Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
27 September 2013
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 October 2013 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. Coffee will be available in the staff restaurant at 9.30 a.m.
and at the break.
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 T Ivory, Mr J Lee, Mr W
Northam, Mr R Oliver, 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
September 2013.
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.
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.
7.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
A resolution was made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at their meeting on 11
September 2013 regarding the CCTV Review 2013. This will be considered at Agenda Item
11.
8.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
(Page 5)
To receive and consider the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative
Committee held on 16 July 2013.
9.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, LAND AT NORTH WALSHAM ROAD,
HAPPISBURGH
Summary:
(Page 9)
This report relates to the final stages of implementation of the
Coastal Change Pathfinder replacement housing project at
Happisburgh. It sets out the current position and aims to agree a
process by which:
 an appropriate memorandum of agreement can be reached
with the owner of the development site (incorporating

Options
considered:
financial split of the proceeds, consequent to the sit‟s
disposal); and
the site can be disposed of expeditiously.
The current position has been arrived at as a result of the
incremental implementation of the Coastal Change Pathfinder
replacement housing development project. The recommended
course of action takes this project to its logical conclusion, which
should result in the Council recouping substantial sums of
money laid out on the acquisition of properties at risk of erosion
in Happisburgh. Failure to implement this would not only
disadvantage the Council financially but would miss the
opportunity of learning valuable lessons about roll-back as a
means of coastal adaptation.
The recommendation to seek delegated authority in pursuance
of the intended outcome is made to ensure that the Council is in
an advantageous position and able to act expeditiously and
flexibly with regard to the implementation of this project. An
alternative option would be to wait until a final agreement has
been negotiated and to report that to Cabinet for its
consideration, and to build into that agreement sufficient
timescales for Cabinet to determine the terms of the disposal of
the site. Such an approach is likely to delay the agreement and
hinder the site‟s ultimate disposal; potentially impacting upon the
sale potential.
Conclusions:
The development of replacement housing for that which was as
risk of loss to erosion in Happisburgh will be the culmination of a
lengthy and complex project. It has, to a large extent, been an
experiment and a demonstration project and as such has
attained a nationwide profile. Valuable lessons have already
been learned from it and these have been applied both in the
local context and elsewhere. It has truly broken new ground in
developing a methodology for coastal adaptation but equally as
importantly has led to the resolution of some of the seemingly
most intractable problems faced on our coast. The outcome has
been that:
 individual householders (in possession of „at risk‟ properties)
have been able „to move on with their lives‟;
 the increasingly derelict houses have been demolished, thus
improving the sensitive cliff top environment and addressing
the blight associated with their imminent demise; and
 the anticipated new investment in replacement housing is
hoped to bring increased confidence in the local property
market, as well as providing much needed new homes.
The final stage of the project relies upon a satisfactory
agreement being reached with the landowner and the ultimate
disposal of the site to a developer who will build the replacement
houses. This will fulfil the aims of the roll-back project and will
recoup a substantial sum of money expended thus far on it.
Recommendations: It is recommended that Cabinet resolves:
1. to grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive, in
consultation with the Portfolio Holder to:
a. agree the final terms of a memorandum of agreement
with the owner of land at North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh to work together to enable the
proposed development to proceed and to share the
financial proceeds of its sale, as appropriate;
b. determine whether to accept or reject (with reasons
CABINET
and a recommended alternative course of action) the
DECISION
recommendations of the agent responsible for the
marketing and disposal of the site;
2. that the matter be brought back to Cabinet if the Chief
Executive recommends that the Council should seek to
acquire the landowner’s interest in the site, in
accordance with the agreement, should the disposal not
take place as anticipated within two years of the
agreement being signed.
These recommendations are made in order to ensure progress
Reasons for
Recommendations: on the final memorandum of agreement and the ultimate sale of
the site continue expeditiously. This will also assist in the timely
development of the site.
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)
Planning Protocol for North Norfolk District Council Developments
Cabinet
Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone number
Email:
10.
Cllr A Fitch-Tillett and Cllr T Ivory
Happisburgh
Robert Young
01263 516162
Robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk
CROMER COAST PROTECTION SCHEME 982
Summary:
(Page 15)
At their meeting of July 2012 Cabinet resolved to appoint
consultants URS to design Phase 1 of the Cromer Coast
Protection Scheme 982 and to procure a main contractor.
This report summarises the actions taken since then, particularly
the processes that were followed leading to the invitation of tenders
and their subsequent analysis.
It recommends the appointment of a main contractor, subject to
final approval of funding by the Environment Agency. . The Council
will be responsible for signing off the works once they are
complete.
Options
considered:
There is no viable alternative. The work is required; it is grant
eligible; grant is available; the tender is the lowest received and is
compliant. To not accept the tender would be to not proceed with
the works.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
A robust tendering process and analysis has led to a
clear winning tender.
Cabinet is asked to resolve that
Subject to
a.
the approval by the Environment Agency of the
project and Flood Defence Grant in Aid and
b.
finalising all statutory consents;
i. To accept the tender submitted by Volker
Stevin in the sum of £3,858,784.68p;
ii. To appoint Volker Stevin as main contractor
for the Cromer Coast protection Scheme
982 Phase 1.
The tender submitted by Volker Stevin was compliant with
Reasons for
Recommendations: the requirements of the contract and was the lowest
received. The proposed works are eligible for grant aid.
Application has been made to the Environment Agency
for grant aid. The scheme is in the Agency‟s programme
and it is expected that grant will be forthcoming.
CABINET
Application could not be made until the tenders had been
DECISION
received. Similarly neither the planning consent nor the
MMO licence could be finalized before tenders had been
received. Hence the resolution is to be made
conditionally.
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)
Cromer Coastal Strategy Stage A and B reports
Cromer CP Scheme Design Criteria
Cromer CP Scheme Works Information Vols 1 & 2
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone number
Email:
Cllr A Fitch-Tillett
Cromer
Brian Farrow
01263 516193
Brian.farrow@north-norfolk.gov.uk
11.
REVIEW OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) SERVICE 2013
(Page 20)
(Appendix A – electronic only ) (Appendix B – p. 29)
Summary:
As part of the Council‟s budget savings exercise a review
of the current CCTV operation was requested by Cabinet
as part of the overall review of services. A paper was
presented to Cabinet in January 2013 to establish a
politically balanced Working Party to oversee the review
and make recommendations to Cabinet.
The Terms of Reference for the group included the
requirement to consider options for the future provision of
the service, to identify savings and to steer the review
process, including stakeholder consultation.
The Working Party has now concluded the review
process and the report and findings are contained within
Appendix A which should be read alongside this paper.
Options considered:
The Working Party has considered a number of options.
These included investigation of a number of external
management options, including the potential for working
with third party service providers and other Council‟s.
Internal options have also been considered and cover
potential capital investment for the introduction of a
wireless CCTV system on an „invest to save‟ basis.
The discontinuation of the service has also been
considered as a potential option.
These options are considered in detail within Appendix A
and the options which the Working Party consider viable
are summarised within the report below.
Conclusions:
A number of alternative options and potential working
arrangements have been considered as part of the
review process and these are given above. The review
has identified three potential options as discussed above
including shared working, internal investment (wireless
option) and decommissioning, all of which achieve
efficiency savings for the Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet;
CABINET
DECISION
1. Note the content of the Review of the Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 report
2. Select which option it wishes to implement
3. Grant Delegated Authority to the Head of
Assets and Leisure to move forward with the
preferred option in consultation with the
Portfolio holder for Assets and the Corporate
Director.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The Working Party has considered a number of options
as part of this review process. Upon further investigation,
some of these options have not proved viable and have
therefore not been recommended for further
considerations. The full options appraisal can be found
within the CCTV review document contained within
Appendix A and a summary of the viable options is
contained within this paper.
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)
Review of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 – Working Party
Report
CCTV Working Party minutes
Cabinet paper – Review of CCTV service, January 2013
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Contact Officer:
Telephone number
Email:
12.
Cllr R Oliver
Cromer Town, Lancaster (North/South), North
Walsham (East/North/west), Sheringham
(North/South), Priory
Duncan Ellis
01263 516330
Duncan.ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk
BUSINESS RATES POOLING
Please note this report will follow shortly
To receive a report outlining the potential for establishing a business rates pooling
arrangement for the Council jointly with Norfolk County Council and other Norfolk District
Councils. The report will consider the financial advantages to the Norfolk council tax payer
and the potential risks to the councils involved.
