Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
27 June 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 7th July 2014 at 10.00 a.m.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours.
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
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 09
June 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.
BIG SOCIETY FUND GRANTS PANEL
(attached – p.8)
To receive the minutes of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel meeting held on 15 March
2014
10.
SUPERFAST BROADBAND
(page 15)
Summary:
This report seeks an in principle agreement and the
earmarking of funds up to £1m for a partnership project being
led by Norfolk County Council to roll out Superfast Broadband
across North Norfolk.
Conclusions:
Access to Superfast broadband speeds is becoming
increasingly important for both businesses and households.
The availability of broadband infrastructure in Norfolk, capable
of providing access to these speeds, and provided on an
entirely commercial basis, is one of the lowest in the UK,
providing access for just 43% of properties. An in principle
agreement would secure a place on the future programme.
Actual commitment would not be made until after May 2015
once detailed information has been shared with the Council.
Recommendations: That Cabinet recommends the following to Council:
1. That £1million is earmarked (in a reserve) from the
current year balance and future year allocations
return of the second homes council tax funding and
unallocated New Homes Bonus.
Council Decision
2. That no commitment to spend this earmarked fund
is made until the BBfN Programme has let the next
call-off contract and this has been analysed by the
District Council, the detail shared with Members
and a recommendation made to Council.
3. That a presentation be arranged for Members
during July to receive an update on the current roll
out of Norfolk’s Better Broadband for Norfolk
(BBfN) Programme and to ask further questions
about the next Programme, likely coverage and
funding.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer, telephone
and e-mail:
11.
All
All
Sheila Oxtoby, 01263 516242
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
THWAITE COMMON
(page 19)
(Appendix 1A – p.25) (Appendix 1B – p. 33) (Appendix 2A – p.35) (Appendix 2B – p.36)
(Appendix 2C – p.37)
Summary:
This report describes the problems that have been
experienced with the management of Thwaite Common
over the past 15 years in terms of the primary aim of
encouraging the re-establishment of its once diverse
native flora. It also explains the issues surrounding the
legality of previous and proposed fencing to enclose
livestock and the aspirations of the local community.
The report explains how the only realistic option to improve
the common is by the grazing of livestock enclosed with
temporary or permanent fencing. Management of the
common is controlled by a „scheme of regulation‟ and any
fencing in addition to that which already exists would
require Secretary of State approval. In view of recent
legislative changes an application for further fencing has a
good chance of success and the report recommends that
cabinet approve that an application to the Secretary of
State be made.
Options considered:
Conclusions:
Various options for the management of the common have
been tried. These have included cutting the vegetation
with machinery and leaving the arisings in-situ, cutting and
collecting the vegetation and removal from site as low
grade hay. These methods have proved unsatisfactory
because the common is uneven and often waterlogged
rendering the use of machinery impractical.
The preferred option that has emerged from specialist
advice, experience and community aspiration is that the
common should be grazed with livestock and enclosed
with temporary or permanent fencing.
If no permission is secured from the Secretary of State
then the status quo could be maintained but this would
mean that no further areas of the common may be
enclosed.
It has been demonstrated that the area of Thwaite
Common that has been grazed since 2008 has seen a
significant improvement in the quantity and diversity of
native plants growing there. For legal reasons it has not
been possible to enclose other sections of the common
and mechanical cutting of vegetation has failed to deliver
satisfactory results.
With the introduction of the Commons Act 2006, the
enhancement of biodiversity is now a valid criterion that
must be considered by the Secretary of State when
deciding fencing applications in relation to commons.
The Management Committee has explored all other
management options and given the level of apparent
community support the most appropriate conclusion is that
further fencing of the Common would deliver the positive
management outcomes sought.
Recommendations:
Cabinet Decision
Reasons for
Recommendations:
That Cabinet agree to the Thwaite Common
Management Committee proceeding with the
submission of an application to the Secretary of State
for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for
fencing at Thwaite Common in accordance with the
proposals set out in this report.
To allow positive management of Thwaite Common to
favour the re-establishment of diverse native flora.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer, telephone
number, and e-mail:
Cllr G Williams
Alby with Thwaite
Paul Ingham, 01263 516001
paul.ingham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
12.
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.”
13.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 09 June 2014 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr J Lee
Mr R Oliver
Mr W Northam
Mr G Williams
Also attending:
Mrs S Arnold
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms B Palmer
Officers in
Attendance:
1.
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (SB), the Head of
Finance, the Head of Business Transformation, the Team Leader –
Strategy, the Technical Accountant and the Democratic Services
Team Leader
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
2.
MINUTES
Mr B Cabbell Manners said that he had sent his apologies for the previous meeting.
The Chairman then signed the minutes of the meeting of 12th May 2014, subject to
the above amendment.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
6.
MEMBER QUESTIONS
None received
Cabinet
1
09 June 2014
7.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
None
8.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None
9.
PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
The Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy introduced this item. He said that it had been
considered by the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working Party at their meeting
on 19th May.
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
That the Land Supply Statement be published
10.
2013/14 OUTTURN REPORT
The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Mr W Northam, introduced this item. He explained
that the report presented the outturn position for the revenue account and capital
programme for the 2013/14 financial year. He said that he was pleased to report a
surplus of £119,011 which would be transferred to the general reserve.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr G Williams and
RESOLVED to recommend the following to Council:
a) The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2013/14;
b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed within the report (and Appendix C)
along with the corresponding updates to the 2014/15 budget;
c) Transfer the surplus of £119,011 to the general reserve;
d) The financing of the 2013/14 capital programme as detailed within the report and
at Appendix D;
e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,745,452 at 31 March 2014 and forecast
balance of £1,496,220 at 31 March 2015;
f) The updated capital programme for 2014/15 to 2015/16 and the associated
financing of the schemes as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix E;
g) A capital budget of £30,000 for replacement hardware storage as detailed within
7.2 of the report.
Reasons for the decision:
To approve the outturn position on the revenue and capital accounts for 2013/14 that
will be used to produced the statutory accounts for 2013/14. To provide funding for
ongoing projects and commitments as detailed within the report.
