Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
25 September 2014
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 Monday 6th October 2014 at 10.00am
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours
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 must 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: Mr B Cabbell-Manners, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr J Lee, Mr W Northam,
Mr R Oliver, Mr G Williams, Mr R Wright
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 1)
To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 08
September 2014.
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.
INTERNAL AUDIT CONTRACT
(attached – p.5)
Summary:
The Council‟s Internal Audit function is provided as part of
the Norfolk Internal Audit Consortium. The management
service is provided by South Norfolk and the core service
(audit days) are provided by an external provider, Mazars.
The procurement for the new contract is underway and in
order that the timescales can be met, this report is seeking
delegated authority.
Options considered:
None
Conclusions:
In order that the timescales can be met and the new
contract be in place for April 2015, the report is
recommending delegated authority be given for deciding to
support the contract award and the provision of the
management service.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet delegate the decision regarding the
provision of Internal Audit Services to the Head
of Finance in consultation with the Portfolio
Holder for Finance.
Cabinet Decision
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
10.
To ensure that the procurement timescales for award of
Internal Audit contract can be met.
Councillor W Northam
All
Karen Sly
01263 516243
karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
CAR PARK ORDER - RESULTS OF CONSULTATION PROCESS
(page 7)
(Appendix A – p.13)
Summary:
At the request of Cabinet, officers prepared a report in June
2014 covering car park management and pricing with a view to
helping support local businesses. Cabinet recommended the
following;
a)
b)
c)
removal of the evening charge from 6:00 pm
allowing £5 (24hr) pay and display tickets to be
transferable to other P&D car parks
to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer, in
consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Assets and the
Section 151 Officer, to agree the free parking
arrangements
Subsequently the legal process of preparing and advertising
the variation to the 2012 Car Park Order (CPO) took place.
Members also requested that Mundesley Road car park in
North Walsham now be included within the order as a pay and
display car park following the decision for the Council not to
operate free car parks.
The closing date for receipt of objections in relation to the CPO
consultation process was 1 September 2014, 6 objections
were received. No objections were received in relation to the
proposals to remove the evening charges or to the introduction
of free parking. This report therefore considers those
objections raised in relation to Mundesley Road car park and
also considers potential resurfacing options for this car park.
Options considered:
The following options are considered within the paper;
a)
b)
c)
d)
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Cabinet Decision
Reasons for
Recommendations:
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
Make no changes to the CPO variation and approve the
making of the variation order
Introducing pay and display on Mundesley Road car park
in North Walsham without undertaking any improvement
works
Introducing pay and display On Mundesley Road car
park in conjunction with improvements to the car park
surface (tarmac) at an estimated cost of £95,000
Introducing pay and display On Mundesley Road car
park in conjunction with improvements to the car park
surface (Gridforce) at an estimated cost of £70,000
Members may consider that the objections raised in relation to
Mundesley Road do not constitute substantive reasons for not
bringing the order into force.
Further consideration should be given to making improvements
to the surface at Mundesley Road car park as part of the
introduction of pay and display.
a) That the Cabinet makes the draft order without
modification so that the order comes into effect at
midnight on 30 October 2014.
b) That re-surfacing works (Gridforce – option 2) are
undertaken on Mundesley Road car park in North
Walsham and a capital budget of £70,000 (funded
by capital receipts) is approved to undertake these
works.
The Council is required, as part of the CPO consultation
process, to consider any objections received. The objections
received are all in relation to the introduction of pay and display
charges on Mundesley Road car park in North Walsham. The
recommendations will allow the implementation of the removal
of the evening charges and the introduction of free 30 minute
parking bays. Resurfacing Mundesley Road car park will
improve the parking facilities available within North Walsham
as the current unmade surface suffers badly during periods of
adverse weather conditions.
Councillor R Oliver
All
Duncan Ellis
01263 516330
duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
11.
TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE AND STATION APPROACH TOILETS,
SHERINGHAM – EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM NORTH NORFOLK RAILWAY
(page 17)
Summary:
Following discussions with officers around alternative means of
service provision, an Expression of Interest (EoI) has been
received from North Norfolk Railway PLC (NNR), as part of a
wider project, to provide and manage the Sheringham Tourist
Information Centre (TIC) and new public toilets at Station
Approach, Sheringham, at an apparent saving to the Council of
c£47,000 per annum.
As the EoI meets the criteria laid down in the Localism Act, the
Council is required to consider it and to allow other potential
providers to also make an EoI if they feel that they could also
provide the service. It is proposed that this will be done by way
of a tender process.
Options considered:
The Council is obliged to accept an Expression of Interest for
consideration.
Assuming the challenge process is completed, options will then
include the Council continuing to run the services concerned, or
choosing to discontinue, in whole or part to run these services.
Conclusions:
A formal Expression of Interest has been received in respect of
this proposal, which meets the relevant criteria, and the Council
is therefore required to give it proper consideration and
challenge. The best way to achieve this is via a tender process,
with any subsequent recommendation coming to Cabinet once
the process is complete.
Recommendations: That Cabinet approves subjecting the proposal from North
Norfolk Railway, to provide and manage the Tourist
Information Centre and Public Conveniences at Station
Approach, Sheringham, to a tender process by which to
Cabinet Decision
compare any alternative bids.
That following the Tender process a future report is
prepared by officers to make recommendations for the
provision of these services.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To provide a fair comparison of the EoI, as required by the
provisions of the Localism Act.
To provide for a future decision on the provision and
management of these services.
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)
Expression of Interest letter from NNR
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
12.
Councillor R Oliver
Councillor G Williams
Councillor R Wright
Sheringham
Nick Baker
01263 516221
nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EMPTY HOMES POLICY
Summary:
(page 21)
(Policy document – p.25)
The Council is committed to reducing the number of empty
homes across the District and has made significant progress
in this area over the past two years.
The Empty Homes Policy has been reviewed and updated to
reflect changes in operational practice in this area. It provides
a framework for work to bring empty homes in North Norfolk
back into use and sets out:
 why empty homes should be brought back into use
 the approaches which will be used to bring empty
properties back into use, including what advice and
support will be offered and when and what types of
enforcement action can be used
Options considered:
1. Do nothing. This option was discounted as empty homes
are a wasted resource and reduction of the number of
empty homes is a priority for the Council.
2. Maintain an Empty Homes Policy. This option was
adopted as it demonstrates the Council‟s commitment to
reducing the number of empty homes and sets out a clear
methodology to bring about this commitment, which will be
made publically available.
Recommendations 1.
2.
Cabinet
Decision
3.
That Cabinet notes the progress made in reducing
the number of Long Term Empty homes.
That Cabinet approves the revised Empty Homes
Policy
That Cabinet receives a report regarding
performance in this area on a six monthly basis.
To ensure Cabinet are informed to allow appropriate
decision making in this area of work.
To provide a framework document for future working
with reduced risk of challenge.
To ensure proper governance of a key work area.
Reasons for the
Recommendations
At July 2012 there were 887 residential properties across
North Norfolk, which at August 2014, the Council had reduced
to 496.
Conclusions:
The revised Empty Homes Policy provides a clear
methodology for the Council‟s approach to bringing empty
homes back into use. The Policy is supported by various
operational documents including the Council‟s Enforcement
Policy.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
13.
Councillor R Oliver
All
Nick Baker
01263 516221
nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
SHERINGHAM GANGWAY REFURBISHMENT FLAG PROJECT FOR INCLUSION
INTO THE CAPITAL PROGRAMME
(page 29)
Summary:
The Cabinet meeting of November 2013 approved the use of
£40,000 of funds from the sale of Lockerby Flats to be used to
draw drown match funding from the Marine Management
Organisation (MMO) Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG)
project for the refurbishment of the Sheringham fisherman‟s
gangway. This report provides further budget figures to enable
the scheme to be included in the NNDC capital programme.
Options considered:
Not Applicable.
Conclusions:
The resolution will allow the capital programme to be amended
to include the Sheringham Gangway Scheme.
Recommendations: Cabinet is requested to resolve:
Cabinet
Decision
14.
To include the Sheringham Gangway Refurbishment
Scheme into the capital programme with a budget of
£115,000, comprising of £40,000 from the receipt
from the sale of Lockerbie Flats, as agreed at the
Cabinet meeting of 4 November 2013 and the
remaining £75,000 from MMO grant.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The recommendation will enable the necessary capital budget to
be created to allow award of a construction contract.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officers,
telephone
and e-mail:
Councillor a Fitch-Tillett
Sheringham North
A McCloud & R Goodliffe
01263 516190, 01263 516321
andrew.mccloud@north-norfolk.gov.uk
rob.goodliffe@north-norfolk.gov.uk
SHERINGHAM WEST SEAWALL IMPROVEMENT COAST PROTECTION SCHEME
REVISED FINDING APPROVAL
(page 31)
Summary:
The Council has secured an opportunity to access
substantial funds from the Environment Agency in
order to undertake the Sheringham West Seawall
Improvement Coast Protection Scheme in this
financial year. This scheme would otherwise have
been delivered solely under the Council‟s revenue
works programme over a much longer timescale.
This report seeks approval to amend the capital
programme in recognition of the anticipated grant
and to delegate the award of the construction
contract, once tendered, in order to expedite the
commencement of the scheme to take advantage of
the funding opportunity.
Options considered:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Cabinet
Decision
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The alternative to this project (the existing, default
position) is the phased refurbishment of the seawall,
solely using the Council‟s revenue works budget.
This would fail to bring in extensive external funds
and would delay implementation of the scheme;
thus leaving this frontage vulnerable and not
releasing the revenue budget for use on other
schemes along the coast.
The Sheringham West Seawall Improvement
Scheme will secure a „Hold the Line‟ frontage for
the foreseeable future. The scheme is likely to
receive EA Grant in Aid, which will enable the works
to commence in a timely manner, providing
excellent financial value for the NNDC contribution
and relieving pressure on the revenue works budget
for future years, allowing resources to be deployed
in other locations.
Cabinet is asked to resolve:
a) to update the 2014/15 capital programme
budget for the Sheringham West Sea
Wall Improvement scheme to £804,000,
contingent upon Environment Agency
grant approval. To be financed from
£419,000 FCERM Grant in Aid funding,
£70,000 Local Levy contribution, the
existing £215,000 allocated capital
programme funding and subject to
recommendation b, £100,000 from the
allocated revenue programme.
b) To approve the revenue contribution to
capital of £100,000 from the Coast
protection revenue maintenance
programme.
c) to delegate authority to the Head of
Economic & Community Development for
the award of the construction contract in
consultation with the Coastal
Management portfolio holder.
To enable the timely development and
implementation of the coast protection project.
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)
Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant In Aid Project Appraisal
Report for Sheringham West Seawall Improvement Project.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officers,
telephone
and e-mail:
15.
Councillor a Fitch-Tillett
Sheringham North
A McCloud & R Goodliffe
01263 516190, 01263 516321
andrew.mccloud@north-norfolk.gov.uk
rob.goodliffe@north-norfolk.gov.uk
NEW PRINT SOLUTION – MULTI-FUNCTION DEVICES
Summary:
Options considered:
(page 35)
This report seeks the release of funding for the
procurement of a standardised print solution for the
Council as previously identified within the Business
Transformation Programme Plan.