(Source; Karen Sly, Head of Finance, 01263 516243, Karen.sly@north-norfolk.gov.uk)
13.
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.”
14.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 09 September 2013 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T Ivory
Mr T Ivory
Mr R Oliver
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr P High
Miss B Palmer
Officers in
Attendance:
41.
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr G Williams
The Chief Executive, the Head of Economic & Community
Development, the Head of Finance, the Head of Organisational
Development, the Housing Team Leader (Strategy) and the
Democratic Services Team Leader.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr J Lee and Mr T FitzPatrick
42.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2013 were confirmed as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
43.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
44.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
45.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
46.
Cabinet
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
1
09 September 2013
1
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held
on 17 May 2013.
47.
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the meeting of the CCTV Working Party held on 04 July
2013.
48.
BIG SOCIETY FUND GRANTS PANEL
RESOLVED
To receive the draft minutes of the meeting of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel
held on 8th July 2013.
49.
BUDGET MONITORING REPORT 2013/14 – PERIOD 4
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced this item. He explained that
the report summarised the budget monitoring position for the revenue account to the
end of July 2013. Mr Northam drew members’ attention to the Dual Use Sports
Centres. He said that a delay had been caused by the lease having to go to the
County Council solicitor and a response was still awaited. Regarding work on
Briggate Mill, he explained that the owner had been traced and an invoice for
payment had been sent.
The Chairman proposed that recommendation 3 was amended to refer to ‘upgraded
mobile devices’ instead of laptops.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Wright and
RESOLVED
1. To note the contents of the report and the current budget monitoring position
2. To agree and recommend to Council the updated budget as set out in section
5.1, Table 3
3. To agree and recommend to Council a budget of £65,000 for PC and
upgraded mobile devices as outlined in paragraph 6.4 of the report.
Reasons for the decision:
To ensure that Members were updated on the current budget monitoring position for
the Council
50.
FINANCIAL STRATEGY 2014/15 TO 2016/17
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Finance, introduced this item. He explained that
the report presented the financial forecast for the period 2014/15 to 2016/17 and
provided a summary of the key issues facing the Council in relation to local
government finance. He explained that the report outlined the impact of the changes
to the New Homes Bonus (NHB) from 2015/16 which would see the top-slicing of an
element potentially between 18.9% and 35.09% which would be used to fund the
National Growth Fund. Mr Northam concluded by stating that the current financial
Cabinet
2
09 September 2013
2
forecast presented a funding gap for the next 3 years of just over £1m by 2016/17,
and reminded Members that there would be an opportunity for further discussion on
this item when it was considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mr R Wright and
RESOLVED to recommend to Council:
a) Continuation of the current Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2014/15;
b) That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme grant for parishes be offered to those
parishes that accepted the grant in 2013/14 and the total amount available is
reduced in line with the Council’s relative funding reductions as outlined at section
2.9.15;
c) The reallocation of £400,000 from the general reserve to the Restructuring/Invest
to Save Reserve;
d) The updated minimum level of General Fund balance to be £1.75 million for the
reasons outlined in the report at section 5;
e) Delegated authority is given to the Chief Executive to release funds from the
restructuring/invest to save reserve up to £100,000, as outlined within section 5 of
the financial strategy;
f) The revised reserves statement as included at Appendix F to the financial strategy
(with the revisions of recommendations 2 c) above;
g) Pending further review of the financial limits within the constitution, an amendment
to the virement limits for Heads of Service and Corporate Leadership team as
outlined at reference 5.16.
Reasons 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 2014/15 which
will be commencing in the coming months.
51.
LOCAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY – PROVISION OF LOANS TO REGISTERED
PROVIDERS
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that
approval was sought to issue loans to Registered Providers to support the delivery of
new housing across the District as part of a Local Investment Strategy. The loans
would be on a commercial basis generating a rate of return which would be greater
than the return currently being achieved on the Council’s short term treasury
investments.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RESOLVED to recommend to Council:
1. the Council provides loan funding as detailed in this report to Registered
Providers and/or their wholly owned subsidiaries to facilitate the provision of
more housing in North Norfolk. Initially funding of up to £3.5million to be made
available.
2. the Treasury Management Strategy is amended to:
 Allow for the provision of loans to Registered Providers and/or their wholly
owned subsidiaries
Cabinet
3
09 September 2013
3

Change the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Policy to allow for Capital
Receipts from principal repayments on loans made on an Equal Instalment of
Principal (EIP) basis to be applied to finance the Capital Financing Requirement.
3. £3.5 million be included in the 2013/14 capital programme for loans to
Registered Providers to be funded partly (£1,168,478) from a virement from the
Housing Associations capital budget and £2,331,522 from internal borrowing or
external borrowing as required.
Reasons for the decision:
To increase the provision of housing, including affordable housing across the district
which supports the aims set out in the Corporate Plan.
The Meeting closed at 10.08 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
4
09 September 2013
4
Agenda Item 2
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Minutes of a meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held in the Committee
Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on 16 July 2013 at 2.30pm
Members Present:
Mrs S Arnold
Mr T Fitzpatrick (Chairman)
Mrs B McGoun
Mr N Smith
Staff Side Present:
Mr S Case
Ms C Lowin-Green
Mr A Mitchell
Officers in Attendance:
Ms J Cooke, Head of Organisational Development
Mrs E Denny, Democratic Services Team Leader
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr P High and Mr P Godwin
2.
MINUTES
Mr A Mitchell proposed that item 1 of the JSCC Update was amended to refer to the
car allowance policy. The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative
Committee held on 17 May 2013 were then approved as a correct record, subject to
the above amendment and signed by the Chairman.
3.
JSCC UPDATE
a) Expressions of Interest
Ms C Lowin-Green asked how many expressions of interest had been received from
staff and how they were progressing. The Head of Organisational Development
explained to Members that this was the third time that members of staff had been
invited to express an interest if they wished to be considered for voluntary
redundancy, early or flexible retirement or alternative working patterns. Once all
responses had been received, they would go to the Management Team for
consideration and to be assessed against service plans.
Mr A Mitchell asked whether a business case would need to be made. The Head of
Organisational Development confirmed that it would if there was a cost implication. In
response to a further question from Ms C Lowin-Green regarding a time-frame, she
said that respondents just needed to notify Human Resources by the deadline. She
added that anyone could come forward with an expression of interest at any time if
there was no cost implication.
Ms C Lowin-Green asked if staff should also notify Human Resources now of any
future intentions. The Head of Organisational Development confirmed that they
should.
1
5
b) National Pay Negotiations
Ms C Lowin-Green informed the Committee that the ballot had been very close.
In response to a question from Mrs B McGoun regarding how other branches had
voted, Ms Lowin-Green said that she believed them all to have been close. Mr T
FitzPatrick commented that a 1% pay rise would be a reduction in real terms.
4.
URGENT BUSINESS
Mr A Mitchell asked for an update on the reception project. He said that a separate
office for Unison had been very useful and that there had always been a tacit
agreement to find a replacement when the reception area was refurbished. He was
concerned that this may not happen now and wanted to highlight the issues around
confidentiality that meant the general interview rooms were not suitable. He added that
there was also a lot of documentation, including confidential material that was currently
kept in the Unison office. The Head of Organisational Development replied that this
issue had been discussed at the recent meeting with the Chief Executive. She had
since looked at the facilities agreement and it stated that Unison would be provided
with sufficient resources to carry out their role. She added that if there was no separate
space available, an alternative option would be the use of a room that had a lockable
cabinet and a telephone available. Ms C Lowin-Green said that she felt this would not
be suitable as people sometimes came to Unison in a very distressed state. If Unison
only had occasional use of a room they may have to ask whoever was using it to
vacate at short notice.
Mr A Mitchell commented that he just wanted the issue to still be under consideration
and that Unison should be consulted before a final decision was made. Mr S Case said
that ACAS advice stated that where the volume of work justified it there should be the
use of a dedicated office. Mr A Mitchell added that Unison had moved office several
times over the years and they had always been flexible to accommodate the Council.
He felt that their members would be very distressed if the proposed changes resulted
in a lockable cabinet in a public space.
The Head of Organisation Development suggested that Unison should raise their
concerns with the Corporate Director (NB) and requested that she be notified of the
outcome of any such discussions.
5.