Cabinet
2
09 June 2014
11.
BANKING TENDER
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for finance introduced this item. He explained that
the Council was part of a Norfolk wide procurement process to obtain a new banking
services provider with all the Norfolk Districts, along with Norfolk County Council and
the Police. It was anticipated that an award date would be achieved during summer
2014.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED that:
Cabinet delegates the decision to award a contract for banking services to the Head
of Finance in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for finance.
Reason for the Decision:
To ensure that the procurement timescales for the award of the banking contract
would be met.
12.
DEBT RECOVERY ANNUAL REPORT
The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Mr W Northam, introduced this item. He explained
that this was an annual report detailing the council’s collection performance and debt
management arrangements for 2013/14. He praised officers for their continued hard
work in pursuing the recovery of debts owed to the Council. He concluded by
thanking the Head of Revenues and Benefits, Louise Wolsey for all of her support
over recent years and wished her a long and happy retirement.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED to recommend to Council
The approval of the annual report giving details of the Council’s write-offs in
accordance with the Council’s Debt Write-Off Policy and performance in relation to
revenues collection.
Reason for the decision:
To ensure that the Council is informed of collection performance and debt
management arrangements for 2013/14.
13.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced this item. He explained that
the report set out the treasury management activities undertaken during 2013/14
compared with the Treasury Management Strategy for the year. He assured
members that treasury activities for the year had been carried out in accordance with
the CIPFA Code and the Council’s Treasury Strategy. Before moving the
recommendation, Mr Northam said that this was the first time that the anticipated
investment income for the year was not achieved. However, the LAMIT Pooled
Property Fund had earned more than predicted thus resulting in a smaller overall
shortfall.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr G Williams and
Cabinet
3
09 June 2014
RESOLVED to recommend to Council:
That the Treasury Management Annual Report and Prudential Indicators for 2013/14
are approved.
Reason for the decision:
To demonstrate compliance with the CIPFA Treasury Management and Prudential
Codes.
14.
ANNUAL REPORT 2013/14
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick introduced this item. He informed members that the
report outlined the key elements of the Annual Report 2013/14. The final version
would be published by July 2014. He drew members’ attention to the improved
layout.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mr B Cabbell Manners and
RESOLVED to
1) note the contents of this report.
2) give authority to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to approve the
final public version of the report.
3) give authority to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to approve the
communications plan for the Annual Report 2013/14.
Reason for the decision:
To comply with the provisions of the Council Performance Management Framework
and local government best practice.
15.
CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT AND PRICING
Mr R Oliver, Portfolio Holder for Assets introduced this item. He explained that the
report had been prepared at the request of Cabinet to review the current charging
structure with a view to supporting local residents, local businesses and visitors. If
agreed, the changes would come into effect during October 2014. He concluded by
informing members that various options regarding free parking were still being
considered.
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Mr T FitzPatrick and
RESOLVED to
a) remove the evening charge from 6:00 pm
b) allow £5 (24hr) pay and display tickets to be transferable to other P&D car parks
c) 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
Cabinet
4
09 June 2014
and to RECOMMEND to Council
That the budget implications detailed within Section 6 of the Cabinet report are
approved
Reason for the decision:
To eliminate confusion over evening charges, to provide greater flexibility for 24 hour
tickets and to encourage people to ‘pop and shop’ during what is generally deemed a
slow trading period. The changes would better support local residents, local
businesses and visitors.
16.
WEB INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE
Mr R Oliver, Portfolio Holder for Information Systems introduced this item. He said
that approval was sought for the recruitment of an additional post within the
Applications Development Team of the IT department – as previously outlined within
the Business Transformation Programme Plan. In addition, approval was sought for
the release of funding to support the delivery of the new web technology to support
this programme. It was anticipated that the additional resources would also support
improvements and savings to customer services.
It was proposed by Mr G Williams, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED to
1) approve the permanent establishment of the previously identified post within the
Applications Development team of the IT section at a cost of approximately £37,000
to be funded as outlined in the report.
2) approve funding from the Invest to Save Reserve of £37,500 to fund the one off
engagement of third party technical expertise and the procurement of associated IT
infrastructure components.
3) delegate authority to the relevant Corporate Director in consultation with the s151
Officer to procure the goods and services required to implement the new web
technology.
Reasons for the decision:
To provide the capacity, skills and technology required to commence the deployment
of new web technology which would support the delivery of the wider transformation
agenda.
17.
DISPOSAL OF COUNCIL LAND
The Portfolio Holder for Assets, Mr R Oliver, introduced this item. He informed
members that the report sought approval to enter into an options agreement to
dispose of 5 Council owned sites to Broadland St Benedicts, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Broadland Housing Association. He added that the Council had been
approached by Victory Housing Trust about the disposal of the sites and it was
anticipated that they would work with them in the future.
Cabinet
5
09 June 2014
Members were invited to speak:
1. Mr J Perry-Warnes commented on the site at Edgefield. He said that the parish
council supported the proposals. However, he had some concerns regarding
shared-ownership options as it could be difficult for people to raise a mortgage on
such properties as the Council would have a covenant on the land.
2. Mr N Smith, ward member for Erpingham, said that the piece of land at Erpingham
had been a topic of local concern for some time. He had made Cabinet aware of
the views of local residents but he particularly wanted to highlight concerns about
the lack of infrastructure. Drainage was a problem, as was access to the site. He
had been told that it would cost approximately £1m to improve the drainage. He
asked that the disposal of this site be put on hold to allow the village time to find
the funds for a community purchase.
3. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds commented that the site at Highfield, Fakenham had
been withdrawn due to local members voicing their concerns. Mr R Oliver replied
that the Highfield site was a car park and not designated housing land and was
therefore easier to withdraw. He added that he felt that it would be appropriate for
any concerns and issues regarding the sites to be discussed in the planning
arena. The purchase would only proceed if planning permission was granted. The
Chief Executive said that the report referred to designated housing land not
designated sites in the Local Development Framework. These sites were not
transferred under the housing stock transfer and had been held for the purpose of
housing – specifically exception schemes.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett commented that it was important to clarify that the sites were for