A number of options have been considered:
 Continue with ad-hoc printer procurement
 Pay-per-copy printing contract
 Standardised Multi-Function device procurement
Conclusions:
The current printing, scanning and copying
arrangements are inconsistent in terms of their
remaining operational life, the facilities they provide
and the costs of running them.
The costs of printing within the council are significant
and because of the disparate devices and
technologies currently in use, there is the
opportunity to make significant savings by deploying
standard, multi-function devices.
The changes to the services and the Councils
structure which are expected in the next few years
will necessitate a flexible printing arrangement which
can be reconfigured and relocated as required. This
is best supported by purchasing the devices rather
than leasing them under the terms of a per-copy
charging contract.
In order to reduce the costs, a reporting tool is
required that will make the scale and cost of printing
visible throughout the council.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet approves the release of £60,000
from the previously approved Business
Transformation Programme funding to allow the
procurement of appropriate devices, and related
software.
That Cabinet delegates authority to the relevant
Corporate Director and s151 Officer in
consultation with the Portfolio Holder to procure
the goods and services required to implement
the new printing solution.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To provide the technology and reporting tools to
reduce printing costs.
To enhance the scanning capability of the Council.
This will help to reduce the volume of paper used by
the council and drive business efficiency.
To provide the baseline technology to support
delivery of the efficiencies and improvements
resulting from the Business Process Re-Engineering
which will follow.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
16.
Councillor G Williams
Councillor R Oliver
All
Sean Kelly
01263 516276
sean.kelly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EGMERE BUSINESS ZONE PROJECT
(page 40)
(Plan – p.45) ( Exempt Appendix – p.46)
* Exempt Appendix not for publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972
This report considers how the District Council might take a
lead role in facilitating development of land covered by the
Egmere Local Development Order through opening up a
small area of land through the provision of road and utility
infrastructure so as to provide “development ready” sites for
development by third parties.
Summary:
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, if successful in attracting external sources of finance,
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.
That Cabinet agrees 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.
Recommendations:
Cabinet
Decision
Tha
in agreeing the above, Cabinet authorises officers to:
Obtain cost estimates for the provision of
utility services into the proposed Phase 1
development area
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
17.

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, which
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
Councillor R Wright
Primarily Walsingham, but some implications for Priory ward
through use of facilities at the Port of Wells
Steve Blatch
01263 516232
steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
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.”
18.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 08 September 2014 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00pm.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr J Lee
Members Present:
Also attending:
Officers in
Attendance:
30.
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs H Cox
Mr P High
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W Northam
Mr R Oliver
Mr G Williams
Mr R Wright
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr D Young
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (SB) the Head of Finance,
the Chief Accountant, the Policy & Performance Management Officer,
the Communications Manager and the Democratic Services Team
Leader
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
31.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 7th July were approved as a correct record and
signed by the Chairman
32.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
33.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
34.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
Cabinet
1
08 September 2014
35.
MEMBER QUESTIONS
None received
36.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
None
37.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None
38.
COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT WORKING PARTY
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Chairman of the Council Tax
Support Working Party introduced this item. He said that the current council tax
support scheme had been reviewed by the Council Tax Working Party at their
meeting on 15th July 2014. It had been agreed that they would meet again in six
months to consider future options.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Wright and
RESOLVED
The Council continue with the current council tax support scheme for a further 12
months.
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel meeting held on 15
March 2014.
39.
MEMBER DEVELOPMENT GROUP
RESOLVED
To receive the notes of the Member Development Group meeting held on 24 June
2014.
40.
APPOINTMENT TO PLUMSTEAD PARISH COUNCIL
The Leader introduced this item. He explained that Plumstead Parish Council had
recently become inquorate following resignation of a parish councillor. The temporary
appointment of a District Councillor to Plumstead Parish Council would enable them
to become quorate and co-opt a new member.
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr J Perry-Warnes to Plumstead Parish Council
Cabinet
2
08 September 2014
Reason for the decision:
.
41.
To enable Plumstead Parish Council to achieve quoracy and enable them to
co-opt a new member
BUDGET MONITORING PERIOD 4
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced this item. He said that it was
an encouraging report following the financial impact of the storm surge in December
2013. He explained that the 2014/15 Budget included planned spend of £958,750 to
be funded by insurance claims, allocated funding from the General Reserve and the
balance of the severe weather recovery scheme grant. The grant had now been
received and Mr Northam thanked the Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick for all his hard work in
lobbying Government for funds. He also thanked officers for their continued support
and hard work.
Mr Northam concluded by informing members that the revenue budget was showing
an estimated full year underspend for the current financial year of £85,423.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr G Williams and
RESOLVED to
1) note the contents of the report and the current budget monitoring position.
2) to agree the updates to the Capital Programme.
Reason for the decision:
To update members on the current budget monitoring position for the Council
42.
FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2015/16 TO 2017/18
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced this item. He explained that
the Financial Strategy set out the challenges and internal budget pressures for the
next 3 years. He explained the current financial forecast presented a funding gap for
the next three years of just over £1.2m by 2017/18.
Mr Northam went on to state that the financial forecast had been updated for a
number of service variances including car parking income, land charges and
business rates. Regarding the latter, the 2013/14 outturn position to retained
business rates showed a favourable variance and the forecasts assumed that this
position would be maintained for the period of the financial projections.
Mr Northam concluded by stating that the Council was in a good financial position
going forward despite the impact of the storm surge in December 2013.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr G Williams and
RESOLVED to
a) Note the current financial forecast for the period 2015/16 to 2017/18;
b) Note the current capital funding forecasts;
Cabinet
3
08 September 2014
Recommend to Council:
a) Continuation of the current Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2015/16;
b) That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme grant for parishes be offered to
those parish and town councils that accepted the grant in 2014/15 and the total
amount available is reduced in line with the Council’s relative funding
reductions as outlined at section 2.8.5;
c) The revised reserves statement as included at Appendix E to the financial
strategy;
Reason for the decision:
To update members with the current financial position of the authority and the current
financial strategy for addressing the funding shortfall and also to ensure timely
decisions can be made to inform the detailed work on the budget for 2015/16 which
will be commencing in the coming months.
43.
MANAGING PERFORMANCE QUARTER 1 2014/15
The Leader introduced this item. He said that the majority of the activities in the
Annual Action Plan 2014/15 were on track or progressing to plan. There were a few
performance issues in achieving targets but there would be prompt action to address
these. He concluded by welcoming the progress being made.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED to
1. Note the report, welcome the progress being made and endorse the actions
laid out in Appendix F being taken by management where there are areas of
concern.
2. Approve the target for performance indicator C 007 Target response time to
fly tipping and all other pollution complaints (within 2 working days) be set at
80%.
Reason for the decision:
To ensure the objectives of the Council are achieved
Before the meeting closed. Mr W Northam expressed his thanks to all staff involved
in the recent Greenbuild event at Felbrigg Hall. Mr T FitzPatrick and Mrs A FitchTillett agreed and thanked everyone for their support – including the exhibitors,
sponsors and the public who had attended.
The Meeting closed at 2.14 pm
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
4
08 September 2014
Agenda Item No_____9_______
INTERNAL AUDIT CONTRACT
Summary:
The Council’s Internal Audit function is provided as part
of the Norfolk Internal Audit Consortium. The
management service is provided by South Norfolk and
the core service (audit days) are provided by an external
provider, Mazars. The procurement for the new contract
is underway and in order that the timescales can be
met, this report is seeking delegated authority.
Options considered:
None
Conclusions:
In order that the timescales can be met and the new
contract be in place for April 2015, the report is
recommending delegated authority be given for deciding
to support the contract award and the provision of the
management service.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1) Cabinet delegate the decision regarding the
provision of Internal Audit Services to the
Head of Finance in consultation with the
Portfolio Holder for Finance.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To ensure that the procurement timescales for award of
Internal Audit contract can be met.
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr W Northam
Ward(s) affected: All
Karen Sly, 01263 516243, karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Council is part of the Norfolk Internal Audit Consortium along with four
other districts and the Broads Authority. Under the consortium South Norfolk
provide the Internal Audit Management function and the core service, i.e.
audit plan days are delivered by an external contractor Mazars. The current
contract is due to end in March 2015.
1.2
A procurement process is underway for the future provider of the Internal
Audit service for the Consortium members to commence in April 2015. In
order that the timescales of the procurement process can be met, including
the award of the contract this report is seeking delegated authority be given to
the Head of Finance in consultation with the Cabinet member for Resources.
5
2.
Background
2.1
The Council has been a member of the Norfolk Internal Audit Consortium
since 2008. During this time the core service, i.e. the annual Internal Audit
Plan days have been provided by an external contractor, Mazars (formerly
Deloittes) and the day to day management of the contract and provision of
Internal Audit Management function provided by South Norfolk.
2.2
The procurement for a new contract is underway and includes both the core
service and the management service. The new contract will be for a period of
five years with the option to extend for up to two years.
2.3
Following the evaluation stage the preferred bidder will be identified. It is then
for the members of the Consortium to decide whether they have the
management service provided by the preferred bidder or South Norfolk.
2.4
In order that the project timescales can be met, and to enable the mobilisation
of the new contract ahead of the 1 April 2015 commencement date, there will
be a short timescale for the decision for award following the evaluation
process. Therefore this report is recommending delegated authority be given
in order that the timescales can be adhered to.
3.
Conclusion
3.1
In order that the procurement timetable can be met this report recommends
that the decision regarding the Internal Audit Management service and core
services from 2015/16 be delegated authority to the Head of Finance in
consultation with the portfolio holder.
4.
Financial Implications and Risks
4.1
Timescales – The current contract end date is March 2015. The procurement
process is currently on track to enable a new contract to come into operation
in April 2015, any delays in the process could result in some of the
consortium members being without an Internal Audit function.
4.2
Budget – Provision of the Internal Audit service is within the budget for
2014/15 onwards. It is not currently planned that the costs of the new contract
will exceed the current budget and it is anticipated that following the
procurement process the Internal Audit Consortium will be able to achieve
savings and efficiencies through the audit process without compromising risk.
5.
Sustainability – None as a direct consequence of the report.
6.
Equality and Diversity – None as a direct consequence of the report.
7.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations – None as a direct
consequence of the report.
6
Agenda Item No____10________
CAR PARK ORDER – RESULTS OF CONSULTATION PROCESS
Summary:
At the request of Cabinet, officers prepared a report in
June 2014 covering car park management and pricing
with a view to helping support local businesses. Cabinet
recommended the following;
a)
b)
c)
removal of the evening charge from 6:00 pm
allowing £5 (24hr) pay and display tickets to be
transferable to other P&D car parks
to delegate authority to the Chief Executive
Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for
Assets and the Section 151 Officer, to agree the
free parking arrangements
Subsequently the legal process of preparing and
advertising the variation to the 2012 Car Park Order
(CPO) took place.
Members also requested that Mundesley Road car park
in North Walsham now be included within the order as a
pay and display car park following the decision for the
Council not to operate free car parks.