SICKNESS ABSENCE UPDATE
The Head of Organisational Development updated the Committee on the latest
sickness absence figures within the organisation. She said that the absence figures for
the first quarter of 2013/14 were higher than the previous year and this was due to
depression and colds and flu.
6. LIVING WAGE
The Head of Organisational Development provided a brief overview of the scheme.
She explained that the Living Wage was different to the National Minimum Wage in
that it took into account the cost of living and had an overall aim of providing
employees with an income for the ‘essentials of life’. Accreditation for the scheme was
managed by Citizens UK and employers would be provided with a licence to use the
living wage employer mark. There was an annual cost of £400 and the Council would
have obligations to ensure that contractors pay also adhered to living wage conditions.
She advised the Committee that only one employee would be affected if the scheme
2
6
was introduced. In response to a question from Mr A Mitchell regarding the number of
employees on the bottom spine of the next grade up, the Head of Organisational
Development said that she could not confirm that.
Mr N Smith asked what would be the main benefit of joining the scheme. The Head of
Organisational Development said that the Council would be able to promote itself as a
living wage employer. Mr A Mitchell added that as the Council was one of the largest
employers in the District it would set a good example.
Mr T FitzPatrick commented that the National Minimum Wage was the benchmark for
employers. Mr S Case responded that the National Minimum Wage took income from
tax credits and benefits into account, whereas the Living Wage promoted an income
that excluded benefits. He added that the Council would benefit regarding recruitment
and retention of employees if they joined the scheme. Employers who signed up for
the scheme often saw a reduction in absenteeism and sick leave as well as an
increase in productivity and morale.
Mr N Smith said that the Council were in fact already paying the Living Wage to its
employees as only one member of staff would be affected. Mr A Mitchell responded
that officially joining the scheme would enable the Council to set itself apart from
others as a flagship employer.
Mr T FitzPatrick said that he had some concerns about making a long-term
commitment to the scheme. In response to this, Ms C Lowin-Green said that a review
would be built-in if the Council committed to joining, to which Mr FitzPatrick replied that
it would be worse for the Council to leave the scheme if it felt that it could no longer
commit to it. The Head of Organisational Development added that she also had some
concerns – in particular the proposed introduction of a new rate for the Living Wage in
November and issues around procurement and the implications for contractors
employed by the Council. Ms C Lowin-Green said that any concerns relating to the
payment of contractors could be addressed by stating that the Council was ‘working
towards’ or ‘encouraging’ the payment of the Living Wage.
Mrs S Arnold commented that employers should be paying the National Minimum
Wage and the introduction of a Living wage was an issue for the Government to
address. She suggested that members could raise a motion at Council urging the
Government to move toward the implementation of the Living Wage.
Mr T FitzPatrick commented that the one employee affected by the introduction of the
Living Wage must have had their job evaluated to put them on that pay scale and he
wondered whether it could have a knock-on effect if it was implemented. The Head of
Organisational Development replied that the Council would apply a supplement to that
specific post. She added that she still had concerns regarding the cost of implementing
the scheme.
Mr A Mitchell proposed that the item was considered again at the November meeting
of the Committee as the true cost of joining the scheme should be clearer by then. Ms
C Lowin-Green said that it would be helpful to know who would be affected and if any
pension contributions would be affected. Mr T Fitzpatrick added that it was important
the revised hourly rate was also available for the Committee to consider. The Head of
Organisational Development said that she would also check the implications on
contracts for procurement.
AGREED
3
7
To receive a report on the costs of introducing the Living Wage at the November
meeting of the Committee.
The meeting concluded at 15.20pm.
_______________
Chairman
4
8
Agenda Item No____9________
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, LAND AT NORTH WALSHAM ROAD,
HAPPISBURGH
Summary:
This report relates to the final stages of implementation
of the Coastal Change Pathfinder replacement housing
project at Happisburgh. It sets out the current position
and aims to agree a process by which:
 an appropriate memorandum of agreement can be
reached with the owner of the development site
(incorporating financial split of the proceeds,
consequent to the sit‟s disposal); and
 the site can be disposed of expeditiously.
Options considered:
The current position has been arrived at as a result of
the incremental implementation of the Coastal Change
Pathfinder replacement housing development project.
The recommended course of action takes this project to
its logical conclusion, which should result in the Council
recouping substantial sums of money laid out on the
acquisition of properties at risk of erosion in
Happisburgh. Failure to implement this would not only
disadvantage the Council financially but would miss the
opportunity of learning valuable lessons about roll-back
as a means of coastal adaptation.
The recommendation to seek delegated authority in
pursuance of the intended outcome is made to ensure
that the Council is in an advantageous position and able
to act expeditiously and flexibly with regard to the
implementation of this project. An alternative option
would be to wait until a final agreement has been
negotiated and to report that to Cabinet for its
consideration, and to build into that agreement sufficient
timescales for Cabinet to determine the terms of the
disposal of the site. Such an approach is likely to delay
the agreement and hinder the site‟s ultimate disposal;
potentially impacting upon the sale potential.
Conclusions:
The development of replacement housing for that which
was as risk of loss to erosion in Happisburgh will be the
culmination of a lengthy and complex project. It has, to a
large extent, been an experiment and a demonstration
project and as such has attained a nationwide profile.
Valuable lessons have already been learned from it and
these have been applied both in the local context and
elsewhere. It has truly broken new ground in developing
a methodology for coastal adaptation but equally as
importantly has led to the resolution of some of the
seemingly most intractable problems faced on our
coast. The outcome has been that:
9



individual householders (in possession of „at risk‟
properties) have been able „to move on with their
lives‟;
the increasingly derelict houses have been
demolished, thus improving the sensitive cliff top
environment and addressing the blight associated
with their imminent demise; and
the anticipated new investment in replacement
housing is hoped to bring increased confidence in
the local property market, as well as providing much
needed new homes.
The final stage of the project relies upon a satisfactory
agreement being reached with the landowner and the
ultimate disposal of the site to a developer who will build
the replacement houses. This will fulfil the aims of the
roll-back project and will recoup a substantial sum of
money expended thus far on it.
Recommendations:
Reasons for
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet resolves:
1. to grant delegated authority to the Chief
Executive, in consultation with the portfolio
holder, to:
a. agree the final terms of a memorandum of
agreement with the owner of land at North
Walsham Road, Happisburgh to work
together to enable the proposed
development to proceed and to share the
financial proceeds of its sale, as appropriate;
b. determine whether to accept or reject (with
reasons and a recommended alternative
course of action) the recommendations of
the agent responsible for the marketing and
disposal of the site;
2. that the matter be brought back to Cabinet if the
Chief Executive recommends that the Council
should seek to acquire the landowner’s interest
in the site, in accordance with the agreement,
should the disposal not take place as anticipated
within two years of the agreement being signed.
These recommendations are made in order to ensure
progress on the final memorandum of agreement and
the ultimate sale of the site continue expeditiously. This
will also assist in the timely development of the site.
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)
Planning Protocol for North Norfolk District Council Developments
10
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr A Fitch-Tillett & Cllr T
All
Ivory
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Robert Young. x6162, robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
North Norfolk‟s approach to managing coastal change includes „roll-back‟ or
replacement of properties that are most imminently at risk. The planning
policy context for this is set out in the North Norfolk LDF Core Strategy (Policy
EN12 and its supporting text). One element of the (Defra funded) North
Norfolk Coastal Change Pathfinder programme set about demonstrating how
„roll-back‟ could operate in practice, and in doing so make significant inroads
into safeguarding the future wellbeing and sustainability of the village of
Happisburgh. The Happisburgh project led to the purchase of nine „at risk‟
residential properties and sought to facilitate their replacement in the village.
It should be noted that the project was predicated on replacing houses, not
relocating households, although the interests of the individual property
owners of course featured prominently in the development of options/
solutions (and purchases were made by private treaty, rather than through
any form of compulsion). This project is nearing its conclusion.
1.2
Cabinet (under the previous administration) received a report in March 2011,
setting out proposals for the implementation of the Happisburgh „roll-back‟
scheme for the replacement of properties that were imminently at risk of
erosion and had been purchased under the Pathfinder initiative. Under this
scheme the Council would bring the opportunity presented by its acquisition
of these properties to secure the investment in nine replacement dwellings in
the Happisburgh.
1.3
The Council did not own an appropriate site so it joined together with a
landowner (working under an interim agreement) and a suitable site in the
village has subsequently gained outline planning consent. The „at risk‟
properties that were purchased at Beach Road have been demolished and
the sites on which they stood now function as amenity land.
