Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
28th April 2016
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 09th May 2016 at 3.00 pm
↑
 note
Please
change of time
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running
for approximately one and a half hours
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to
arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to
accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to
rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public.
Further information on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic
Services, Tel: 01263 516010, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Anyone attending this meeting may take photographs, film or audio-record the proceedings and
report on the meeting. Anyone wishing to do so should inform the Chairman. If you are a
member of the public and you wish to speak on an item on the agenda, please be aware that
you may be filmed or photographed.
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mrs S Arnold, Mrs N Dixon, Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mrs J Oliver,
Mr W Northam, Miss B Palmer, Mr J Rest
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
If you have any special requirements in order
to attend this meeting, please let us know in advance
If you would like any document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format
or in a different language please contact us
Chief Executive: Sheila Oxtoby
Corporate Directors: Nick Baker & Steve Blatch
Tel 01263 513811 Fax 01263 515042 Minicom 01263 516005
Email districtcouncil@north-norfolk.gov.uk Web site northnorfolk.org
AGENDA
1.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2.
MINUTES
(page 5)
To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 11
April 2016.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
To receive questions from the public, if any.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be
considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of
the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that
declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary
interest.
6.
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
To receive oral questions from Members, if any.
7.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR RECONSIDERATION
To consider matters referred to the Cabinet (whether by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee or by the Council) for reconsideration by the Cabinet in accordance with the
provisions within the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules or the Budget and Policy
Framework Procedure Rules.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
To consider any reports from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which may be
presented by the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and determination
of any appropriate course of action on the issues so raised for report back to that
committee
9.
WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW - SUBMISSION ON COUNCIL SIZE
(attached – p.9)
(Appendix A – p.21) (Appendix B – p.22) (Appendix C – p.23) (Appendix D – p.24)
(Appendix E – p.25) (Appendix F – p.26) (Appendix G – p.27) (Appendix H – p.31)
(Appendix I – p.37) (Appendix J – p.40) (Appendix K – p.42)
Summary:
This report considers the case for a reduction in Council size
following the guiding principles set out by the Local
Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE)
Options considered:
To maintain the current size of 48 members or to reduce to
either 40 or 36 Members.
Conclusions:
A case can be made for reducing the number of councillors
from 48 to 40. The Governance arrangements of the Council
have remained stable since 2001 and Cabinet and the
committees operate efficiently and effectively. A reduction in
Members will not impact significantly on the Scrutiny function
of the Council or the representational role of councillors.
Council
Decision
Recommendations:
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
10.
To recommend that Council puts forward a submission
for a reduction in Council size from 48 Members to 40
Members.
Councillor J Oliver
All
Emma Denny
01263 516010
emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
PROPOSED CROMER COMMUNITY SPORTS PITCH FACILITY
(attached – p.43)
** EXEMPT APPENDIX ** NOT FOR PUBLICATION – BY VIRTUE OF PARAGRAPHS1, 3 & 5 OF PART 1 OF SCHEDULE
12A (AS AMENDED) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
Summary:
(Exempt Appendix 1 – p. 51)
This report details the efforts made by the District
Council to negotiate the purchase of the former golf
practice ground site on Overstrand Road, Cromer so as
to develop a new community sports pitch facility, to
include facilities for future use by Cromer Town Football
Club and the Cromer Youth Football Club. As it has not
been possible to reach agreement with the owner over
the Council’s interest in purchasing the land the report
details the options open to the Council in taking this
project proposal forward.
Conclusions:
The report outlines the options available to the District
Council in seeking to deliver a new community sports
pitch facility on the former golf practice ground site and
recommends that the Council now seeks to acquire the
site through the use of Compulsory Purchase powers.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet confirms that the District Council
should seek to acquire the former golf practice
ground site through Compulsory Purchase powers,
and in so doing:-
Cabinet
Decision
 notes the advice provided by the District Valuer
regarding the value of the site given its current use,
prevailing planning policy position and proposed
use as a sports ground;
 establishes a capital budget of £50,000 to support
the preparation of a planning application for the
proposed sports pitch facility in support of the
Compulsory Purchase process and authorises
officers to prepare and submit such an application;
 authorises officers to engage specialist advice in
the development and submission of the CPO
application.