The closing date for receipt of objections in relation to
the CPO consultation process was 1 September 2014, 6
objections were received. No objections were received
in relation to the proposals to remove the evening
charges or to the introduction of free parking. This report
therefore considers those objections raised in relation to
Mundesley Road car park and also considers potential
resurfacing options for this car park.
Options considered:
The following options are considered within the paper;
a)
b)
c)
d)
Conclusions:
Make no changes to the CPO variation and
approve the making of the variation order
Introducing pay and display on Mundesley Road
car park in North Walsham without undertaking
any improvement works
Introducing pay and display On Mundesley Road
car park in conjunction with improvements to the
car park surface (tarmac) at an estimated cost of
£95,000
Introducing pay and display On Mundesley Road
car park in conjunction with improvements to the
car park surface (Gridforce) at an estimated cost
of £70,000
Members may consider that the objections raised in
relation to Mundesley Road do not constitute
substantive reasons for not bringing the order into force.
Further consideration should be given to making
7
improvements to the surface at Mundesley Road car
park as part of the introduction of pay and display.
Recommendations:
Cabinet propose the following;
a) That the Cabinet makes the draft order without
modification so that the order comes into effect
at midnight on 30 October 2014.
b) That re-surfacing works (Gridforce – option 2)
are undertaken on Mundesley Road car park in
North Walsham and a capital budget of £70,000
(funded by capital receipts) is approved to
undertake these works.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The Council is required, as part of the CPO consultation
process, to consider any objections received. The
objections received are all in relation to the introduction
of pay and display charges on Mundesley Road car park
in North Walsham. The recommendations will allow the
implementation of the removal of the evening charges
and the introduction of free 30 minute parking bays.
Resurfacing Mundesley Road car park will improve the
parking facilities available within North Walsham as the
current unmade surface suffers badly during periods of
adverse weather conditions.
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;
Cllr Rhodri Oliver
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Duncan Ellis (Head of Assets and
Leisure), 01263 516330, duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
At the request of Cabinet, officers prepared a report in June 2014 covering
car park management and pricing. Officers were asked to review the current
charging structure based on a Cabinet request to help support local
businesses. The report considered the current pricing arrangements for the
Council’s car parks and made recommendations for changes for the 2014/15
financial year. Cabinet recommended the following;
a)
b)
c)
removal of the evening charge from 6:00 pm
allowing £5 (24hr) pay and display tickets to be transferable to other
P&D car parks
to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with
the Portfolio Holder for Assets and the Section 151 Officer, to agree
the free parking arrangements
1.2
Subsequently the legal process of preparing and advertising the variation to
the 2012 Car Park Order (CPO) took place.
1.3
It was considered that the best way to manage provision of free spaces was
to provide 3 free 30 minute parking bays at each of the following sites;
8

Sheringham (Morris Street), Cromer (The Meadow), Fakenham
(Bridge Street), Stalham (High Street), North Walsham (Bank Loke),
Holt (Albert Street) and Wells-next-the-Sea (Staithe Street)
1.4
These locations covered the 7 main towns and these car parks were selected
as representing the best location in connection to the town centres.
1.5
During 2011 Members took the decision not to continue to provide free
parking. As a result of this decision a charging regime was agreed for
Mundesley Road and Midland Road in North Walsham and Highfields in
Fakenham and this was included within the CPO following the Council
meeting at the end of December 2011.
1.6
However a number of objections were received as part of the consultation
process regarding the removal of these free car parks. It was therefore
decided to suspend the enforcement on these car parks pending further
discussions with the town councils regarding future management
arrangements.
1.7
Following a period of negotiation with both North Walsham and Fakenham
Town Councils the car parks at Midland Road (North Walsham) and
Highfields (Fakenham) were successfully transferred to the respective town
councils under lease arrangements. Unfortunately terms could not be agreed
with North Walsham town council in relation to Mundesley Road and therefore
the proposal was for this car park to cease being provided on a free basis.
1.8
The statutory process for making a CPO requires a local authority to allow at
least 21 days for any person to make a written objection to the draft proposals
and to place the draft proposed order and existing parking places orders on
deposit for public inspection during the objection period. At the end of the
objection period, a Council’s duty is to ‘consider all objections duly made and
not withdrawn’ and before making the final order a local authority may modify
the order in consequence of the objections. This report provides Members
with a summary of the objections, which are included within Appendix A.
2.0
Objections
2.1
The period for objections ran from 8 August to 1 September 2014. In total 6
letters/emails were received all of which were in relation to the proposal to
introduce pay and display requirements on Mundesley Road car park in North
Walsham. Objections were received from 1 local resident, 3 local Members,
North Walsham Town Council and North Walsham Chamber of Trade.
2.2
There were no specific objections received regarding the removal of evening
charges or in relation to the provision of the free 30 minute parking bays.
2.3
As part of completing the CPO process pre-consultation must be undertaken
with statutory consultees including the Highway Authority, Police and the 2
main haulage associations. There were no objections received from any of
the statutory consultees. A file and schedule containing copies of the
objections has been placed on deposit in the Members’ room.
2.4
The objections received are included within Appendix A for further
consideration by Members.
9
3.
Mundesley Road surface
3.1
Mundesley road car park, situated in North Walsham, is a rough surfaced site
of approximately 1,800m2 which permits the parking of between 60-80
vehicles in un-marked bays. To date the car park has been designated as a
free car park offering up to 3 hours free parking for users between 8am and
6pm.
3.2
Up until 1958, the site formed part of a gas works site which has caused ongoing concerns, issues and investigations. In March 2009 the NNDC
Environmental Health team investigated contamination issues. This lengthy
monitoring process concluded in July 2011 ruling the site showed
contamination levels to not be hazardous to health but any future site works
had to be mindful of the reported issues concerning the tar pit and site
drainage.
3.3
Of the objections raised in relation to the pay and display proposals for
Mundesley Road, 4 out of the 6 objections include comments in relation to the
poor surface of the current car park.
3.4
Members could consider resurfacing this car park in conjunction with the
introduction of the pay and display charges. Two resurfacing options are
provided below for further consideration.
Option i)
To lay a hard stone mastic asphalt surface suitably lined for
approximately 60 spaces. The required sub base excavation is
achievable but the surface water drainage is a potential problem as
Anglian Water will not allow a connection into their nearest combined
sewer. It may be possible to apply to the Environment Agency to
install a bore hole through the contaminated land into the aquifer
substrate (permeable rock) where the water would naturally drain
away and connect a surface water drainage system to it. However,
preliminary enquiries with the EA in relation to this proposal have not
been particularly positive and it is suspected they may have issues
with the plan of boring through the contaminate. It would however
totally encapsulate the contaminated land therefore eliminating any
possible discharge of contaminated dust.
Budget cost estimates for this scheme are in the region of £90,000
(£75k works, £10k drainage and boring, £5k drainage). The works
would require the car park to be closed for 4 weeks. On-going
maintenance requirements would be similar to other asphalt car park
surfaces subject to a sufficient sub base. The estimated lifespan
would be in the region of 20+ years.
Option ii)
To lay a Gridforce system which would also accommodate
approximately 60 spaces. There would be a requirement to excavate
to a depth of 300mm which is achievable (previous investigations
have revealed it would be safe to excavate down to a depth of 600mm
without any issues in relation to contamination). The main benefit of
this system is that surface water will naturally drain away. After
installation and operation the surface may need recharging with stone
as there is a period of settlement. The plastic matting system and
stone are recycled and if the car park was ever to be disposed of the
matting and stone could be removed and reused elsewhere. If the
plastic mats show signs of wear they can just be simply replaced like
10
carpet tiles and the stone replenished. This system has been
successfully installed at the Happisburgh car park which has been
operational for approximately 2 years.
Budget cost estimates for this scheme are in the region of £65,000.00,
as with option 1 the works would take approximately 4 weeks to
complete during which time the car park would need to be closed. The
estimated lifespan is similar to that of the asphalt subject to correct
recharging of stone as required.
3.5
For both options it is recommend that the entrance be widened by 2m to allow
two vehicles to pass. It would then be possible to install bollards to create in /
out routes and lessen the concentration of traffic flow to one specific area as
well as removing the existing splayed concrete entrance ramp making the
new surface extend up to the pavement boundary. By doing this it would be
possible to reduce the gradient on entering the car park therefore lessening
the downward impact on the surface.
3.6
Initial discussions have been held with Highways regarding widening the
splayed entrance and it has been confirmed that as the existing drop kerb is
6.0m wide it is already sufficient so no further consent would be required from
them and there would be no requirement for a planning application.
3.7
It would be advisable to add a general contingency of £5k for each scheme,
this would make the estimated costs of the tarmac surface (option 1)
approximately £95k and the Gridforce solution (option 2) £70,000. Due to the
lower cost and the drainage issues the recommended option is for installation
of the Gridforce surfacing (option 2).
4.
Conclusion
4.1
Members may consider the objections received do not raise substantive
reasons for not introducing the CPO. The objections received all relate to the
introduction of pay and display on Mundesley Road in North Walsham. As
discussed above 4 out of the 6 objections make comment in relation to the
poor surface of the current car park so Members may wish to consider
improving the surface of this car park.
4.2
If the CPO is approved it is anticipated that the changes will come into effect
from 31 October 2014.
5.
Implications and Risks
5.1
If the CPO variation is not agreed there is a risk that the introduction of the
removal of the evening charges and provision of the free parking bays will be
delayed.
6.
Financial Implications and Risks
6.1
The financial implications and risks regarding the proposals were discussed in
detail within the June Cabinet report. If the decision is taken to resurface the
car park at Mundesley Road there will be a further financial implication as
these capital works will need to be funded from capital receipts and the works
included within the capital programme for 2014/15. The estimated capital
budget requirement is £70,000 if the Gridforce (option 2) solution is
undertaken.
11
6.2
It is difficult to estimate the income that is likely to be received from the
Mundesley Road car park as peoples parking habits will undoubtedly change
when the new regime is introduced. Using Vicarage Street in North Walsham
as a comparison, the net income (excluding capital charges) for this car park
for 2013/14 was c£23k. If it is assumed, using a conservative estimate, that
the usage at Mundesley Road will be approximately 25% that of Vicarage
Street then the annual income would be approximately £6k per annum.
6.3
It is anticipated that any additional revenue costs in relation to this car park
could be contained within current budgets.
7.
Sustainability
7.1
There are no sustainability issues arising directly from this report.
8.
Equality and Diversity
8.1
There are no equality and diversity issues arising directly from this report.
9.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
9.1
There are no crime and disorder issues arising directly from this report.
12
Car Park Order 2012 Variation 3
Representations Received
Appendix A
Total: 6
No 1
I understand that parking charges are to be levied for the car parks on Midland Road and
Mundesley Road in North Walsham.
Is this correct?
As a resident in North Walsham I am concerned that this will lead to more cars being parked
illegally to try and avoid paying the new parking charges. Therefore I would like to understand
what you are doing to mitigate this (over and above current civil enforcement measures) i.e. will
there be more frequent patrols?