1.4
The Council and the landowner wish now to reach a firm agreement and to
market the site for disposal. Cabinet‟s authority is sought to delegate the
decision to the Chief Executive on:
 The terms of the final memorandum of agreement; and
 The ultimate decision to dispose of the site (including agreeing a price)
2.
The terms of the agreement
2.1
The Council‟s property agent for the Pathfinder project has acted in a liaison
role to secure a draft agreement with the landowner‟s agent. The draft
agreement is currently being considered by the landowner‟s agent and its
headline provisions are outlined below. The agreement is intended to bind the
two parties (the Council and the landowner) to working together to enable the
proposed development to proceed and in particular:
11
a) to co-operate in securing any further planning permission on the owner’s land
making use of the EN12 rights, the outline consent having been secured;
b) and to pursue the marketing of the proposed development on the owner’s
land with the objective of maximising the receipts from a freehold disposal of
the site of the proposed development or any part or parts thereof
2.2
Crucially, the agreement will set out the financial split of the proceeds
between the landowner and the Council on completion of the sale of the site,
which will be no less than fifty per cent in favour of the Council (subject to
negotiation).
2.2
The agreement will include provisions for a „restriction‟ to be imposed, in
order to protect the Council‟s interest, pending the sale of the site, thus
preventing its disposal without the Council‟s explicit consent.
2.3
The intention is for the site to be disposed of within two years of the
agreement; however, if after such time it has not been sold, the agreement
will include provisions which allow either party (at their ultimate discretion) to
proceed with the acquisition of the interest of the other party. The
consideration in such an instance will be market value either at the time of
acquisition or at the date of the grant of outline planning permission
(whichever is the greater). There are of course also provisions relating to the
resolution of any disputes and how costs and other disbursements will be
distributed.
3.
Marketing and disposal of the site
3.1
The parties will agree a marketing programme and budget to achieve a
disposal at maximum capital receipt. The sale will be undertaken by agents
acting on behalf of and appointed by the landowner, in turn acting as agents
for the two parties. The disposal of the site will require the Council‟s consent
and the agreement will stipulate that the Council will, within 10 days of the
receipt of the report and recommendations (outlining the best and final offers
from the owner‟s agents) either confirm the acceptance of that or notify the
agent that it does not accept the offer and provide the Council‟s own
recommendations as to the next steps. The agreement will specify that the
parties shall make every effort to reach agreement within 21 days of receipt
by the Council of the Agent‟s report; however, in the event of a disagreement
the matter shall be referred to an independent expert.
3.2
Clearly the Council will need to be in a position to decide expeditiously its
preferred course of action; consequently delegated authority to determine the
acceptance of the agents recommendations (or otherwise) is sought through
the recommendations in this report.
4.
Conclusion
4.1
The development of replacement housing for that which was as risk of loss to
erosion in Happisburgh will be the culmination of a lengthy and complex
project. It has, to a large extent, been an experiment and a demonstration
project and as such has attained a nationwide profile. Valuable lessons have
already been learned from it and these have been applied both in the local
12
context and elsewhere. It has truly broken new ground in developing a
methodology for coastal adaptation but equally as importantly has led to the
resolution of some of the seemingly most intractable problems faced on our
coast. The outcome has been that:
 individual householders (in possession of „at risk‟ properties) have been
able „to move on with their lives‟;
 the increasingly derelict houses have been demolished, thus improving
the sensitive cliff top environment and addressing the blight associated
with their imminent demise; and
 the anticipated new investment in replacement housing is hoped to bring
increased confidence in the local property market, as well as providing
much needed new homes.
4.2
The final stage of the project relies upon a satisfactory agreement being
reached with the landowner and the ultimate disposal of the site to a
developer who will build the replacement houses. This will fulfil the aims of
the roll-back project and will recoup a substantial sum of money expended
thus far on it.
5.
5.1
Implications and Risks
This has been a high profile project, undertaken with agreement, guidance,
support and funding from Defra. Its outcome will provide lessons for the
management of coastal change. Failure to secure a timely agreement leading
to the ultimate development of the Happisburgh site will present a missed
opportunity and could consequently adversely impact upon the Council‟s
good reputation with respect to the Pathfinder programme, as well as having
substantial financial implications (detailed below). The approach advocated in
this report aims to minimise the risk be reducing delays in the process leading
ultimately to the site‟s development. The current position has been reached
by obtaining the advice of professional property agents in the lead-up to this
proposal. The risks have therefore been properly considered and, on the
basis of that advice, a relatively cautious approach is being proposed.
5.2
It should be noted that in pursuing this project the Council has closely
adhered (and must continue to adhere) to the “Planning Protocol for North
Norfolk District Council Developments” in order to separate its financial
interest in the development opportunity from its responsibilities as Local
Planning Authority.
6.
6.1
Financial Implications and Risks
There are financial implications of the proposal (detailed below); however a
carefully drafted agreement would reduce NNDC‟s exposure to an acceptable
level. There is also a risk that, should the planned development not take
place, NNDC will not be in a position to recoup some of the expenditure it has
made through the acquisition of the Beach Road properties.
6.2
The initial outlay in: acquiring the Beach Road properties; meeting the
relevant proportion of the fees and other expenses leading up to the grant of
planning consent; and the fees involved in the drafting of the relevant
agreements, has been met from the Coastal Change Pathfinder budget
(funded by Defra). Costs relating to marketing and disposal of the site remain
outstanding. These will be shared in equal part with the landowner and
sufficient funds remain in the Pathfinder budget to cover these.
13
6.3
The Council will receive the appropriate proportion (to be stipulated in the
agreement) of the receipt resulting from the sale of the site to a third party. In
the event that the site is not sold to a third party then, in accordance with the
memorandum, the Council may receive the appropriate consideration for its
interest in the site from the landowner. Alternatively the Council may elect, in
accordance with the memorandum, to acquire the landowner‟s interest for an
appropriate consideration; in which case the recommendation is that the
matter be brought back to Cabinet on the advice of the Chief Executive.
7.
7.1
Sustainability
The Council‟s approach to coastal management (including the Coastal
Change pathfinder programme) is to work towards sustainable management
of our coast. The implementation of this „roll-back‟ scheme seeks to secure
the benefit of replacement dwellings (in place of those lost to erosion) to
safeguard the wellbeing and sustainability of the community of Happisburgh
into the future. The successful completion of this project will assist in
providing a methodology for the sustainable management of our coastline, to
be followed elsewhere.
8.
8.1
Equality and Diversity
There are no anticipated impacts on equality and diversity arising from the
recommendations in this report.
9.
9.1
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
There are no anticipated impacts on crime and disorder arising from the
recommendations in this report.
14
Agenda Item No_____10_______
CROMER COAST PROTECTION SCHEME 982
Summary:
At their meeting of July 2012 Cabinet resolved to
appoint consultants URS to design Phase 1 of the
Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982 and to procure a
main contractor.
This report summarises the actions taken since then,
particularly the processes that were followed leading to
the invitation of tenders and their subsequent analysis.
It recommends the appointment of a main contractor,
subject to final approval of funding by the Environment
Agency. The Council will be responsible for signing off
the works once they are complete.
Options considered:
There is no viable alternative. The work is required; it is
grant eligible; grant is available; the tender is the lowest
received and is compliant. To not accept the tender
would be to not proceed with the works.
Conclusions:
A robust tendering process and analysis has led to a
clear winning tender.
Recommendations:
Cabinet is asked to resolve that:
Subject to
a. approval by the Environment Agency of
the project and Flood Defence Grant in
Aid; and
b. finalising all statutory consents
Reasons for
Recommendations:
i.
the tender submitted by Volker Stevin in the
sum of £3,858,784.68p be accepted;
ii.
Volker Stevin be appointed as main
contractor for the Cromer Coast protection
Scheme 982 Phase 1.
The tender submitted by Volker Stevin was compliant
with the requirements of the contract and was the lowest
received. The proposed works are eligible for grant aid.
Application has been made to the Environment Agency
for grant aid. The scheme is in the Agency’s
programme and it is expected that grant will be
forthcoming. Application could not be made until the
tenders had been received. Similarly neither the
planning consent nor the MMO licence could be
15
finalized before tenders had been received. Hence the
resolution is to be made conditionally.