housing exception schemes as these were available for residents with a local
connection.
It was proposed by Mr R Oliver, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED that
1. An options agreement for the five retained housing sites is completed between the
Council and Broadland St Benedicts on the terms set out in their letter dated 29
April 2014 and the terms contained in this report.
2. The Head of Assets and Leisure is delegated to approve the sale of individual
sites by private treaty in accordance with the options agreement.
Reasons for the decision:
To increase the provision of housing, including affordable housing across the district
which supports the Corporate Plan.
LOCAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY – REQUEST FOR LOAN FROM BROADLAND
HOUSING ASSOCIATION
18.
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced this item. He said that
Cabinet approved the Local Investment Strategy in September 2013 and that
following advertising of the loan fund, a formal request for a loan was received from
Broadland Housing Association. They had requested that a loan of £3.5m was paid in
three tranches. In addition, they had requested a loan of £0.75m to be paid to their
wholly owned subsidiary, Broadland St Benedicts. This would be for a period of up to
3 years and would be repaid to allow the final tranche of the loan to Broadland
Housing Association to be paid.
Mr Northam thanked the Team Leader – Strategy for all her hard work.
Cabinet
6
09 June 2014
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr B Cabbell Manners and
RESOLVED to
Give delegated authority to the Head of Finance and the Portfolio Holder to approve
the loan request from Broadland Housing Association to provide a loan of £3.5m to
Broadland Housing Association and £0.75m to Broadland St Benedicts which will be
repaid to allow the final tranche of the loan to Broadland Housing Association to be
paid, subject to:
1. The 3.5m available in the capital programme being ring fenced for the provision
of the agreed loans to Broadland Housing Association and Broadland St
Benedicts.
2. The completion of loan agreements between the Council and Broadland Housing
Association and Broadland St Benedicts in advance of any loan payments being
lent.
3. The required level of security for the loan being provided as set out in this report
being provided immediately prior to the loan tranche payments being lent.
4. Capital receipts from the repayments of principal (which shall be on an Equal
Instalment of Principal basis) are applied to finance the Capital Financing
Requirement.
Reasons for the decision:
To increase the provision of housing, including affordable housing across the district
which supports the Corporate Plan.
The Meeting closed at 10.21 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
7
09 June 2014
Agenda Item 2__
NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND GRANTS PANEL
Minutes of the meeting of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel held on Tuesday 18th
March 2013 at the Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 15.00pm.
Members Present:
Officers in
Attendance:
1.
Mr J Lee
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Mrs V Uprichard (sub)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr J Wyatt
Mr B Jarvis
The Growth & Communities Manager, the Health and Communities
Officer, the Head of Finance and the Democratic Services Officer
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr S Ward
2.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel held on 16 Dec
2013 were approved as a correct record
3.
4.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member
Minute No & Heading
Nature of Interest
Mr P High
Minute 4
Holt Youth Project
Non pecuniary interest – Wife is
a trustee of the group.
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS TO THE BIG SOCIETY FUND
Applications ineligible for application
The Health and Communities Officer explained that there were two applications
considered ineligible, ‘Your Own Place CIC’, and ‘Opening Doors’ due to their
restricted community impact and proposed use of the grant to cover staff costs.
Applications deferred from the last panel
The Health and Communities Officer that there was one application deferred from the
previous panel, the ‘Coastal Rowing Association, Blakeney’. She reminded the
committee it had been deferred following their wish to find out more information
regarding the grant’s potential use for retrospective costs and covering loan
repayments. She explained that the requested amount had reduced slightly following
the explanation that the grant could not cover retrospective costs. She also explained
that the organisation did not wish the grant to cover loan repayments. A letter of
support had also been received from Holt Youth Club.
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
8
16 December 2013
Mrs P Grove-Jones queried what the membership cost was. The Health and
Communities Officer replied that there was an annual membership fee of £30 and
also a reduced group fee for youth club members in order not to disadvantage those
from a low income background. The Health and Communities Officer also explained
that the applicants had shown significant links to the local community in their
application.
The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £6637 (less the £500 the group had secured from fundraising.)
New applications for decision
The Local Community Smallholding, East Ruston
The Health and Communities Officer explained that previously the project had not
met Big Society Fund requirements due to a request to cover staff costs. She further
explained that officers had worked with the project team and the project now met
requirements as they were requesting funding for specific equipment.
Mrs P Grove-Jones queried if they had access to reserves. The Growth and
Communities Manager replied that as a local community initiative they did not have
any. Mr R Reynolds queried if the lease would be long enough to continue usage on
the site. The panel agreed this was a concern. The Health and Communities Officer
explained she had received a letter suggesting that there was no reason why the
lease would not be extended however the awarding of any grant could be conditional
upon a suitable lease length. The panel discussed the itemised requirements, and
agreed that as a borehole was entirely necessary for the project to go forward, their
funding should be provided for this.
The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £10,000 conditional upon the existence of a 10 year lease from
the date of decision, and upon the funds being used to provide a borehole for the
site. Following this expenditure the project could use the funding for various other
noted requirements.
Heritage Housing Caring Group, Wells-next-the-sea
The Health and Communities Officer explained that funding of £10,000-£15,000 had
been requested to part fund a conservatory for the organisation to provide more
space for day care provision. The Growth and Communities Manager further
commented that of the 112 volunteers at the centre, many went onto work in the care
industry, which was of benefit to the community. The Health and Communities Officer
further explained that whilst they did have significant reserves, there was not a large
surplus of income.
The panel discussed the application. Mr B Jarvis discussed a similar application
regarding prevalence of community use by a play group, querying whether this may
be an issue. Following further discussion the panel
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
9
16 December 2013
AGREED
To award funding of £7500 conditional upon the organisation securing the remainder
of the funding elsewhere.
Holt Youth Project
Mr P High left the room for this application.
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this grant report. She explained that
the group were requesting funding of £10,500 to fund the replacement of computers
at the organisation, in order to provide computer training for young people. She
further explained that the computer suite was also in use more widely in the
community.
Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that the group seemed reliant on funding rather than
generating their own. The Health and Communities Officer replied that certain
