollutant has found its way from nearby land or if a later addition of another chemical has reacted in such a way as to cause contamination. Out of the persons remaining, once exclusion of those not responsible has occurred, then the enforcing authority must apportion liability. Liability of Class A persons reflects the relative responsibility of each member for creating or continuing the risk. Liability of Class B persons is by ownership of an area of land or capital invested in the land. If both of these occur, overall liability is apportioned between the different areas of land. Cost Recovery In cases where the enforcing authority has had to undertake remediation at a cost to itself (orphan site, quick remediation necessary), it has the right to recover its costs from the appropriate person or persons. In making its decision the authority should: North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 77
15
1) make a fair and equitable decision for all who may have to meet the costs of remediation including taxpayers; 2) take into account the ‘polluter pays’ principal and look at the degree and nature of responsibility of the appropriate person. The enforcing authority should seek to recover full reasonable costs. It may defer recovery and bring in land charges for the appropriate person to pay in instalments in cases of hardship. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 78
16
Appendix 2 2.1 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Wash and North Norfolk Coast North Norfolk Coast and Gibraltar Point Dunes Winterton and Horsey Dunes Norfolk Valley Fens i) Holt Lowes ii) Sheringham and Beeston Regis Common iii) Southrepps Common The Broads i) Ant Broads and Marshes ii) Broad Fen, Dilham iii) Bure Broads and Marshes iv) Calthorpe Broads v) Ludham to Potter Heigham Marshes vi) Priory Meadow, Hickling vii) Smallburgh Fen viii) Upper Thurne Marshes Overstrand Cliffs Paston Great Barn River Wensum Total 8 2.2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) Alderfen Broad Ant Broads and Marshes Beeston Cliffs Bisley Hills Britons Lane Gravel Pit Broad Fen, Dilham Bryants Heath, Felmingham Bure Broads and Marshes Calthorpe Broad Cockthorpe Common East Runton Cliffs East Ruston Common Edgefield Little Wood Felbbrigg Woods Glandford Hurdle Lane Glandford Letheringsett Road Gunton Park Lake Happisburgh Cliffs North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 79
17
Holt Lowes Kelling Heath Ludham and Potter Heigham Marshes Morston Cliffs Mundesley Cliffs North Norfolk Coast Overstrand Cliffs Paston Barn Priory Meadows, Hickling River Wensum Sheringham and Beeston Regis Common Sidestrand and Trimingham Cliffs Smallburgh Fen Southrepps Common Stiffkey Valley Swanton Novers Wood Syderstone Common Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes Wareham Camp Wells Chalk Pit West Runton Cliffs Westwick Lakes Weybourne Cliffs Weybourne Town Pit Winterton to Horsey Dunes Wiveton Downs Total 44 2.3 Local Nature Reserves Old Railway Cutting, Felmingham Hindringham Meadow Old Railway Cutting, Knapton Sculthorpe Moor Southrepps Common Wiveton Downs Total 6 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 80
18
2.4 Scheduled Ancient Monuments Aylmerton Wayside Cross 650m south west of Park Farm Baconsthorpe Baconsthorpe Castle moated site with fortified house, gatehouse, courtyards and formal gardens Bacton Broomhall Priory Barsham Gatehouse at manor house, East Barsham Beeston Beeston Priory Binham Binham village cross Binham Cockthorpe village cross, 200m east of All Saints' Church Binham Priory Binham Blakeney Medieval undercroft known as the Guildhall Blakeney Two bowl barrows on Blakeney Downs Bodham Oval barrow in Bodham Wood, 600m ESE of Warren Farm Briton Sharrington village cross Cley Blakeney Chapel, site of Cley Two bowl barrows in Taylor’s Wood, 260m north east of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Cley Bowl barrow in Taylor’s Wood, 400m north of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Cley Bowl barrow in Taylor’s Wood, 350m north east of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Cley Bowl barrow in Taylor’s wood, 270m north east of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Cley Bowl barrow on the Hangs Colby Cross in St Giles' Churchyard Dilham Medieval tower and wall at Dilham Hall Dunton Cross in All Saints' Churchyard, Toftrees Edgefield Habitation site on Edgefield Heath Fakenham Fakenham Gasworks Field Dalling Heydon Hall, Saxlingham (near Holt) Field Dalling Cross in St Andrew’s Churchyard Fulmodeston Moated site and medieval earthworks s of Hall Farm Gresham Gresham Castle Gunthorpe The Carr moated site, Bale Hempton Remains of St Stephen’s priory Hickling priory Hickling Hindringham Hindringham hall moated site with adjacent fishponds Holkham Iron age fort 900m north east of Dale Hole cottage Horning St James’s Hospital Horning St Benet's Abbey Hoveton Wroxham Bridge Kelling Gallow Hill bowl barrow and adjacent group of eight bowl barrows: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow on Kelling Heath, south of Holgate Hill Kelling Kelling Bowl barrow on the north side of Muckleburgh Hill Kettlestone Ring ditches and enclosures w of the hills Langham Langham Airfield dome trainer North Walsham Market Cross North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 81
19
North Walsham North Walsham North Walsham Paston Potter Heigham Pudding Norton Roughton Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Salthouse Sea palling Southrepps Stiffkey Stody Sustead Tattersett Tattersett Upper Sheringham Walsingham Walsingham Walsingham Walsingham Walsingham Walsingham Warham Warham Warham Weybourne Weybourne Weybourne Wickmere Wighton Wighton Cross 120m south west of Tollgate Farm Cross 300m North West of Tollbar Cottages Wayside cross on west side of Norwich road, immediately north east of the water works The Great Barn Potter Heigham Barn Deserted village (site of) Tumuli on Roughton Heath including Hare's hill and Two hills Small bowl barrow 750m north east of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow and adjacent group of seven small barrows 550m nne of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow 260m nnw of Lowes Farm: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Disc barrow south east of Bard hill: part of a dispersed round barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow 450m north west of Lows Farm: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow known as Three Farthing Hill: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow known as Three Halfpenny Hill: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Saucer barrow and adjacent small bowl barrow 630m north east of Swan Lodge: part of a barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Bowl barrow 400m east of Swan Lodge: part of a dispersed round barrow cemetery on and around Salthouse Heath Site of manorial complex, Hall Farm, Waxham Wayside Cross known as Stump Cross Tumulus on Warborough Hill Castle Hill medieval ringwork, Hunworth Moated site s of Bessingham Wood Bowl barrow in Wicken Covert, 100m south east Highfield House Broomsthorpe deserted medieval village Oval barrow with superimposed bowl barrow known as Howe’s Hill, 500m wsw of Wood Farm Egmere medieval settlement Walsingham Abbey Town pump Egmere medieval settlement The Greyfriars Egmere medieval settlement Warham camp small multivallate fort Bowl barrow known as Fiddler's Hill, 130m North West of Fiddler's Hill Farm Moated site of Hale’s manor and associated earthworks Bowl barrow in hundred acre wood, 330m west of Cherry Trees Farm Moated site 380m ssw of Rosedale Farm Weybourne Priory St Margaret’s Church, Wolterton Iron Age ditched enclosure 270m north east of Warham Camp Moated site 240m south west of Whey Curd Farm North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 82
20
Wighton Wighton Medieval settlement 370m north of Grove Farm Remains of a medieval ringwork castle known as Crabb's Castle, 680m north east of Crabb's Castle farm Wiverton bridge Wiverton Total 84 National Nature Reserves (NNR) Ant Broads & Marshes Blakeney Calthorpe Hickling Holkham Ludham Winterton Dunes Total 7 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 83
21
Appendix 3 Guidance on initial risk assessment for potentially contaminated sites Forms needed…… • Initial Risk Assessment Form –M:\Environmental Health\Quality Assurance\EH QMS\Team Documents\Environmental Protection\Contaminated Land • Hazard Score Sheet – M:\Environmental Health\Quality Assurance\EH QMS\Team Documents\Environmental Protection\Contaminated Land Each GIS polygon should be checked using the following instructions, this will produce the initial generic risk assessment for each site. This will put each potentially contaminated site into a category for further assessment. Contamination (site history) • The score for previous use of the site should be recorded on the Risk Assessment Form. • If the reference of the polygon is known this can be found on the GIS system by following the procedure below: • Choose reference from the front screen Highlight Contaminated land from list Type in reference (eg CTML/11/10) & click accept • The previous use can be found by clicking on the Contaminated Land layer of the GIS and looking at the database associated with that polygon. • If the site has more than one previous use then please put the highest score only on the form. • Please write down the codes for all the previous uses (left hand column of the hazard score sheet) in the space provided. Pathway • The following are potential pathways for contamination to use to reach the receptor, please enter all potential pathways: Inhalation – soil particles/dust/vapours Ingestion – soil/dust/contaminated food/water Direct Contact – soil/dust/water Pollution of controlled waters Attack on building structure Attack on services Receptor (current use of site) • Each site must be assessed and scored using the scoring system on the hazard score sheets, for all of the receptor categories (Human, Groundwater, Surface Water, Ecological). • Most of the information can be accurately obtained for the GIS system, however it is likely that a site visit may be needed to confirm some information. • If the score can not be identified accurately from the GIS leave it blank until a site visit can be arranged. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 84
22
•
•
•
•
HUMAN – GIS information OS layers for housing Aerial photo layer (towns only) Planning Applications GROUNDWATER ‐ information Groundwater vulnerability maps are on GIS system under contaminated land (unregulated) layer; there are layers for each aquifer type. Also hard copies of the groundwater vulnerability maps are located in the contaminated land filing cabinet. Private Water supplies are on the GIS system under contaminated land (regulated), the hard copies are filed in the PWS filing cabinet. Source Protection Zone maps can be viewed online via the Environment Agency web page: http://www.environment‐agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx SURFACE WATER – GIS information OS layers (OS SURVEY RASTER & ORD. SURVEY 1:2500) Make sure that the water layers are switched on there are 4 under the ORD. SURVEY 1:2500 layer. ECOLOGICAL – GIS information Check the following layers this will cover all the ecological sites:
COUNTRYSIDE REGISTERED LOCAL NATURE RESERVE NATIONAL NATURE RESERVE RAMSAR SITE SPECIAL AREA OF CONSERVATION (SACS) SSSI SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (SPAS) CONSERVATION REGISTERED ANCIENT MONUMENT Initial Priority Category…… • The initial priority category of the site is obtained by using the chart at the end of the Hazard Score Sheet. • The scores that should be used are the Contamination(former use) score of the site and the highest score of all of the receptor groups. • The site category can then be obtained. North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 85
23
Former use code 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e 4f 4g 4h 4i 4j 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g 3h 3i 3j 3k 3l 3m 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g 2h 2I 2j 2k 2l 1a 1b 1c Former Uses Score Animal by‐products (gelatine, soap, glue) Factory or Works (use not specified) Gas manufacture & distribution Heavy product manufacture (rolling of Iron, Steel and ferrous alloys) Leather tanning & dressing Military Land Oil, petroleum & gas refining & storage Refuse disposal Unknown filled ground (Pit, Quarry etc) Weapons & ammunition (manufacture & storage) Animal slaughtering & basic processing of meat (other then poultry) Electricity production & distribution (inc. large transformers) Hospitals Laundries & dry cleaning Machinery: engines, general machinery production Metal casting & foundries Metals: treatment & coating (inc. electroplating) Outfalls Printing: miscellaneous exc. Newspapers Sawmilling, planing & impregnation (timber treatment) Sewage Technical & environmental testing & analysis Unknown filled ground (Pond, Marsh, River, Stream, dock) Cement, Lime & Plaster products (Manufacture) Cemetery or graveyard Clay bricks & tiles (Manufacture) General quarrying Heap, unknown constituents Motor vehicles: maintenance and repair Quarrying of sand & clay, operation of sand & gravel pits Railways Road Haulage Transport manufacturing and repair Transport support & cargo handling Transport: air and space, cargo and handling and transport support Air Shafts Brewing & Malting Former Marsh 4 Receptor (Human) Residential with Gardens Schools Allotments Residential without gardens (landfill) 3 2 1 Score 4 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 86
24
Parks 3 Playing Fields Residential without Gardens (non landfill) Open Spaces (inc. unauthorised access) 2 Commercial & Industrial Car Park 1 Agricultural Land Receptor (Groundwater) Score Major Aquifer Soil Class High 1 4 Within Inner Zone of Groundwater Source Protection Zone Private Water Supply or other abstraction on site or within 50m from site boundary Major Aquifer Soil Class High 2, 3 & U 3 Within Outer Zone of Groundwater Source Protection Zone Private Water Supply or other abstraction 50‐250m from site boundary Major Aquifer Soil Class Intermediate 1 & 2 2 Within Total Catchment of Groundwater Source Protection Zone Private Water Supply or other abstraction 250‐500m from site boundary Major Aquifer Soil Class Low 1 Private Water Supply or other abstraction greater than 500m from site boundary PLEASE NOTE If the Groundwater Vulnerability maps shows that an area of low permeable drift deposit is on the site then the receptor score should be reduced by one. Receptor (Surface Water) Score Body of water on site 4 Body of water 0‐50m from site boundary 3 Body of water 50‐500m from site boundary 2 Body of water greater than 500m from site boundary 1 Receptor (Ecological System) Score Conservation area on site or within 50m of site boundary 4 Conservation area 50‐250m from site boundary 3 Scheduled Ancient Monument within site boundary Conservation area 250‐500m from site boundary 2 Conservation area greater than 500m from site boundary 1 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 87
25
Receptor Potential contamination status (land use) 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 High Risk (Category A) Moderate Risk (Category B) Low Risk (Category C) Risk likely to be insignificant (Category D) North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 88
26
CONTAMINA
C
ATED LAND A
ASSESSMENT
T. Site
Date
ONE) (STAGE O
CONTAM
MINATION Location
Reference
Sco
ore
Specify
y (former use))
PATHWA
AY Specify
y
OR RECEPTO
Specify
y (human,
conntrolled waters [groundwateer, surface
water],, ecological
syystem)
Sco
ore
Contact EA
if controlled
w
waters
Initial priority
category
(STAGE TTWO) SIGNIFIC
CANT HARM Specify
y (significant harm occurrinng or likely to
o occur)
Nott contam.
land
d
Contam.
Land
Speecial site
(conntact EA)
PPriority
category
North Norfolk District Council Coontaminated LLand Inspectio
on Strategy
89
27
Appendix 4 Statutory Consultees The Environment Agency Cobham Road Ipswich Suffolk IP3 9JD (01473) 727712 English Heritage The Engine House Firefly Avenue Swindon SN2 2EH Tel. 01793 4154700 Email: customers@english‐hertitage.org.uk Natural England Block B, Government Buildings, Whittington Road Worcester WR5 2LQ Email enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk Telephone 0300 060 3900 Food Standards Agency Aviation House 125 Kingsway London WC2B 6NH Tel: 020 7276 8277 Email: helpline@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk Non Statutory Consultees Health and Safety Executive Rosebery Court nd
2 Floor St Andrews Business Park Norwich NR7 0HS Tel. 0845 345 0055 Norfolk Landscape Archaeology Union House Gressenhall Dereham Norfolk NR20 4DR Norfolk County Council County Hall Martineau Lane Norwich NR1 2DH Tel. 0344 800 8020 Government Office for the East of England Aviation House Shaftesbury Road Cambridge CB2 8DF Tel. 01233 372500 Email: enquiries.goeast@goeast.gsi.gov.uk Defence Infrastructure Organisation Kingston Road Sutton Coalfield West Midlands B75 7RL Tel. 0800 707 6000 Anglian Water Customer Services PO Box 10642 Harlow CM20 9HA Tel. 0345 60 66 087 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 90
28
Broads Authority Head Office Yare House 62‐64 Thorpe Road Norwich NR1 1RY Tel (01603) 610734 North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 91
29
Appendix 5 Receptors: •
•
•
•
Human beings Ecological system, or living organism forming part of a certain system within a location which is: ‐ Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) ‐ National Nature Reserve ‐ Marine Nature Reserve ‐ Nature Reserves ‐ Areas of special protection for birds ‐ Ramsar sites ‐ Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) ‐ Special Protection Areas (SPAs) ‐ Candidate SACs Property in the form of: ‐ Crops ‐ Livestock ‐ Home grown produce ‐ Owned or domesticated animals ‐ Wild animals subject to shooting or fishing rights Controlled waters: ‐ Surface waters (e.g. rivers, lakes, streams) ‐ Source Protection Zones ‐ Groundwater – major aquifer ‐ Drinking water abstractions •
Property in the form of buildings, including: ‐ Ancient Monuments North Norfolk District Council Contaminated Land Inspection Strategy 92
30
Agenda Item No____11________
Superfast Broadband
Summary:
This report summarises the current position within
Norfolk, and specifically North Norfolk in the roll out of
superfast Broadband. It also seeks Members views on
whether they wish to release the £1million earmarked
from District Council resources to match fund a phase 2
rollout of the Superfast Extension Programme (SEP).
Conclusions:
The additional funding will increase the coverage in
North Norfolk from 85% to 92% which will include
coverage of some key employment sites within the
District. This is based on achieving the maximum
coverage possible for the available funding, which has
been possible from the increased take up of fibre
services in Norfolk and match funding from
Government. Every pound that North Norfolk commits,
secures a further £2.50.
Recommendations:
Cabinet is asked to resolve 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.
Cabinet Decision
Cabinet Member(s)
All
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Sheila Oxtoby – 01263 516242
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The Better Broadband for Norfolk (bbfn) Programme is working to extend
broadband coverage across Norfolk, beyond the reach of commercially
funded deployments. This is being achieved using call-off contracts under the
provisions of the national Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) Broadband
Delivery Framework contract.
1.2.
Using the national framework contract ensures compliance with European
Union State Aid requirements and procurement legislation. It also provides
an assurance regime that includes external scrutiny.
1.3.
This report provides information on delivery of the first bbfn contract, and
potential steps towards achieving 100% coverage in Norfolk.
93
1.4.
Members will recall that in July 2014 Council agreed to earmark £1million in a
reserve to be funded from the in-year balance and future year allocations
return of the second homes council tax funding and unallocated New Homes
Bonus. This report is therefore seeking the release of this funding.
2.
Progress to date
2.1
The programme has been based on achieving the maximum coverage
possible for the available investment.
2.2.
The Contract sets the implementation outcomes, timescales and investment
conditions that must be met to fulfil BT’s contractual obligations.
2.3.
The first contract was completed three months ahead of schedule and under
budget. As a result over 80% of Norfolk properties now have access to
Superfast broadband.
2.4.
The first contract has included installing over 1,750 kilometres of fibre optic
cable across Norfolk, and approximately 700 fibre cabinets; over one hundred
are in new locations where cabinets have not previously existed.
2.5.
In the North Norfolk District Council area this has seen coverage increase
from 11% to 74%.
3.
State Aid
3.1
The contract contains provisions relating to State Aid which remain in force for
seven years following implementation completion. Primarily this:

States that public subsidy can only be applied to provide new
infrastructure to serve properties with access to a broadband
download speed of less than 15 Mbps. This has changed since the
first contract which had a 24 Mbps threshold

States that only Next Generation Access Technologies can be funded,
unless a property has access to less the 2 Mbps, in such cases
alternative technologies can be funded

Provides protection against over subsidy if Take-up of fibre services is
higher than the contract assumes, this is known as ‘Claw-back’
3.2.
The contract specifies that Claw-back must be used to expand Superfast
coverage. A £5.3 million rebate has recently been agreed and BT was asked
to add this sum to the potential District funding.
4.
Proposed Expansion of Next Generation Access Infrastructure
4.1.
The second contract known as Superfast Extension Programme (SEP) was
signed in December 2014; it aims to meet the Government’s target of 95% of
premises with access to Superfast speeds.
4.2.
State Aid means that subsidy can only be applied to provide infrastructure for
properties with access to less than 15 Mbps. However other properties may
94
benefit if served from new infrastructure that’s primary role is to provide
improved speeds for sub 15 Mbps properties.
4.3.
SEP Part 1 included £12 million which will be applied across Norfolk to
achieve the maximum additional coverage possible. This funding is drawn
from BDUK £6 million, New Anglia LEP £5m and £1m from Norfolk County
Council, implementation is underway.
4.4.
SEP Part 2 is based on potential investment from the five District Councils
with significant rural areas. The Government has agreed to match District
contributions for the expansion of Superfast coverage. The £5.3 million
‘Claw-back’ has been added to this funding offering a further 1.5 times match
against potential District funding. Government and Claw-back funding
equates to £2.50 for each £1 of District investment.
4.5.
This table demonstrates coverage by District, it begins with commercial
coverage, and adds the increased coverage from each bbfn contract, finally
showing the potential coverage available based on District and associated
match funding.
4.6.
The table demonstrates a significant smoothing in coverage between
Districts. Assuming all five Districts choose to proceed, overall coverage
across Norfolk will reach 95%, with all Districts achieving over 90%. This is
based on achieving maximum coverage for the available investment.
4.7.
To achieve the greatest efficiency implementation of SEP Part 1 and Part 2
will be managed as a single integrated deployment, although implementation
timescales are yet to be confirmed, completion of the rollout may extend,
possibly in to 2019. This is due to the scale of works required.
4.8.
The North Norfolk District Council area will increase from 11% commercial
coverage to 92% if District investment proceeds.
5.
Satellite Voucher Scheme
5.1.
Every county’s first contract included dedicated funding for a ‘Phase 9’ to
meet the Government’s commitment to offer at least a Basic Broadband
speed of 2Mbps for every property.
95
5.2.
The Government’s Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) team has been
developing a single national Satellite Voucher Scheme which will be available
in mid-December. The scheme will:
-
Run for two years from December 2015 to December 2017
-
Be available for premises that have access to speeds of less than
2Mbps, and where a fibre solution is not yet confirmed following
survey
-
The scheme will be accessible via the Better Broadband for Norfolk
website. Eligible applicants will be issued with a subsidy code that can
be used with a number of approved satellite providers
5.3.
This is not intended as a substitute for Superfast broadband, it is for those
people who do not even have access to a Basic broadband speed. If a
Superfast solution becomes possible it will be implemented.
6.
Achieving 100% Superfast coverage
6.1.
While significant progress has been made across Norfolk, even with further
investment there will be 5% of properties that will still not benefit. For those
who are still struggling with slow broadband speeds at their home or business
further action / investment will be required if Superfast speeds are to be
achieved.
6.2.
There will be a multi-million pound under-spend from contract 1, the exact
level will be confirmed early next year and the County Council has already
committed to use this funding to expand coverage further.
6.3.
The Government is piloting a range of new technologies with a range of
suppliers to find new solutions to providing Superfast speeds for the ‘final 5%’.
7.
Universal Service Commitment
The Government has recently announced the introduction of a broadband
Universal Service Commitment to provide access to at least 10 Mbps
broadband download speed by 2020. Further details are not currently
available.
8.
Financial Implications and Risks
The financial implication relates to the release of £1million which has
previously been earmarked by the Council in July 2014 for extending the
availability of superfast Broadband in North Norfolk.
The risks in relation to the rollout are mainly in respect of the timing and the
desire to secure improved infrastructure as soon as possible.
9.
Sustainability
There are no direct sustainability implications arising from this proposal.
96
10.
Equality and Diversity
There are no direct equality and diversity implications arising from this
proposal
11.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder Considerations
There are no Section 17 Crime and Disorder implications arising from this
proposal
12.
Conclusion
12.1. Average speed in the UK is over 70%. Norfolk is one of the worst served
counties with 43% commercial coverage. However, within that there are wild
variations between districts with North Norfolk having the worse commercial
coverage at 11%
12.2. The first better broadband for Norfolk contract funded by the County Council
and Government increased overall coverage from commercial and bbfn in
North Norfolk to 74%. If with further investment from Government, LEP and
the County Council the coverage will increase to 85% and potentially a further
7% to 92%. This is based on achieving the maximum coverage possible for
the available funding, which has been possible from the increased take up of
fibre services in Norfolk and match funding from Government. Every pound
that North Norfolk commits, secures a further £2.50.
12.3. Clearly this will leave 8% of North Norfolk properties without super-fast
broadband. These properties are the most challenging to reach and analysis
has shown that they are primarily individual or small numbers of isolated
properties.
12.4. New technologies are emerging which are more suited to addressing this type
of situation and further funding maybe forthcoming with increased uptake in
fibre services.
97
Agenda Item No___12_________
CROMER WEST PROM REVITALISATION PROGRAMME
Summary:
This report aims to inform 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.
Approval is requested to progress the phase 1 works (which are
funded). Approval is also sought for a further £650,000 to be allocated
to the capital budget for the scheme (to be funded from existing capital
resources) to support phase 2, along with in principle agreement for
the phase 3 works which will be subject to appropriate funding being
secured and further reports.
The business case for the phase 1 improvements (appendix 1) sets
out the initial programme of works including anticipated costs for 2016
(fully funded) and identifies the sub-projects for phases 2 and 3 for
which further funding (internal/grant/private) will need to be identified.
The phase 1 site works are programmed to commence once the
current Volker Stevin coast defence works are completed but approval
for the plans is now sought to ensure appropriate planning
applications and tendering can be completed in readiness.
Options considered:
The process has already involved the procurement of a Design Team
and considerable consultation with local stakeholder groups to create
a vision (Master Plan) for the Cromer West Promenade, and various
options have been considered as part of this process.
The design incorporates a number of features and improvements
which aim to fulfil all the criteria identified in the original project plan
and also to satisfy the Council’s updated Corporate plan.
In addition the project is mindful of and flexible enough to incorporate
the Deep History Coast initiative as that programme develops further.
Conclusions:
Cromer’s promenade is a District wide asset well placed to exploit our
coastline’s natural resources and tourist appeal, providing an
attractive multifunctional destination for locals and visitors alike
throughout much of the year.
The design aims to appeal to a variety of visitors, provide
opportunities for private investment and business openings as well as
a year round focus for education, entertainment, leisure and
relaxation.
The Master Plan provides the blue print for continued development on
the West promenade and will support future funding bids. Some
elements in future phasing still require further development and
refinement but these can be advanced whilst phase 1 is implemented
98
and will be the subject of further reports.
The implementation of phase 1 will lay the foundations and install key
elements, including essential infrastructure, to support future
developments and maximise opportunities for asset realisation,
income generation and private investment.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet;
a) adopt the West Promenade Master Plan;
b) resolve to carry out the works identified within the phase 1
works programme and;
c) Approve a further capital budget of £650,000 to support
delivery of the phase 2 works.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
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.
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published
elsewhere)
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllrs John Rest, Angie
Fitch-Tillett and Nigel
Dixon
Ward(s) affected
Cromer Town
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Duncan Ellis 01263 516330 duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The storm surge of December 2013 had a devastating impact all along the North
Norfolk coastline and beyond. Following the Council’s excellent immediate response to
the damage there were longer term projects and assets to repair, such as Cromer pier,
which is now fully operational again following extensive renovation works.
1.2.
In relation to the West Promenade area there was a loss of 40 chalets, 17 privately
owned beach huts and considerable damage to the Art Deco and Edwardian chalet
blocks, café and public conveniences. Rather than just take the simple approach to
replace what was lost ‘like for like’, officers took the opportunity to take a step back and
consider a wider and more ambitious project for this area. A report was taken to the
Asset and Localism Board in February 2014 with a proposal to create a ‘Master Plan’
for the redevelopment and enhancement of the whole area, the principle of which was
approved.
99
1.3.
The West Promenade revitalisation project is a significant, exciting, but in many ways
complex project. Whilst the tidal surge of 2013 destroyed and damaged several of the
promenade buildings it has enabled us to take a fresh look at the promenade, its
function and future.
1.4.
Whilst some repair works to the West Promenade area have been undertaken, the
main regeneration work has to wait until the current sea defence works, being
undertaken on the Council’s behalf by Volker Stevin (VS), are completed. This sea
defence scheme commenced again in September 2015 and currently has an
anticipated completion date of the end of March 2016. Consequently the revitalisation
project is phased to progress as soon as VS clear the site.
1.5.
The scope of the project is set geographically and includes the main gateway accesses
to the West Promenade. The area covers in excess of 4,000m2, stretching from the
bottom of the Melbourne Slope to the end of the promenade in a westerly direction
towards East Runton. All aspects of the assets therein have been considered as part
of this project.
1.6.
At this stage the project is designed for implementation in three broad phases;



1.7.
Phase 1: Now until December 2016
Phase 2: January – December 2017 (as funding permits)
Phase 3: 2018 onwards (as funding permits)
The creation of a Master Plan aims to ensure we have a holistic approach to the
redevelopment of the promenade and recognises that later phases of the scheme will
come forward as funding is identified, whether that is from internal, grant or private
funding sources. There are three key themes to the project, set within the context of
local government funding constraints and the requirement to take a more commercial
and business-like approach to future asset management and these are as follows;



Recreation
Information
Transformation
1.8.
At this stage funding up to the value of £815K has been secured to support the project
and this covers initial design and professional fees and delivery of the phase 1 works.
There is a recommendation within this report for further capital funds to support
delivery of phase 2.
2.
Current position
2.1.
It is essential that this project is fit for purpose, meets it objectives, comes in on budget
and satisfies both the aims of the Council and the expectations of its users alike. To
this end we have undertaken stakeholder consultation events in October 2014 and
April 2015 to steer this project, with smaller stakeholder meetings continuing. The
stakeholders have represented a wide variety of interested groups including Cabinet
and local Members, Cromer town council, the Chamber of Trade, Cromer Preservation
Society, youth and accessibility groups, the museum service, arts groups, Walkers are
Welcome, fishermen and also RNLI representatives.
2.2.
The stakeholder events have been well attended, enjoyable, informative and positive
meetings. It has not been difficult to determine and agree the overall aspirations of the
stakeholders and Council alike. A cross-departmental Project Team has to date driven
100
this project forward. A Member steering group will now be established to support the
continuation of the project.
2.3.
The design team was procured during the winter of 2014 and the contract was awarded
to Purcell, who then pulled together a multi-disciplinary team of designers, architects
and surveyors to support the initial design phases of the project. The remit of the
design team was to;
Provide designs to Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) stage D for the repair and
regeneration of the West Prom and deliver the objectives as set out, provide costings
for the proposed design and submit planning applications as required.
2.4.
The Master Plan has been developed around what are considered to be 5 key areas
and these include the following;





2.5.
Project area 1 – picnic area (adjacent to Runton Road car park)
Project area 2 – art deco block and zigzag slope
Project area 3 – beach huts
Project area 4 – Anglian Water building
Project area 5 – Melbourne slope
Appendix 2 provides more detailed information in relation to each area, including how
the recommendations address the projects key objectives. From the Master Plan we
have created a project plan which is split into 3 phases;
Phase 1 of the programme aims to deliver;










Installation of essential infrastructure/service improvements to lighting,
drainage, and power supplies
Works to prepare the site for future development (clearing lost chalet
foundations along the promenade and old buildings on the Melbourne slope)
Installation of a key attraction by way of a new education and play facility
Installation of new relocated public conveniences, a retail kiosk and daily let
beach huts (adjacent to the above)
Enhancements to access ways and shelters
Increased number of beach hut sites
Relocation of the disabled parking spaces (against cliff face)
Installation of a heritage information trail (to include points along the promenade
and town)
Support to undertake feasibility of attracting funding for a significant art
installation with COAST arts group (aka ‘the mammoth project’)
Initial repairs to the art-deco building prior to developing potential interest for
private investment
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - £683,500
Phase 2 of the programme concentrates on securing funding for;



Retail and exhibition units installed on Melbourne Slope
Realisation of investment opportunities and plan for the development of the Art
Deco block
Improved disabled access (ramps) and facilities for disabled users in the Grade
II listed chalet block
101


Improved access to the Art Deco block
Seating, additional lighting and street furniture
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - £650,000
Phase 3 – elements that may struggle to attract National/European funding bids but
would be welcomed at some point possibly through sponsorship etc;





