Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 07 March 2016 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 2.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Mr N Dixon
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick (Chairman)
Mrs J Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr W Northam
Mr J Rest
Also attending:
Mrs S Butikofer
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr N Pearce
Mrs M Prior
Officers in
Attendance:
119.
Mr R Reynolds
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr G Williams
Mr D Young
The Corporate Directors, the Communications Editor, the Head of
Finance and the Democratic Services Team Leader
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
120.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 08 February 2016 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman
121.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
122.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There was one item of urgent business. The Leader said that this would be taken
after the main business.
123.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
124.
MEMBER QUESTIONS
The Leader confirmed that Members could ask questions as each item arose.
Cabinet
07 March 2016
125.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
None
126.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None
127.
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2015/16 – PERIOD 10
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced this item. He explained that
the report summarised the budget monitoring position for the revenue account and
capital programme to the end of January 2016. Mr Northam said that the overall
position at the end of January 2016 showed an underspend of £1,765,761 to date for
the current financial year on the revenue account and this was expected to deliver a
full year underspend of £876,500. The base budget for 2015/16 included service
savings and additional income totalling £222,000 and these were still on target to be
achieved.
Mr Northam informed Members that a further budget requirement of £35,000 had
been identified in order to complete the works at 4a Market Street, North Walsham.
This was due to the eventual purchase price for the site being higher than originally
anticipated following an independent valuation assessment.
Members were invited to ask questions:
Mr D Young queried the reference to grants for the Coastal Revival Fund and asked
what this money was for. The Head of Finance said that the amount was correct but
that she would clarify the breakdown of the funding and the projects that it was
allocated after the meeting.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr J Rest and
RESOLVED to
1) To note the contents of the report and the current budget monitoring position;
2) To note the updated Capital Programme and financing for 2015/16 to 2018/19 as
detailed in Appendix C;
3) To approve the capital budget virements as requested within the report;
4) To approve the additional capital budget requirement of £35,000 in relation to the
North Walsham regeneration scheme, to be funded from capital resources.
Reasons for the decision:
To update Members on the current budget monitoring position for the Council.
128.
COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF LONG-TERM EMPTY PROPERTIES
Mrs J Oliver, Portfolio Holder for Legal Services, introduced this item. She said that
the report made the case for compulsory purchase of a number of long-term empty
properties that had been considered by the Enforcement Board, where it was felt that
without this action the properties were unlikely to be returned to use in the near
future. Mrs Oliver said that all of the properties concerned had been unoccupied for
Cabinet
07 March 2016
over 5 years and two properties had been empty for 17 years. It was hoped that
before seeking an order for compulsory purchase from the Secretary of State, the
Council could reach a voluntary agreement for sale with the current owners based on
an independent market valuation.
The Leader invited Members to comment:
a. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that she was very supportive of the proposals as the
properties were eyesores that needed sorting out.
b. Mrs S Arnold said that she was delighted to see action being taken.
c. Mr R Shepherd said that the Enforcement Board continued to do an excellent job.
He agreed that the Beeston properties were an eyesore and he was also pleased
to see that progress was being made with the Shannocks Hotel in Sheringham.
It was proposed by Mrs J Oliver, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
1. To authorise officers to seek a voluntary agreement from the owners of the
properties to sell them to the Council and to complete the sale within agreed
timescales.
2. That if no such agreement is reached, and in the case of the Beeston Common
properties, no valid planning application is received for the site by the agreed date,
that officers are authorised to proceed with applications to the Secretary of State
for Compulsory Purchase of the following properties:
a.
37 Beeston Road, Sheringham
b.
2 and 2A Stirling Road, Sculthorpe
c.
55 and 56 Beeston Common, Sheringham
Note: these addresses are taken from the Land Registry records and may differ
from postal addresses for service of documents, Parishes and Council wards.
3. That officers are authorised to take necessary steps for the acquired properties to
be sold on at the earliest opportunity with binding conditions that will make clear
the Council’s expectation for the properties be returned to use as soon as
realistically achievable.
4. That the purchases will be funded from capital resources from which virement of
the necessary funds is authorised.
5. To cap the costs of compulsory purchase at the valuation plus CPO costs at the
upper limit identified in this report.
To recommend to Council:
6. The establishment of a capital budget of £630,000 specifically for financing
compulsory purchase of these properties.
Reasons for the decision:
1. There is an expectation by the Secretary of State that Councils will seek to reach
voluntary agreement on purchases prior to a Compulsory Purchase being
authorised.
2. To enable the properties to be brought back into use, thus reducing the number of
long-term empty properties in the area and increasing housing provision.
Cabinet
07 March 2016
3. As for 2 above.
4. To make the necessary financial provision for purchase
5. To ensure CPO remains a cost effective option.
6. To provide the necessary finance for CPO to be completed.
129.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Leader introduced this item. He said that he thought it would be helpful to update
Members on the latest developments with the devolution bid. Mr FitzPatrick said that
it was an ongoing process. Two weeks previously he had met with the Secretary of
State for the Department for Communities and Local Government, Greg Clark,
representatives from the local authorities of Cambridge and Peterborough and the
bid team from Norfolk and Suffolk. Since then there had been considerable work on
reaching a deal and a further meeting had taken place with representatives from the
New Anglia Partnership and MPs from across the region. A decision was then taken
to make a bid which would include Cambridge, Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk. A
bid document had been drafted but further changes were required and the deadline
was very tight as it needed to be submitted in time for the Budget.
Mr FitzPatrick said that he was only prepared to sign a non-binding bid and would not
sign up to an agreement at this stage. He was adamant that North Norfolk would not
be disadvantaged with Cambridge entering the bid. It was imperative that there
should be recognition of rural and coastal issues. He concluded by saying that there
was a duty to consult with local residents.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1. Ms V Gay sought clarification on the role of Peterborough and whether they
were part of the deal. Mr FitzPatrick replied that they were a unitary authority
and confirmed that they were part of the deal.
2. Ms Gay then asked whether an elected mayor was likely. Mr FitzPatrick
replied that the Treasury was very supportive of elected mayors and
consequently this had to be part of the model being proposed.
3. Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that as Cambridge was a hub for technology,
she was concerned that more emphasis would be placed on them and that
North Norfolk could lose out as a result of this. Mr FitzPatrick replied that this
was a valid point and it was imperative that the balance was right, for
example Ely junction was key for West Norfolk. He went onto say that
Cambridge City required a lot of additional housing and it was possible that
this could fall to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to accommodate. He
concluded that the Council had joined SPARSE the Rural Services Network,
to fight for rurality and they would continue to do so.
4. Mr R Reynolds said that he agreed with Mrs Grove-Jones’ point that North
Norfolk could be adversely affected but that Norwich was a centre of
excellence and small businesses supported this and the construction of the
Northern Distributor Road (NDR) would help with this.
Mr FitzPatrick thanked everyone for their comments. He said that it was a fast
moving process and he would continue to fight North Norfolk’s corner.
.
Cabinet
07 March 2016
The Meeting closed at 10.24am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
07 March 2016