organisations would probably always be reliant on outside funding due to the nature
of their work. She further explained that Councillor Mr M Baker had written in his
support for the project. Mr R Reynolds queried the pricing of the ‘smart’ whiteboard.
The Growth and Communities Manager replied that as the organisation was working
with the Greshams school, all of their equipment was at cost price. He also explained
that the school had agreed to take on the on-going costs of maintenance and repair.
The Chairman commented on the organisation, suggesting the group did an excellent
job, and it appeared to complete the project they would need full funding. Therefore
the panel
AGREED
To award full funding of £10,500.
Higginbottom Recreational Charity, Briston
Mr J Wyatt deemed it inappropriate for him to pass comment on this item.
The Health and Communities Officer introduced the report and explained they were
requesting funding to install catering equipment in the community building, Briston
pavilion, in order allow various voluntary groups to be able to get better use out of the
building. She explained that following their own fundraising the charity was now
requesting £3730.72 as opposed to £4730.72.
Mr B Jarvis commented that in this case it seemed as if a small grant would be able
to make a big difference to the group. The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £3731.
St Nicholas Parish Church, Wells-next-the-sea
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report to the panel. She
explained that the church couldn’t currently be used to its full capability for groups
due to deteriorating flooring. She also explained the church wanted to create unfixed
pews in order to allow more space for group activities and was asking for between
£5000 and £15,000 to fund this.
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
10
16 December 2013
Mrs P Grove-Jones queried why the amount listed for fees of £5000 was so high.
The Growth and Communities Manager commented fees could often be substantial.
He queried if the church were enquiring into selling their parquet flooring as it could
be worth a considerable amount and suggested officers look into this. The Health
and Communities Officer also explained that the church did not charge groups to use
the space and were often a good resource for organisations which may find other
venues cost prohibitive. The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £5000.
Suffield Village Hall Fund
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that the
village hall was requesting £1952 to fund the installation of ceramic heaters at the
hall to prevent the continued use of gas units which were inefficient and ineffective.
The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £2000.
Food for Thought- North Norfolk Dementia Lunch Groups
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that the
group had been established following the withdrawal of funding to the Alzheimer’s
society, in order to apply for funding to continue their lunch clubs for people with
dementia and their carers to offer support. She explained that the request for funding
of £1200-£3287 was for the core costs for the year, however the group should
achieve self-sustenance after the first year in action.
Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that the lunch clubs in Stalham were very successful
but queried the need to fund volunteer mileage. The panel agreed and it was
AGREED
To award funding of £2000 on the condition that it was not used for volunteer
mileage.
Swafield Village Hall
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained the village
hall was requesting £2800-£3134 to cover the costs of repairs to flooring in the hall
due to drainage issues. The panel discussed the need to ensure the cause of the
drainage issue was addressed. The panel
AGREED
To provide funding of £3000
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
11
16 December 2013
Field Dalling and Saxlingham Parish Council
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained the parish
council were requesting £3233-£3879 to upgrade their swing set at their playing field.
The play equipment had been in use for a number of years and was close to
becoming unsafe. The panel discussed the nature of the peppercorn rent and no
formal lease, however deemed the letter from the landowner showing support for the
project to be proof of intention of usage.
The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £3880
Swanton Abbott Parish Council
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that the
parish council were requesting £5500-£6000 to replace and repair play equipment in
the village. She explained the parish had taken over previously owned equipment
and it was in significantly bad repair and that the project had garnered significant
local support. Mr B Jarvis commented that it was promising that the parish council
was looking to repair old equipment as opposed to buying new equipment. The panel
AGREED
To award funding of £6000.
Holt Rugby Club
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that this
was the third funding request from a local rugby club and that it had requested
£15,000 for toilet upgrades. She commented that the club had raised £10,000 and
were inputting funds of their own of £15,000. The panel agreed that considering
precedent, they should also fund this group. The Health and Communities Officer
raised an email received from Councillor P Terrington who had queried the continual
funding of such groups which may not be perceived to have a large community
benefit. The Chairman queried what the panel had awarded to other clubs. The
Health and Communities Officer replied that previous applications had been awarded
£12,500. Therefore the panel
AGREED
To award funding of £12,500 on the condition of the club being able to secure other
funding for the remaining costs of the project.
RBL General Townshend Club, Fakenham
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She commented she had
received support for the project from Councillor J Punchard. She explained that the
application had initially been for the replacement of a dangerous fire exit but it had
been amended to include refurbishment of carpets and upholstery, which, as routine
maintenance, would not usually be funded by the panel. She also explained that
there were some issues regarding the group’s desire to unaffiliated from the Royal
British Legion. The Chairman voiced his desire to just fund the fire escape aspect of
the building to ensure the project met the guidelines of the fund. Mrs P Grove-Jones
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
12
16 December 2013
raised the issue of disaffiliation, and other members queried the ownership of the
building should this be successful. The Chairman also questioned if, should they
disaffiliate, would the panel just be funding a social club. Therefore it was
AGREED
To defer the application to a later panel date until ownership and evidence of intent of
the building had been established.
Cromer and Sheringham Art and Literary Festival
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that this
was an annual festival which the Big Society fund had supported in 2012, and were
always likely to need grant funding of some kind. She explained the group was
requesting £4800-£5800 to provide ‘war and peace’ themed events during the festival
in the district. She further explained the group had received funding from a number of
different sources, including Cromer Town Council.
The Chairman commented that the festival did an excellent job, however they should
have a sustainable business model which allowed them to work without funding. He
suggested the group should not necessarily be looking to expand but rather to
become a sustainable business model. The panel agreed with this outlook and
therefore
AGREED
Not to fund the project at this time, due to a lack of sustainability, and due to the fact
that the festival did not meet the Big Society fund requirements as closely as other
projects.
Holt Festival
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that the
Holt Festival had applied for £1000-£10650 in order to be able to provide a ‘free
festival’ day for attendees. She explained that the costs were to cover a range of
items, including hiring costs for artistic groups.
As with the previous report, the panel discussed the need for events such as this to