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)
Cromer Coastal Strategy Stage A and B reports
Cromer CP Scheme Design Criteria
Cromer CP Scheme Works Information Vols 1 & 2
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Angie Fitch-Tillet
Cllr Trevor Ivory
Ward(s) affected
Cromer
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Brian Farrow 01263 516193
Brian.farrow@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction and Background
1.1 In 2001 the Council produced a strategy for the management of the coast
defences in Cromer. This identified the need for major works to ensure the long
term stability of the defences. In line with the grant system in place at the time
design commenced in mid-2005 with an expectation that grant would be made
available in 2006/07. The consultants were Royal Haskoning. In December 2005
Defra imposed a 2 year grant moratorium and so work was suspended. Important
safety work was undertaken to reduce the risk of a failure until such time as a
major project could be put in place.
1.2 When funding did become available it was within a revised funding mechanism. It
was now a requirement to have an up to date strategy before grant could be
secured for works. The 2001 Strategy was regarded (by the EA and Defra) as
potentially out of date and so they asked for it to be reviewed.
1.3 Funding for the review was secured and Scott Wilson appointed.
1.4 The completion of the Strategy Appraisal Report (StAR) by Scott Wilson
(subsequently becoming URS) formed the basis for subsequent approvals for
funding and was substantially used for the subsequent Project Appraisal Report
(PAR) approved by the Environment Agency (EA) Project Appraisal Board.
(PAB)
1.5 The PAB approval secured the release all the necessary funding to progress the
Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982. The Council will ultimately be responsible
for signing off the works once they are complete.
16
2
Scheme Staged Approach
2.1 The Strategy Report recommends a staged approach. The first phase, now
being taken forward and carried out over two years, will undertake the most
urgent works. It is mostly refurbishment of the walls, but with some work to
groynes and covers most of the frontage. The second phase of less urgent work
will follow on with the aim of completing it within five years from now. The value
of the works in Phases 1 and 2 is £6.18 million including contingency sums, but
excluding all fees and other costs.
2.2 Following from these will be medium term works to be undertaken in the period
2015 to 2060. They will focus on ensuring wall integrity, groyne effectiveness
and measures to prevent outflanking. A significant level of further capital
expenditure is unlikely to be necessary unless the identified short term works
have not been completed. Routine monitoring and maintenance would continue.
2.3 In terms of the long term expenditure, much will depend on the rate of sea level
rise and the outcomes of the continuing monitoring.
2.4 In terms of economic justification, the whole life (present value) cost of the works
identified in the strategy (including all future maintenance and upgrades) is
estimated to be £9.612 million. The whole life (present value) of the benefits is
estimated to be £100.16 million, giving a Benefit Cost Ratio of 10.42:1. This is a
robust ratio significantly above the EA Outcome Measure target average of 5:1.
3. Design
3.1 The Council undertook a competitive tender process to appoint consultants to
undertake the design, contractor procurement and site supervision for Stage 1 of
the process which was won by URS.
3.2 Consultants URS commenced work in Autumn 2012. At every stage in the
design process there has been opportunity for input from Council Members and
officers and from local community representatives through regular progress
meetings and a Stakeholder Group. The latter has been augmented by meetings
with local businesses and residents, the fishermen, the RNLI and Openwide Pier
management.
3.3 The result is a design that is not only technically sound but, where possible, also
meets local aspirations. In particular there have been in depth discussions about
access both by the contractor to be appointed and those users of the Promenade
whose homes or livelihoods depend on constant access to it.
3.4 The final design changes very little from the existing in terms of appearance.
There has been recognition of the Listed Building status of the sea walls and
Promenade, and the design has been approved by the Council’s Conservation
Manager. (Note: This was a condition of the Listed Building Consent from the
Secretary of State.) Technically, however, the aim has been to give the walls a
life of a further 50 years, at which time they will need further (less major)
refurbishment to extend the life to 2115.
3.5 As part of the works the central, Listed, section of the Promenade will be
resurfaced in a more durable material than the present surfacing with the aim of
maintaining the present distinctive appearance. For the period of the works the
artwork installed in 2006 as part of the sea front enhancement will be removed for
safe keeping and reinstated at the end of the works. It is thus likely to be missing
from late 2013 to spring 2015.
3.6 It should be noted that the street furniture on the promenade is not being
replaced. It will, if necessary, be removed temporarily.
17
3.7 As referred to earlier, the Council recognises the importance of the Promenade to
others and to the whole character of the town. Thus work will only take place
between 1st October and 31st March. Nor will it take place in the main school
holiday periods. It will continue in half-term holidays.
3.8 Access will be maintained along the Promenade at all times for pedestrians.
Access to specific points by vehicles will be maintained, but the route may vary
depending on the location of the working areas.
4. Contractor – Appointment process
4.1 The scheme was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU)
and contractors were invited to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) including
details of their relevant experience.
4.2 Eleven EOI’s were submitted. The assessment was undertaken jointly between
NNDC staff (including the Council’s Health and Safety team), the main
consultants URS and Peter Frew Associates. As a result six firms were
eliminated and tenders were invited from five: BAM Nuttall Ltd, Birse Coastal, J
Breheny Construction Ltd, Van Oord UK Ltd and Volker Stevin.
4.3 As the tenderers had all been though an in depth assessment to prequalify, the
award is being made on the lowest priced tender that complies with the
requirements of the Instructions to Tenderers, the specification and conditions of
contract (collectively known as The Works Information).
5. Tender Appraisals
5.1 Four tenders were received by the Council by the closing date of 23 August 2013.
The tenders were appraised by URS, who provided a report to the Council.
5.2 The tenders were checked for compliance with the requirements of the
instructions, the specification and contractual requirements. Full details of these
checks are contained within the URS report, but in summary no significant issues
were found in the two lowest tenders.
6. Tender Results
6.1 With no significant contractual issues emerging and all tenderers having
prequalified, tenders needed only to be ranked according to price.
6.2 Thus the contract can be awarded to the firm submitting the lowest tender, Volker
Stevin. Their tender is valued at £3,858,784.68.
7. Consents
7.1 The scheme has required a number of statutory consents. As well as the
Planning and listed Building consents referred to above, the scheme also
requires a Licence from the Marine Management Organisation. Some of these
consents are conditional upon information that can only be supplied once the
successful tenderer is known. Therefore, the final consents are not all in place
and hence the recommendation is made subject to receipt of these consents. The
Council will be responsible for signing off the works once they are complete.
8. Risks
8.1 The staged process outlined above significantly reduces the financial risks to the
Council. Grant aid approval is obtained at each stage of the process before work
commences. The only financial risks associated with delivery of the strategy are
the limited sums expended in each of the grant application processes. Even
18
these are grant eligible and are subsequently recovered when the scheme is
approved.
8.2 At this stage the greatest risks are those directly associated with the
construction. While some (such as unexpected conditions requiring additional
work) can be reduced by sufficient preliminary investigations, the risks
associated with weather cannot. Indeed, by undertaking the works only in
winter, they are increased. However, this is recognised to some degree within
the estimating and grant process by adding substantial sums to the base price.
It is known as Optimism Bias and its level is determined by principles set out in
HM Treasury “Green Book”. In this case there is a pro rata allowance against
increased Phase 1 works costs of around £1.7 Million.
9. Sustainability
9.1 The strategy proposed by URS and approved by this Council and the
Environment Agency is intended to provide for the long term (100 years)
sustainable management of the Cromer frontage and the adjoining lengths of
coast. Few negative impacts were identified in the Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Those that were identified were associated with short term impacts
connected to the construction activities.
9.2 The sea walls and retaining walls in The Gangway and westwards as far as the
Melbourne Slope are Listed Buildings (Grade ll). Specific consent was required
to undertake works to these structures, but the intent of the design, so far as it is
possible, is not to change their form or character. The Cromer Preservation
Society has been consulted and it has given its support to the proposals.
10 Equality & Diversity
There are no equality and diversity issues.
11 Crime and Disorder
There are no crime and disorder issues.
12 Conclusions
The Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982 should be implemented following
approval and the award of grant by the Environment Agency and the completion
of the statutory consents processes.
19
Agenda Item No____11________
REVIEW OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION (CCTV) SERVICE 2013
Summary:
As part of the Council’s budget savings exercise a
review of the current CCTV operation was requested by
Cabinet as part of the overall review of services. A
paper was presented to Cabinet in January 2013 to
establish a politically balanced Working Party to oversee
the review and make recommendations to Cabinet.