Terracing and planting of some areas of the cliff slope
New permanent (concrete) beach access points
Further enhancement works to the ‘white steps’
Runton Road pedestrian access enhancements
Additional art work - light displays, art work and sculptures
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST – TO BE CONFIRMED
The total estimated scheme cost at this point is therefore in the region of £1.3m for
phases 1 and 2 with the costs for phase 3 to be confirmed and a further detailed
breakdown of these phases/funding is identified in the Business Plan (appendix 1).
2.6.
Procurement advice has been provided through the East of England Local Government
Association (EELGA) in relation to how best to attract private funding to further and
develop the phase 2/3 works. This advice covers the best approach to advertising
potential opportunities and engaging with the private sector to maximise the benefits of
any commercial opportunities and this advice will be built in to the detailed project
planning for the later stages of the development.
3.
Conclusion
3.1.
The revitalisation of the West Promenade area had been considered even before the
tidal surge but this event, whilst leaving significant damage in its wake, has given the
Council the opportunity to take a holistic and fresh approach to the development of a
considerable asset that can be accessed throughout the year by residents and visitors
to North Norfolk.
3.2.
This project now needs approval to proceed with the delivery of the phase 1 works,
which includes the basic elements that will underpin further development. They are
essential, not only from a practical service provision level, but will set the scene and
standard for the roll out of further phases including providing a platform for projects
forthcoming as part of the Deep History Coast designation.
3.3.
In addition, whilst the Master Plan does not set in stone the detail of the vision it sets
out a variety of projects and opportunities which satisfy both Council objectives and
local stakeholder expectations. It is important that the Master Plan is approved in
principle so work can continue to develop these projects further, submit relevant
planning permissions and apply for funding when opportunities arise.
3.4.
To help formalise this project and to provide on-going governance arrangements a
Member Steering Group comprising of Cllrs Angie Fitch-Tillett, John Rest and Nigel
Dixon will be established to support and help shape discussions around future
development phases, consulting with local Members when necessary, prior to further
reports being considered by Cabinet.
4.
Implications and Risks
102
4.1.
An extract from the project’s risk register is provided below and covers the operational
and project risks.
Risks to service delivery
Currently the loss of service brought about via the tidal surge includes; 40 chalets destroyed, 1 public convenience block
severely damaged, 1 retail unit severely damaged. Whilst insurance monies could be used to simply reinstate the lost
premises, this is unlikely to bring about any increased visitor attraction or footfall and the Council will have lost the
opportunity of undertaking the implementation of a cohesive and attractive proposal designed to revitalise and strengthen
the importance of this currently underused facility.
Likelihood
1-5
Impact on
project 1 - 5
Proximity
H /M /L
1) Expectation – there is a risk of raising expectation regarding this project
the breadth of which relies largely on success with funding bids/attracting
private funding
2
1
M
2) Access – the programme coastal defence works being undertaken by VS
impact heavily on the implementation/build phase of this project. Access to
the promenade to undertake works is likely to be restricted.
4
5
M
3) The Deep History Coast project is in its infancy so tapping into solid
plans early in this project may be difficult.
3
1
M
Project Risks
4.2.
The project risks will continue to be monitored as part of the on-going project
management and governance arrangements for the project.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1.
The anticipated funding to support design, project management, professional fees and
phase 1 development is as follows;
5.2.
Current capital allocation
Business Rates Pool
Coastal Revival Fund
£615,000
£150,000
£ 50,000
Total estimated fund
£815,000
(agreed within 2015/16 capital budget)
(offer letter received)
(offer letter received)
An extract from the projects risk register is provided below.
Financial Risks
1) Lack of funding – reduced pay-out from insurers and unsuccessful bids
would result in a reduced or longer term programme
5.3.
Likelihood
1-5
Impact on
project 1 - 5
Proximity
H /M /L
3
5
M
As outlined above one of the key objectives of this project was to produce a Master
Plan that could be delivered over a number of years as funding became available. The
estimated cost of the 3 phases at present is as follows;
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
£683,500
£650,000
To be confirmed
Total
To be confirmed
103
5.4.
The current budget is enough to deliver the programmed works identified for phase 1.
A further £650,000 is required to support the delivery of phase 2 and it is therefore
recommended that this additional allocation is made available within the capital
programme, to be funded from existing capital resources. Further funding will need to
be secured to enable delivery of phase 3 and any future phases.
5.5.
To some extent this project is borne from the necessity to repair the damage of the tidal
surge so some investment is suggested that will merely serve to replace previous
services and do not, on their own, offer direct monetary returns. However when viewed
as part of the wider project they underpin the potential for future investment and return
to both the Council and wider business and resident communities. It is anticipated this
project will bring forward the following asset related benefits to the Council.
Phase 1
Facility
Additional beach
hut sites (to
replace lost
chalets).
New kiosk
concession
facility.
Enhanced
pedestrian access
from Runton
Road Car Park
Estimated
cost
Estimated income
£3,500 site
preparation
works.
£8,600 income pa
based on current
prices, R&M
savings of £7,000
pa.
£46,000.
£7,000 pa.
£20,000.
A 5% increase in
usage equates to
approx. £10,500 pa.
Comments
Additional income and R&M savings offset
lost chalet income plus this proposal allows
alternative use of insurance money to
invest in new facilities, reduces risk to
Council as beach huts are licensees
liability.
Provides additional facilities for the west
prom as well as introducing daily beach hut
concession.
Regeneration of the area and access will
increase car parking requirements which
will have a beneficial impact on other
income streams, including car parking
Phase 2
Depending on how they are let these unit
could realise approximately £3,000 pa for
the 4 smaller units and £5,000 per annum
for the larger unit, generating approximately
£17,000 per annum.
Targeted lettings, longer letting periods,
increased ability to charge.
Melbourne Slope
shop/exhibition
facilities
£242,000
£17,000 pa.
Edwardian
chalets
£42,000
£3,000
Art Deco block
Initial
investment
of £60,000,
final costs
unknown at
present
To be confirmed.
This depends on negotiations with investors
as to what they may be prepared to agree
to regarding fit out and leasing options.
5.6.
The estimated cost of delivery for phase 1 is c£683,500, and the additional income
generated (as shown from the table above) is around £33,000 per annum and while
this reflects a return of around 4.5% it doesn’t take account of any borrowing costs.
However a significant element of the funding for this phase is from insurance monies
and external funding so any borrowing requirements would be minimal.
5.7.
It should also be remembered that, whilst income generation resulting from phase 1
works is modest, much of this work provides the vital infrastructure platform from which
future phases of the project can be delivered. The financial aspects of the project are
considered in more detail within the business case (appendix 1).
104
5.8.
Due to the potentially harsh environment of the location and given its recent history it is
essential that all final designs are as robust as possible and take account of these
conditions. Wherever possible advantage will be taken of ‘natural’ protection, such as
locating a number of the new commercial units identified within phase 2 up the
Melbourne Slope. Consideration will also be given wherever practicable to making units
removable so that they could potentially be relocated if a further severe storm event
were to be forecast.
5.9.
The considerations above will help to ensure that future insurance costs are
manageable and demonstrate the Council’s approach and consideration to the
management of risk on the promenade area. As part of the further development of the
project more detailed discussions will be undertaken with Zurich in relation to the
insurance cover for this area ad what further steps the Council might be able to take to
control premiums and policy excess levels.
6.
Sustainability
6.1.
Sustainability is a key consideration in relation to many aspects of this project,
particularly given its geographical position and potential variety of uses. Consideration
will or has been given to each aspect of the project to ensure we look to balance the
aims and implementation of the projects objectives within the environmental, social and
economic limitations.
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1.
The development of this project has considered equality and diversity throughout the
development of the Master Plan and subsequent anticipated build projects. Any new
construction and improvement works will take account of all relevant legislation in this
regard.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1.
As with any construction project there has been and will continue to be on-going
consultations with the Police architectural liaison officer to ensure measures are in
place to discourage crime and antisocial behaviour and to put into place elements
which will help to eliminate or manage it.
105
Cromer West Prom Revitalisation Project
Business Case for adopting the ‘Master Plan’
Why the project was created
With regard to North Norfolk District Council (NNDC) built assets, Cromer West Promenade bore the brunt of the effects of the tidal surge which hit our coast on 5
December 2013. In all there was a loss of 40 chalets, 17 privately owned beach huts and considerable damage to the Art Deco and Edwardian chalet blocks, café and
pubic conveniences. It is considered a prudent time to reassess the options open to NNDC regarding the future management and development of the West
Promenade at Cromer.
NNDC would like to see the revitalisation and redevelopment of Cromer West Promenade through an innovative and considered design which incorporates essential
infrastructure, embraces and promotes the history and heritage of Cromer and its fishing industry and provides a variety of economic, educational and recreational
facilities and opportunities, thereby increasing its desirability as a destination in its own right. In addition any design will have to consider and be sensitive to the
location of the site and its vulnerability to storm and flooding damage along with the environmental impact and sustainability of any proposals. Future sustainability,
in terms of both income generation and protection against future storm surge events are therefore key elements to any design and business plan.
Ultimately this area could provide a year round facility for local residents, businesses and visitors alike and it is hoped its revitalisation will create a much improved
leisure, educational and civic foundation to attract further investment and promote a new sense of local pride in this area. It is essential that any design links the
significant car park facility based at Runton Road with the main promenade, pier and town centre, improving accessibility and desirability to visit this area of the town
and promenade.
It is also considered this would provide an ideal opportunity to develop themes to compliment the Deep History Coast Project that, whilst currently in its infancy, has
potential for significant economic and reputational benefit to Cromer, the Council and the entire North Norfolk Coast and wider business community.
There are three Key themes to the project as follows;



Recreation
Information
Transformation
Background
Using monies from insurance claims, residues from a previous capital revitalisation project and hopes for future funding possibilities it was felt that the surge provided
an opportunity to create a holistic and strategic plan for the future development and sustainability of this area. It has been acknowledged right from its inception that
this ‘Master Plan’ (developed to Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stage D) would provide the blueprint for enhancements that can be brought forward as
funding permits. It is also acknowledged that undertaking the ground work for such a project will enable much easier application for future funding opportunities as
they arise.
106
It is essential that this project is fit for purpose, meets it objectives, offers value for money and satisfies both the aims of the Council and the expectations of its users
alike. To this end we have undertaken stakeholder consultation events in Oct 2014 and April 2015 to steer this project, with smaller stakeholder meetings continuing.
The stakeholder events have been well attended, enjoyable, informative and positive meetings. It has not been difficult to determine and agree the overall
aspirations of the stakeholders and Council.
The design Team was procured during the winter 2015 and the contract was awarded to Purcell. The remit of the design team was to ‘provide designs to RIBA Stage D
for the repair and regeneration of the West Prom and deliver the objectives set out, provide costings for the proposed design and Submit planning applications as
required’. After some delay the Master Plan was received in October 2015, the delay did not however prevent us from commencing some of the essential enabling
works along the promenade with works to install drainage being undertaken, lighting schemes being finalised and work to ensure appropriate provision of power
supplies along the promenade to support development of later phases.
In addition meetings continue with stakeholders concerning the education and information elements and the proposed trail, this aims to complement the current
fishing heritage offer of Cromer’s Museum and the Walkers are Welcome designation with information on the current fishing industry and the importance of the chalk
reefs from an ecological and sustainable fishery perspective. With the emergence of the Deep History Coast Project there is ample opportunity to weave the aims of
this emerging project into the West Prom revitalisation programme.
Identifying a vision
The design team attended stakeholder events, meetings with the project team and were provided with information including a series of studies (Identification of
Qualitative Objectives, Financial assumptions and Beach Hut & Chalet research provided by Ingham Pinnock Associates), all of which helped to draw together a vision
for the promenade. The subsequent designs were split into areas which, whilst pertaining to a separate ‘use’, are able to provide a cohesive and attractive landscape
which encompasses the variety of buildings already in situ alongside more contemporary new builds necessary to support achieve increases in footfall.
Funding
The anticipated funding to support the design, project management and phase 1 development is as follows;
Current capital allocation
Business Rates Pool
Coastal Revival Fund
Total estimated fund
£615,000
£150,000
£ 50,000
£815,000
(agreed within 2015/16 capital budget includes insurance claim)
(offer letter received)
(offer letter received)
Unfortunately it was not possible to draw down the provisional £200,000 allocation from the FLAG funding due to the tight delivery timescales required. The funding
needed to be spent by December 2015 with all elements installed and in the end this did not prove achievable which was always a concern; however this funding has
since been replaced by the Business Rates Pool award and the Coastal Revival Fund. It is anticipated that further funding opportunities will present themselves as the
project moves forward and the Council will be in a strong position to take advantage of these once the Master Plan has been adopted.
107
Meeting Corporate objectives
The project has been assessed against a variety of Council objectives and has been updated to reflect the new Corporate Plan. This drew out a number of objectives
which the project seeks to satisfy as contained within the table below.
OBJECTIVE
YES/NO/
PARTIAL HOW
Jobs and the Local Economy
YES
Increased retail outlets and improved café provision plus other opportunities for entrepreneurial activities.
Other elements aim to increase footfall (playground, heritage trail etc) and thereby increase viability and success
for those ventures and this should also have a knock on effect to businesses and events in the town.
YES
The aim is to continue to attract families to Cromer by increasing the entertainment offer but also to provide a
high quality café/restaurant and art installation to attract new visitors. Significant art installations have
frequently proven to do this as they become a destination in their own right. Cromer has a 'Walkers are
Welcome' designation and stakeholders are enthusiastic about making the various walks more informative and
fun. The heritage fishing trail aims to do this.
YES
The play, education and entertainment area aims to draw visitors even when it’s too cold for a day on the beach.
This in turn supports the retail/catering outlets. It is anticipated this will certainly extend the season from Easter
to Oct at the very least. A good quality food offer, larger premises and stunning views will attract more out of
season visitors. Added with other key attractions and art work this area will provide a popular stopping point for
coastal walkers during low season.
YES
Having a 'Master Plan', will ensure a cohesive and better designed approach to the West Prom which previously
lacked appeal. The design aims to improve the appeal and offer to a variety of visitors wanting differing things
from their visit to Cromer. The choice of materials and colour scheme will help to provide a better quality
environment. This project will support the Deep History Project in playing a key part in the development of that
brand throughout North Norfolk.
Does the option embody the highest quality
design and reflect local distinctiveness?
YES
There is some restoration work and continuation of some of the stronger design elements (such as cast iron
railings and turrets) but this is complemented by contemporarily designed functional structures that will be
installed. The theme encompasses flint and wood elements to compliment its coastal location.
Does the option protect and enhance
buildings of high heritage value?
YES
Does the option provide opportunities for
employment and business creation?
Does the option attract more visitors to
Cromer?
Does the option extend the tourist season in
Cromer?
Does the option improve the image and
perception of Cromer and North Norfolk as a
high quality tourist destination?
Coast and Countryside
There are plans to improve the listed chalets without compromising the integrity of the original design.
Returning the turrets to their original purpose is a popular proposal and stakeholders were keen that the Art
108
Deco block is a key feature of the west promenade landscape.
Does the option increase access to and
understanding of the natural environment?
YES
The west prom has been 'zoned'; the middle section aims to educate visitors (through panels and play) on the
towns relationship with the coast including modern day fishing, the chalk reef, green energy etc. This also
provides a good opportunity to provide historical information drawing in the Deep History Coast project. The
quieter zone at the far western end of the prom is where it is hoped a significant art installation could be located
which will make the most of the natural coastal vistas toward East Runton. The art installation could be
'mammoth' based to enhance this aspect of the coasts past.
Does the option support and enhance the
natural and built landscape?
YES
The different elements of the proposed design have been sensitive to the current environment and were well
received by stakeholders.
Does the option optimise the use of publicly
owned floor space?
YES
Positive discussions with Anglian Water have allowed us to make better use of the widest area of the prom and
address the lack luster pumping house building dominating the middle prom. A more cohesive approach to the
prom will optimise its use whilst providing the space for visitors to enjoy the space for sitting out or promenading
and has demonstrated good partnership working with the private sector.
Does the option generate a positive return to
the local taxpayer?
YES
It is anticipated that a significant part of this development will come from external funding sources. The overall
improvements will be just as popular with local and day-trip visitors and there a number of new opportunities to
earn income have been identified and built in to the plan.
Does the option enhance the value of a
publicly owned asset?
YES
The provision of new and refurbished assets will inevitably increase the value of the Council’s asset portfolio but
perhaps more importantly will reduce the ongoing maintenance costs of previously used assets by allowing those
assets to be used more profitably. For example the proposed switch from the destroyed chalets to beach hut
sites and the relocation of the public toilet provision from the Art Deco block which will enable this space to be
better utilised for private investment and greater rental returns. The Master Plan identifies additional income
generating assets for construction on the Melbourne slope.
Does the option allow for future change?
YES
The Master Plan provides a blue print to work to. There are several elements of the project that may change or
improve the outline plan once those elements are explored and developed further.
Is the option physically resilient and
responsive to the harsh coastal environment?
YES
We aim to select materials that we know through experience will work well in the environment. Where possible
we aim to have installations that can be moved if very severe storms are forecast and also include an element of
natural protection wherever possible ie the location of new units on the Melbourne slope.
YES
Revitalising the west prom and encompassing it as a worthy part of the 'whole' prom will give Cromer a very
distinct asset to be proud of.
Service Excellence
Health and Well-being
Does the option increase a sense of distinct
local identity?
109
Does the option provide opportunities for
community interaction and events?
Does the option provide for all sections of the
local community?
Does the option improve accessibility for all to
the Prom and beach?
YES
It is anticipated that the play and entertainment area will provide opportunities for the Carnival and festivals
such as the Crab and Lobster Festival event. There is stakeholder enthusiasm for music and other entertainment
and also opportunities to provide a hub for school trips and education.
YES
The purpose of the 'zoning' (see appendix 1) is to provide areas that will naturally appeal and draw different
people. Stakeholders like Cromer to be a family friendly place and are particularly keen to promote it as disabled
friendly. This design will appeal to both groups. The quieter 'natural/art' zone provides a setting for an
enhanced cafe/bistro experience at the far western end of the prom and aims to attract couples and those with
higher disposable income. It is anticipated lighting features will enhance the promenade to encourage visitors to
stay longer in the evening as well.
YES
There are elements of the design which aim to improve and enhance pedestrian access (moving car park, better
lighting, seating etc) whilst still allowing disabled parking. Improvements to some chalets and removing out
dated elements (such as steep steps) will improve accessibility to buildings. New metal steps will provide
additional access to the beach but realistically concrete outcrops, whilst highly desirable, are very expensive and
unlikely to attract funding unless these can be incorporated into wider coastal defence works.
110
3. Benefits and Benefits Realisation
This project is about asset realisation and enhancement on a broad scale, the beaches to the west of Cromer offer exceptional opportunities for bathing
and leisure pursuits and popular vistas and walks along the beach to the wilder west cliffs and setting sun. Sadly this natural resource is served by a
promenade that is currently, for much of the year, little more than a large expanse of concrete and tarmac containing a few unconnected buildings with
little functionality, attractiveness or vitality.
The aim of this project is revitalisation; to provide people with the opportunity and facilities to enjoy this area throughout the year. The sea is the natural
asset of the site and the Council needs to make the most of this without destroying the appeal and attractiveness of the natural environment or the
gentility of Cromer’s Victorian built influences. It is also acknowledged that whilst the sea is the prime asset it is also its greatest threat and sustainability is
key to the design, materials and options proposed.
When developing the designs the following parameters were considered;
Cost saving elements






Reduce maintenance costs for chalets by installing hut sites rather than building new chalets, this will see a slight reduction in income but also a
significant reduction in annual repair and maintenance (R&M) budgets.
Reduced maintenance and running costs for the public convenience provision through modern technology, energy efficient lights and rain water
saving options.
Where possible creating multi-functional spaces and buildings for greater, flexible use.
Amenity lighting to be more robust, easier to maintain and cheaper to run. In addition use of solar powered lighting to enhance standard amenity
lighting where possible.
Designs to be conscious of place and conditions – aim to ensure longevity of installations.
Selecting designs for play equipment and street furniture that are low maintenance, cheap to repair and energy efficient.
Improvements for Users
The Norfolk Tourism Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) research and findings for Visit Norfolk of 13th August 2014 provided some
interesting feedback regarding visitors to Norfolk which highlight this project as fulfilling many of the reasons people choose to visit Norfolk. Whilst the
report refers to North Norfolk in general it is helpful in defining the areas to specific user groups to attract maximum visitors. Attraction to local visitors is
also key for sustainability of businesses particularly outside of seasonal peak times and is also a key consideration of this project.