be sustainable. Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that they seemed to have significant
reserves which could be utilised for the free day. The Health and Communities
Officer also commented that they could apply to the NNDC arts fund for support.
Therefore the panel
AGREED
Not the fund the project at this time, on the basis that they lacked sustainability and
due to the fact that the festival did not meet the Big Society fund requirements as
closely as other projects.
Fakenham Community Campus Trust
Mr R Reynolds left the room at this point, on the basis that he used to be a board
member for the trust.
The Health and Communities Officer introduced this report. She explained that the
charity had requested £15000 to contribute to repairs and refurbishments of the
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
13
16 December 2013
centre, and to reprint educational booklets and leaflets at the centre. The Growth and
Communities Manager commented that as a heritage building, the panel should
consider the precedent set should they support the application. The panel agreed
with this comment. The panel therefore
AGREED
To contribute £1500 to support the reprinting of booklets and leaflets for the building.
5.
MONITORING, PUBLICITY AND FEEDBACK
The Panel noted the monitoring report which provided an update on the projects that
had been awarded Big Society Fund grants during 2013-14.
6.
BIG SOCIETY AWARDS
The Health and Communities Officer explained that following the storm surge of
December 2013 they would now also be considering an award for the community
project of the year and business of the year.
They were currently considering dates in June or July for the awards, and the ‘road
trip’ of projects for early May.
The Health and Communities Officer concluded she would keep members updated
with details.
7.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
The Health and Communities Officer introduced one item of other business,
regarding Itteringham Community Association. The panel had approved an award of
£5000 to the association in February to improve communications in the area. For
legal reasons, the association could now not continue the mobile signal aspect of the
project, but wished to reallocate funds to provide the community with a refurbished
phone box, including wifi and with an oral history of the area.
The panel discussed the project, and agreed that considering the similarities of the
project to the firehouse with regards to limited community impact, agreed to providing
£1500 to fund wifi in the area.
The Health and Communities Officer thanked members and explained that they had
allocated funds of £75,947 during the panel, leaving £25000 to roll over to the next
panel year and with one project deferred.
The Meeting closed at 5.10pm
_______________
Chairman
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
14
16 December 2013
Agenda Item No____10________
Superfast Broadband
Summary:
This report seeks an in principle agreement and the
earmarking of funds up to £1m for a partnership project
being led by Norfolk County Council to roll out Superfast
Broadband across North Norfolk.
Conclusions:
Access to Superfast broadband speeds is becoming
increasingly important for both businesses and
households. The availability of broadband infrastructure
in Norfolk, capable of providing access to these speeds,
and provided on an entirely commercial basis, is one of
the lowest in the UK, providing access for just 43% of
properties. An in principle agreement would secure a
place on the future programme. Actual commitment
would not be made until after May 2015 once detailed
information has been shared with the Council.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet recommends the following to Council:
Council Decision
1. That £1million is earmarked (in a reserve)
from the current year balance and future year
allocations return of the second homes
council tax funding and unallocated New
Homes Bonus.
2. That no commitment to spend this earmarked
fund is made until the BBfN Programme has
let the next call-off contract and this has
been analysed by the District Council, the
detail shared with Members and a
recommendation made to Council.
3. That a presentation be arranged for Members
during July to receive an update on the
current roll out of Norfolk’s Better Broadband
for Norfolk (BBfN) Programme and to ask
further questions about the next Programme,
likely coverage and funding.
Cabinet Member(s)
All
Ward(s) affected
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Sheila Oxtoby – 01263 516242
sheila.oxtoby@north-norfolk.gov.uk
15
1.
Introduction
1.1.
The purpose of this report is to seek an in principle agreement and
earmarking of funds of up to £1million for a partnership project being led by
Norfolk County Council to roll out Superfast Broadband across North Norfolk.
This is to secure a place on the future programme but the actual commitment
will not be made until after May 2015 and once detailed commercially
sensitive information has been shared with the Council.
2.
Superfast Broadband
2.1
Access to Superfast (24 Mbps+) broadband speeds is becoming increasingly
important for both businesses and households. The availability of broadband
infrastructure in Norfolk, capable of providing access to these speeds, and
provided on an entirely commercial basis, is one of the lowest in the UK,
providing access for just 43% of properties.
2.2
In December 2012, Norfolk County Council invested £15 million, along with
£15 million from Government for the provision of infrastructure to improve the
situation in Norfolk. A Call-off contract was let using the national Broadband
Delivery UK Framework, which was established and is managed by the
Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The contract was based
on a ‘gap’ funding model which ensures that public subsidy is only used to
bridge the gap between the revenue the asset is expected to generate and
the cost of deployment – only the gap is funded. Safeguards are in place to
prevent over subsidy.
2.3
Norfolk’s Better Broadband for Norfolk (BBfN) Programme is on schedule to
implement the improved broadband infrastructure across Norfolk, so that 83%
of properties will have access to Superfast broadband, by the end of 2015.
However the actual figure for North Norfolk is not yet known although due to
the rural nature of the District it is likely to be less than the ‘average’ 83% for
Norfolk.
2.4
Recent Government commissioned research has stated that this current
national Rural Broadband Programme will deliver returns of £20 for every £1
invested. As well as improvements in the productivity of broadband enabled
companies, high speed broadband will create an additional 56,000 jobs in the
UK by 2024, and the work involved in the current rollout is expected to
provide a £1.5 billion boost to local economies. This research corroborates
independent economic research commissioned by Norfolk County Council.
3.
Investment proposals
3.1
The Government has recognised existing Superfast broadband funding is
insufficient to achieve any more than an average of 90% coverage across the
UK (less in very rural counties). Consequently, it has set-up the Superfast
Expansion Programme (SEP), and has allocated a further £250 million in
2015 – 2017, in order to achieve an average 95% UK coverage. However, to
secure a share of this investment, local match funding is required.
3.2
DCMS offered Norfolk £5.59 million from the Superfast Expansion
Programme fund, which when matched, and based on the costs associated
with achieving 83% Superfast coverage, is estimated will achieve
16
approximately 90% Superfast coverage across Norfolk. This is being match
funded in Norfolk by the Local Enterprise Partnership.
3.3
This investment will be on a Norfolk wide basis to achieve as much Superfast
(24 Mbps+) coverage as possible for the available investment. Therefore
again, the target for Norfolk is 90% but this may be less in North Norfolk.
3.4
Norfolk County Council then requested a further £4 million from DCMS, which
was agreed, subject to local match funding. Norfolk County Council has
confirmed to match fund this by allocating a further £1 million. There is
therefore an opportunity for North Norfolk District Council to secure a portion
of the remaining £3 million, this would be based on:

Agreeing an amount of funding now, and a figure of £1 million is
recommended

This would then draw £1 million match funding from DCMS

This total investment of £2 million would be available to achieve higher
levels of coverage within North Norfolk District Council’s catchment,
with an aim of achieving 95%

Once the BBfN Programme has let the next call-off contract, the
procurement is expected to be completed in early 2015. The areas in
North Norfolk that are still not scheduled for improved broadband
infrastructure will be analysed by the District Council at that point and a
final recommendation on whether and how much funding is committed
is made at that stage.

This assessment will be based upon options for further rollout, and if
these represent value for money, the additional investment will be
introduced into the BBfN contract via Change Control.

If value for money is not established the recommendation will be not to
proceed with the investment. The timeframe for this decision will be
during 2015 and most likely post May 2015.
4.
Financial Implications and Risks
4.1
The financial implications of the wider project in terms of investment in
broadband is detailed earlier in the report. In relation to the direct implications
to NNDC’s budget, the proposal will require the earmarking of £1 million from
NNDC resources.
4.2
It is recommended that funding of £1million be allocated from a combination
of the following:
a) The share of the County’s second homes money that is returned to
the districts from existing unallocated funds and future allocations as
applicable;
b) An element of the unallocated New Homes Bonus.
4.3
It is recommended that a separate earmarked reserve is established which is
then drawn down in accordance with the timeframes for the project.
17
5.
Sustainability
There are no direct sustainability implications arising from this proposal.
6.
Equality and Diversity
There are no direct equality and diversity implications arising from this
proposal
7.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder Considerations
There are no Section 17 Crime and Disorder implications arising from this
proposal
8.
Conclusion
8.1
Access to Superfast broadband speeds is becoming increasingly important for
both businesses and households. The availability of broadband infrastructure
in Norfolk, capable of providing access to these speeds, and provided on an
entirely commercial basis, is one of the lowest in the UK, providing access for
just 43% of properties. An in principle agreement would secure a place on the
future programme. Actual commitment would not be made until after May
2015, once detailed information has been shared with the Council.
18
Agenda Item No_______11_____
Thwaite Common – to seek Cabinet approval to apply for Secretary of State
Permission for further fencing.
Summary:
This report describes the problems that have been
experienced with the management of Thwaite Common
over the past 15 years in terms of the primary aim of
encouraging the re-establishment of its once diverse
native flora. It also explains the issues surrounding the
legality of previous and proposed fencing to enclose
livestock and the aspirations of the local community.
The report explains how the only realistic option to
improve the common is by the grazing of livestock
enclosed with temporary or permanent fencing.
Management of the common is controlled by a ‘scheme
of regulation’ and any fencing in addition to that which
already exists would require Secretary of State
approval. In view of recent legislative changes an
application for further fencing has a good chance of
success and the report recommends that cabinet
approve that an application to the Secretary of State be
made.
Options considered:
Various options for the management of the common
have been tried. These have included cutting the
vegetation with machinery and leaving the arisings insitu, cutting and collecting the vegetation and removal
from site as low grade hay. These methods have
proved unsatisfactory because the common is uneven
and often waterlogged rendering the use of machinery
impractical.
The preferred option that has emerged from specialist
advice, experience and community aspiration is that the
common should be grazed with livestock and enclosed
with temporary or permanent fencing.
If no permission is secured from the Secretary of State
then the status quo could be maintained but this would
mean that no further areas of the common may be
enclosed.
Conclusions:
It has been demonstrated that the area of Thwaite
Common that has been grazed since 2008 has seen a
significant improvement in the quantity and diversity of
native plants growing there. For legal reasons it has not
been possible to enclose other sections of the common
and mechanical cutting of vegetation has failed to
deliver satisfactory results.
With the introduction of the Commons Act 2006, the
enhancement of biodiversity is now a valid criterion that
must be considered by the Secretary of State when
19
deciding fencing applications in relation to commons.
The Management Committee has explored all other
management options and given the level of apparent
community support the most appropriate conclusion is
that further fencing of the Common would deliver the
positive management outcomes sought.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet agree to the Thwaite Common
Management Committee proceeding with the
submission of an application to the Secretary of
State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
for fencing at Thwaite Common in accordance with
the proposals set out in this report.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To allow positive management of Thwaite Common to
favour the re-establishment of diverse native flora.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Glyn Williams