The Terms of Reference for the group included the
requirement to consider options for the future provision
of the service, to identify savings and to steer the review
process, including stakeholder consultation.
The Working Party has now concluded the review
process and the report and findings are contained within
Appendix A which should be read alongside this paper.
Options considered:
The Working Party has considered a number of options.
These included investigation of a number of external
management options, including the potential for working
with third party service providers and other Council’s.
Internal options have also been considered and cover
potential capital investment for the introduction of a
wireless CCTV system on an ‘invest to save’ basis.
The discontinuation of the service has also been
considered as a potential option.
These options are considered in detail within Appendix
A and the options which the Working Party consider
viable are summarised within the report below.
Conclusions:
A number of alternative options and potential working
arrangements have been considered as part of the
review process and these are given above. The review
has identified three potential options as discussed
above including shared working, internal investment
(wireless option) and decommissioning, all of which
achieve efficiency savings for the Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Cabinet;
1. Note the content of the Review of the Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 report
20
2. Select which option it wishes to implement
3. Grant Delegated Authority to the Head of
Assets and Leisure to move forward with the
preferred option in consultation with the
Portfolio holder for Assets and the Corporate
Director.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
The Working Party has considered a number of options
as part of this review process. Upon further
investigation, some of these options have not proved
viable and have therefore not been recommended for
further considerations. The full options appraisal can be
found within the CCTV review document contained
within Appendix A and a summary of the viable options
is contained within this paper.
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)
Review of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013 – Working Party
Report
CCTV Working Party minutes
Cabinet paper – Review of CCTV service, January 2013
Cabinet Member(s)
Cllr Rhodri Oliver
Ward(s) affected;
Cromer Town, Lancaster (North/South), North Walsham
(East/North/West),Sheringham (North/South), Priory
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Duncan Ellis (Head of Assets and Leisure), 01263 516330, duncan.ellis@northnorfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
1.1
As part of the ongoing budget savings exercise Cabinet requested that a
review of the current CCTV service be undertaken to investigate the potential
options for the future of the service.
1.2
The objective of the review was to identify savings and to provide a
comprehensive report regarding the future provision of the service, shared
working options and possible options for attracting additional income into the
existing service.
1.3
To facilitate the review process a politically balanced Working Party was
established by Cabinet in January 2013, the membership of which is provided
within the review document contained in Appendix A (Review of the Closed
Circuit Television (CCTV) Service 2013). This review document should be
read in conjunction with this Cabinet paper as it contains the detailed findings
of the Working Party along with the Terms of Reference for the group.
21
2.
Background
2.1
CCTV is a discretionary service and at present the full system consists of 46
cameras covering parts of Fakenham, Sheringham, Cromer, North Walsham
and Wells-next-the-Sea. Further details regarding the camera locations can
be found on page 32 of the review document contained within Appendix A.
2.2
The current system has been in existence since 2000 and is operated from a
Control Room in Fakenham. The service is operated by 4 members of staff, 2
of which are full time with 2 providing part-time cover of 21 hours each.
During 2009 the service was reduced from 24 hour cover to 16 hour daily
cover as part of a budget savings exercise.
2.3
There are a number of service users, which include a number of emergency
services, along with internal users and other partners as follows;







Police (main users)
Norfolk Fire and Rescue
RNLI/Marine Coastguard Agency
Inrix (formerly Traffic Link, covers the broadcasting of traffic and travel
bulletins on local/national radio
Crime Reduction Partnership
Environment Agency
NNDC internal departments (Environmental Health, Property Services,
Insurance)
2.4
The net cost of the service as per the 2013/14 Base Budget is approximately
£237,000, with the actual cost for 2012/13 being £225,000. Direct costs for
the service (excluding management unit charges and capital charges) are
around £199,000.
3.
The Review Process
3.1
As mentioned above a paper was presented to Cabinet on 7 January 2013 to
establish a politically balanced Working Party. The Working Party has held a
number of meetings since its inception and this has included a meeting with
the police (Carl Edwards – Superintendent for North Norfolk and Broadland
Policing Commands) and the hosting of a stakeholder workshop event.
In addition, key stakeholders have been asked for their comments on the
options proposed and the options have also been considered by Overview
and Scrutiny Committee on 11 September.
3.2
As part of the review process the Working Party have been provided with
information and statistics relating to the number and type of incidents that
have been recorded since 2006 and this detail can be found within the review
document at Appendix A.
These incidents were grouped as follows

Incidents directly relating to people
22


Incidents related to property and public space
Incidents related to vehicles and traffic
3.3
The results of the review process are covered in detail within Appendix A.
4.
Consultation
4.1
As discussed above, a wide range of views have been sought from interested
stakeholders an overview of these is provided at Appendix B.
4.2
Consultation has been undertaken with the local police as part of this process
and, as well as the face to face meeting, a letter was also received from
Superintendent Carl Edwards (a copy of which is contained within the main
review document included at Appendix A), stating that the police felt that the
presence of CCTV in the majority of market towns in North Norfolk had a
positive contribution towards reducing crime and disorder. Superintendent
Edwards did however also highlight the difficulties of providing first hand
evidence to support this.
4.3
The Working Party discussed the costs of the service with Superintendent
Edwards and outlined the Terms of Reference and the objective of achieving
cost savings. While Superintendent Edwards could appreciate the financial
constraints that the Council was under he did confirm that the Police would
not be in a position to make any financial contribution to the cost of the
service despite being the main users of the service.
4.4
A stakeholder workshop was held on 17 April and involved the local Town
Councils and Chambers of Trade. The evening provided a lot of useful debate
but the main conclusions were that, while the group acknowledged the funding
situation they generally supported the continuation of the CCTV service in
some form.
4.5
The Working Party also requested that officers write to the businesses on
Fakenham Industrial estate to gauge their views on the service and to see if
they would be willing to contribute financially, as the area is covered by 8
cameras. Out of the 76 business contacted, only thee responded to say that
they were happy to make a financial contribution towards maintaining the
service in that area, although they did not quantify the level of that support. A
further two responded to say that they would not or could not contribute
financially.
4.6
As part of the wider consultation process those businesses that made a
financial contribution to the service were contacted along with the Safer
Neighbourhood Advice Panels (SNAPs) requesting their thoughts on the
provision of CCTV in the area, although no response was received.
4.7
This paper and the accompanying review document (Appendix A) were also
provided to Overview and Scrutiny for pre-scrutiny at the meeting held on 11
September 2013. An extract from the minutes of this meeting is included as
part of Appendix B, which provides additional information in relation to the
consultation undertaken and the responses received.
23
5.
Options Appraisal
5.1
As part of the review process the Working Party has considered a number of
options as follows and more detail regarding each option is contained within
Appendix A;




Private management of the service
Shared working opportunities with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk
Borough Council
Keeping the service in house and reducing operational costs through a
combination of capital investment in new technology and reduction in
operating times
Decommissioning of cameras and equipment and closure of the
service
5.2
Upon more detailed investigation some of these options were not viable to
pursue further. This was the case with the private management of the service
and also the option of transferring the current service (reflecting current or
slightly reduced operating hours and proactive monitoring). Both of these
options had Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE) implications which made the
costs of the transfer prohibitive.
5.3
Once the options appraisal had been completed this left the following options
for consideration by the Working Party;



Shared working with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk (reactive service
only), which would require some capital investment.
Maintaining the proactive ‘in house’ service but with control room
coverage reduced by 20 hours per week and investment in new
technology (wireless) to achieve revenue savings. This option on an
‘invest to save’ basis.
Discontinuation of the service, which would require some one off
funding.
5.4
The advantages and disadvantages of the 3 options detailed above are
covered in detail within Appendix A. A summary of the capital and one-off
costs along with the projected revenue savings for each option can be found
below within the section on Financial Implications and Risks.
6.
Conclusion
6.1
A number of alternative options and potential working arrangements have
been considered as part of the review process and these are given above.
The review has identified three potential options as discussed above including
shared working, internal investment (wireless option) and decommissioning,
all of which achieve efficiency savings for the Council. The financial costs and
saving projections are contained below within section 8 of the report (financial
implications and risks).