Reason for Decision:
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
11.
Councillor T FitzPatrick
Cromer Town, Suffield Park, Roughton, Poppyland, The
Runtons
Steve Blatch
01263 516232
steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
(page 48)
SHANNOCKS HOTEL
Summary:
This report seeks to update Cabinet on progress so far and
proposed future actions, in respect of the old Shannocks
Hotel building in Sheringham
Options considered:
Under Delegated Authority, the relevant Corporate Director
progressed with a Voluntary Offer from the Council to buy the
property from the current owner who has confirmed that he
will not sell the building voluntarily
Conclusions:
That if the council wishes to continue the CPO process
architects and related professional should be appointed to
progress a detailed Planning application for regeneration of
this site.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet authorises the appointment of architects
and other relevant professionals required to develop the
Planning Application as described in the report.
Cabinet
Decision
12.
To bring a long-term unkempt site back into positive use
and provide a much-needed new community sports
facility for the benefit of Cromer.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To enable the progression of an application to the Secretary
of State for a Compulsory Purchase of the old Shannocks
Hotel site.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward member(s)
Contact Officer,
telephone
and e-mail:
Councillor J Oliver
Cllr R Shepherd, Cllr J Oliver
Nick Baker
01263 516221
nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution:
“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be
excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that they
involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs _ of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”
13.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 11 April 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:
Mr N Pearce
Mrs M Prior
Officers in
Attendance:
130.
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
The Corporate Directors, the Head of Finance, the Health and
Communities Team Leader and the Democratic Services Team Leader
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
131.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 07 March 2016 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman
132.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None
133.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There was one item of urgent business. The Leader said that this would be taken
after the main business.
134.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
135.
MEMBER QUESTIONS
The Leader confirmed that Members could ask questions as each item arose.
136.
Cabinet
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE CABINET BY THE
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL FOR
RECONSIDERATION
5
11 April 2016
None
137.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE
None
138.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee meeting held on
24th November 2016
139.
BIG SOCIETY FUND GRANTS PANEL
RESOLVED
To receive the minutes of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel meeting held on 30th
November 2016.
140.
NORTH NORFOLK BIG SOCIETY FUND
The Leader, Mr T FitzPatrick introduced this item. He explained that the report
provided an update on the operation of the Big Society Fund during the last financial
year. It also proposed a review of the grant process in relation to arts development
and community transport to ensure that it was aligned more closely with the Big
Society Fund grant application process.
Mr FitzPatrick said that people were very appreciative of the Big Society Fund.
Previously smaller communities had found it hard to find funding for their projects and
the Fund had addressed this. The huge variety of projects and schemes that had
been funded demonstrated how much it was valued.
The Leader invited Members to comment:
a. Mr N Dixon commented on how the second homes money was previously spent
by the Local Area Partnerships (LAPs). He said the outcomes were very different
now and that this was a much more meaningful way to use this money and was
greatly appreciated by local communities. Mr FitzPatrick agreed and said that the
money no longer covered revenue costs such as staff wages.
b. Mrs S Arnold said that many people were very appreciative of the Fund. She also
welcomed the review of the grants process for community transport.
c. Mr W Northam said that Gimingham Parish Council had been delighted with the
grant that they had received from the Fund.
It was proposed by Mr T FitzPatrick, seconded by Mrs S Arnold and
RESOLVED
That a review of the grant process in relation to Arts and Community Transport is
undertaken to align it more closely to the Big Society Fund grant application process;
Cabinet
6
11 April 2016
To recommend to Council:
That the Big Society Fund grant scheme should continue at its current level of
funding (£225,000) for another year;
Reasons for the decision:
To ensure Cabinet is informed about the operation of the Big Society Fund during its
fourth year.
To ensure that NNDC offers a consistent and equitable application process for all
community grants.
141.
BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION – APPRENTICESHIPS IN SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION TO THE BPR PROJECT MANAGER POST
The Leader introduced this item. He explained that it was a proposal to release
funding from reserves allocated for Digital Transformation to allow the provision of
two Level 3 Apprenticeships in Software Development within the IT Service and for
an extension to the BPR Project Manager post.
Mr FitzPatrick said that it very difficult to recruit to such posts and it was hoped that a
change of approach would be successful.
Members were invited to comment:
1. Mr W Northam said that it was a good way to spend the reserves.
2. Mr B Smith commented that it was a good idea to invest in apprentices and
queried whether it would cover any training costs. The Chief Executive confirmed
that it would.
3. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that it was a good way of providing quality jobs in the
area.
Before closing the meeting, the Leader said that he wished to comment on a couple
of items of interest to Members.
Mr FitzPatrick began by saying that he was pleased to see the call for the mammoth
to be returned to North Norfolk and the public support for this and for the Council’s
lead on the Deep History Project.
He then went onto to speak about Cabbell Park in Cromer. He explained that it had
been vested to NNDC in 2011 after many years of being used exclusively for football.
The Council was mindful of the donor’s original intentions that the site should be
used for wellbeing and sport. The siting of a new medical centre at Cabbell Park
seemed to sit well with this and there had been discussions with the family to ensure
they were supportive.
Mr FitzPatrick said that the issue had been discussed and debated at length and that
the Council was working with all stakeholders and he was therefore surprised and
disappointed to see press reports saying that mistakes had been made. He said that
the Council had done the utmost to fulfil the donor’s wishes and to ensure that
football could continue until a new pitch could be found.
Cabinet
7
11 April 2016
The Meeting closed at 2.24pm
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
8
11 April 2016
Agenda Item No____________
9
Ward Boundary Review – Submission on Council Size
Summary:
This report considers the case for a reduction in Council
size following the guiding principles set out by the Local
Government Boundary Commission for England
(LGBCE)
Options considered:
To maintain the current size of 48 members or to reduce
to either 40 or 36 Members.
Conclusions:
A case can be made for reducing the number of
councillors from 48 to 40. The Governance
arrangements of the Council have remained stable
since 2001 and Cabinet and the committees operate
efficiently and effectively. A reduction in Members will
not impact significantly on the Scrutiny function of the
Council or the representational role of councillors.
Recommendations:
To recommend that Council puts forward a
submission for a reduction in Council size from 48
Members to 40 Members.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Judy Oliver
All
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Emma Denny, 01263 516010, emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction – summary of Council Submission on proposed Council Size
1.1
The approach adopted in the submission has been to follow the Commission’s
guiding principles and address them in terms of current arrangements and where
possible, likely future trends. The Local Government Boundary Commission for
England will consider three broad areas when making its judgement on council size
and this report will address each of these in turn;
Governance arrangements – how decisions are taken across the broad range if
the council’s responsibilities
Scrutiny functions – how the Council’s scrutiny functions relate to its decision
making and the council’s responsibilities to outside bodies
Representational role of councillors – how members engage with people, conduct
casework and represent the council on local partner organisations.
9
1.2
The last boundary review for North Norfolk for local elections was in 2001. The Local
Government Boundary Commission for England recommended that there should be
a reduction in ward numbers from 36 to 34 and an increase in councillors from 46 to
48. This review was conducted shortly after the implementation of the Local
Government Act 2000 when the Council moved to a Leader and executive model of
governance. In 2011, the Council adopted the Strong Leader model of governance.
1.3
The Constitution was revised in 2011 and the Council is now in a position to
consider aligning the electoral arrangements more closely with the decision-making
arrangements of the Council so that all elected members have a full and meaningful
role. To achieve this, the Council believes that there is a case for reducing the
number of councillors representing the authority from 48 to 40. To ensure that this is
a reasonable number, comparisons have been made throughout the report for
keeping the status quo of 48 Members and reducing further by ¼ to 36 Members.
1.4
In reaching this conclusion, the Council has also taken into account several wider
changes that have been made since the last review which have impacted on the way
that the Council operates.