Regards,
Local resident – North Walsham
No 2
As a North Walsham member in whose ward Mundesley Rd car park is located I wish to object
to the District Council’s proposal to introduce charges.
As the Council acknowledges in its own 2013 Car Parking Review and which was presented to
the Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee in May of this year this car park has been subject
to many issues and much discussion. The discussion in recent times has been around the
Council’s proposal to charge users of the car park. The case that has been made for this is that
it would bring about a consistency in approach with other Council car parks that charge,
generate income for the Council and cover the costs of maintaining the car park. None of these
grounds have merit and form the basis of my objection to charging which is as follows:
1) The existing retail and service offer in the town centre of North Walsham is not the same
as the coastal towns or the market towns of Holt and Fakenham. North Walsham faces
competition from its proximity to Norwich (good daytime transport links) and it is not a
visitor/tourist attraction like the coastal towns or Holt. It is a town centre which the
Council’s own studies in the last two years have shown is not attractive to
national/regional multiple retails chain/food outlets (unlike other North Norfolk town
centres) due to the smallness of the available premises and the relatively low customer
throughput. The town centre is therefore essentially an option for the small business/sole
trader and they need support to attract customers part of which is the availability of free
car parking. The challenge that this presents is reflected in the continual existence of
empty retail properties in prime town centre locations as is evidenced currently by the
empty premises that were the Health Food and Stead & Simpson shoe shops.
2) North Walsham town centre has significantly less designated free street car parking than
some other towns in the District and therefore needs free public car parking in the
vicinity of the town centre. The two town centre supermarket car parks cannot be
classified as free for public use as they are designated for supermarkets customers and
not users of the town centre.
3) No survey has ever been carried out by the Council of existing users of the Mundesley
Rd car park to determine who uses the car park and whether the users would be
prepared to pay. Quite simply it is not known whether there exists a customer base from
existing users who are willing to pay.
13
4) Mundesley Rd car park has an unmade surface which after any significant period of
rainfall leaves an uneven surface with puddles that can be large in size. To be useable
the car park surface has to periodically be repaired. It is proposed for such a car park
surface that the same inland tariff charge is introduced as other car parks in the town
centre with their hard (smooth) tarmacked surfaces with marked out car parking bays.
This inevitably raises the question of why anyone should want to pay to use Mundesley
Rd when for the same charge there exists nearby car parks with much better surfaces
and parking arrangements. Further, all of these car parks have been recognised by the
Council (2013 review) as having relatively low usage. In other words for car users who
want to pay to park plenty of good car parking spaces exist without them needing to use
Mundesley Rd.
5) No proper estimate has ever been produced on what income is forecast to be obtained
from charging at Mundesley Rd. The Council’s own 2013 review would suggest that this
could be very little. This is because the review recognises that there are car parking
spaces within the town centre available for persons who are willing to pay and further,
that usage as demonstrated by income has remained stable in recent years. It is
therefore highly likely that there will be no net income for the Council after maintenance
costs are taken into account. An alternative and more business like approach would be
for the Council to re-open negotiations with the Town Council about them contributing
towards the costs of running Mundesley Rd car park free of charge. (It is known to
Council officers that the reason the Town Council could not lease the car park as the
District preferred was because of the liabilities surrounding this site).
6) Charging at Mundesley Rd will have a negative impact for residents living in the vicinity
of the car park. Historically there have been problems for residents of cars being parked
in front of their properties making access difficult. This can only get worse with car users
not willing to use Mundesley Rd because of charging and instead parking in nearby
streets.
I wait with interest to learn of the Council’s decision on this matter and in any event would be
pleased to receive a response to my objections.
Cllr Eric Seward
(NNDC Member North Walsham North)
No3
I wish to object to the imposition of charges on the Mundesley Road car park in North Walsham.
My reasons for this is that whilst Lidls is closed, the amount of free parking in the town has been
drastically reduced and in the interests of the local tradesmen it should remain free at least until
Lidls car parking is back in use.
Ann Moore
(NNDC Member North Walsham West)
No 4
As Chairman of North Walsham for business I have been ask by members to rerate our
objection to planned charges on Mundesley Road car park {North Walsham}.
The reasons for our objections are
1) North Walsham is different to Tourist Towns and Fakenham and this difference effects
shopping habits.
2) North Walsham has a lower availability of on street parking compared to other towns in the
district. In most cases considerably lower
14
3) We have yet to see any study under taken by NNDC to show how the car park is currently
used and what the result of bringing in charges would have.
4) Considering that NNDC has informed us that current pay and display is under used it seems
strange that to bring in a rough surfaced car park into the pay and display system when other
tarmac car parks are under used.
5) The chamber believes that this move will not increase NNDC revenues rather lower them as
it will cause business to close and therefore less shoppers using the current pay and display.
The Chamber for Business would be interest to see any evidence to the contrary the council
has.
We have mention before that if the council could prove that Pay and Display on Mundesley
road would not effect the town then it would make sense given the state of the car park to bring
in a lower charge such as 20p an hour to encourage use of this rough surface car park, we have
not heard anything back from Cllr Oliver on this.
Regards
Nicholas Lee
Chairman
North Walsham Chamber for Business
www.nwcb.org.uk
No 5
I have been on holiday and am disappointed that there has been so little time to register a
comment.
I am glad to have met the 1st September deadline (just) but I am sure many will have missed
the opportunity to express an opinion. Can you explain what the sudden rush on this is? After all
it was first mooted in June, there has been time to properly consult.
Whilst I welcome the reduction in evening charges, I am very concerned about the proposal to
introduce charges at Mundesley Rd NW. This car park is poorly maintained and for much of the
year poses a hazard to vehicles using it - the potholes are so large that it is only suitable for off
road vehicles. I suspect that NNDC will attract claims for damages when it begins to charge
unless they regularly level the surface.
That NW has problems attracting consumers to its retail outlets is well known. It needs all the
help it can get. The businesses along the Mundesley Rd rely heavily on the car park. I have
visited all the outlets, the take away and restaurants, the wedding shop, the beauty salon and
the electrical retailer all state that much of their success is due to the proximity to the car park
and people 'popping in' for a few minutes to do their business. This trade will move out of town if
charges are applied to the local car park.
I urge you to reconsider or at least consult more widely on introducing charges at Mundesley
Rd.
Kind regards
Nigel Lloyd (NNDC Member North Walsham North)
15
No 6
On behalf of North Walsham Town Council, I must object in the strongest possible terms to
the way in which the consultation on revisions to charging policy affecting North Walsham's
District Council-owned car parks has been conducted.
Both I and District Councillor Eric Seward were surprised to learn, in a meeting with the North
Walsham Chamber for Business last Friday 22 August, that notices dated 8 August 2014 had
been placed in all local car parks advising of changes to local charging policy including the
introduction of charging at the Mundesley Road car park. While the Town Council is pleased
with the proposed changes to evening charging policy, it harbours serious concerns over the
issue of Mundesley Road car park.
You will of course be aware that the Town Council has previously voiced its objections to
charging being introduced at Mundesley Road car park, given that North Walsham is already
poorly served in terms of free parking facilities and that the car park itself is in a generally poor
state of repair. This has not changed.
The Town Council is extremely disappointed that the District Council, knowing these views,
opted not to hold further discussions with it prior to issuing the consultation on the changes. It
believes that this shows a lack of consideration and respect for the town and its elected
representatives. From my perspective, it is difficult to understand how this situation arose given
your stance on more open communications between the District and Town/Parish Councils.
Perhaps the issue of improving communications/relations between District and Towns/Parishes
is one that should be raised as an agenda item for the forthcoming meeting of North Norfolk
Town/Parish Clerks.
Having been able to read the notice at the Bank Loke car park yesterday (those at the other car
parks having been removed), my initial observation was that the notice itself is quite small, and
in small print - not something that is likely to draw attention to itself. It is also placed at knee
height, so is not in the most easily accessible location to allow car park users to read it.
It seems that the consultation process has been poorly conducted, at least in relation to North
Walsham. Acting in this way does not help the process of building bridges between councils
that we had previously discussed, and offsets some of the small successes achieved recently
(for example meeting with David Williams, openness to involving the Town Council in further
communications on planning issues such as Lidl in Yarmouth Road, sharing information on
dog control). The Town Council's view is that North Norfolk District Council should set aside
the above consultation, and rethink the decision to introduce charging on Mundesley Road car
park. Given this, I would urge you to consider seriously the Council's demand for an urgent
discussion with yourself and senior officials on these issues. You may wish to consider bringing
the North Walsham Chamber of Business into this discussion, as they too have serious
reservations about the plans.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Clancy (Town Clerk)
North Walsham Town Council
16
Agenda Item No_____11_______
TOURIST INFORMATION CENTRE AND STATION APPROACH TOILETS,
SHERINGHAM – EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM NORTH NORFOLK
RAILWAY
Summary:
Following discussions with officers around alternative
means of service provision, an Expression of Interest
(EoI) has been received from North Norfolk Railway
PLC (NNR), as part of a wider project, to provide and
manage the Sheringham Tourist Information Centre
(TIC) and new public toilets at Station Approach,
Sheringham, at an apparent saving to the Council of
c£47,000 per annum.
As the EoI meets the criteria laid down in the Localism
Act, the Council is required to consider it and to allow
other potential providers to also make an EoI if they feel
that they could also provide the service. It is proposed
that this will be done by way of a tender process.
Options considered:
The Council is obliged to accept an Expression of
Interest for consideration.
Assuming the challenge process is completed, options
will then include the Council continuing to run the
services concerned, or choosing to discontinue, in
whole or part to run these services.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
A formal Expression of Interest has been received in
respect of this proposal, which meets the relevant
criteria, and the Council is therefore required to give it
proper consideration and challenge. The best way to
achieve this is via a tender process, with any
subsequent recommendation coming to Cabinet once
the process is complete.
That Cabinet approves subjecting the proposal from
North Norfolk Railway, to provide and manage the
Tourist Information Centre and Public
Conveniences at Station Approach, Sheringham, to
a tender process by which to compare any
alternative bids.
That following the Tender process a future report is
prepared by officers to make recommendations for
the provision of these services.
17
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To provide a fair comparison of the EoI, as required by
the provisions of the Localism Act.
To provide for a future decision on the provision and
management of these services.
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)
Expression of Interest letter from NNR
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Rhodri Oliver
(Property & Assets)
Ward(s) affected
Sheringham (both wards)
Cllr Glyn Williams (Customer
Service)
Cllr R Wright (Tourism)
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker 01263 516221
nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Localism Act provides for interested bodies to approach the Council and
express an interest in running certain services. Such Expressions of Interest
(EoI) must comply with certain conditions concerning:
 Types of body allowed to apply
 Financial savings or improved value
 Economic, environmental or social benefits
Once an EoI is received, the Council is obliged to consider it and, if the EoI is
acceptable within the conditions above, the service must be put through a
challenge process, by tender or similar.
1.2
The Council has been considering a wide range of options for improving its
financial position, including discussions with bodies who may be able to meet
the required conditions and bring forward an EoI to allow them to run Council
services. This is especially the case for discretionary services such as Tourist
Information Centres (TICs) and public conveniences, where their local
importance is recognised, but long term funding is potentially more difficult
because of their discretionary nature. TICs were considered as part of this
process and a successful transfer of the service in Wells took place last year,
to the Wells Community Trust, with a revenue saving to the Council as a
result.