Aesthetics - enhanced landscape, building improvements and services to allow people to enjoy the natural assets.
111





Defined areas of use to attract differing visitors at different times of the day and season.
Clearer demarcation for pedestrians/vehicles.
Improved disabled access to buildings and continuation/relocation of disabled parking.
Opportunities for play, education and gathering information – extends seasonal use of area.
Improved lighting will ensure users can stay longer and still feel safe.
Improved quality

Including enhancements to both built structures and landscape, ensuring the provision of quality build items and an ethos that aims for quality over
quantity or size. Allowing for further improvements/additions as funding permits.
Time scales for benefits realisation and means of measurement
Phase 1 can be implemented as soon as it is agreed. Currently the roll out of future phases depends on funding coming forward although it is hoped that
significant parts of Phase 2 can be realised during the period 2016-2018.
It is difficult to measure the success of a relatively small area of public realm. The initial phase of the project includes significant improvements to service
provision which aim to support future development and there will be minimal means to assess the impact of these. Given the phasing of the project the
timeframes for overall benefit realisation is likely to be 3 – 5 years.
Initial indicators could include;





Increase in the number of jobs available on the west prom (in FTE’s).
Increase in the amount of retail space available on the west prom (in sq ft).
Increase in visitor numbers to the west prom (sample analysis from RNLI beach monitoring records, in ‘000s).
Value of private sector funding attracted (in £s).
Value of grant funding attracted (in £s).
Additional business rates generated by businesses on the west prom (café/beach huts/concessions etc in £’s).
Increasing accessibility – increased access to buildings/facilities as a result of the regeneration works (measure by extent of improvement works and
increased DDA compliance).
Physical regeneration of the area (measured by new buildings and facilities provided).
112
Economic Benefits




Opportunities for private investment, exploring potential sponsorship of specific elements.
Increased rental derived from Council assets.
Reduce maintenance costs on Council assets.
Increased footfall and tourism spend in the locality.
4. Project Definition
a. Project Objectives
 Facilitate and develop a shared vision (Master Plan) for Cromer’s west promenade;
 Explore ways to improve the overall environment, visual appearance and quality and accessibility of visitor facilities on the promenade;
 Identify new funding streams to assist in implementing the Master Plan and maintaining the quality of the west prom;
 Assess potential capital investment projects to reduce on-going maintenance and running costs of visitor facilities.
b. Project Scope
The scope of the project is set geographically and includes the main gateway accesses to the west promenade. The area covers in excess of
4,000m2 stretching from the bottom of the Melbourne slope to the far western end of the promenade. All aspects of the assets thereon were
considered as part of this project.