1.5
These include:
1.5.1
The Council has a clear vision which is encapsulated in the Corporate Plan. This
sets out the aims and priorities of the Council over a four year period. It is
underpinned by an Annual Action Plan and quarterly Performance Management
reports. These ensure continuity and coherence in the business of the Council,
particularly where the issue of governance is concerned.
1.5.2
The Council has a Cabinet system of governance with a single Overview and
Scrutiny Committee. Most of the day to day work is handled by the Cabinet with
input from sub committees. The system of governance was reviewed by the
Constitution Working Party in 2015 and it was agreed that any change should be
deferred until after the district elections in 2015.
1.5.3
The Council is an enabling authority to some extent, having completed a large scale
housing stock transfer to a local Housing Association in 2006. Waste collection is
also undertaken by an external provider.
1.5.4
Although staff numbers have not reduced on a large scale, there has been a
reduction in staff numbers since the last boundary review in 2001, from 330 to 306. It
would not be unreasonable to advocate a reduction in Members without having a
detrimental impact on the running of the business of the Council.

In 2001, prior to the last boundary review there was an average of 7.2
members of staff to each elected Member.

In 2016, this ratio had dropped to 6.3

If the number of Members was reduced to 40, then that ratio would be 7.6
2.
Character of North Norfolk District
2.1
The District of North Norfolk is rural covering 384 square miles with 42 miles of
coastline. The population as at the census of 2011 was 101,500. The latest figure for
the electorate (as at April 2016) is 82,813. There are seven towns, with the largest
10
being North Walsham in the East of the District. Figures from the Office for National
Statistics drawn from the 2011 census show that across the East of England, North
Norfolk has the largest proportion of people aged 65 and over (29 per cent). The
District also has the smallest number of people aged under 19 (28 per cent) and the
smallest proportion of children under 5 (4 per cent). The District has a high number
of second homes – 7,939 as at the 2011 census. The majority of second home
owners are not registered to vote. The exception being that they have to reside in
the property for 6 months a year and not let it out for the remaining 6 months.
2.2
The district is much protected in terms of its beauty and its heritage. There are 81
conservation areas in North Norfolk – which is considerably high (the next highest in
Norfolk is South Norfolk with approximately 50). There are statutory designations
and these are attributed to an area of special architectural and historical interest with
them spread across towns and villages throughout the district.
2.3
The district also has AONBs – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. AONBs include
the top of the coast from West Cromer and across to Wells-next-the-Sea and Sea
Palling and across to the East. They are akin to national parks in their preservation
and this places additional restrictions on development across the District, further
limiting the potential for housebuilding.
2.4
It is a very rural district and councillors often have to travel considerable distances to
meet with constituents or attend meetings. Public transport is often limited to the
towns and major routes and it can be challenging for Members who do not drive or
have access to a car.
3.
Current Electoral Arrangements
3.1
The Council comprises 48 Councillors representing 34 wards. Fourteen of these are
two member wards (41%).
3.2
Whole Council elections are held every four years, the next being in 2019. The table
attached at Appendix A shows the current electorate for each ward. This shows that
47% of wards have a variation from the average of more than 10%.
3.3
As mentioned above, the population of the District is relatively static, with only a 3%
increase as at the last census. Housing trajectory figures for the next 5 years (from
2016) based on deliverable planning permissions, total 1764. If expected
development on unidentified sites and permitted development was also included, this
figure would rise to 2467. Using the deliverable planning permissions figure (as this
is a reliable projection), this would work out as an average of 37 new homes per
member, or 44 homes if the number of members was reduced to 40. There is an
average of 1.7 voters per household, thus resulting in an increase of 75 voters per
Member or 4% - which is similar to the overall trend in population growth for the
District (Appendix B).
4.
Governance Arrangements
4.1
In broad terms the Council is arranged into ‘Executive’ (Cabinet) and ‘NonExecutive’ sections. Committees are required to be politically balanced, except for
Cabinet, which can be made up of Members of the ruling group. This is designed to
ensure strong decision-making and clear accountability. Since 2000 the Council has
operated under the Leader/Cabinet model and in 2011 the Council implemented the
Strong Leader regime. There are currently 8 Cabinet members sharing a total of 22
portfolios. The Leader has several portfolios.