18
At members’ request, officers met with relevant bodies in Sheringham (the
Town Council, the North Norfolk Railway (NNR) and Upcher Partnership) in
Sheringham through 2013, in order to gauge potential interest in running the
Sheringham TIC.
The NNR provided the only positive response and came back to the Council
with an interest in both running the TIC and, as part of their wider
development plans, providing public toilets as well. This has subsequently
been the subject of a successful planning application for the required
development and the NNR has then worked up the proposal to provide the
EoI.
1.3
Through the period of discussion with the NNR, meetings have taken place
with the Sheringham Chamber of Trade and the Town Council to inform them
firstly of the proposal and, during the planning application process, to advise
on the likely operation if a formal bid came forward.
2.
The Proposal
2.1
The EoI contains NNR’s proposal, which is predicated on their obtaining
Coastal Communities Funding for a wider development of the North Norfolk
Railway offer. The NNR has got through to the second stage of the funding
process and already has Planning Approval for the proposed development of
the Sheringham station site.
2.2
The development approved would involve the NNR demolishing the existing
toilets and TIC and then rebuilding on most of the site and a small piece of
railway land, a new shop, office, TIC and toilet facility. This would allow better
use of the existing railway buildings and would provide the NNR, the future
ability to improve the locomotive turn around area at the eastern end of the
station.
2.3
The EoI proposes the NNR then running the TIC and the public conveniences
from April 2016, with a Service Level Agreement with the Council to provide
for minimum opening hours and any other operational standards required. In
return, the Council would provide a capital contribution and transfer the
current TIC/toilet site to the NNR.
2.4
The proposal recognises that the NNR has a special place within the tourism
offer in the District and suggests that the operation of the TIC within the NNR
building would be mutually beneficial for both the NNR and the wider tourism
economy.
3.
The Challenge Process
3.1
It is proposed that a tender specification is drawn up to allow the NNR, and
potentially other bidders, to now provide their business case/s in more detail.
Tenders would then be considered, and compared to the existing
arrangement, before a recommendation is brought to Cabinet later in this
financial year.
3.2
Cabinet approval is therefore sought to move this process forward.
19
4.
Conclusion
A formal Expression of Interest has been received in respect of this proposal,
which meets the relevant criteria, and the Council is therefore required to give
it proper consideration and challenge. The best way to achieve this is via a
tender process, with any subsequent recommendation coming to Cabinet
once the process is complete.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
At this stage of the process, there are no financial issues for the Council, as
the tender process can be contained within existing resources. However, the
proposal suggests that, in exchange for a capital contribution, an ongoing
revenue saving of £47,000 per annum will be achieved, assuming there are
no costs for either of the assets remaining with the Council. At this stage, the
ability of the NNR to deliver this has not been tested.
The size of the capital contribution required by the NNR will need to be
considered as part of the proposal and will be considered as part of the full
financial business case in any future report to Members following the tender
process.
5.2
In terms of other risks, there is understandable local sensitivity and a residual
reputational risk that the facilities may not be able to be run by the NNR, and
also that they may not be open for as long, or that facilities may not be to the
standard required. Such issues would be covered in the detailed proposal,
which will now be sought from interested bidders, and will be the subject of an
SLA and other contractual documents around asset transfer.
5.3
The proposed transfer of the Council’s property asset as part of the proposal
will also be detailed within any future report to Cabinet, in accordance with
the Asset Transfer Policy.
6.
Sustainability
There are no sustainability issues arising from this report.
7.
Equality and Diversity
The only Equality and Diversity issue arising will be the accessibility
requirements of any new facility and these will be covered in the Building
Regulation approval for the development.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
Again, any new building design will be expected to cover these points.
20
Agenda Item No____12________
Empty Homes Policy
Summary:
The Council is committed to reducing the number of
empty homes across the District and has made
significant progress in this area over the past two years.
The Empty Homes Policy has been reviewed and
updated to reflect changes in operational practice in this
area. It provides a framework for work to bring empty
homes in North Norfolk back into use and sets out:
 why empty homes should be brought back into
use
 the approaches which will be used to bring
empty properties back into use, including what
advice and support will be offered and when and
what types of enforcement action can be used
Options considered:
1. Do nothing. This option was discounted as empty
homes are a wasted resource and reduction of the
number of empty homes is a priority for the Council.
2. Maintain an Empty Homes Policy. This option was
adopted as it demonstrates the Council’s
commitment to reducing the number of empty
homes and sets out a clear methodology to bring
about this commitment, which will be made
publically available.
Recommendations
1.
2.
3.
Reasons for the
Recommendations
Conclusions:
That Cabinet notes the progress made in
reducing the number of Long Term Empty
homes.
That Cabinet approves the revised Empty
Homes Policy
That Cabinet receives a report regarding
performance in this area on a six monthly
basis.
To ensure Cabinet are informed so to allow
appropriate decision making in this area of work.
To provide a framework document for future
working with reduced risk of challenge.
To ensure proper governance of a key work
area.
At July 2012 there were 887 residential properties
across North Norfolk, which at August 2014, the Council
had reduced to 496.
The revised Empty Homes Policy provides a clear
methodology for the Council’s approach to bringing
21
empty homes back into use. The Policy is supported by
various operational documents including the Council’s
Enforcement Policy.
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Rhodri Oliver
Ward(s) affected All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker, 01263 516221 nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
At July 2012 there were 887 properties across North Norfolk which had been
empty for at least 6 months, with many empty for much longer. Whilst,
through the efforts of the Council, this number has reduced significantly, to
496 as at August 2014, there is still much to do in order to tackle this issue.
1.2
Empty Homes are a wasted resource, as there is a significant demand for
housing in North Norfolk.
1.3
In addition, empty properties are likely to deteriorate and attract anti-social
behaviour, in turn causing blight to local neighbourhoods.
1.4
Bringing empty homes back into use can therefore have a positive impact on
neighbourhoods and increase the supply of housing available in the district
when they are let or sold.
1.5
The reduction of the number of empty homes is a priority for the Council and
this is reflected in the Corporate Plan 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 or work.”
1.6
In addition, there are significant financial implications for bringing these
properties back into use, through the New Homes Bonus scheme, increased
Council Tax revenue, and for the local economy generally in improving the
housing stock across the district.
2.
Empty Homes Policy
2.1
The Empty Homes Policy sets out the Council’s approach to bringing empty
homes back into use. It is supported by a number of operational procedures
and the Council’s Enforcement Policy. Together these documents set out the
advice and assistance which will be provided to owners of empty homes and
when and what powers of enforcement will be considered and used in order
to bring empty homes back into use.
2.2
The original Policy was approved by Council in 2012. Advice from the
Monitoring Officer is that this was an unnecessary step and that the Policy, as
an operational document, can be approved by Cabinet, hence this report,
which seeks to update the Policy, now coming forward.
22
2.3
Many lessons have been learned in tackling Long Term Empty properties in
the interim, both in terms of data matching properties and from the
enforcement work which initially fell to the Enforcement Board and has, for
less complex properties, since been embedded far better within a number of
services across the Council.
As a result, the Policy document has been reviewed and updated to reflect
those lessons and accepted best practice in this field. It is attached at
Appendix 1.
2.4
The Empty Homes Policy has been designed as a document which will be
used by officers, members and members of the public and which will provide
some protection against challenge, as it shows a graduated approach to
advice, assistance and enforcement when dealing with empty properties.
2.5
It is proposed that a more formal reporting mechanism on this area of work
should be set up to monitor progress and that due to the overlap in
enforcement work, that this should be done alongside the six monthly update
on the work of the Enforcement Board, which will still take on many of the
more complex cases of empty properties.
3.
Options Considered
3.1 Do nothing. This option was discounted as empty homes are a wasted resource
and reduction of the number of empty homes is a priority for the Council.
Therefore some review and update is required.
3.2 Maintain an Empty Homes Policy. This option was adopted as it demonstrates
the Council’s commitment to reducing the number of empty homes and sets out a
clear methodology to bring about this commitment, which will be made publically
available.
4
Conclusion
At July 2012 there were 887 residential properties across North Norfolk, which at
August 2014, the Council had reduced to 496.
The revised Empty Homes Policy provides a clear methodology for the Council’s
approach to bringing empty homes back into use. The Policy is supported by
various operational documents including the Council’s Enforcement Policy.
5
Implications and Risks
The provision of an Empty Homes Policy sends a clear message to owners of
empty homes regarding the Council’s approach to bringing empty homes back
into use, including that the Council will take enforcement action, where
required.
Whilst there may be a reputational risk to the Council, especially where the
more serious legal powers are utilised, this is balanced against the need for
housing and the negative effects of local blight often caused by empty
properties.
23
6
Financial Implications and Risks
6.1
Bringing Long Term Empty Home back into use attracts New Homes Bonus,
as effectively, once an empty property is back in use, an additional home is
created. For each property, this is worth £6800 to the Council. Whilst future
governments may change or remove the New Homes Bonus Scheme, whilst it
exists, it forms an important revenue stream to the Council.
6.2
In order to maximise the number of properties brought back into use, the
income from this source Empty Properties Manager post has been created on
an invest to save basis, in order to co-ordinate the Council’s work in this area.
6.3
In addition, there is a large number of empty properties, which have been
taken out of Council Tax banding. When brought back into use, as well as the
positive social effects in terms of housing provision, reduced blight, etc, these
will also increase the revenue from Council Tax.
6.4
There are no financial implications related to the actual adoption of the Empty
Homes Policy, except where the Council takes certain enforcement action,
including carrying out works in default, where there will be an initial financial
cost which is normally recoverable as a charge against the property. This
relies on proper enforcement procedures being in place, alongside the
provision of appropriate legal advice.
7
Sustainability
Empty homes are a wasted resource and bringing empty homes back into use
will reduce demand and the need for additional new homes to be built. In most
cases, the re-use of a house provides a much more sustainable solution than
new build.
8
Equality and Diversity
There are no specific equality and diversity implications related to the Empty
Homes Policy, although the provision of housing is one of the key factors in
reducing health inequalities.
9
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
Bringing empty homes back into use often has a positive impact on
neighbourhoods by reducing opportunities for crime and disorder, local blight
and fear of crime.
24
North Norfolk Empty Homes Policy
Foreword
The Council has a 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.’
To achieve this, it is important that the existing housing stock is used as
efficiently as possible to meet the housing need and demand across the
district. An important part of the efficient use of the stock is ensuring that the
number of empty homes is as low as possible.
Properties become empty for a number of reasons and many are re-occupied
within a short period of time. However in August 2014, across North Norfolk,
there were 496 empty properties which had been empty for a period of at
least six months. These properties are the focus of this Policy, as many will
be or have been empty longer than they need to be, or will not be brought
back into use without the provision of advice, support or enforcement action.
What is an Empty Home?