To review the current and potential use of the area of Cromer promenade from the bottom of the Melbourne slope westwards to the end of
the promenade (approximately 450m long, 4,000m2).
To set up a Project Team to drive the project.
To create and issue a design brief to appropriate/agreed consultants.
To undertake stakeholder consultation on creation of and resulting designs.
To undertake public display (or consultation).
To undertake applications for funding.
To undertake the tendering and procurement as necessary.
To facilitate the construction phase of the design.
To ensure continued viability and stability through working with local stakeholders and ensure full letting of premises is achieved.
113
c. Project desired outcomes
To boost employment and create more jobs through the enhancement and redevelopment/revitalisation of the Cromer west prom resulting in an
improved offer to both local people and tourists. Possible opportunities for small scale retail outlets as well as improved provision of beach huts or
chalets, café or restaurant facility and provision of new DDA compliant toilets.
d. Project Constraints
Financial constraints - It is recognised that the current funding availability will only go some way to implementing the Master Plan. Further funding
opportunities and/or private investment will be explored to identify opportunities to continue and fine tune the design detail.
Time constraints - In addition it is essential that infrastructure is reinstated as soon as possible to support current use. This will include provision of
toilet facilities and lighting. This work has commenced with power installations and some lighting enabling works.
Resource constraints - The management and implementation of this project currently rests with the project managers within the Asset & Leisure
Team and is a significant project in addition to normal workloads. Following the restructure of the team this risk is reduced.
Geographical constraints - Aside from the elemental and seasonal constraints of undertaking work on the promenade, the implementation of this
project is also greatly affected by the current Volker Stevin sea defense works affecting the west prom and slippage in their completion dates will
have a negative impact on the roll out of Phase 1 of this project .
Project Interfaces - This includes local stakeholders, County Council representatives, Anglian Water, external funding fodies, tenants and other
NNDC service areas (full details in Project Initiation Document (PID)).
e. Sustainability
 the design proposals take full account of the exposed location, particularly the impact of winter storms and climate change impacts;
 the design proposals have considered and are formed to harmonise with the prevailing form and character of the area mixing contemporary
and traditional materials and designs. They should also aspire to enliven the space in a compatible, locally distinctive way.
 the design aims to address any anti-social behaviour and crime reduction issues where possible.
f. Equality
There are no equality issues concerning the proposed redevelopment of this area. This project will enhance and improve facilities that were previously
in place. The proposals comply with the foreshore equality impact assessment.
5. Resource Requirements
It is anticipated that this project can be managed and implemented by internal resources. However it may be deemed prudent to source an intermediary to
further discussions with private investors concerning the potential commercial development of some of the phase 2 opportunities and external
procurement advice has been sourced to provide guidance in this respect.
114
6. Costs/Timescales
One of the aims of this project was to create a ‘Master Plan’ design for the west promenade which would need to support future funding bids in order to
realise the project in its entirety. Current estimates project a total Master Plan spend of just around £1.3m for phases 1 and 2. The Master Plan will be split
and packaged into separate elements to allow different funding streams to be explored.
It was always recognised that certain elements would be moved forward with the current funding (phase1) and this phase aims to be delivered during 2016.
Inevitably much of the phase 1 works will involve installing infrastructure to support the other phases but it is hoped that some additional key elements will
also move forward and be implemented during this phase.
The suggested plan for phases 1 and 2, along with the anticipated costs, are given below, phase 2 is subject to funding streams coming forward so to that
extent is fluid but does serve to indicate a logical progression of the works. It should be noted that the majority of these costs are estimates at present and
have been provided by a quantity surveyor as indicative, although some are based on tenders already received. It is hoped we may be able to deliver better
value once the majority of works are openly tendered within the local market.
Phase 1
Cost
Benefits
Potential financial impact
Enhancements from Runton Road car park to zig zag slope
Greatly improve key pedestrian gateway to Cromer from
our largest car park. Set scene for west prom use. Inform
and enthuse.
£
20,000
Increase visitor numbers wanting to visit
and park to the west of Cromer because of
the positive impact of improvements on the
west prom.
Key gateway currently giving negative signals
to visitors. Potential for increased use of
Runton Road car park, a 5% increase in use
would realise approximately £10,500.
60,000
Necessary to prevent further decay and
essential to open discussions with
investors. Potential for significantly
improved catering/accommodation offer.
Potential for attracting private investment.
Art deco block
Making good the damage caused by the surge to
café area to create a 'shell' for options appraisal with
potential investors.
£
Outside the art deco block
Supporting feasibility elements of art installation.
£
10,000
Additional galvanized steps.
£
7,000
Clearing old chalet foundations ready for huts.
£
3,500
To bring about a major art installation
(possibly Deep History themed). To support
the emphasis on 'quality' provision at far
west end. To help promote Norfolk’s varied
art festivals and art culture.
The only beach access at the far west prom
is a ladder. Increasing hut letting will require
a better beach access.
Able to install approximately 30 new hut
sites.
115
No direct benefits but the attraction of a
significant piece of artwork has proven to have
wider economic benefits to the town and
associated projects.
No direct financial benefit although will make
letting of hut sites easier.
Site lettings £6,600 per annum based on
current prices. Possibly 4 sites for release via
auction (annual lets) c£2,000.
Landscaping Works to the Zig Zag Pathway
12,000
Currently neglected and dark improving this
pedestrian access will encourage use of
slope to far west prom thus increase
footfall and support new business ventures
on prom.
Greener solution to low level lighting. Repairs
to handrails funded by revenue.
£
40,000
Currently neglected and without purpose.
Resurrect turrets to former glory as viewing
/resting points will encourage more people
to access the prom at this point.
No direct financial benefits but will set the
scene for improved café offer below.
Installation of new toilet block (similar to Sheringham)
include site preparation.
£
110,000
Installation of kiosk, lockers and daily let huts (as one
franchise).
£
46,000
£
20,000
H&S - necessary surrounding key
play/education area.
No direct financial benefit.
£
10,000
Infrastructure.
No direct financial benefit but necessary to
support other improvements.
Key to extending seasonal attraction of
West prom and key to improving desirability
as a destination for many visitors.
No direct financial benefit but potential
sponsorship opportunities. Entertainment
concession income likely to be small. Potential
use for demonstration and festival use.
Install solar lighting*, repair damage handrails
(revenue expenditure).
£
Turrets
Refurbish to original design and purpose.
East of The Art Deco Café, West of Pumping Station
Pumping Station
Increase balustrades along prom edge to beyond
new toilet block.
Install new electricity supply to support amenity
lighting along whole prom.
Install new play & entertainment area.
£
75,000
White steps redecoration and repair.
£
12,000
Starting point of educational / interactive trail.
£
20,000
£
53,000
To replace those damaged in Art Deco
block. Better placed for day time visitor
use.
To support play, entertainment and
education area.
A key point for promoting the ecology,
diversity, industry, history on our coast.
Infrastructure.
Concession likely to realise £7,000 per annum.
No direct financial benefit.
No direct financial benefit but assist in
promoting the Deep History Coast connections
and designation.
Disabled Car Park
Move car park to cliff edge.
Key to opening up the promenade and
providing safer pedestrian access.
Melbourne Slope
116
Very little impact on income anticipated as
reduction in spaces likely to be offset by
extended periods of use and fuller capacity.
No direct financial benefit at this stage but
facilitates later development and generally
enhances area.
Clear old buildings from slope and make good cliff
face.
£
15,000
Prepares way for Phase 2 build.
Lighting
£
150,000
Cromer Fishing Heritage Trail
£
20,000
Part of lighting installation over entire prom
Stakeholders were keen to link the west
prom to the Town by way of an informative
and fun trail.
TOTAL
£
683,500
It is anticipated some general repairs and
redecoration could be sourced from revenue
£12k – £18k
Phase 2 - depending on funding
Cost
Benefits
Art deco block
Fitting out café/restaurant.
unknown
Need to be fitted out to suit ultimate purpose
and to user specification.
This depends on negotiations with investors
as to what they may be prepared to agree to
regarding fitting and leasing/purchase options.
Income levels to be confirmed.
Improve access and aesthetics of current art
deco block. A good structure may also offer
some additional defense again high tides.
The cost of improving access and providing
disabled access to the art deco block is
substantial. Currently the steps are steep and
may put off potential investment.
Infrastructure.
No direct financial benefit but potential for
sponsorship.
Potential financial impact
Outside the art deco block
New concrete frontage.
£
291,000
£
42,000
£
55,000
Edwardian Chalets (listed)
New concrete frontage and provision of electricity
supply.
Pumping Station
White steps enhancements and planting
Continuation of Educational enhancements.
To improve disabled access and provide
additional facilities.
Promoting the Deep History Coast.
£
20,000
Melbourne Slope
117
Targeted lettings, longer letting periods,
increased charges and income, estimated at
£3,000 pa.
No direct financial benefit
No direct financial benefit but assist in
promoting the Deep History Coast
connections and designation
Instatement of retail units and exhibition space on
Melbourne slope to include supporting structure and
piling.
TOTAL
£
242,000
£
650,000
Provide opportunities for small scale retail,
start-up shops, craft sales, information
booths, over catch sales etc. Exhibition
space can be flexible for retail use if
required.
Depending on how they are let these unit
could realise approximately £3,000 pa for the
4 smaller units and £5,000 per annum for the
larger unit, generating approximately £17,000
per annum.
Further Enhancements (Phase 3) - no planned roll-out at this stage
Runton Road additional access enhancements
Cliff terracing and planting - zig zag and Melbourne slope only
White step enhancements
Additional art work/ signage Melbourne Slope
Concrete steps to beach
£ to be confirmed
£ to be confirmed
£ to be confirmed
£ to be confirmed
£ to be confirmed
Estimate
to be confirmed
In terms of an overall summary the costs estimates for phase 1 are £683,500, phase 2 are £657,000 with further enhancements (phase 3) subject to final
confirmation. As indicated above, a significant element of this funding is still to be identified.
118
7. Investment Appraisal
To some extent this project is borne from the necessity to repair the damage of the tidal surge so some investment is suggested that will merely serve to
replace previous services and do not, on their own, offer direct monetary returns. However when viewed as part of the wider project they underpin the
potential for future investment and return to both the Council and wider business and resident communities. It is also important to note than several
elements of this project will only come forward with private investment or other funding/grant opportunities but the Master Plan puts us in a good position
to attract this investment.
Individual elements Issue
Phase 1
Response & Cost implications
Anticipated benefits/ £
Beach huts/ chalets
Loss of 40 chalets
Replace chalets with beach hut sites to reduce capital and
revenue costs. Huts are privately owned so reduced
liability to the Council. Install an additional estimated 30
hut sites with one off site preparation costs of c£3,000.
Whilst the direct income gained from this
action will reduce the costs (R&M etc) will also
be reduced. Income from the additional huts
sites will be c.£8,600 pa (including site
auctions) with anticipated R&M savings of
c£7,000. This offsets the lost chalet income,
enables alternative uses of the capital and
transfers risk.
Kiosk Concession
Previous café /
kiosk situated in
chalet black badly
damaged.
Potential additional
car park income
To move the kiosk provision along with the public toilets
to a more centralised, family orientated location. Increase
opportunities for increasing viability of concession through
daily hut letting provision at an estimated cost of £46,000.
One of the main drivers behind the improvement works is
to encourage more visitors to Cromer, this scheme should
help to generate additional footfall which will have a
positive knock on impact on revenue receipts for thee
Runton Rad car park.
Anticipated income through letting of kiosk
concession £7,000 pa.
Significant damage
to café and public
toilet
Explore private investment options to provide quality food
provision or extended use. Need to repair damage
caused by surge and restore to ‘blank canvass’ to enable
further development at an initial estimated cost of
c£60,000.
To prepare the way for redevelopment that will
in turn realise operational benefits for the site,
reputational benefits for Cromer and financial
benefits for the Council. Future income levels
will be dependent upon development options
and are subject to confirmation.
Car parking –
Runton Road
Phase 2
Art Deco Block
119
A 5% increase in parking results equates to
approximately £10,500 pa, and correspondingly
a 10% increase would achieve additional
income of £21,000 per annum.
Edwardian chalets
Retail units
Initial repairs
completed but
scope for further
improvements
Lack of retail
business
opportunities on
the West Prom
Scope to to improve disabled access and provide additional
facilities such as an electricity supply.
To clear the currently neglected Melbourne slope and
build an accessible platform holding 4 small retail units
and one larger exhibition unit. Funding to be externally
sourced, estimated cost of £245,000.
Targeted lettings, longer letting periods,
increased charges and income, estimated at
£3,000 pa.
Anticipated annual income of c£17,000 pa
(£3,000 pa for the 4 smaller units and £5,000
per annum for the larger unit).
In addition it is anticipated that improving the west prom offer would have a positive impact on other income streams, including the remaining chalets.
The estimated cost of delivery for phase 1 is c£683,500, and the additional income generated (as shown from the table above) is around £33,000 per
annum and while this reflects a return of around 4.5% it doesn’t take account of any borrowing costs. However a significant element of the funding for this
phase is from insurance monies and external funding so any borrowing requirements would be minimal.
It should also be remembered that, whilst income generation resulting from phase 1 works is modest, much of this work provides the vital infrastructure
platform from which future phases of the project can be delivered. The financial aspects of the project are considered in more detail within the business
case.
The project also provides opportunities for sponsorship through education and artwork that can be explored once the project receives greater publicity.
120
8. Risks
Risks to service delivery
Currently the loss of service brought about via the tidal surge which continue include; 40 chalets destroyed, 1 Toilet block severely damaged, 1 Retail unit
severely damaged
Whilst insurance monies could be used to simply reinstate the lost premises, this is unlikely to bring about any increased visitor attraction or footfall and the
Council will have lost the opportunity of undertaking a the implementation of a cohesive and attractive proposal designed to revitalise and strengthen the
importance of this currently underused facility.
Project Risks
Likelihood
1-5
Impact on
project 1 - 5
1) Lack of funding – reduced payout from insurers and unsuccessful bids would result in a reduced or longer
term programme
3
5
M
2) Expectation – there is a risk of raising expectation regarding this project the breadth of which relies largely
on success with funding bids
2
1
M
3) Access – the programme coastal defence works being undertaken by VS impact heavily on the
implementation/build phase of this project. Access to the prom to undertake works is likely to be restricted.
4
5
M
4) The Deep History Coast project is in its infancy so tapping into solid plans early in this project may be
difficult.
3
1
M
121
Proximity
H /M /L
Appendix 1 – Master Plan overview
(FURTHER DETAILS IN THE Stage D Full Report available to view in Property Services Section)
122
123
124
The site previously
4,000m2 site - current facilities:
• 64 Chalets – 24 now remain (1 block is Grade II listed)
• 21 Hut sites – all bar 3 destroyed
• Non DDA compliant toilet block
• Small café provision
• RNLI Lifeguard base
• Disabled car parking provision
125
The West Prom
Melbourne Slope Area
Retail, improved
disabled accessibility,
enhancement,
continued disabled car
park provision.
Beach Huts
Annual Lettings
‘Gateway
enhancements’
from Runton
Road car park.
Art Deco block and zig zag
access slopes
Enhanced eatery provision,
major art work , natural
coastal vistas, restoration of
turrets. Different lighting
options
Anglia Water Building
Play, education,
entertainment, public
toilets, kiosk, daily hut
letting
Overall
Improved amenity lighting throughout, new electricity supply, designs to include solar powered Led lighting, optic fibre options for display purposes.
‘Toned down’ seaside theme – colour pallet of blues and greys, natural wood and flint additions that work with current differing architectural styles.
126
Melbourne slope
WHO?
Everyone, but enhanced
facilities for disabled
access to retail units and
chalets.
Key features:
Makes gateway to prom more attractive and vibrant. Improved accessibility,
clearer/prioritised pedestrian routes, enhanced chalets for disabled users.
Opportunities for start up, craft type retail outlets. Potential for exhibition space.
127
WHEN?
All year round
Victoria Shelter (AW Building)
WHAT?
With its central location, wide prom and ‘blank canvas’ this is
the day time ‘jewel’ that will bring visitors to the prom. Bespoke
play equipment designed to provide one or two sculptural play
elements rather than standard play equipment. Public toilet
provision to new contemporary design.
At night this area enhanced or specialist lighting could provide a
summer venue for music, demonstrations or encourage
promenading to art deco area. Make better use of elevated
areas for
WHO?
Aimed primarily at families. To encourage learning through play,
(eg: ecology, natural diversity, deep history) provide facilities to
enhance beach use and extend visitor season.
Key features:
Enhances a utilitarian building. Provides exciting focal point
viewable from cliff top. Provides opportunities for multi
entertainment use. Inc. Public toilet provision, kiosk type
refreshments, temporary and permanent seating and
performance areas.
Opportunities for imaginative optic or led lighting schemes
to encourage prolonged days time and seasonal use.
WHEN?
Weather often determines use as area is exposed but lighting
improvement and provision of services would see an extended
seasonal use March – Oct as a minimum
128
ECONOMIC IMPACT
There is the potential for significant investment in this area with
little direct return excepting through the proposed ‘kiosk
package’. Possible sponsorship opportunities?
Beach Huts
WHO?
Two areas
a) Central perhaps promoted for family use
b) To west of art deco block better suited for those seeking,
coastal views, quieter and relaxing atmosphere
WHEN?
Extended seasonal use - potentially year round given lighting /
potential enhanced eatery improvements
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Anticipating 40 - 60 units (currently 20 in situ). Reduced rental
income and liability than previous chalets but significantly lower
maintenance and management costs. Current rent £220 per site.
Key features:
Privately owned beach huts reduces NNDC liability,
capital and R&M costs.
Popular with stakeholders.
Opportunities for ‘different’ leases/lettings?
Narrow prom restricts other use.
129
Art Deco Block & zig-zag paths
WHO?
Generally seen as a potential to attract predominantly adult
use, quieter areas, quality food provision, natural vista and
artwork. Potential for evening opening and year round use.
WHEN?
Potentially year round given enhanced lighting and
accessibility.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Reduction is chalet income would be offset by lease /rental
agreement for entire or partial use of building. Options yet
to be explored. Present aim to make good interior to create
‘shell’ and suitable services for future design/development.
Key features:
Art Deco style building has potential for unique opportunity for quality food
provision. Distinct from the busier central and easterly locations this area is
seen as the appropriate place to showcase significant art installation.
Lighting, seating and planting improvements to zig zag slope and turret view
points to encourage dawn to dusk and beyond use.
The zig zag slope is key to exploiting the link between the West Prom and
largest car park in Cromer.
130
Key feature:
MAMMOTH ART
PROJECT would work
well with DH and be
an attraction in own
right. Externally
funded following
scoping project
‘Gateway’ enhancement and Trails
WHO?
An area seen by all who
park in the Runton Road
car park. Currently a poor
introduction to Cromer
WHEN?
Potentially year round
WHAT?
To compliment other tourist attractions, link the west prom
and promote fishing industry. Compliments walkers are
welcome and other coastal paths. Could link well with to
Deep History project.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
No direct income but
potentially encourages
greater year round use
of car park.
Opportunities for small
scale private
sponsorship?
WHO?
It is hoped that information panels are designed to appeal to
all visitors
ECONOMIC IMPACT
A direct cost to the project with wider economic benefits by
increasing year round visitors. Other trails proposed could
attract other tourism related funding opportunities?
Key features:
A ‘dead’ unattractive space between the car park and cliff top
path before the town scape is exposed. An ideal place to ‘set
the scene’ and inform.
Key features:
Links the West prom to the town through appropriately
placed information boards. Encourages year long use
provide fun and educational elements not available on
other ‘walks’
131
Phase 1 – laying foundations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
New amenity lighting
New electricity supply and improved drainage connections
Moving car park to cliff face (creates better/safer pedestrian access and coastal vistas)
Clearing Melbourne slope
Installing Public toilets and Kiosk
Repairing and preparing art deco block
Zig-zag slope enhancements and turret refurbishments
Play equipment and Fishing trail
Additional beach access
132
Phase 2 – ‘mini’ projects looking for funding
• Retail/exhibition developments for Melbourne slope
• Improving disabled access / facilities to listed Chalets
• Educational and enhancement elements linking to Deep
History project
• Art Deco building development including access
improvements
133
Agenda Item No__13__________
HOLT CAR PARK DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Summary:
This report considers the car parking issues faced in Holt. It is
not felt that the current car parking provision can adequately
deal with demand and therefore Members are requested to
consider the various options detailed in the report.
Options considered:
A number of options are considered within the report as follows:1. Do nothing – the Council could opt to do nothing and not get
involved in any potential development opportunities, relying
on current provision or private development bringing new
sites forward.
2. Review all options to provide additional public car parking
spaces in Holt in order to inform any future decision by the
Council as to which, if any, proposal it might wish to support
moving forward.
Conclusions:
It is recognised that there is a parking issue in Holt and that
current parking provision (both on and off street) is not sufficient
to deal with current demand.
Having reviewed the current position of public parking in Holt
and recognising that proposals have been made for the
provision of over 150 additional spaces in the town (Aldi,
Greshams and Cley Road) there is considered to be too much
risk to the Council committing financial investment to any
proposal in the town at the present time. The Council’s position
does not preclude others from investing in any scheme to
provide additional parking in the town if they have confidence in
the viability of any scheme.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet does not 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
Recommendations:
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 great.
134
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW
(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)
Cabinet Member(s);
Ward(s) affected; Holt
Cllr John Rest
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Duncan Ellis, 01263 516330, duncan.ellis@northnorfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The aim of this report is to consider the current parking position in Holt and assess whether
the Council is able to take forward any actions or investment which would help increase the
supply of parking spaces within the town, thereby supporting the town’s appeal and
success as a niche retail and visitor destination.
1.2
The report explores the current parking difficulties and gives consideration to various
potential development options to help address this situation. Over the past ten or so years
there have been a number of development proposals put forward to increase the supply of
parking in the town but for various reasons none of these have been implemented to date.
2.
Background
2.1
The need for additional parking in Holt has been a longstanding issue for the town and is
highlighted in the 2012 Holt Vision report produced by Allies and Morrison and also within
the Council’s Core Strategy document (http://www.northnorfolk.org/planning/3481.asp).
There is a high demand for parking which often results in traffic congestion in certain areas
of the town.
2.2
Holt is identified as a Principal Settlement within the Strategy document and is one of a
cluster of three towns, together with Cromer and Sheringham, in the central area of the
district which are identified as performing complementary roles due to their mix of public
services (health and education), retail offer and travel to work issues.
2.3
The Core Strategy document also states that the provision of additional car parking with
high quality pedestrian links to Holt town centre should be sought, recognising that
pressure on car parking space in the town is severe and that there are perhaps inadequate
spaces available to accommodate both employees and visitors to the town. This manifests
itself in excessive on-street car parking and traffic congestion as drivers circulate the town
in search of car parking. The Council does not consider that this issue can be addressed
through the management of existing spaces alone, and to protect the longer term viability of
the town centre, additional car parking provision has been proposed.
3.
Current parking provision
3.1
The District Council currently owns and operates two car parks in Holt. Albert Street car
park has 122 spaces and is a popular centrally located facility. Annual income from this car
park including credit cards but excluding Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) for 2014/15 was
£182,728 (£178,306 13/14), with income generated per space of £1,497 (£1,462 in 13/14).
This is the highest revenue per space generated by any of the Council owned car parks.
135
3.2
The pattern of use reflects its popularity throughout the year with slight peaks during
holiday periods.
3.3
The second is Station Yard car park (63 spaces) which is popular with season ticket
holders who work in Holt which is reflected in the pay and display income realised on this
car park. Income for 2014/15 was £31,588 (£30,258 13/14), with income per space of £501
for 2014/15 (£480 13/14).
3.4
The use of Station Yard car park indicates peak uses during the summer and close to
Christmas reflecting its popularity as a tourist and shopping destination. The car park is
situated further from the town centre than Albert Street and is considered to better reflect
anticipated use of a car park situated a short distance from the town centre.
3.5
The car parking charges for the Holt NNDC car parks since April 2012 have been £1 for the
first hour and then 70p per hour thereafter. General season tickets are only valid on Albert
Street for 3 hours, or unless validated for use by residents within a certain radius, whereas
136
all season tickets are valid on Station Yard car park and the reduced income for this second
car park reflects significant season ticket use.
3.6
The largest car park in Holt is owned and managed by Budgens, it is centrally situated off
Kerridge Way and extends to approximately 150 spaces. Charging applies 8.00am to 6pm
with a maximum stay of 2 hours. The charge is currently £1 per hour with the first hour
refunded at the checkout for Budgens customers.
3.7
In addition there is pay and display parking available at Bakers and Larners of Holt
extending to 56 bays – charge £2/hr with one hour refunds for customers.
3.8
Compared with some other towns in the district there is also a good number of on-street
parking spaces in Holt, the majority of which are restricted to 1 hour maximum stays
allowing good access to local businesses for short trips – ie access to banks, chemists,
small purchases etc. There are approximately 120 on street 1 hour parking bays.
3.9
In addition, there are restricted private parking facilities at the Church Hall, Methodist
Chapel, Greshams’ Pre-Prep school and at Letheringsett Hill (approximately 90 spaces).
There is also considerable unrestricted parking which takes place at the bottom of
Letheringsett Hill in a layby, and along Cley Road, Cromer Road, Pearsons Road and
Valley Lane (space to park in excess of 100+ vehicles).
3.10
However, despite this level of provision, there is still an excess demand over supply of
parking spaces in the town, particularly at peak periods (summer months, weeks up to
Christmas and weekends); which is considered to be limiting the full potential of the town as
a quality retail and visitor destination.
4.
Consideration of potential options
4.1
As discussed above it is felt that the current parking provision may be limiting the potential
of the town, as visitors are put off visiting the town due to the parking problems and there is
therefore a need to identify additional car parking provision to help the town to further
develop and thrive.
4.2
The following proposals have all been suggested over the past ten years and are
highlighted on the map below.
137
138
POTENTIAL CAR PARK DEVELOPMENTS
a) Thornage Road
Going back about ten years, when the issue of parking in the town was discussed, the owner of a
site off Thornage Road (Graham Chapman) developed a proposal for a 385 space car park and
five coach spaces, served by a pedestrian access to / from the town centre via Valley Way. The
proposal secured planning consent and after protracted discussions / negotiations allowing the
discharge of pre-commencement conditions in 2012 Mr Chapman approached the District Council
asking if the Council would enter into some form of joint venture arrangement with him to deliver
the car park.
The Council has therefore commissioned some survey work to inform the preparation of a
business case for such a development, further detail of which is provided at section 5 below.
Fig 2: Thornage Road Car Park proposal
139
b) Church Street (Gresham’s School)
Greshams’ School has recently submitted a planning application to provide a new 84 space Pay
and Display public car park on land to the south of the parish church, to the east of the pre-prep
school, accessed via Church Street.
Fig 3: Gresham’s School - Church Street proposal
c)
Cley Road - Holt Town Council
In September 2013 Holt Town Council contacted NNDC regarding an initial proposal for a Town
Council operated car park on part of the vacant duck farm site on Cley Road. The proposal was
for 82 spaces, based on a 10 year lease for the land, with a mix of permit and non-permit
designated bays. The letter received requested that the S106 contribution of £30,000 from the
adjoining residential site allocation HO1 be made available to help the Town Council develop this
car park, the principle of which was agreed by the District Council. There remains some
uncertainty as to when the Section 106 monies from the development might be released, but the
principle of this proposal coming forward is agreed.
d) Kerridge Way - Budgens
In November 2012 the proprietor of Budgens proposed an expansion of the Budgens car park
through proposing the provision of a parking deck to provide additional spaces. However, informal
advice highlighted concerns in relation to the form, scale and mass of the proposed scheme which
were considered to be out of character with the historic form of development in this part of Holt.
This scheme has not therefore progressed.
e)
Station Yard - NNDC
The District Council owns and operates the car park at Station Yard which is widely occupied by
season ticket holders. Approaches by the Council to the adjoining business occupier Stapleton’s
140
Tyre Services (STS) to see if they would be interested in disposing of this site and relocating so
that it could be developed into additional car parking, have not resulted in positive responses.
However, consideration has been given by officers to the potential of providing a second storey for
this car park and this option is explored further in Section 5 below.
Fig 4: NNDC Station Yard car park
f) Old Station Way - Aldi (new retail development)
Development has recently commenced on the former Thaxters site to the south of the A148
bypass to construct a new Aldi store, which is anticipated to open early 2016. The approved
development will deliver 83 customer spaces which, through planning conditions, will allow 3 hours
free parking at the site for customers to promote linked trips to the town centre.
141
Fig 5: Thaxters site Food Retail Proposal
5.
Site Options Appraisals for potential investment by North Norfolk District Council
a)
Thornage Road proposal
5.1
As detailed at Section 4a) above, planning consent has been granted for a 385 bay car park
and 5 bay coach park facility on land to the north of Thornage Road, served by a pedestrian
access to/from the town centre via Valley Way. Following an approach from the landowner
about the Council entering into a joint venture arrangement with him to deliver the car park,
officers have commissioned a number of technical surveys of the land to assess the level of
investment required to deliver the facility.
5.2
The consented Thornage Road car park proposal would occupy a triangular piece of land of
approximately 11,000m2 and provide a significant amount of additional car parking to the
west of Holt. The site is well positioned to capture traffic arriving from areas to the north,
west and south of Holt, without the need to enter the town centre, but is somewhat detached
from the centre of the town meaning that it is unlikely to be the car park of first choice for
many people.
5.3
The site is to the south-west of the town and is approximately 350-450m (5 minute walk) from
the main High Street. Pedestrian access would be via Valley Lane to the southern end of the
High Street with vehicular access off Thornage Road.
5.4
The landowner has approached the Council asking whether it wishes to make a capital
investment in the proposed car park as part of a joint venture with him. The proposal is for a
two stage development, with stage one providing a total of 224 car parking spaces and 3
coach spaces and stage two adding a further 161 car parking spaces and 2 additional coach
spaces. This would provide a total of 385 car parking and 5 coach spaces. The landowner’s
proposal splits the parking bays between general, short stay school spaces and permit
holder spaces, although this is contrary to how other Council run car parks operate.
142
5.5
The landowner’s scheme envisaged a fully tarmacked surface along with the inclusion of
public conveniences as part of the second phase of development. The proposal is to offer the
land to the Council on a long lease basis and this is further explored below.
5.6
The anticipated use of the site is hard to accurately determine. The landowner assumed that
all spaces would be occupied for 6 hours per day 6 days a week. Officers feel these
assumptions are overly optimistic given parking trend information, its size and location. It is
felt that the business case is ambitious and has not considered less expensive development
options.
5.7
The site has a considerable gradient meaning that significant earthworks are required to
lessen the fall of the site to offer safe access/parking. The Council has commissioned
technical surveys of the site which suggest that a Gridforce surface (rather than the proposed
tarmac) could substantially lower the capital investment required and also help with the
drainage on site, however significant earthworks would still be required to provide level site
areas.
5.8
The landowner’s proposal anticipated enforcement of certain unofficial parking areas, such
as Letheringsett Hill. This is however beyond the remit of NNDC and even if changes were to
occur this may not necessarily result in the assumed benefits as often reduction in free
parking in one area simply moves the vehicles to other ‘free’ spaces, often surrounding
residential roads.
5.9
The Council currently does not offer ‘specific usage bays’ (ie designated bays for school
users) or different parking charges because of its less prime location as suggested within the
business case provided. Therefore any consideration of likely income should be based on
the Council’s current pricing regime for the area. This might also impact upon levels of
usage/income compared to the level of use estimated by the landowner.
5.10 Due to its location a car park on Thornage Road is unlikely to be first choice for local or short
stay shoppers, with the preference being for Station Yard, Kerridge Way or Albert Street, all
of which are closer to the town centre. It is therefore considered that the usage seen on
Station Yard car park (ie general year round parking with summer and Christmas peaks,
coupled with some regular season ticket use) is most likely to reflect take up and should be
used as a gauge to measure potential income.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.11 There are a number of risks in relation to the proposed development, some of which are
covered within the finance section below as they specifically relate to the capital and revenue
forecasts and estimates but those additional issues that need to be considered are
highlighted below:
 There is a reputational and financial risk for the Council if the development is taken
forward but usage is lower than anticipated and the scheme fails to deliver value for
money.
 There is a risk that a more central site may come forward reducing the viability of
the Thornage road site, for example the Greshams’ School proposal on Church
Street.
 There is a risk that a number of alternative solutions are progressed at the same
time, thereby further undermining the financial viability of the Thornage Road
proposal.
 While the issue of the pedestrian access from the site into Valley Way may have
been addressed through the granting of a Public Right of Way (PROW) over this
land, these can potentially be re-routed so this issue remains a risk to the
development of this site and requires further consideration.
143
 There are significant concerns that, due to location, that main useage will be during
the summer months, with little use during other times of year, which will impact on
the financial viability of the scheme use.
 The Council has no control over the significant areas of free parking currently
utilised, such as that on Letheringsett Hill, and while this continues the business
case is further undermined
 Although the use of the site is acceptable in land use terms there are reservations
about whether this site is the right location for a commercially viable car park
proposal, underlined by the landowners caution in investing in the facility himself
and therefore looking to the District Council as a joint venture partner.
 There is an underlying concern that if the scheme was viable that the private sector
would already have delivered it and that there is an unacceptable level of risk
resting with the Council for the level of return.
5.17 Following an initial review of the proposal made by the landowner, officers felt that:
 Usage levels had been over estimated and therefore the income projections were
overly optimistic.
 Some assumptions made were unlikely to be achievable.
 The anticipated capital development costs were too high.
 That there is no need to provide public toilets as proposed.
 That the site does not need a tarmac surface (a Gridforce option could be
considered which would also help with site drainage).
Capital development costs
5.19 The capital cost forecasts have been based on the current plans as submitted and have
been split into a two stage development as detailed above, these costs are discussed in
detail within the exempt appendix. The phase 1 development of the car park would
accommodate 224 car parking spaces and 3 coach spaces, while the completion of phase 2
would deliver the full 385 space site with 5 coach bays.
Ongoing revenue costs and income projections
5.20 The second element of the development cost relates to the ongoing revenue operating costs.
These need to be considered in relation to both ongoing revenue expenditure, such as rates,
grounds maintenance, cleansing costs, servicing of debt etc and also the income generated
form the parking spaces.
5.21 Initial without prejudice discussions have been held with the landowner in relation to annual
running costs to help inform the business case as it is extremely difficult to forecast what the
annual expenditure for the site might be without having held and such discussions. These
details can be found within the exempt appendix.
5.22 The total operating costs for a phase 1 development based upon other car parks operated by
the District Council have been estimated at approximately £107k pa.
5.23 Based on these figures this would mean that each space would need to generate around
£475 pa to break even. This is slightly lower that that achieved at Station Yard (£500 14/15),
which is better located in relation to the town centre, but it needs to be remembered that the
income from this site could be considered to be suppressed slightly due to the level of
season ticket holders using this car park. Equally use of this car park does show seasonal
peaks and troughs in ticket sales which would be expected on the Thornage road site. If
additional private car parking initiatives i.e. Aldi and Greshams come forward this will further
reduce potential use/income.
144
5.24 It is difficult to accurately estimate income levels as this will be dependent on a number of
different variables and potentially be impacted by weather, other car parking
developments/restrictions, visitor numbers, parking habits etc.
5.25 However, for the purposes of assessing the business case, an income per space of £500 has
been assumed, resulting in income of £112k pa from a phase 1 development of 224 spaces,
and a net surplus (after annual running costs highlighted above of £107k) of just over £5k per
annum. This gives a return on capital employed after debt financing (over 25 years) of
0.86%.
5.26 Consideration would also need to be given as regards the level of any potential development
and whether the additional capacity provided by the full scheme (385 spaces) could be
justified over and above the 224 space option as it is not clear how often this additional
capacity would be required.
5.27 As discussed above a number of risks have been identified in relation to the development of
this scheme and based on the potential levels of return currently forecast it is doubtful that
this scheme would provide value for money. If additional private car parking initiatives come
forward this will further reduce levels of use/income and thereby the viability of the
development.
b)
Station Yard 2nd storey proposal appraisal
5.28 As discussed above, Station Yard is an NNDC owned car park with 63 spaces which is
accessed off Station Road, it is popular with season ticket holders who work in Holt as there
are no restrictions whereas Albert Street Albert Street is limited to 3 hour season tickets. This
is reflected in the pay and display income realised on this car park. Income for 2014/15 was
£31,500 (£27,400 13/14), with income per space of £500 for 2014/15 (£434 13/14).
5.29 The use of Station Yard car park indicates peak use during the summer and close to
Christmas reflecting its popularity as a tourist and shopping destination, although it is
situated less favourably for pedestrians than Albert Street.
5.30 Initial informal discussions have been held with Another Level Car Parks Ltd, which has
developed the concept of portable, modular multi-storey car parking. The car park sits over
the top of the existing car park enabling the capacity to almost double and can be leased or
purchased outright.
5.31 The benefits of this system include:
 Fast assembly with minimal disruption – a 124 space modular deck can be installed
within 3 ½ days
 Normally no requirement for additional foundations
 Modular and versatile – can be designed to accommodate between 8 and 800 cars
and can be deconstructed and moved to another site of required
 Safe and reliable – engineered to 200% of load, galvanized to provide a rust free
solution
5.32 Indicative prices from a recent build have been provided in relation to both the lease option
and outright purchase costs for a 100 car system. Initial cost estimates have been based prorata on the information provided but in relation to provision of a 60 space deck. However no
detailed costings, surveys or feasibility works have as yet been undertaken.
5.33 As discussed above at this stage it has been assumed that no additional foundations would
be required to support the structure. However the only way to be sure of this is to have the
company undertake a proper survey of the site, which would include consideration of site
levels, dimensions etc.
145
5.34 It has also been assumed that the 2nd storey will result in an additional 60 spaces and that
none of the lower floor spaces will be lost but again until an initial design is completed this
information will not be confirmed.
5.35 Planning permission would need to be applied for to enable the second storey to be added
but this area is outside of the town’s Conservation Area and adjacent to the A148 Holt
bypass and initial consideration of planning issues therefore has not raised any specific
objections.
5.36 The estimated life span of the galvanised structure is 25 years plus.
5.37 As regards anticipated usage it would probably be necessary to allocate either the ground or
upper deck to enable use by season ticket holders with the other floor restricted to 3 hour
usage as with Albert Street to maximise the Council’s return in any proposed investment.
5.38 It should be noted that while the installation of this system is quick, the lead in time for
construction and delivery is 52 weeks. Again no further discussions have been held to date
with the company to see if this time could be reduced.
5.39 Unlike the Thornage Road proposal this development would be on a site already owned by
NNDC and therefore there would be no additional lease costs to be incurred.
5.40 Discussions have been held with the owners of the adjacent site (STS Tyres) as regards
better utilisation of the site and what joint opportunities might be available although to date
these discussions have not been productive. STS have given a clear steer that they do not
wish to consider disposal of the site although they have been made aware of the Council’s
interest.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.41 There are a number of risks in relation to the proposed development, some of which are
covered within the finance section below as they specifically relate to the capital and revenue
forecasts and estimates but those additional issues that need to be considered are
highlighted below:





At present a number of assumptions have been made about the viability of the site to
accommodate a second storey deck for approximately 60 cars but until further detailed
site surveys have been undertaken and a deck has been designed it will not be
possible to confirm the potential viability.
There is no planning permission in place at present for this option although initial
discussions with colleagues in the planning department have been positive.
The lead in time for the construction of a typical deck is 52 weeks which is a significant
period of time.
Based upon the initial financial modelling the lease option does not appear to be viable
and it would provide better value for money if the Council were to purchase the
structure outright but this would involve a significant capital investment.
This development would not provide any additional parking for coaches within Holt.
5.42 The following provides a high level summary of the anticipated costs and income for this
scheme
Capital development costs
5.43 The initial capital development cost forecasts have been based on information provided by
Another Level. This information is however based upon a deck to accommodate 100 cars,
146
the costs have therefore been allocated on a pro-rata basis to arrive at an estimated cost for
a 60 car deck, the detail for which can be found within the exempt appendix.
Ongoing revenue costs and income projections
5.44 The second element of the development cost relates to the ongoing revenue operating costs.
As with the Thornage Road site it is difficult to accurately estimate income and expenditure
levels.
5.45 However based on some initial high level estimates and again using a number of
assumptions the annual operating costs for the additional 60 space deck are forecast to be in
the region of £56k per annum. Based on these figures this would mean that each space
would need to generate around £935 pa to break even.
5.46 This is significantly more than that currently achieved at Station Yard (£500 14/15), however
if the second storey were to be introduced it is recommended that 1 deck should be restricted
to 3 hour season tickets only as with Albert Street.
5.47 As discussed above Albert Street generated approximately £1,500 of income per space last
year so on this basis income of £1,000 plus (based on the season ticket restriction), should
be achievable. This results in additional income of £60k pa, and a surplus position (after
annual running costs highlighted above of £56k) of £4k per annum. This gives a return on
capital employed of around 0.6%.
6.0
Conclusions
6.1
It is recognised that there is a parking issue in Holt and that current parking provision (both
on and off street) is not sufficient to deal with current demand.
6.2
Having reviewed the current provision of public parking in Holt and recognising that
proposals have been made for the provision of over 150 additional spaces in the town (Aldi,
Greshams and Cley Road) there is considered to be too much risk to the Council committing
financial investment to any proposal in the town at the present time. The Council’s position
does not preclude others from investing in any scheme to provide additional parking in the
town if they have confidence in the viability of any individual proposal.
7
Sustainability
7.1
Sustainability issues will be considered in relation to the proposed development which will
cover the surfacing, lighting and landscaping requirements.
8
Equality and Diversity
8.1
In line with other Council owned car parks it is recommended that a provision of 6% is made
for disabled spaces.
8.2
Equality and diversity issues will also be considered in relation to the access points and
lighting for the proposed car park.
9
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
9.1
As part of the proposed development the police will be consulted in relation to both the layout
of the site and also to seek advice regarding potential lighting schemes.
9.2
There are no further Section 17 implications as a result of this report.
147
5th January 2016
Cabinet
Agenda Item No___14__________
Egmere Business Zone Project
Summary:
This report updates Cabinet on how the District Council might
take a lead role in facilitating development of land at the
Egmere Business Zone site by opening up an area of land for
business uses through the provision of road and utility
infrastructure and the development of a first workshop / office
unit for lease, as a catalyst for future development.
Conclusions:
The report proposes that: the Council takes a head lease in respect of 1.65
hectares of land to the north of Edgar Road and,
 takes forward a programme of works to provide road
and utility services into the land so as to provide
“development ready” sites for business related
investment by third parties, and
 subject to agreeing terms with an interested party,
develop a workshop / office facility for lease, as a first
development on the site
Recommendations:
That Cabinet:
welcomes the recent designation of the Egmere
Business Zone site as an Enterprise Zone by HM
Government,

notes and welcomes 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,

resolves to provide road and utility infrastructure
into an area of land at Egmere, so as to provide
serviced land for future development by third
parties,

notes the interest of an established business
working in the offshore renewables sector in
148
5th January 2016
Cabinet
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.