Alby with Thwaite
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Paul Ingham 01263 516001
Paul.ingham@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
Thwaite Common consists of about 20Ha of grassland in the parish of Alby
with Thwaite. The grassland includes wet and dry areas and provides a good
habitat for native flora and fauna. The common is particularly noted for its
wild flowers especially orchids which have benefited from generations of
grazing by livestock.
1.2
Thwaite Common is designated under the Commons Act 1899 and the
management work that is permitted on the land is governed by a ‘Scheme of
Regulation’ under the Commons (Schemes) Regulations 1982. The Common
has County Wildlife Site status and is included in Higher Level Stewardship
(HLS) for which an annual grant is received.
Background
2.
2.1
Thwaite Common has been used for grazing for generations and four local
residents still hold formal grazing rights. Grazing over hundreds of years
resulted in the establishment of grassland containing a diversity of wild
flowers. This is because grazing livestock tends to remove nutrients from the
land reducing the vigour of invasive plants in favour of more specialised
plants that require low nutrient levels. Furthermore much of the site is
waterlogged which has meant that the use of farm machinery to cultivate or
increase the fertility of the land has never been practical.
2.2
The land was first registered as a common in the 1960’s and the animals
were enclosed with fencing. The fencing pre-dated registration as a common.
When some residents complained that land was a common and as such
20
should not be fenced, their complaint was upheld by the Secretary of State for
The Environment and in 2001 ordered the removal of the fencing.
2.3
When the fencing was taken down grazing could no longer proceed and the
once species rich grassland deteriorated with invasive plants becoming
widespread. This site was one of the finest in Norfolk and although
designated only as a County Wildlife Site in Norfolk, it would qualify as a SSSI
in any other county where comparable sites are scarce.
2.4
When the Secretary of State ordered removal of the fencing a village
referendum took place. Residents voted for independent management of the
site through a Management Committee provided by North Norfolk District
Council with technical support provided by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust. The
‘Management Committee’ is more closely akin to a working group of officers
and members and at present consists of:





NNDC local member for Erpingham Ward
NWT officer
NNDC Solicitor
NNDC Countryside and Parks Manager
NNDC Senior Ranger
2.5
It was also agreed that neither the four common rights holders nor the Parish
Council would be represented on the Management Committee.
2.6
Prior to the removal of the unauthorised fencing, an application for permanent
fencing was made under s194 Law of Property Act 1925. Although this
application was refused at a Public Inquiry in 1997, the Department’s reason
for refusal was that there was no ‘substantial evidence’ to indicate that without
fencing all grazing would stop on the Common.
2.7
The Inquiry decision letter indicated that if grazing did not continue there
would be no problem in principle with a further s194 application. However
when the renewed s194 application was submitted in March 2006 Defra
(formerly Dept. of Environment) advised that the Scheme of Regulation for the
Common would not allow permanent fencing and the s194 application should
be discontinued.
2.8
In further correspondence Defra then indicated that the Scheme of Regulation
would in certain circumstances allow fencing for temporary periods to allow
the Common to revive. Arrangements for fencing were made and since 2008
the western end of the common has been grazed between May and October
using electric fencing which is taken down for the winter.
2.9
Since grazing has resumed on the west common it is clear that there has
been an improvement in the quantity and diversity of native flora. The
remainder of the common which is currently not grazed would benefit from
grazing but the scheme of regulation does not permit any more of the
common to be enclosed without Defra approval. The unfenced parts of the
common have had to be cut by mechanical means but this has been
unsatisfactory because the ground is often boggy and uneven and therefore
unsuitable for machinery. Furthermore removal of the cut material which is
necessary to allow the re-colonisation of the desirable native flora is
impractical.
21
2.10
It has been clearly shown that the reason for refusal given by Defra was
invalid because in reality grazing has not been able to proceed without
fencing. A new application for fencing could therefore be justified. A further
reason which would support an application is on the grounds of biodiversity.
The Commons Act 2006 changed the law to allow fencing applications to be
considered on the grounds of habitat improvement and biodiversity which was
not possible under the previous legislation.
2.11
There is local support for the common to be improved for its biodiversity
quality and the Management Committee are minded to make an application
under the Commons Act 2006 for additional fencing and subsequent grazing.
Preliminary work has already been undertaken particularly in relation to
community engagement and this is consistent with the guidance on
interpreting the 2006 act given by Defra in the publication A Common
Purpose: A guide to Community Engagement for those contemplating
management on Common Land 2012.
2.12
The guidance recommends the following process which has been broadly
kept to in the case of arriving at these proposals.