The Council has defined an Empty Home as a property which is empty of
people and has been unoccupied for six months or more. This aligns with the
definition used in Council Tax legislation, which also feeds into the calculation
of the New Homes Bonus payments to the Council. This Policy will therefore
concentrate on bringing back into use empty homes which have been empty
for more than six months.
Why does a property become an empty home?
There are many reasons why a property becomes empty and is not brought
back into use, for example:
 Owner is in residential care and would wish to return (but often is
unable to do so)
 Owner has no clear use for the property
 Reluctance or inability to let or sell the property
 Unclear ownership or probate issues
 Being marketed for sale or rent at unrealistic asking price
 Property needs repair, improvement, refurbishment or complete
redevelopment
 Lack of funds to carry out any repairs or improvements needed
 Bankruptcy / repossession or abandonment
Why does it matter if a property is empty?
An empty property is a wasted resource; it is a property which is not meeting
the need or demand for housing in the district.
25
In many cases when a property is left empty for a period of time the condition
of the property deteriorates. This increases the costs of bringing the property
back into use and can make it unaffordable for owners to carry out the
required works. Once the cost of improvement works become unaffordable, it
becomes increasingly likely that the property will continue to deteriorate.
Once an empty property is in a poor state of repair, it will often become an
increasing concern to neighbours and frequently starts cause blight to the
local area. In some cases, an empty property in poor repair can cause repair
problems for adjoining properties, such as damp, or can attract rats and other
vermin. Some empty homes also attract anti-social behaviour.
Identifying Empty Homes
The Council will use a range of information to identify empty homes:
 Council Tax records – identification of all properties which have been
empty for at least 3 months and which have been empty for at least 6
months.
 Valuation Office and Council records on properties which are in such a
poor state that they are not charged Council Tax.
 Public reports of empty homes
 Complaints from members of the public, especially regarding local
blight caused by the property in question
The Council’s approach to reducing the number of Empty Homes
Summary
The Council wants to encourage and support the owners of empty homes to
bring their property back into use and so will work with owners to identify
reasons why a property is empty and which actions are needed to bring the
property back into use.
Working with the owner, the Council will then provide a range of information,
advice and support to assist the owner to return the property into use within
an agreed timescale.
However, where an owner of an empty home is not willing to work with the
Council to voluntarily bring the property back into use within a set timescale,
the Council will take appropriate enforcement action to ensure the property is
brought back into use.
Financial
In recognition of the fact that some dwellings will remain empty for a short
period as part of the normal operation of the housing market, the Council
provides a 3 month period where no Council Tax is charged on empty homes.
Once a property has been empty for 3 months, the full Council Tax charge is
applied. When an empty home has been empty for 2 years, the Council Tax
charges increases, as the Council imposes a financial levy of 50% of the
Council Tax charge, so the total charge then becomes 150%.
26
Advice and Assistance
The Council will explore all the options available to the owner, for example:
 Selling in the current condition
 Carrying out works prior to selling the property
 Carrying out works to enable the property to be lived in by the owner or
for it to be rented out.
The Council will then provide information, advice and assistance to support
the owner to pursue their preferred option which will result in the property
being brought back into use within a reasonable timescale.
Enforcement
Where an owner of an empty property is working with the Council to
voluntarily bring the property back into use within an agreed timescale, the
Council will not generally use its enforcement powers, unless there are
overriding reasons to the contrary.
Where an owner is unwilling to work with the Council to voluntarily bring their
property back into use, the Council will consider what enforcement action is
the most appropriate to secure the re-use of the property. The Council may
use one or a number of enforcement options in order to secure the occupation
of the empty home. The Council’s Enforcement Policy sets out the Council’s
general approach to enforcement action and the range of enforcement action
available.
The range of powers available to the Council when considering enforcement
action includes:
 Buildings Act 1984 sections 77 to 79 – allows the Council to require an
owner to make their property safe, carry out works of repair or
demolition or, if the owner fails to carry out the works required, or in an
emergency, for the Council to carry out works in place of the owner.
Housing Act 1985 section 265 – this allows the council to demolish a
property if it cannot be repaired.
 Housing Act 2004 – allows the Council to serve notices to advice of
hazards in the property, require works of improvement to be carried out
to the property, or carry out works in default.
 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 section 29 –
allows the Council to require that the owner secures a property which is
insecure as well as allowing the Council to secure an insecure property
in an emergency.
 Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 – allows the Council to
require works or undertake works on behalf of an owner or occupier to
prevent damage to buildings being caused by rats and mice (can
include works to property or gardens).
 Public Health Act 1936– allows the Local Authority to require and
undertake works on behalf of an owner or occupier to improve filthy
and verminous properties.
 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 215 – this allows the
Council to take action to require the owner to improve the appearance
of an unsightly building or land (including gardens).
27


Housing Act 2004 section 132: enables the Council to take control of
and manage a property that has been empty for 2 years or more by
way of an Empty Dwelling Management Order.
The Housing Act 1985 section 17 – allows the Council to apply to the
Secretary of State to compulsorily purchase empty homes to bring
them into use where there is a proven housing need.
In some cases the Council may force the sale of an empty home:
 When the Council is owed at least £1000 on matters relating to the
property and a charging order has been unsuccessful in recovering the
debt.
 When the Council has carried out works in default and the owner has
not reimbursed the Council’s costs.
The use of powers to enter into an Empty Dwelling Management Order or to
apply for a Compulsory Purchase Order will only be used when other attempts
to encourage the owner of an empty home to voluntarily return the property
into use has been unsuccessful.
The Council reserves the right to use any other powers which are appropriate
in order to bring an empty home back into use.
Monitoring and Review
The number of long term empty homes and the number of empty homes
which have been brought back into use through the Council’s direct action will
be reported at least six monthly, through the Council’s performance
monitoring arrangements.
This Policy will be reviewed every 3 years.
September 2014
28
Agenda Item No_____13_______
Sheringham Gangway Refurbishment FLAG Project for inclusion into the
Capital Programme.
Summary:
The Cabinet meeting of November 2013 approved the
use of £40,000 of funds from the sale of Lockerby Flats
to be used to draw drown match funding from the
Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Fisheries
Local Action Group (FLAG) project for the refurbishment
of the Sheringham fisherman’s gangway. This report
provides further budget figures to enable the scheme to
be included in the NNDC capital programme.
Options considered:
Not Applicable.
Conclusions:
The resolution will allow the capital programme to be
amended to include the Sheringham Gangway Scheme.
Recommendations:
Cabinet is requested to resolve:
To include the Sheringham Gangway
Refurbishment Scheme into the capital
programme with a budget of £115,000,
comprising of £40,000 from the receipt from
the sale of Lockerbie Flats, as agreed at the
Cabinet meeting of 4 November 2013 and the
remaining £75,000 from MMO grant.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The recommendation will enable the necessary capital
budget to be created to allow award of a construction
contract.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr. A Fitch-Tillett
Sheringham North
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Andrew McCloud (Assistant Coastal Engineer) – 01263 516190
Andrew.McCloud@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Rob Goodliffe (Coastal Management Team Leader) – 01262 516321
Rob.Goodliffe@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Cabinet meeting of November 2013 approved the use of £40,000 of
funds from the sale of Lockerby Flats to be used to draw drown match funding
from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Fisheries Local Action
Group (FLAG) project for the refurbishment of the Sheringham fisherman’s
gangway. This report provides further budget figures to enable the scheme to
be included in the NNDC capital programme.
1.2
29
2.
Report Details
2.1
As detailed in the Cabinet report November 2013, £40,000 from the sale of
Lockerbie flats was approved as a contribution towards the refurbishment of
the fisherman’s gangway at Sheringham with a further contribution from the
Marine Management Organisation FLAG project.
2.2
The overall cost of the scheme is estimated to be £115,000 and the Coastal
Management Team is now preparing to tender for this work. The MMO
contribution of approximately £75,000 and will be retrospectively claimed
following completion of the works.
2.3
This report requests the scheme is included in the NNDC Capital Programme
and to provide formal notification that the project budget is £115,000.
2.4
Further contributions may be included at a later date and will be incorporated
accordingly.
4.
Conclusion
The resolution will allow the capital programme to be amended in line with the
total project costs.
5.
Implications and Risks
There are no further issues above those identified in the report considered by
Cabinet in November 2013.
6.
Financial Implications and Risks
The project will enable far more effective use of funds
7.
Sustainability
As above
8.
Equality and Diversity
As above
9.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
As above
30
Agenda Item No____14________
Sheringham West Seawall Improvement Coast Protection Scheme Revised
Funding Approval
Summary:
Options considered:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
The Council has secured an opportunity to access
substantial funds from the Environment Agency in order
to undertake the Sheringham West Seawall
Improvement Coast Protection Scheme in this financial
year. This scheme would otherwise have been delivered
solely under the Council’s revenue works programme
over a much longer timescale. This report seeks
approval to amend the capital programme in recognition
of the anticipated grant and to delegate the award of the
construction contract, once tendered, in order to
expedite the commencement of the scheme to take
advantage of the funding opportunity.
The alternative to this project (the existing, default
position) is the phased refurbishment of the seawall,
solely using the Council’s revenue works budget. This
would fail to bring in extensive external funds and would
delay implementation of the scheme; thus leaving this
frontage vulnerable and not releasing the revenue
budget for use on other schemes along the coast.
The Sheringham West Seawall Improvement Scheme
will secure a ‘Hold the Line’ frontage for the foreseeable
future. The scheme is likely to receive EA Grant in Aid,
which will enable the works to commence in a timely
manner, providing excellent financial value for the
NNDC contribution and relieving pressure on the
revenue works budget for future years, allowing
resources to be deployed in other locations.
Cabinet is asked to resolve:
a) to update the 2014/15 capital programme
budget for the Sheringham West Sea Wall
Improvement scheme to £804,000, contingent
upon Environment Agency grant approval.
To be financed from £419,000 FCERM Grant
in Aid funding, £70,000 Local Levy
contribution, the existing £215,000 allocated
capital programme funding and subject to
recommendation b, £100,000 from the
allocated revenue programme.
b) To approve the revenue contribution to
capital of £100,000 from the Coast protection
revenue maintenance programme.
c) to delegate authority to the Head of
Economic & Community Development for the
award of the construction contract in
consultation with the Coastal Management
31
portfolio holder.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To enable the timely development and implementation
of the coast protection project.
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)
Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant In Aid Project Appraisal Report
for Sheringham West Seawall Improvement Project.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr. A Fitch-Tillett
Sheringham North
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Andrew McCloud (Assistant Coastal Engineer) – 01263 516190
Andrew.McCloud@north-norfolk.gvo.uk
Rob Goodliffe (Coastal Management Team Leader) – 01263 516321
Rob.Goodliffe@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Sheringham West seawall was built circa 1895 with foundations based
directly on the natural chalk geology. Due to a trend of lowering beach levels
and rising sea levels the base of the wall is now more exposed to action from
the North Sea. The December 2013 surge caused the failure of an adjacent
70m section of wall which incurred a cost of over £500,000 for repairs. This
scheme seeks to ensure good use of resources through the drawing down of
external funding and preventing further costly repairs. It will also provide
protection to the western flank of the town for approximately 50 years. Further
to the benefits at Sheringham, the timely completion of this scheme would
enable the deployment of annual coastal maintenance resources to be used
elsewhere along the coast in future years, ultimately benefiting the wider
coastal frontage.