Reasons
Recommendations
for
Agrees, 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.
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 member(s):
Cllr John Rest, Cabinet portfolio-holder
for Corporate Assets; Cllr Judy Oliver,
Cabinet portfolio-holder for Legal
Services and Cllr Nigel Dixon, Cabinet
portfolio-holder
for
Economic
Development;
Contact Officer, telephone number, and
e-mail:
Primarily Walsingham, but some implications
for the Priory ward through use of facilities at
the Port of Wells
Steve Blatch, Corporate Director
Steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Tel:- 01263 516232
149
5th January 2016
Cabinet
1.
Background:-
1.1
At its meeting of 6th October 2014, Cabinet received and approved a report on the
Egmere Business Zone project and resolved:“that the District Council should lead a project proposal to open up a minimum of
1.65 hectares of land within the area covered by the Egmere Local Development
Order subject to securing the necessary external funds to deliver the project; and
that in agreeing the above, Cabinet authorises officers to: Obtain cost estimates for the provision of utility services into the proposed
Phase 1 development area
 Pursue applications for external sources of finance to deliver a Phase 1
scheme
 Conclude discussions with the Walsingham Estate regarding the Council
taking a head lease on the land which reflects the risks to the Council in
opening up the land for development and, as and when plots are developed
by third party businesses, recognises Walsingham Estate’s continued
ownership of the land through some form of income-share arrangement.
 Promote investment opportunities at Egmere to businesses seeking to
invest in this part of the District”.
1.2
Following that meeting officers have taken forward a number of actions in seeking to
develop a detailed project proposal to provide road and utility infrastructure into an area
of land at the Egmere Business Zone site, so as to provide “development ready” sites for
business occupation. These actions have included:
Obtaining provisional costs to provide road and utility services into 1.65 hectares
of land owned by the Walsingham Estate at Edgar Road, Egmere;

Made a successful application for grant support from the Norfolk Business Rates
Pool to deliver a project to open up an area of land for business development at
Egmere;

With the support of the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, proposed
designation of the Egmere Business Zone site as an Enterprise Zone; with this bid
announced as being successful by the Government in the November
Comprehensive Spending Review announcement, with the status operating for six
years from 1st April 2016, increasing the attraction of the site for business
investment;

Continued to promote the site to prospective investors, with firm interest expressed
by an established offshore renewables business which has outlined a requirement
for an initial development at the site of 800 sq metres (500 sq metres workshop
and 300 sq metres offices) with room for further expansion. Based on this
expression of interest officers have obtained provisional costs for the development
of such a facility and appraised whether this would be a sound financial investment
for the authority if it were to build out and lease the property to this enquirer.
2.0
Enterprise Zone status
2.1
In the November 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review announcement made by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government announced the designation of new
Enterprise Zones covering over 100 sites across England – including two in North
Norfolk, these being the Egmere Business Zone and Scottow Enterprise Park sites. The
150
5th January 2016
Cabinet
Enterprise Zone status on these sites will commence on 1st April 2016 and operate for
six years through until 31st March 2022.
2.2
Enterprise Zone status will increase the attraction of the Egmere Business Zone for
business investment through supporting the provision of superfast broadband and
offering business rate incentives to businesses establishing a presence on the site for a
period of five years. Government guidance also proposes that Enterprise Zones should
adopt a simplified planning regime to promote investment; however, the District Council
has previously adopted a Local Development Order to facilitate investment at the
Egmere Business Zone site and therefore this positive policy position is already
established at the Egmere site.
2.3
Further, local partners with Enterprise Zones are able to retain 100% of business rate
growth for 25 years and in the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area the
retained rates generated from Enterprise Zones are shared as follows – 10% to the local
authority district in which the Enterprise Zone is situated, 35% for re-investment in
development of the Enterprise Zone (eg provision of utilities, access roads and
premises) and 55% to the New Anglia LEP to support the wider development of the local
economy. Some initial assessment of the rates growth which might be generated
through the Egmere site is now being undertaken and will be discussed with the New
Anglia LEP and Government over the next few weeks as governance structures and
reporting frameworks for the Egmere Enterprise Zone site are developed as, dependent
upon rates of development at the site, this mechanism will generate future funding for
investment in the Egmere site.
3.0
Proposed site servicing project:-
3.1
In order to maximise the potential of the adopted Local Development Order and
confirmed Enterprise Zone status for the Egmere Business Zone site to attract new
business investment, it is considered important that an area of land within that part of the
Egmere Business Zone site with Enterprise Zone status is opened up for development
through the provision of road and utility services, so as to provide “development ready”
sites.
3.2
An area of land extending to 1.65 hectares to the north of Edgar Road, as owned by the
Walsingham Estate, has been identified for a first phase of development and provisional
terms discussed with the Estate regarding the District Council taking a head lease on the
land and then providing services into the site.
3.3
A successful application has also been made to the Norfolk Growth Group Business
Rates Pool Fund to assist with project costs to open up an area of land for development
at Egmere, with a grant offer made in the sum of £450,000.
3.4
Provisional costs of delivering a project to provide an estate road of approximately 200
metres in length into the area of land, together with utility services, have been obtained
and are detailed for member’s information in the exempt appendix attached to this
report.
3.5
If Cabinet is minded to support the Council taking a lead role in taking forward a project
to provide serviced land at Egmere as proposed above, authority is sought to pursue
final negotiations with the Walsingham Estate and appoint an external project
management resource to progress preparation of tender documents and oversee the
tender appraisal and contract management process.
4.0
Proposed development of leasehold workshop / office premises:-
151
5th January 2016
Cabinet
4.1
In promoting the Egmere Business Zone site to prospective business investors the
Council has been approached by an established business operating at a national and
EU level in the offshore wind sector, which is interested in establishing their main office
and workshop / warehouse facility at the Egmere site. The company has an initial
requirement for a 500 sq metre workshop and 300 sq metre offices, with on-site parking
for 20 vehicles and space to double the workshop floorspace within five years. It
therefore sees the potential of the Egmere Business Zone location and has outlined its
requirements for premises to the Council. The business has large capital commitments
in growing other “productive” assets of the business and has therefore outlined to the
Council its preference to occupy leasehold property, rather than develop its own
premises on a freehold basis.
4.2
Provisional costs of the Council developing an office / workshop facility for the company
have therefore been obtained and an investment appraisal undertaken, to establish
whether such a project would be a sound investment for the authority. Details of the
build costs and financial appraisal are included within the exempt appendix attached to
this report.
4.3
Cabinet is therefore asked whether it is supportive of the principle of the Council taking
forward an investment project to provide an office / workshop development at Egmere in
order that officers can take forward detailed discussions with the interested party around
leasehold terms (length of lease, level of rent, potential contribution by business towards
premises “fit-out” costs etc) and thereafter, if appropriate, take forward design and
tender processes.
5.0
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
The financial issues and risks to the Council associated with the proposals are
introduced with this report and provided in some detail in the exempt appendix.
5.2
The District Council has recently received the final draft of the Business Growth and
Investment Opportunities Study report as prepared by the BE Group (to be presented for
consideration at a future meeting of Cabinet) and this study has highlighted the strong
demand and limited supply of good quality business premises across the District and
provides the context for the Council taking a lead role in seeking to maximise new jobcreating business investment in the district through investing in site servicing and
premises projects. The proposal for the Council to lead a project to open up land at the
Egmere Business Zone site therefore presents an early opportunity for the Council to
take forward an investment which seeks to respond to the challenges identified through
the Business Growth and Investment Opportunities Study and maximise the
opportunities which exist at Egmere through the recent Enterprise Zone designation.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
This project proposal seeks to support investment in the renewable energy sector at a
national level and contributes to the Council’s Corporate Plan objectives of wanting to
support business growth and new employment opportunities in the district.
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Equality and Diversity.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1
This report does not raise any issues relating to Crime and Disorder.
152
153
Agenda Item No 15
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
Summary:
This report provides an update for Members on the work of the
Enforcement Board over the past six months and also gives an
assessment of progress made by the Board on the difficult
enforcement cases since its inception.
In broad terms, at the time of writing, the Board has considered 127
cases, of which all but six have seen positive action. Wherever
possible, the Council seeks to recover as much of the cost of such
action as possible and almost all of the cost associated with the
Board’s work has been or will be recovered.
The Board is now leading on a number of compulsory purchase cases,
which have arisen as last resort for dealing with certain properties, and
a further recommendation is included at Appendix 3 for future similar
action.
In addition, a number of complex enforcement cases are detailed in
the Confidential Appendix, with an associated recommendation for
funding a range of non-recoverable enforcement costs.
Conclusions:
Recommendations
The Enforcement Board continues to make significant progress towards
its objectives of dealing with difficult and long-standing enforcement
cases and bringing long term empty properties back into use across all
areas of the District, with both social and economic benefits to the
community, and financial benefits to the Council.
1.
2.
3.
That Cabinet notes the progress made to date by the
Enforcement Board.
That, on the basis that the costs are non-recoverable, Cabinet
approves 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.
That Cabinet authorises 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
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
154
3d
3e
Reasons for
Recommendation
returned to use as soon as realistically achievable.
That the purchase will be funded from capital
resources from which virement of the necessary funds
is authorised.
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.
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:
3a
There 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.
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.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Judy Oliver – Enforcement
All Wards
Cllr Sue Arnold – Planning
Cllr John Rest - Housing
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker, Corporate Director
01263 516221
nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
1.
Introduction
This is the sixth, half yearly progress update on the work of the Enforcement Board,
which members will recall was set up to tackle difficult, often longstanding
enforcement issues, and to provide an additional focus on Long Term Empty homes.
The cases dealt with often involve a wide range of the Council’s services and the
Board was tasked with bringing a focus to each case, by ensuring all of the Council’s
regulatory and enforcement powers were considered, in order to bring about the
most effective resolution to the issue at hand. In addition, it was expected that there
would be some learning across services regarding better use of data and intelligence
and also in terms of best use of all the enforcement powers available to the Council.
In terms of empty homes there were, and still are, a number of issues arising which
provided good reason to act. As well as the obvious social advantage, of utilising as
much of the District’s housing stock as possible, thereby maximising housing
provision and reducing local blight, many long term empty properties attract New
Homes Bonus to the Council when brought back into use.
155
Furthermore, empty properties; not only houses, but commercial premises and land;
often cause blight to the local neighbourhood, both by looking an eyesore, and also
by attracting anti-social behaviour, pest control issues and causing potential danger
by way of structural instability or being open to access by children, etc.
Within the District there are also a number of companies and individuals whose
business activities, especially around property ownership, but also in the areas of
environmental pollution, planning and conservation, landlord and tenant relations and
council tax evasion; have an actual or potentially very negative effect on the local
economy and or cause risk to others.
The setting up of the Enforcement Board has enabled a different and more effective
approach to be taken in respect of these problems. As well as allowing in some
cases, a range of enforcement powers to be used in a combined manner to solve a
problem, the Board has been able to focus on the most appropriate solution rather
than, as has happened historically, a more haphazard approach to difficult cases.
Dealing with difficult cases in this way has also encouraged more innovative
approaches to the use of the Council’s legislative powers. Whilst this may give rise to
additional risk, much work has been done to ensure enhanced governance, with
significant support from officers in both legal and finance teams.
Whilst Members do not routinely sit at meetings of the Enforcement Board, because
of legal sensitivities around enforcement decisions; where decisions have a wider
implication and/or risk, CLT and or relevant members are involved in the decision
making process. Recommendations relating to a number of such cases are
contained in the attached CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX. Other decisions are taken
under officer delegated powers.
In addition to the six monthly update to Cabinet, relevant local members and Group
Leaders are regularly kept informed of progress on the individual cases being dealt
with by the Board.
2
Progress update
2.1
General
Since its inception in December 2012, the Board has continued to meet regularly to
ensure that good progress continues to be made across the full range of cases
under consideration.
In terms of property related cases, the Board has considered 127 cases since its
inception, with another 14 being brought to the Board since the last update report.
There has been a significant degree of success, with action unable to be brought in
only six cases.
More details of the majority of current cases are provided in Appendices 1 and 2.
156
2.2
Long Term Empty Homes (LTEs)
The Council Tax Base return for October 2015 showed 500 LTEs in the District; an
increase of 44 on last year. Whilst in isolation this is disappointing, in terms of the
overall housing available, the District has only 0.93% of total housing made up of
LTEs, which is less than half the national average of 1.89%.
Our efforts will continue on LTEs, but with more emphasis on the early interventions
as soon as properties become empty, in order to make contact with owners of such
properties at an early stage, so that assistance can be provided or enforcement
pressure applied as required.
2.3
Difficult Enforcement Cases
As mentioned above, as well as the empty homes issues, the Enforcement Board
was also charged with dealing with a number of cases which are more complex in
nature and range from properties causing long term or significant blight, as opposed
to merely being empty, through to people with large and potentially deliberate debts
to the Council, and often illegal business activities, that cause for example, a high
risk of pollution.
Often, a cross-service approach is the only way forward and it is clear that many of
these cases require high levels of formal intervention, sometimes with outside
agencies, such as the Environment Agency, finance or utility providers, and using
works in default powers available in some of the legislation enforced by the Council.
Our focus has been and will remain on those cases where the Council’s intervention
will give us the best chance of securing an improved position in terms of public
safety, the local environment, revenue collection and or reputation.
Many of the case examples are summarised in Appendices 1 and 2 attached,
although some are not in the public domain because of associated legal issues;
albeit members have been advised of these on a confidential basis.
3.
Future Working
3.1
The work of the Board has certainly given rise to closer working between those
teams across the Council who are potentially involved in enforcement work. Wider
powers of delegation have been utilised for certain Notices and there is better
sharing of information across some of the databases operated internally. This will
further improve with the wider integration of IT systems as part of the Digital
Transformation Programme.
This shared approach to enforcement matters is likely to be extended in 2016, with a
joint approach to Planning and property related enforcement currently being
considered which, it is believed, will improve the Council’s ability to take action more
quickly in many cases.
3.2
In addition, some of the work driven by the Board has actually increased the
pressure on some service areas and it is considered that, where necessary, the
Enforcement Board Reserve will be utilised to provide additional, external expertise,
to help resolve some cases. A number of such cases is contained within the
confidential appendix to this Report.
157
3.3
Learning has been taken from some cases, as to how future works in default are
managed. Officers obviously obtain survey and cost information in advance of work,
but currently, are then having to manage contractors undertaking the work. This can
lead to a diversion from other work and is often not within the officers’ core skills.
It is considered therefore, that using external surveyors to manage the actual
building work is more effective. In addition, it gives a better level of indemnity and
quality assurance and the management costs are recoverable as part of the works
themselves.
3.4
The potential for Compulsory Purchase still exists, where all reasonable legal
powers have been exhausted and, as expected, cases which require this level of
action have come forward, with other potential CPOs currently under consideration.
A separate report is at Appendix 3 for one such property, for Cabinet’s
consideration.
3.5
Wherever possible, we seek to share information with other agencies where this can
lead to more effective enforcement. This remains difficult however, with some central
government agencies, due to a lack of data sharing protocols, but it anticipated that
this will improve over time. In addition, there will be protocols developed as part of
the Digital Transformation Programme for more effective data collection and to
enable better sharing of the data and information collected.
3.6
A high profile for the work of the Board continues to be maintained with the local
media. This ensures that all property owners are made aware of the Council’s
intention to take action wherever appropriate and that local communities are aware
that issues they are raise with the Council are being addressed.
3.7
Following a number of issues arising from caravan sites in the District, the Board has
also been working to develop a protocol for future work around these sites. Whilst
not yet finalised, due to the historical complexity of the issues involved, it is
anticipated that work will be prioritised around:



High risk public safety issues
Protection of the public purse against fraud
Ensuring appropriate development is adequately controlled
One such case appears on the report (Appendix 2 below) and is now the subject of a
retrospective Planning Application; safety matters having been addressed by the
Council’s Environmental Health Team.
4.
Performance Management
4.1
Local members have continued to be kept informed of cases being taken forward in
their wards and Group Leaders are also being kept informed of all cases. This
continues to be well received.
4.2
Where appropriate, Town and Parish Councils are also kept informed of progress
and where there is an obvious legal risk or implication, the relevant Portfolio holder
is also informed, as well as the local member and CLT.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
158
5.1
The work of the Enforcement Board is partly driven by the need to maximise
revenue from both Council Tax and, for Long Term Empty Properties, the New
Homes Bonus scheme. Significant contributions have already been made by
bringing properties back into use and/or back into Council Tax banding, in the two
years the Board has been working, through the development of more integrated
systems we now have.
However, it is recognised that our efforts now should be focused more on the early
interventions on many properties rather than higher levels of intervention in lower
numbers. For the period in which the New Homes Bonus still exists in relation to
LTEs, it is expected that this will be a better approach in financial terms. This will be
a focus for any combined enforcement team developed in the future.
5.2
As has been stated above, a number of these properties are of historical importance,
or give rise to local blight and therefore an expectation from local communities on
the Council to resolve the issues, with accompanying reputational risk if we do not
act. Where LTEs have those multiple problems, the Board will continue to deal with
them.
5.3
It is however, also important that we act sensitively in some cases, and that we
adhere to our own Enforcement Policies in terms of proportionality of approach and
public interest..
5.4
There is also a reputational risk involved, if we lose legal action. Whilst this can be
mitigated by good process, evidence gathering, etc, we are seeking to be innovative
in our use of legal powers and we may not always win the case at hand.
The use of the Council’s powers in different ways will almost certainly cause some
complaint from those who have not previously seen direct action from the Council in
respect of the issues concerned.
It is therefore essential that we ensure both the technical and legal processes used
are sound and that, in terms of our reputation, our rationale for action is clearly
understood.
5.5
There is, in some cases, a risk of not being able to recover the costs to the Council
involved in some enforcement work, such as officer and legal costs, and where
works in default are undertaken. However, these risks are being mitigated as far as
possible, through good intelligence and evidence gathering and ensuring that the
correct legal processes are followed during any action taken.
In addition, where necessary, valuation advice is taken to ensure that there is
enough value in a site against which to provide proceeds of an enforced sale if
necessary to recover costs.
In addition, it should be noted that all expenditure allocated to the Enforcement
Board Reserve is approved by both the s151 Officer and the Corporate Director.
5.6
The Enforcement Board Reserve covers the costs of dealing with these cases and in
general, most of the costs concerned are recovered. However, we are now starting
formal action on a number of cases where some work is simply not recoverable and
both members and key senior officers will be consulted in such circumstances.
159
Indeed, such a case is included in the confidential appendix attached with a
recommendation for future action, where it believed that the cost is outweighed by
the wider benefits of the intended action.
5.7
There has been the need for significant additional legal input to the cases and
although much of the cost is recovered, this has been underwritten by the Reserve.
6.
Sustainability
The only sustainability implications directly resulting from this report are around
better use of existing housing stock, as opposed to new build and therefore the
potential use of green field sites.
7.
Equality and Diversity
There are no equality and diversity implications directly resulting from the
recommendations or options considered in this report.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
Some of the work being undertaken by the Board has a direct link to criminal activity,
around deliberate Council Tax avoidance. In addition, a number of empty properties
have been associated with anti-social behaviour, which of course will be removed
when properties are brought back into use.
9.
Conclusions
The Enforcement Board continues to make significant progress towards its
objectives of dealing with difficult and long-standing enforcement cases and bringing
long term empty properties back into use across all areas of the District, with both
social and economic benefits to the community, and financial benefits to the council.
160
Appendix 1
Key Activity on Long Term Empty Properties (as at November 2015)
Note: this is not an exhaustive list of cases, as some issues otherwise sensitive and
therefore not for publication.
Property
Issues
Action
56 Beeston
Common,
Sheringham
Dilapidated,
overgrown garden
Empty for over 10
years
Dialogue with solicitor has been poor
and no progress on property. Owners
are now in direct contact following
Council’s threat of CPO action and
this may require a further Cabinet
item
55 Beeston
Common,
Sheringham
Dilapidated,
overgrown garden
As above.
35-36 Beeston
Common,
Sheringham
Extremely dilapidated
Empty for over 10
years
After two years of pressure from the
Council, Planning Approval for
demolition and rebuild was sought
and work has commenced on new
properties on site.
37 St Giles Road,
Swanton Novers
Empty since 2001
Dilapidated and in
poor condition
detracting from
neighbourhood
amenity
Works completed in September 2015
Officers understanding that
subsequent sale is likely for
immediate occupancy.
Clarence House,
The Buttlands,
Wells next the Sea
Listed building in
prime site, empty for
c20 years, in poor
condition detracting
from neighbourhood
amenity.
On English Heritage
Properties At Risk
Register.
Empty since 1974
No works being undertaken following
service of Listed Building and
Housing Notices, so, works in default
threatened.
Property sold as a result and full
restoration ongoing.
33 Oak Street,
Fakenham
Empty since previous
owner’s death in 2008
Property dilapidated
but capable of being
renovated.
Trafalgar Court,
Mundesley
Prominent former
hotel converted into
Cabinet approval granted in
September 2015, for CPO if voluntary
offer refused. Solicitors have now
submitted probate papers and have
indicated intention to sell property as
soon as probate granted.
On-going liaison and pressure from
Council on Management Company
161
flats
A number of flats
unoccupied since
2010
Eyesore property in
prime location on
coast road.
appointed by the Land Tribunal, and
owners.
Fire Service Prohibition Order to East
Wing removed. Works to common
areas nearly complete.
Council Tax bills issued to all
properties.
All flats now in full charge and Council
Tax up to date.
Leighton House, 1113 St Mary’s Road,
Cromer
Significant residential
property in extremely
dilapidated condition
detracting from
neighbourhood
amenity
Unfit for habitation
Previous pest
infestations
Survey and costing information
completed for complex and lengthy
works.
s79 Building Act Notice served June
2013 only partially complied with.
Works in Default considered but
property value not sufficient to cover
works required.
Works in Default under Filthy and
Verminous
Premises
legislation
ongoing and will be protected by
taking charge on property.
Laurel Cottage,
Little London, Town
Close Lane,
Corpusty
Remaining cottage of
a pair, empty since
1990s
1 and 1a Victoria
Lane,
Fakenham
Crimond, Norwich
Rd, Cromer
Long term Empty
Property in poor
condition
Long term empty
home in dilapidated
condition detracting
from amenity of local
area and Council Tax
issues
Agreement reached with owner on
timescales
for
renovation
with
completion expected early April 2016,
with threat of EDMO or CPO action if
not complied with.
Major
renovation
works
now
underway to both properties
2 and 2a Stirling
Road, Sculthorpe
Unfinished ‘new build’
properties, empty
since 1990s.
37 Beeston Road,
Sheringham
Empty for 10 years
Neighbour complaints
received regarding
162
Pressure applied to owner by Legal
and Fraud Teams, successfully
resulting in payment of correct
Council Tax.
s215
Notice
served
requiring
clearance/demolition.
Site currently for sale but if Notice not
complied with, demolition works in
default will follow in early 2016,
protected by a charge on the
property.
Agreement reached with Registered
Housing Provider and will be passed
for EDMO for social housing use if
valuation appropriate.
Interim EDMO being applied for.
If not possible to use EDMO powers,
CPO only option.
No
action
on
property,
so
recommendation to be made to
damp.
Cabinet for CPO
21 Alfred Road,
Cromer
Long Term Empty
property since 2005
New purchasers have begun major
renovation in keeping with original
style and features. Intending to be
used as family home.
28 Church Street,
Northrepps
Long Term Empty
property
40 Larners Hill,
Northrepps
Long Term Empty
property for
approximately 3 years
4 Sculthorpe Lodge,
Breck lane, West
Barsham
Property out of
banding since 2007
East View, Helena
Road, Walcott
Property empty since
2013
Advised by owner’s solicitors that
property to be auctioned early
December
Informal request for exterior to be
tidied.
Empty Homes Manager keeping up
pressure through Trust Solicitors as
owners stated intention to refurbish
and re-let.
Building Act letter sent for works to
dilapidated property.
Owners have confirmed they are
looking to move in once works
completed.
Council Tax Completion Notice will be
served once works have started.
Environmental Protection Team to
continue to visit and inspect.
Building Act Notice to be served
giving a Schedule of Works and
Demolition options.
25 Holt Road,
Langham
Dilapidated, Long
Term Empty Property
163
Surveyor appointed by Council prior
to enable Building Act Notice.
Empty Homes Manager attempting to
negotiate voluntary agreement with
owner to expedite matters.
Appendix 2
Key Activity in Non-Residential Cases Considered (as at November 2015)
Note: this is not an exhaustive list of cases, as some issues legally sensitive and
therefore not for publication.
Property
Tyre Storage
Tattersett
Business Park
Issue
Long term storage of
c600,000 tyres, giving
rise to environmental
risk.
Action
The site received a Planning Refusal for
continued storage of the tyres in 2013
Site owner has applied for Planning
permission for a tyre recycling plant to
process the stored tyres and further
feedstock.
Planning Enforcement Notice served for
phased removal of tyres over three years.
NCC granted Planning approval for tyre
shredding plant
Associated Permit under consideration by
the Environment Agency.
Planning appeal date currently awaited.
Star Yard,
Fakenham
Dilapidated garage in
dangerous condition
detracting from
neighbourhood amenity
Survey
and
costing
information
completed.
s79 Building Act Notice (Dangerous
Structures,
Dilapidated
Sites
and
Unsecure Premises) served June 2013.
Works not completed.
Tenders progressed for required works in
default but delayed by change of
ownership.
Works in Default now under reconsideration and quotes being obtained.
4A Market
Street, North
Walsham, and
adjacent toilet
block.
Long term (over 10
years) derelict property
in prime position,
detracting from local
amenity.
Toilets previously
transferred to current
owner to assist
development.
Survey
and
costing
information
completed.
s79 Building Act Notice (served January
2014.
Owner has confirmed he will demolish
property, but cannot develop it out.
Demolition completed September 2014.
Cabinet approval to acquire the site and
landscape for public use received
November 2014.
Valuation and conveyance completed
April 2015.
Landscaping
of
site
now
being
completed,
including
provision
of
improved drainage to adjacent properties.
Estimated completion date January 2016
due to materials availability.
164
Buildings
adjacent to 4A
Market Street,
North
Walsham
As a result of work
above, numerous
property defects
exposed to
neighbouring properties
which will detract from
local amenity.
Potentially Dangerous
structure that is
dilapidated and also of
important historic status
as a Listed Building
Ongoing discussions with owners, with
likely notices required under combination
of Planning (Conservation Areas) and
Pest Control legislation.
Former
Shannocks
Hotel,
Sheringham
Long term empty
property in poor
condition in prime
location.
Enforcement action under Planning
legislation s215 has secured some minor
work but still non-compliant
Structural survey and valuation
completed.
Successful prosecution for noncompliance July 2015.
Cabinet approval for voluntary offer and if
unsuccessful CPO, September 2015
Property professionals appointed and
ongoing negotiation with owner for
voluntary sale.
Laundry Loke
North
Walsham
Derelict partially
cleared industrial site.
Potential danger from
unauthorised access,
loss of local amenity.
Buildings
Adjacent to
Kings Head
Hotel,
Hoveton
Long term empty
commercial buildings,
in poor condition,
detracting from local
amenity in prime
tourism site
Fencing being attended to, to prevent
access, all loose material being removed
from site.
Further works agreed for site but held in
abeyance pending planning application.
Works have been completed.
Changes in ownership delayed progress
but condition survey and access ordered
for June/July 2015 to ascertain position
regarding structural and dilapidation
issues, with a view to serving Building Act
Notice requiring renovation/demolition.
Liaising with Broads Authority on planning
matters.
Works to improve property to a basic
Sutton Mill
Initial Building Act (public safety)
involvement from Environmental
Protection. Subsequent Conservation
Team input to oversee work.
Mill cap removed and temporary cap
installed September 2014.
Ongoing Conservation work to achieve
restoration.
Owners have been given until 30th April
2016 to complete recording/survey work,
apply for permission/consent and to carry
out enabling works. They then have until
30th April 2017 for full reinstatement. In
the event of progress not being made, a
Listed Building Enforcement Notice will
be served.
New owners in late 2015, but timeline as
originally planned.
165
amenity standard completed September
2015.
Dream Lodge
Caravan Site,
North
Walsham
Numerous issues
around Health and
Safety, Caravan Site
Licensing and
unauthorised
development.
1-4 Maryland,
Wells next the
Sea
Long Term Empty
Commercial units in
poor condition
Environmental Health Officers have
visited and secured necessary safety
improvements.
Retrospective Planning Applications
received in respect of unauthorised
development, currently under
consideration.
Valuation survey completed.
Unlikely to be able to use CPO powers.
Recent contact with Wells Coastal
Community Partnership indicates that
buildings may be brought back into
commercial use.
166
Appendix 3
Compulsory Purchase of 37 Beeston Road, Sheringham
Summary:
This report makes the case for compulsory purchase of
the above property, which has been empty in excess of 10
years.
Options
This property has been empty for a considerable period.
Various methods of improving the property and/or bringing
the property back into use have been explored.
The Enforcement Board initially considered the property
suitable for an Empty Dwelling Management Order
(EDMO) but following the grant of probate the property
was registered for Council Tax purposes as a second
home which negated this as an option
Since 2005 Environmental Services have responded to
concerns about rats, possible dangerous chimney
structure and invasive brambles and garden affecting
neighbouring properties.
The family solicitors have repeatedly assured the Council
that the property would be marketed for sale once probate
was granted but the process of obtaining probate was
protracted and after pressure from eastlaw, the Council
was informed that probate had been granted in April 2015.
Subsequently, there is no evidence of the owners intention
to bring the property to the open market for sale.
Therefore without intervention by the Council the property
is unlikely to be returned to use in the near future.
This report proposes that the Council applies to the
Secretary of State for a Compulsory Purchase Order
because without such an order the property is unlikely to
be voluntarily returned to use by the owners in the near
future.
Prior to seeking an order, the Council would be expected
to have attempted to reach a voluntary agreement for sale
with the current owners, which would be based on an
independent market valuation.
It may be possible to enter into an arrangement with a
purchaser for a back to back sale following compulsory
purchase. If not, then once acquired, the property would
be sold on the open market by the method likely to attract
greatest interest from potential developers.
167
Recommendations:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. That the purchase will be funded from capital
resources from which virement of the necessary
funds is authorised.
5.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To cap the CPO costs at the valuation level plus
the CPO application costs at the upper limit of
£35,000.
1. There 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.
2. 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.
3. As for 2 above.
4. To make the necessary financial provision for
purchase.
5. To ensure CPO remains a cost effective option.
Please note that the above recommendations have been transferred to the first page of the
main report.
2.
Introduction
2.1
The Council’s Empty Homes Policy states that effective use of existing housing
stock is key to achieving the stated ambition that ‘Everyone in North Norfolk should
have the opportunity to buy or rent a decent home at a price they can afford, in a
community where they want to live and work.’
2.2
There are currently 500 long-term empty properties within North Norfolk. Long-term
empty properties are defined as those empty for 6 months or more.
168
2.3
37 Beeston Road, Sheringham has been empty since December 2005 when the
previous owner passed away.
2.4
In accordance with the Empty Homes Policy, the Council has considered various
actions and made repeated attempts to engage the beneficiaries, through the
solicitors, in consideration of a range of alternative actions to return the property to
effective use.
2.5
The solicitors, acting on behalf of the estate have been slow to progress probate and
subsequently appear to have taken no steps to bring the property to market as they
have insisted is their intention.
2.6
The solicitors have requested that Council Tax debts are set aside until the property
is sold. However, officers on the Enforcement Board believe that the solicitors have
been given ample time to bring the property to market, or to renovate the property,
neither of which actions have occurred.
2.7
The Council has not yet commissioned a valuation report on the property but
an
estimate value of £125,000, used in the calculation of costs, is consistent with
evidence
supplied through the reputable online property site Right Move.
If the recommendations
in this report are approved a formal independent
valuation will be secured prior to making
a voluntary offer to purchase the
property.
3.
The Case for Compulsory Purchase (CPO)
3.1
Section 17 of the 1985 Housing Act states:
A local authority can acquire:

A house, or houses, for the provision of improvement of housing
accommodation (whether by itself or someone else),
but the action must achieve a quantitative or qualitative housing gain
3.2
There is an obvious quantitative gain in compulsorily acquiring this property in North
Norfolk, where it is widely accepted that there is a shortage of housing.
3.3
The long-term nature of the property’s empty status, along with the reticent nature of
the owners and a lack of viable cost effective alternatives, mean a Compulsory
Purchase Order is the approach most likely to deliver the Council’s preferred
outcome of bringing the property back into occupation.
3.4
Compulsory Purchase Orders can take a significant amount of time to progress to
approval stage by the Secretary of State but if approved give Council a greater
influence on the outcome than other approaches.
3.5
A range of considerations will be made by the Secretary of State, including public
interest and human rights, but officers believe that this property satisfies the relevant
criteria on all accounts.
4
Financial Implications and Risks
There will be costs attributable to a CPO. However, based on the initial estimated
valuation and potential equity in the property, it is likely that most, if not all, of the
costs attributable to a CPO in this case could recovered by the resale of the
property.
The level of costs will depend on relevant objections to the Secretary of State once
we have submitted our CPO and obviously, any Public Inquiry would make CPO
more expensive and extend the process. The cost of the CPO, assuming the worst
case of an Inquiry, will be the purchase price plus £25,200 - £35,200, depending on
the form of Inquiry the Secretary of State decides, if any.
169
The law states that owners whose properties are the subject of a CPO are entitled
to a Basic Home loss payment which is typically 7.5% of the sale value. In the case
of the owners accepting a voluntary offer, the Council will only incur the normal
costs of purchase.
Compulsory purchase of this property will see the property being sold on the open
market to replace the capital resources used for this scheme. The return to use of
the property will also accrue New Homes Bonus to the Council.
The resale of the property will be dependent on the housing market and the
timescale for such will have cost liability implications should there be any delays.
5
Sustainability
The bringing back of empty properties represents a far more sustainable use of
resources and land.
This property occupies a prominent location close to the town centre and taking
action that will lead to the property being refurbished and reoccupied it will make a
significant regeneration contribution to the town.
6.
Equality and Diversity
The Courts recognise that English CPO law and procedure complies with the
European Convention on Human Rights. The Council, in pursuing this course of
action, has considered the balance to be struck between individual rights and the
wider public interest. Interference with human rights, if any, is justified in terms of
the benefits that the action would have for the community as a whole.
Empty homes are a wasted resource and have the potential to adversely affect local
housing markets. This proposed course of action will bring on to the market, a
property that has been empty for many years and will create a housing opportunity
that has been denied to households seeking housing.
7.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
Empty homes have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the neighbourhood
and can attract vandalism; fly tipping and other forms of anti-social behaviour as well
as reducing the value of the adjoining properties. This proposed course of action will
reduce the possibility of unauthorised entry, the risk of injury and criminal damage
and the general unsightliness issues which have been raised to various departments
of the Council.
8.
Conclusion
The Council has made significant efforts along the way to engage the owners and
encourage them to take action to bring this property back into use. Efforts to engage
the owners have proved unsuccessful and after considering and discounting all other
legislative options officers believe Compulsory Purchase Order is the most likely way
to ensure this long-term empty property is returned to use.
170