Gathering information
Engaging with stakeholders
Harnessing the views of stakeholders
Examining management options
Selecting the most appropriate option
Implementation
3.
Community engagement
3.1
The management Committee has been very aware of the need to properly
engage the local community regarding on-going management and future
proposals.
3.2
On 22nd June 2013 the community was given the opportunity to comment on
options regarding future management. The consultation took place on-site
and people listened to a presentation by officers followed by an invitation to
complete the consultation survey and return it to NNDC. A copy of the
consultation document and a summary of responses are shown in appendix
1.
3.3
Generally speaking there was a clear understanding that the biodiversity of
the common could realistically only be improved by grazing and that grazing
was only practical if the livestock were enclosed by fencing. It was widely
accepted that the temporary fencing on the western common should be made
permanent (mainly on cost grounds) and most people agreed that
management to date had provided some visible improvements.
3.4
There were some concerns that future fencing may be visually intrusive but
undertakings were given to site any further fencing sensitively to mitigate any
such intrusion.
22
3.5
There were also requests for the numerous ponds on the common to be
managed more proactively. This could be implemented through on-going
management and did not require DEFRA approval.
3.6
Following the consultation proposal maps for the preferred option were
drafted and presented to the community for discussion at Erpingham Village
Hall on 22nd February 2014. Arrangements were made for those people not
able to attend the meeting to discuss the proposals with committee members
at a later date.
3.7
The proposal maps and detailed proposals that would form any future
application are shown in appendix 2 and are summarised as follows:
Western Section

The existing temporary fence that is erected and dismantled each year
will be replaced with permanent stock fencing to permit the current
grazing to continue.

Pedestrian access to the grazed areas will be retained.
Central Section (currently un-grazed)

Use temporary fencing to create one or two paddocks from May to
October.

Fencing to be supplied by grazier. Graze with cattle or ponies.

Use temporary fencing to exclude stock from adjacent Weaver’s way
footpath.

Fence line parallel with road to be set back to leave a wide margin and
manage unfenced area by mechanical cutting.
Eastern section (currently un-grazed)

Use temporary fencing to create 3 small paddocks from mid-summer
over 4 months, excluding ponds and scrub

Ensure public access to land not being grazed
4.
Conclusion
4.1
It has been demonstrated that the area of Thwaite Common that has been
grazed since 2008 has seen a significant improvement in the quantity and
diversity of native plants growing there. For legal reasons it has not been
possible to enclose other sections of the common and mechanical cutting of
vegetation has failed to deliver comparable results.
4.2
With the introduction of the Commons Act 2006, the enhancement of
biodiversity is now a valid criterion that must be considered by the Secretary
of State when deciding fencing applications in relation to commons.
The Management Committee has explored all other management options and
given the level of apparent community support the most appropriate
4.3
23
conclusion is that further fencing of the Common would deliver the positive
management outcomes sought.
5.
Financial Implications and Risks
5.1
HLS payments amount to £3,368 per year and this is sufficient funding to
manage the common. The funding can-not be spent on any other council
service. The scheme will be in place until 2022 giving financial security over
this timescale.
6.
Sustainability
6.1
The management of Thwaite common is financially sustainable because the
income received from the HLS scheme is sufficient to pay for management
works.
6.2
The proposed application for fencing would make the management of the
common more environmentally sustainable because the use of plant and
machinery would be minimal. The Stewardship scheme and management
plan is designed to be environmentally sustainable through minimal or no use
of pesticides, nutrient supplements or artificial animal food.
7.
Equality and Diversity
7.1
There are no issues that impact on equality and diversity
8.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
8.1
There are no considerations
9.
Existing policies
9.1
The proposals contained in this report are consistent with NNDC key aim:
To protect our coastline and the character of the countryside and built
heritage
10.
Risks
10.1
Failure to secure additional fencing capabilities will mean that the common
can-not be improved further compromising an aspect of the key aim above
and also having a negative impact on the councils reputation in delivering this
aim.
24
Appendix 1a
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Appendix 1b
Thwaite Common Summary of responses from 22nd June 2013 consultation
question
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.2
3.3
East common
Temporary electric fencing in small paddocks
graze half the area for 2 months a year
Cut for hay and cut paths cut half each year
Central common
North section – graze with temporary fence
North section – graze with permanent fence
North section - cutting
South section - grazing
South section – temporary fence
South section – permanent fence
Location of fence
Fence both sides of Weavers Way
West common
Current arrangements have been a success
Change to permanent fencing
Can access be improved
yes
no
18
1
9
3
11
5
4
16
8
10
n/a
4
2
3
0
1
0
1
n/a
0
16
15
0
1
2
5
Comments
other than
yes/no
5
9
2
1
6
Note:
There were 19 respondents altogether but not everyone answered all
of the questions so the totals in the last three columns do not always
add up to 19
33
PJI 22.04.14
34
Appendix 2a
Pond, exclude from
grazing
Area of scrub,
exclude from
grazing
Area of scrub,
exclude from
grazing
Pond, exclude from
grazing
Eastern section of Thwaite Common
Graze with ponies, cattle or sheep in 3 small paddocks from mid-summer over 4 months,
excluding ponds and scrub and ensuring that access is available to area not being grazed.
Ensure these boundaries are stock
proof
Grazier to supply own fencing and water.
Early spring grazing may be required some years.
35
Appendix 2b
Leave wide margin next to road and
manage by topping once or twice a
tear. Exclude grazing from pond.
Use temporary fencing to exclude
stock from Weaver’s Way, only when
stock on the common.
Approximate line of temporary
fencing.
Central area of Thwaite Common
Use temporary fencing to graze in one
or two paddocks from May-October.
Grazier to supply own fence, but
management committee to install
wooden corner posts are required.
Graze with cattle or ponies.
Create drinking
point in stream if
possible
Ensure these boundaries are stock
proof
36
Appendix 2c
Western Section of Thwaite Common
The existing temporary fence will be replaced with permanent
stock fencing to permit the current grazing to continue.
Arrows show existing or
proposed pedestrian
access into the grazed
areas.
37