2.
Scheme Details
2.1
The 2013/14 NNDC Capital programme approved a £215,000 contribution in
order to assist with attracting Environment Agency (EA) funding for
improvement works to the Sheringham West seawall.
2.2
The NNDC allocated capital funding enabled the scheme to be included
within the EA capital programme for a future year. However, due to a
significant failure during the December 2013 surge, NNDC approached the
EA in order to advance the scheme into the current financial year. The EA
have advised that there is a funding opportunity for this scheme to move
forward this year following technical and financial approval. The Coastal
Team have developed the necessary Project Appraisal Report (PAR) for
32
consideration by the EA, which has indicated that it is highly likely that funding
could be made available. The PAR enabled the refinement of the scheme
details, including costs, which has led to the need for a revision to the NNDC
capital programme.
2.3
The proposed scheme includes the construction of a steel sheet piled seawall
toe, short reinforced concrete apron and a reinforced encasement of the
existing seawall. The scheme is for the coastal frontage adjacent to that
repaired following the surge at The Leas, extending 236m to the RNLI lifeboat
station in the west. The construction of the scheme is estimated to have a
total cost of £804,000. The current capital programme includes a budget for
this scheme of £590,000 to be financed by EA grant of £375,000 and Capital
Receipts of £215,000. The proposed increase of £214,000 is to be financed
by the enhanced funding package set out below.
2.4
In addition to the current approved NNDC capital contribution of £215,000,
further funding streams will be utilised as follows:



£70,000 has been secured from the Local Levy. This is raised by the
Environment Agency on upper tier and unitary authorities on an
annual basis. The Levy is decided and administered by the Regional
Flood and Coast Defence Committee (RFCC).
It is anticipated the EA will approve the scheme and bring forward a
FCERM Grant in Aid contribution of up to £419,000 to complete the
funding requirement (this would be a further £44,000 above the
current assumed EA funding).
An allocation from the annual Coast Protection Revenue Maintenance
Programme budget was already planned for Sheringham West this
financial year. This revenue funding stream will be used to finance
£100,000 of capital expenditure to this project by means of a Revenue
Contribution to Capital Outlay (RCCO). (This additional contribution is
required in order to maximise the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk
Management (FCERM) Partnership Funding Score – necessary in
order to draw down EA funds).
2.5
The EA grant is for funding for 2014/15 and therefore the project will require a
significant spend to be completed before the end of this financial year. In
anticipation of approval and due to the short timeframes, procurement has
begun for the tendering of the construction contract.
2.6
Without timely procurement and decision making the EA grant contribution
may be at risk.
3.
Conclusion
The Sheringham West Seawall Improvement Scheme will secure a ‘Hold the
Line’ frontage for the foreseeable future. The scheme is likely to receive EA
Grant in Aid, which will enable the works to commence in a timely manner,
providing excellent financial value for the NNDC contribution and relieving
pressure on the revenue works budget for future years, allowing resources to
be
deployed
in
other
locations.
4.
Implications and Risks
33
Recommendation
To make provision in the
budget of £804,000 for
the Sheringham West
Sea Wall Improvement
scheme, contingent
upon Environment
Agency grant approval.
The budget will be
financed by
approximately £419,000
FCERM Grant in Aid
funding, £70,000 Local
Levy contribution, the
existing £215,000
allocated in NNDC’s
Capital Programme and
transfer of £100,000
from the allocated
revenue programme.
To delegate authority to
the Head of Economic &
Community
Development for the
award of the
construction contract in
consultation with the
Coastal Management
portfolio holder.
5.
Risk
Mitigation
The construction
costs are tendered
higher than the
revised budget
Costs are based on
previous schemes and
therefore should be of
tolerable accuracy. If
costs were higher there
would be a need to
reevaluate the scheme.
Funding is not
forthcoming from the
EA
Need to reevaluate extent
of scheme. Tendering
process includes an
opportunity to procure a
reduced scheme (subject
to further approval) based
on funding availability.
There are no risks
identified with this
recommendation.
Delegation will require
recording and reporting
as appropriate and will be
completed in consultation
with the Coastal
Management Portfolio
Holder.
Financial Implications and Risks
No additional funds are required and this report demonstrates far more
effective use of existing funds, which will ensure maximum effective use of
coastal management funding on the North Norfolk Coast. The scheme will
require the use of existing revenue funding of £100,000 to be used to fund
capital expenditure by means of a Revenue Contribution to Capital Outlay
(RCCO).
6.
Sustainability
This scheme is compliant with Shoreline Management Plan which was
subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment and is considered to be a
sustainable option for the coast.
7.
Equality and Diversity
There are no known equality and diversity issues.
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
None directly.
34
Agenda Item No____15________
New Print Solution – Multi Function Devices
Summary:
Options considered:
This report seeks the release of funding for the
procurement of a standardised print solution for the
Council as previously identified within the Business
Transformation Programme Plan.
A number of options have been considered:
 Continue with ad-hoc printer procurement
 Pay-per-copy printing contract
 Standardised Multi-Function device procurement
Conclusions:
The current printing, scanning and copying
arrangements are inconsistent in terms of their
remaining operational life, the facilities they provide and
the costs of running them.
The costs of printing within the council are significant
and because of the disparate devices and technologies
currently in use, there is the opportunity to make
significant savings by deploying standard, multi-function
devices.
The changes to the services and the Councils structure
which are expected in the next few years will
necessitate a flexible printing arrangement which can be
reconfigured and relocated as required. This is best
supported by purchasing the devices rather than leasing
them under the terms of a per-copy charging contract.
In order to reduce the costs, a reporting tool is required
that will make the scale and cost of printing visible
throughout the council.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet approves the release of £60,000 from
the previously approved Business Transformation
Programme funding to allow the procurement of
appropriate devices, and related software.
That Cabinet delegates authority to the relevant
Corporate Director and s151 Officer in consultation
with the Portfolio Holder to procure the goods and
services required to implement the new printing
solution.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To provide the technology and reporting tools to reduce
printing costs.
35
To enhance the scanning capability of the Council. This
will help to reduce the volume of paper used by the
council and drive business efficiency.
To provide the baseline technology to support delivery
of the efficiencies and improvements resulting from the
Business Process Re-Engineering which will follow.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr G Williams
Cllr R Oliver
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Sean Kelly, 01263 516276, sean.kelly@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1..1
Members will recall that the Business Transformation Programme which
Cabinet approved in 2013, it was identified that further reports would be
brought to Cabinet as the work-streams within the programme were
developed.
1..2
The Council is committed to improving services which deliver savings and
contribute to the wider environmental agenda.
1..3
The Council’s existing printing and scanning technology does not support
these objectives as effectively as modern, alternative, products which are
now available.
1..4
Much of the existing printing, scanning and copying hardware is at or
approaching the end of its operational life.
1..5
Currently there is no simple central reporting tool to monitor the usage of
printing within the Council.
2.
Background and Current Position
2..1
The Council’s current business processes are significantly reliant on
paper, much of which is printed on a wide variety of printers. Many of
these printers are at, or are approaching, the end of their operational life.
2..2
The current hardware would require a significant level of capital
investment over the coming years as it reaches the end of its operational
life. There would be additional procurement costs, arising from piecemeal
replacement procurements.
2..3
The current technology requires updating and standardisation in order to
deliver cost reductions and consistent access to technology for all service
areas.
2..4
Access to modern, consistent facilities is fundamental to improving
business processes which will deliver the maximum efficiency benefits for
the Council.
36
2..5
Wider availability of effective scanning facilities will support the move to
electronic working. This is a fundamental component of Business Process
Re-engineering, which will be conducted in the subsequent Business
Transformation Programme projects.
2..6
Instead of many different types and manufacturers printing consumables
only one type will be required for the proposed new devices, which will
reduce on-going support costs. The consumables that are required for the
modern devices are better value for money than existing provision.
3.
Proposed Change
3.1
Business Objectives
In order to deliver the efficiencies and service quality improvements arising
from the Business Transformation Programme, there is a need to establish an
up to date and cost effective printing, scanning and copying facility throughout
the council.
In order to help reduce the quantity of printing and move to electronic
documentation, a monitoring tool, which covers all printing, is required.
3.2
Proposal
3.2.1
It is proposed that we now move to standardised printer scanners across the
main service areas. These machines would be accessible to all staff, by way
of their ID card, so printing would be placed in a queue, but would only be
printed once the user had swiped into the machine, thus improving document
security. Whilst users would all have a default printer, if that machine was
unavailable, then the work would be transferred to another machine.
3.2.2
The scanning capabilities of the devices will contribute to a general reduction
in paper use and storage within the Council and facilitate service
improvement based on use of electronic document storage and workflows.
3.3
Procurement Options
3.3.1
Procurement of a pay as you go or “per click” solution has been considered
during the evaluation process. Based upon the cost information and
estimated usage over a three year period, this option has been discounted on
the grounds of both cost and lack of flexibility.
3.3.2
Capital procurement of the devices incorporating a 3 year warranty has been
assessed as the most flexible and value for money solution to the needs of
the Council for the next 3-5 years.
4.
Financial Implications and Risks
4.1
Financial
37
4.1.1Costs for the proposed print solution and management and reporting
softwareare estimated between £50, 000 and £60,000.
4.1.2 Based on current printed paper utilisation, there will be a reduction in the cost
of computer consumables of approximately £5,000 p.a. However, this is likely
to increase, as business processes become less paper dependent.
4.2
Risk
4.2.1
User resistance to the perceived reduction in convenience for those users
who have to travel further to collect their printing.
This will be managed by careful positioning of the devices to minimise the
issue. Additionally a communications exercise to highlight the environmental
and cost reductions of the approach will be undertaken.
4.2.2
Failure to deliver the savings anticipated.
There is no doubt that the cost of consumables and support will be reduced
by the use of standard machines across the Council. Long term decreases in
paper usage will be driven by the business process reviews which will be
carried out across all services, prioritising those which are known to be
inefficient.
5
Equality and Diversity
Requirements will be included in the specification of the systems to ensure as
far as possible that they can be used by those with disabilities.
6
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
There are no section 17 implications.
7
Sustainability
7.1
By procuring standard modern devices capable of software control of user
options we will be able to drive down the printing undertaken and paper use
by the Council which will reduce our carbon footprint and environmental
impact.
8
Conclusions
8.1
The current printing, scanning and copying arrangements are inconsistent in
terms of their remaining operational life, the facilities they provide and the
costs of running them.
8.2
The costs of printing within the council are significant and because of the
disparate devices and technologies currently in use, there is the opportunity
to make significant savings by deploying standard, multi-function devices.
8.3
The changes to the services and the Councils structure which are expected in
the next few years will necessitate a flexible printing arrangement which can
be reconfigured and relocated as required. This is best supported by
purchasing the devices rather than leasing them under the terms of a percopy charging contract.
38
8.4
In order to reduce the costs, a reporting tool is required that will make the
scale and cost of printing visible throughout the council.