6.2
The shared working option would enable a 24 hour reactive service,
maintain a local authority ethos, have dedicated direct management and have
potential economies of scale for the future (in relation to things such as
maintenance contracts). The option would however require the current staff to
be made redundant and there are some associated one off costs along with a
24
capital investment. The server room would still be situated at Fakenham but
the control room would be based at Kings Lynn. There would also be a
significant change to the current service, with the switch from proactive to
reactive monitoring.
6.3
The in-house option would retain the management of the active service and
minimise redundancies although there would still be a loss of one part time
post. It would take advantage of wireless technology and increase the future
flexibility of the service while also being popular with stakeholders. This
proposal does however involve a slight reduction on the hours covered, and
require a significant capital investment. It would involve the introduction of a
wireless system in a rural area, although the feasibility study does indicate
that the system would work in the area, subject to negotiation in relation to
aerial sites. A visit was undertaken by Cllr Claussen-Reynolds to Great
Yarmouth Borough Council’s CCTV control room which recently moved from
optic fibres to a wireless system. The visit allowed an opportunity to assess
the success of this venture and confirm that there was no loss in quality of
picture or service. It should be noted that other Norfolk CCTV systems are
also considering wireless options.
6.4
As can be seen from the summary table below the discontinuation option
results in the highest saving. It would allow for the space currently occupied
by CCTV to be let out (although this has proven difficult in the past at
Fakenham) and would mean that the £50,000 for camera upgrades would not
be required. This option does however come with a significant reputational
risk for the Council and involves making all of the staff redundant. It is likely to
be unpopular with stakeholders and once decommissioned it is unlikely to
ever be resurrected.
7.
Implications and Risks
7.1
The implications and risks for each of the options are covered in detail within
Appendix A. The review document considers the advantages, disadvantages
and risks of each of the options. This area is also covered in more detail
below within the section covering financial implications and risks.
8.
Financial Implications and Risks
8.1
The financial implications and risks for each of the options discussed are
covered in detail within Appendix A and are summarised below.
8.2
The implications and risks for each of the options are covered in detail within
Appendix A. The table below however shows the high level capital/one off
costs requirements for each option along with the forecast revenue savings.
25
Annual
Revenue
savings £
One
off/Capital
requirements
£
Proposal
Service
Provision
1. Shared working with
KL&WN
24hr reactive
only
(£69,034)
£139,500
2. Management changes +
move to wireless
Ave 13hr
proactive service
(£61,866)
£260,000
3. Closure
Nil
(£189,000)
£148,000
8.3.1 The shared working option (option 1) with Kings Lynn is feasible as it reflects
a fundamental change in the provision of the service, going from pro-active
review to a reactive only service, which can be undertaken by Kings Lynn’s
current CCTV operators. There are no TUPE implications with this option as it
represents a fundamentally different service provision. This option would
result in the requirement to make the current staff redundant and these costs
are accounted for within the projections above.
8.3.2 This option would provide a 24 hour service but the operatives would only
view the NNDC monitors when they were alerted to a potential incident
/emergency ie by the police. There is however provision for 200 hours a year
of dedicated viewing for pre-arranged events, such as carnivals etc.
Additional hours would be available if required but there would be an
additional cost for this.
8.3.3 There would be a requirement to invest around £86,500 of capital to take
forward this option, with one-off costs of £53,000 and it would result in an
estimated revenue saving of around £69,000 per annum.
8.4.1 Option 2 focuses on continuing to operate the service in-house but reducing
the overall service provision by 20 hours a week and investing in new
wireless technology to reduce the annual running costs. As part of the review
a company called Freeclix have been commissioned to undertake a survey to
ascertain the viability of the wireless option. The results of the survey have
confirmed that this solution should be achievable and their report is contained
within Appendix A.
8.4.2 There is a more significant capital requirement for this option (estimated at
just over £250,000) and it would also mean the redundancy of one member of
staff. However as part of the consultation process that has been undertaken
with the staff an individual from the team has expressed an interest in
redundancy.
8.4.3 The estimated annual saving is just under £62,000, and this option has a
number of benefits, such as continuation of the active service (albeit at
slightly reduced levels), being popular with stakeholders and ‘future proofing’
of the equipment to some extent. There are also some risks in relation to the
technology (although the report commissioned does indicate that it should be
26
feasible) and around the negotiation required to get the required masts in
place. There is also a significant capital requirement.
8.5.1 Option 3 covers the decommissioning of the service, which is likely to prove
an unpopular option with stakeholders and users and carries a reputational
risk for the Council. If the system were to be decommissioned it is unlikely
that it would ever be reinstated, crime levels may increase as a result of the
removal of the service and the Council would need to be mindful of its
obligations under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. As with Option 1
it would also require the current staff to be made redundant.
8.5.2 It would however result in anticipated annual revenue savings of around
£189,000 and has associated one off costs of £148,000 which cover
redundancy and decommissioning of equipment. This option would also free
up space within the Fakenham office which could potentially be re-let,
although this income has not been factored in to the estimated savings figure
above.
8.6
Options for further income generation have been explored as part of the
review process but these opportunities appear to be limited at the present
time. However if either option 1 or 2 were to be preferred then additional
opportunities for income generation will be further explored to try and
minimise the costs of the service.
9.
Sustainability
9.1
There are no direct impacts on sustainability as a result of this report.
10.
Equality and Diversity
10.1
The Equality Act 2010, consolidates protection against discrimination on the
grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity,
race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. It also put in place a new
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which gives public authorities a legal
responsibility to provide this protection and make decisions which are fair and
transparent, including the allocation of public money.
10.2
The Equality and Human Rights Commission published new guidance in
January 2013 covering the PSED under the Equality Act, which will help
public authorities encourage good relations, promote equality and eliminate
discrimination in the workplace and in delivering public services.
10.3
As part of the review process Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA’s) forms
have been completed for each of the 3 options being considered and these
are available on the Council’s website.
10.4
The form requests details of the proposed options and requires that an impact
assessment is undertaken to assess the potential impact of each option on
the protected groups identified. Where any negative impacts are expected the
Council is required to detail what action will be undertaken to either remove or
minimise this.
10.5
Options 1 and 2 cover a continuation of the service and while option 3 does
consider decommissioning following completion of the EQIA’s it is not felt that
27
there will be any difference in impact between those in protected groups and
those who are not in protected groups.
11.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
11.1
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act requires local authorities to consider
crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities.
Clearly, CCTV is closely linked to this issue. However, the Act does not
require Councils to either provide or not provide CCTV in their areas. In
practice this means that:


Each local authority must take account of the need to reduce crime
and disorder in the exercise of all its work. The duty is to consider the
impact of a decision rather than not make that decision. Where
practical, Councils should seek to reduce any negative impact; in
effect leading to better decision making.
All decisions must be taken in light of their likely impact on (local)
levels of crime and disorder.
11.2
Within the CCTV review, Options 1 and 2 (as detailed above) would see a
continuation of the CCTV service, albeit at a reduced level, but Option 3
would result in the cessation of the service. In all of these options, members
need to consider what effect CCTV has on crime and disorder in the District
and whether any negative effect can be reduced.
11.3
As has been discussed, in this regard, CCTV is linked to two areas. Firstly, its
very presence potentially having an effect on reducing crime and disorder in
certain areas. An absolute link is not proven but it is generally accepted that it
may have a positive effect. Secondly, the use of CCTV by the Police in
investigating criminal activity. In North Norfolk, this amounts to around 150
criminal cases a year where the Police gain some benefit from the use of
CCTV. Both of these should then be balanced against the current overall cost
of CCTV provision and the proposed costs and savings of the three Options
under consideration.
11.4
In addition, the Act provides the expectation that Councils will work in
partnership with other public bodies such as the Police to reduce crime and
disorder in their areas. Whilst the Police are given access to the Council’s
CCTV footage for investigative purposes, this is not the only partnership
activity the Council undertakes and these other activities will continue for as
long as both parties feel they are of benefit.
28
Appendix B
CCTV Review - Consultation summary
Consultation stage
Response
Further representations received post 11.09.13
Fakenham Town Council
Strongly believes consultation has not been sufficient
Step 4) Consideration by Overview and Scrutiny Committee (11.09.13)
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Extract from the draft minutes of the meeting attached
Step 3) Parties informed of options being taken forward (19.08.13) and Representations Received for Scrutiny (11.09.13)
Does not support closure believes should keep in house and TCs should pay
more.
North Walsham Town Council
Fakenham Town Council
Does not support closure, wants more public consultation
Cromer Town Council
Does not support closure, happy to contribute financially.