39
6th October 2014
Cabinet
Agenda Item No____16_________
Egmere Business Zone Project
Summary:
This report considers how the District Council might take a lead
role in facilitating development of land covered by the Egmere
Local Development Order through opening up a small area of
land through the provision of road and utility infrastructure so
as to provide “development ready” sites for development by
third parties.
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, if successful in attracting external sources of finance,
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.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet agrees 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.
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, which
recognises Walsingham Estate’s continued
ownership of the land through some form of
40
6th October 2014
Cabinet
income-share arrangement.

Promote investment opportunities at Egmere
to businesses seeking to invest in this part of
the district
Cabinet member(s):
Councillor R Wright
Ward member(s)
Primarily Walsingham, but some implications for Priory
ward through use of facilities at the Port of Wells
Contact Officer, telephone
Steve Blatch
and e-mail:
01263 516232
steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Summary:-
1.1
At its meeting of 21st May 2014, Full Council agreed to adopt the Egmere Local
Development Order, establishing a simplified planning framework on 30 hectares of land
at Egmere for investment related to the development and operation of offshore wind
energy schemes off the North Norfolk coast.
1.2
Whilst the adoption of the Local Development Order establishes a positive framework for
investment in the area by offshore wind sector businesses, the attractiveness of the
Egmere location to investors would be further enhanced through the opening up of areas
of land for development within the LDO through the provision of road and utility
infrastructure, so that “development ready” sites can be marketed for investment.
1.3
Consideration has therefore been given to how land at Egmere might be serviced and
brought forward for development, recognising the risks involved - given that investment
in site servicing costs would initially be on a speculative basis, with no guaranteed
demand within a defined period of time, so as to generate a reasonable level of return
for landowners or a lead partner.
1.4
This report therefore considers the options available in seeking to bring forward land at
Egmere for development and outlines a proposal for endorsement by the Cabinet.
2.
Background:-
2.1
The District Council has adopted a Local Development Order in respect of land off the
B1105 road at Egmere to the south of Wells-next-the-Sea, which seeks to accommodate
investment associated with offshore wind energy developments serviced through the
Port of Wells. The identification of this land for development by businesses involved in
the offshore wind sector seeks to build upon the investment made previously by
operators of the Sheringham Shoal windfarm, which has established its Operational and
Maintenance facilities in purpose-built accommodation off Edgar Road, Egmere.
2.2
The Local Development Order establishes a simplified planning policy framework for
land at Egmere, but does not, in itself, provide serviced sites which are capable of
41
6th October 2014
Cabinet
immediate development without investment to provide access and utilities by end users.
Whilst individual businesses of a certain scale might be able to finance such site
servicing costs as part of the development of bespoke facilities, as per the investment
made in Wind Farm Place by operators of the Sheringham Shoal scheme; many smaller
businesses eg engineering businesses, technical survey companies, stores and supplies
companies etc supplying products and services to the offshore wind operators which
might seek premises of up to 1,000 sq metres, would be unable to finance the costs of
servicing individual plots of land with highway access and utilities. Similarly, given the
uncertain level of demand which might exist, the owners of land covered by the Local
Development Order designation have questioned their ability to finance the provision of
site infrastructure on a speculative basis.
2.3
This situation is not uncommon in the development of employment sites in large areas of
Norfolk, particularly rural areas and coastal towns, where commercial rents / plot values
are such that there is little confidence in upfront, speculative investment in the servicing
of land to provide “development ready” sites. Historically, the Government, local
authorities or other public bodies have been the lead agencies in the provision of
serviced land for employment related development in such areas of the country and a
number of current Government programmes including the Growing Places Fund
operated by the LEP and Enterprise Zone programmes provide loan and grant finance to
“pump-prime” the development of key employment sites.
2.4
Consideration has therefore been given to whether sources of external funding might be
available to support the delivery of a project at Egmere to provide serviced land for
future business development, with a number of potential funding sources identified
including European grant programmes, financial support mechanisms operated by the
New Anglia LEP, the Norfolk business rates pool and national schemes such as the
Coastal Communities Fund.
3.
Project Proposal
3.1
Considering possible demand for sites and premises at Egmere, it is believed that
strongest demand is likely to be expressed for serviced plots of land of up to 0.5
hectares for development by individual occupiers or possibly the speculative
development of small workshop / warehouse units for lease by a developer.
3.2
Within the area covered by the LDO, there are a small number of existing vacant
buildings – offices and warehouse type buildings which are capable of occupation at
relatively modest cost eg through modest conversion and/or refurbishment to meet the
needs of individual occupiers. There are also a couple of plots of land towards the north
of the area covered by the LDO designation, owned by the Holkham Estate, which would
best accommodate proposals by single occupiers for a bespoke use. County Highways,
in commenting on the proposed Local Development Order, expressed a view that these
sites should probably be developed after other parts of the LDO when the impact of
development associated with the LDO and recently approved anaerobic digestion facility
on the former North Creake airfield site, could be assessed in terms of traffic generation,
movement and speed of through traffic through the Bunkers Hill development area.
3.3
It is therefore considered that the site with the greatest potential to accommodate a
speculative investment in the provision of road and utility infrastructure to open up land
for development is the field to north of Edgar Road and east of the woodland belt
fronting the B1105 road, owned by the Walsingham Estate. County Highways in
commenting on the Local Development Order proposal, agreed a point of access which
could serve this area of land from Edgar Road and this area of land is also well-placed in
42
6th October 2014
Cabinet
the wider landscape having established natural boundaries in the form of existing
hedgerows and woodland belts.
3.4
The potential of this land to be opened up for development has therefore been
considered and, through the provision of an estate road of approximately 200 metres
length, it would be possible to open up approximately 1.65 hectares (4 acres) of land as
a first phase of development, with the potential to serve the balance of the site (a further
2.5 hectares or 6 acres) through the phased extension of the estate road, dependent on
the level of demand expressed. A plan showing the location of the land proposed for a
first phase of development through the provision of a new estate road accompanies this
report for member’s information.
3.5
Very provisional cost estimates have been prepared in respect of providing the estate
road required to open up the land for development, with costs of up to £750,000 being
provided, including provision of drainage and ducting for utility provision. To date no
detailed costs have been obtained for service connections (electricity, water and foul
drainage, gas and telecoms), but an assumption has been made that the provision of
such services might cost a further £750,000, giving a total project cost of £1.5 million.
3.6
Based on these costs, initial, without prejudice, discussions have commenced with the
Walsingham Estate to explore whether the District Council might enter into a lease,
initially for a period of 25 years, with the Estate for four acres of land so as to take
forward a first phase of development. Delivery of a scheme by the District Council, as a
public body, would allow access, subject to successful applications to external sources
of finance to open up the land for development, which would not be available to a private
sector developer or landowner; with the Council carrying the risk of uncertain demand /
timescales over which the serviced land might be developed. The serviced plots of land
would then be sub-let by the District Council so as to recover the investment in site
infrastructure with an income-share arrangement being agreed with the Walsingham
Estate recognising their continued ownership of the land. Details of the discussions
being taken forward with the Walsingham Estate are contained within an Exempt
Appendix attached to this report.
4.
Next Steps
4.1
If Cabinet is minded to support the recommendation that the District Council should seek
to 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, the following actions would be progressed by
officers:
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

Subject to the necessary funding being secured for the first phase of project
delivery, 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, which recognises Walsingham Estate’s continued ownership of the
land through some form of income-share arrangement.
43
6th October 2014
Cabinet
5.0
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
The financial issues and risks to the Council associated with this matter are considered
throughout the report.
5.2
Demand for industrial and commercial sites and premises in many rural and coastal
areas of Norfolk is not sufficiently strong to give confidence to landowners and
developers to invest speculatively in the provision of serviced land and premises. This
presents a “Catch 22” situation as without “development ready” sites and premises many
investors will look to other locations which are easier to develop or move into, giving
greater certainty in terms of the timescales for investment in production and operation.
This places areas such as large parts of North Norfolk, at a disadvantage in attracting
new job-creating investment and indeed facilitating the growth and expansion of
successful local businesses due to there not being a supply of available sites and
premises into which they can expand. Development of offshore wind energy schemes
off the North Norfolk coast presents an opportunity for the district to attract new
investment, as shown by the example of the Sheringham Shoal development, and the
Council would like to facilitate further investment in the district by businesses associated
with this expanding sector of the economy. This project proposal seeks to provide a
positive context for securing such investment through the provision of “development
ready” sites for new investment.
5.3
The development and delivery of this project is not without some risk to the Council, but
the proposal as made, seeks to minimise the risk to the authority through the Council
seeking to secure external funding to finance the provision of infrastructure to open up
land for development and then take forward the development through a head lease
arrangement with a local landowner, the Walsingham Estate. It is unlikely that the
project will deliver a large financial return to the Council through rental income or capital
receipts, although it would be expected to recover project investment costs. However, if
through the securing of external grant funds, the project acts as a catalyst to secure new
job-creating investment in the district there will be wider economic development benefits
to the area, both directly through new business and job-creating investment as well as
business rate receipts in the longer term.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
The issues raised in this report do not in themselves raise issues of sustainability.
Previously, the Council has considered issues of sustainability and sustainable
development in the preparation and adoption of the Local Development Order and
recognises that this project proposal seeks to support investment in the renewable
energy sector at a national level.
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.
44
l'i &',:t
g:"*\
qqgq
a@aa
aao@
=533'
dt;
c
o6x=
@i6Xa
.l
da
lr& r,
1& fir
i&
r3
ffi
ffi
ffi
tnt
F&* &&
.Il
l,
EI
fl
!i.l
rl
dd
oo
oo
oo
odi
oo
@a
1l
6
o
!E
!
d
6
E
E
o
o
o
=.
4
f
€
o
a
o
o
=
o
..
i
*ri
t
I
t
+
Ji
o tr
{{:
q
$
6
€ zer
$
z (t:t
z_
$
*
{
\
d
o
.;
3,
lfi
n
Ir
:
L
/$
>
q)
hl
i
'ii
€:
-f)
4)
U!
iI
C)
i
a n
C\
dl a 6 t
d
!
n
u
fit
T b
3
i
2
d I
Fl
J
s
il
?_'
f,
P
E
n
6
t$
c
]F
5lF
=
r*q!.3ta
g- ge
t<:
l
f;-
db
@
)
i-tJ
rn
-
5 9 d
Fbn
:5d
q
F 4$
6
ooqo
^o!.']5
o. Ho
=
I
g ,:a
€,5 I
ci g=9
=
8:
o B B:
Fr
>1
i*
* +o ; i ;;
:6i. I € 3
k
3u*
{i
i6tts8;
3o
96
36
66
d
g
tg
9A
Hd
U
i
d
o
!!nl
..ro
o-
dx
o-
!d
3
o
f
o
T
,21\
ttl
\/\_t--l
/l\
CY.tr|
=
o
o
Norlh
gd
=c
oA
o
]J
50
{.8
o]Y
o
o
o
io
€q!
+lt
;6
.9l!
EA!
eO
<E
==
--
d€
45