Holt Town Council
Wells Town Council
Does not support closure, important deterrent
Sheringham Town Council
Does not support closure supports continuation of proactive service
Stalham Town Council
NW Chamber of Trade
Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Does not support closure, important deterrent
Cromer Chamber of Trade
Fakenham Chamber of Trade
Holt Chamber of Trade
North Norfolk Business Forum
Superintendent Carl Edwards, Nth Norfolk &
Broadland Area
77 businesses on Fakenham Industrial Estate
Coastguard
Does not support closure, important deterrent
Environment Agency
RNLI Lifeguards
Norfolk Community Safety Partnership
SNAP Groups
Sheringham SNAP does not support closure, wants more public consultation
Step 2) Invite to consultation workshop (17.04.13)
North Walsham Town Council
representative attended
Fakenham Town Council
representative attended
Cromer Town Council
representative attended
Holt Town Council
no representative
Wells Town Council
representative attended
Sheringham Town Council
representative attended
Stalham Town Council
NW Chamber of Trade
Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Cromer Chamber of Trade
Fakenham Chamber of Trade
Holt Chamber of Trade
North Norfolk Business Forum
Step 1) Informing of CCTV Review (04.03.13)
North Walsham Town Council
Fakenham Town Council
Cromer Town Council
Holt Town Council
Wells Town Council
Sheringham Town Council
representative attended
no representative
representative attended
representative attended
no representative
representative attended
no representative
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
29
Appendix B
Stalham Town Council
North Walsham Chamber of Trade
Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Cromer Chamber of Trade
Fakenham Chamber of Trade
Holt Chamber of Trade
North Norfolk Business Forum
9 Financial Contributors
SNAP Groups
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
No response required
Confirmed that unfortunately the police were not in a position to contribute
Norfolk Police and Crime Commissioner, Stephen financially although they do feel that the system supports officers in
resolving crime and disorder issues.
Betts
Confirmed that he believed that the presence of CCTV in the majority of
Superintendent Carl Edwards, North Norfolk and North Norfolk market towns is a positive contribution towards reducing
Broadland Area
crime and disorder
77 businesses on Fakenham Industrial Estate
5 responses received, 3 supportive of continued service and would
contribute financially, 2 not interested in any financial contribution
30
Draft Minutes - September 11th
Appendix B
62. REVIEW OF THE CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION SERVICE 2013
The Corporate Director (NB) introduced the item. He commented that it was going to the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee before Cabinet in order to include the committee fully
in the decision process, so that they could discuss any matters covered by the review.
He added that all the relevant stakeholders had been consulted.
1. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, Chair of the CCTV Working Party, made a brief statement
about the work of the Working Party. She extended her thanks to the Property
Business Manager, and the Head of Assets and Leisure, for their hard work and
valuable contributions. She stated that all three options laid out in the report would
provide savings to the Council. She also commented that all feedback from relevant
stakeholders would be passed onto the Cabinet and would be considered. She went
on to say that she had visited both Great Yarmouth CCTV and Kings Lynn CCTV to
assess their effectiveness. The quality of wireless CCTV at Great Yarmouth was very
good and there was the possibility that this option could also provide WiFi to
members of the public. Mrs Claussen-Reynolds went on to say that the picture quality
at Kings Lynn, which could provide a reactive system, was also very good. She
concluded that all options had their pros and cons, and that it would be for the
Committee to discuss. The Chairman thanked her for her comments.
2. Mrs B McGoun commented that the report stated that Public Order Disturbances had
been reduced from 129 cases to 63 cases in 2012, and suggested this may show the
usefulness of the system.
3. The Chairman commented that whilst he did not like surveillance in most cases, he
also appreciated that it could be used to catch criminals and reduce crime.
4. Mr P Moore commended the Working Party for their hard work and stated a
preference for the wireless system. He noted that the strategic placing of cameras
may result in fewer being required. He expressed concern at Fakenham Industrial
Estate’s lack of response during the consultation process, but commented that CCTV
was often necessary to ensure that both locals and tourists felt secure. He queried
why North Walsham seemed to be paying more for the cameras than Cromer and
Sheringham. The Chairman added that North Walsham Town Council had provided a
summary of their response which reiterated several of Mr Moore’s comments. The
Town Council also stated that they were concerned about a lack of financial
contribution by the police towards funding the system.
5. Mr G Jones commented that CCTV should be a system that was implemented by the
police and should not be the responsibility of the Council. He suggested it should be
a valid candidate for cuts to services, and that any feelings of safety because of
CCTV cameras were often a myth. He went on to say that the CCTV consultation
couldn’t be taken in isolation, and that if this wasn’t cut, something else may have to
be.
6. The Chairman asked for an update from Mr R Oliver, the Deputy Leader, and
Portfolio Holder covering CCTV, regarding the Police and Crime Commissioner’s
response to the consultation. The Deputy Leader responded that the police decision
to make no contribution to the system could be seen in their letter in the attached
report. He stated that the police saw it as potentially setting a precedent to have to
fund other Councils’ CCTV, and that they were unlikely to reconsider their position.
The Deputy Leader further commented that he believed the police should be
contributing to the CCTV system if it provided a valid service to their work.
7. The Democratic Services Team Leader raised the point that the PCC was
provisionally scheduled to attend the November meeting of the committee, and that
these issues could be raised then.
8. Mr N Smith commented that the CCTV system may be useful in helping to find
missing persons and that this alone justified the cost of the system.
38
Draft Minutes - September 11th
Appendix B
9. Ms V Gay commented that in principle, she had no support for surveillance, as North
Norfolk was a particularly safe part of the country. However she also commented that
CCTV cameras could be useful to improve beach safety, if placed in strategic
positions.
10. Mr R Reynolds stated that he supported the comments of Mr G Jones and the
Deputy Leader regarding police funding.
11. The Chairman queried whether the Police Authority’s Council Tax was capped. The
Head of Finance confirmed that it was. The Chairman responded that if CCTV
cameras assisted with the prosecution of offenders, then it saved the police authority
money and that he too was disappointed in the PCC for their lack of financial
contribution.
12. The Deputy Leader then responded to a number of comments by members. He
commented that it was important that North Norfolk was a low crime area, as it meant
that CCTV provided less value for money. He also commented on the inequality of
coverage, which could be seen by some areas of the District as unfair. In response to
Mrs B McGoun’s point regarding public disturbances, he said that it could be a
general trend, as opposed to being a result of the use of CCTV. Regarding Mr
Moore’s concerns about North Walsham paying more for the CCTV service in the
town, he said that this was because there were more cameras sited in the town,
compared to other towns in the District. He reiterated that money saved in this area
would stop there being cuts in other, potentially more valuable, areas. Whilst he
understood Mr N Smith’s point about CCTV’s validity in missing person’s cases, he
commented that it still may not justify expenditure, due to the relatively rare nature of
these cases.
13. The Chairman stated that many members seemed in agreement with regards to the
police and their lack of financial support for CCTV. He asked if anyone wished to
second Mr Moore’s proposal for a wireless system. When no seconder was
forthcoming, he stated that there seemed to be no overall consensus regarding which
option was best for Cabinet to take forward. Mr R Reynolds suggested that the
committee could produce a resolution to query the police’s lack of support. The
Chairman supported this.
14. Mr G Jones suggested that the police may not be impressed with this action. He
suggested that the Council could withdraw support for CCTV and reassess the police
response in twelve months’ time.
15. The Chief Executive commented that the police had no funding available to support
CCTV, and that passing a resolution may not be beneficial. Mr R Reynolds
commented that he was not aware of this but thought the resolution could be
worthwhile. Mr P W Moore stated that the PCC was elected, and was therefore
responsible to the electorate. He felt strongly that the police should contribute to the
costs of CCTV.
16. The Chairman queried whether or not they should keep the resolution, and Ms V Gay
asked for clarification of the wording.
The Chairman proposed the following resolution:
“In considering the CCTV review, this committee expresses widespread concern
regarding the Police Authority’s unwillingness to contribute to the financial costs of
CCTV in the district. CCTV saves the police money when investigating crime, and is
beneficial in helping the police to identify perpetrators of crime and in bringing people to
justice. Therefore, this committee believes that the police should be making a financial
contribution to the costs of CCTV.”
Mr R Reynolds seconded the resolution and it was
RESOLVED
39
Draft Minutes - September 11th
Appendix B
To approve the report to be considered by Cabinet for action.
40