11
4.2
In March 2015 the Constitution Working Party undertook a review of the Council’s
system of governance. It was agreed that with an election approaching it was not an
appropriate time to make a decision regarding a change of governance system and
that the matter should be raised by the new Council if they wished to pursue it. To
date, this matter has not been pursued.
4.3
Overview of current arrangements
The Constitution sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and
the procedures to follow to ensure transparency and accountability. It also sets out
the roles and responsibilities of Members and powers and duties delegated to
officers.
4.4
A table setting out the current committee arrangements is attached at Appendix C.
There is currently a total of 88 seats (excluding Council and Cabinet) shared
between 34 Members. Six Members do not sit on any committees.
4.5
Over the years there has been minimal change to committee appointments, with any
major changes being made following an election. This has allowed Members to
develop their specialist knowledge, particularly where the regulatory committees are
concerned.
4.6
The following sections highlight points which are of particular relevance to the
submission on council size.
4.7
Principles of decision-making
As outlined in the Constitution, one of the key roles of councillors is to ‘represent
their communities and bring their views into the Councils decision making
processes’. To ensure high standards in the way in which councillors undertake their
duties, the Council has adopted a Code of Conduct which covers the seven key
principles of conduct in public life. It also includes the statutory requirements relating
to disclosable pecuniary interests.
4.8
Although the Cabinet model has resulted in the formal decision powers being held
by a small number of Members, the culture of the Council is quite inclusive and
Members are encouraged to participate in committee meetings and ask questions.
The Council follows the statutory requirements regarding political balance. A
flowchart is attached at Appendix D outlining the decision-making process.
A breakdown of the average time spent in meetings for each committee is attached
at Appendix E.
4.9
Council
Council comprises all 48 Members of the Council. Meetings are conducted in
accordance with the Council Procedure Rules which are outlined in Part 2 of the
Constitution.
By law, the role of full Council is to:




4.10
Adopt or approve specified plans and strategies of the local authority
Approve the budget of the authority and the financial strategy for the
control of the authority’s borrowing or capital expenditure
Determine the scheme of members allowances
Authorise applications to the Secretary of State for the transfer of
housing land
Council meetings are held 8 times a year and last between 1 and 2 hours. Council
receives recommendations from Cabinet (where appropriate) and Members are able
12
to submit motions or questions in writing. There are also presentations from outside
organisations on a regular basis.
4.11
Cabinet
The Cabinet currently comprises the Leader and 7 other Members. The Leader
(elected in May 2015 for four years) appoints Cabinet and the Deputy Leader. The
Leader of the Council represents the Council to its community and partners, and
provides political leadership for the Cabinet, the Council and the District.
4.12
Executive functions can be exercised by the Cabinet collectively, under joint
arrangements or they can be delegated to individual Cabinet Members or council
officers.
4.13
Functions of Cabinet






Making recommendations to the Council on the formulation, adoption and
revision of the Budget and the Policy Framework;
Reviewing the use and allocation of assets and resources within the approved
Budget;
Making Key Decisions within the agreed Budget and Policy Framework;
Performance monitoring and management; and
Developing Council policy;
To refer matters including the review of strategies and policies to the appropriate
Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consultation, investigation and report.
4.14
Effectively, Cabinet carries out all of the Council’s functions and takes all decisions
except those reserved to Council, the Standards Committee, the Development
Committee and the Licensing and Appeals Committee or those decisions delegated
to officers.
4.15
All eight Cabinet Members have portfolios, covering a range of responsibilities. A
table outlining the portfolios is attached at Appendix F.
4.16
The Cabinet’s work programme is published monthly on the Council’s website. All
Key Decisions (where expenditure or savings of £100k or more are incurred, or
where there is a significant impact on the community) must be published 28 days
before the meeting takes place. Key decisions may be subject to ‘call-in; by the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
4.17
Cabinet meets on a monthly basis and meetings are held in public, except for rare
occasions when exempt information is discussed. Meetings last between 30 and 60
minutes. All Members of the Council receive the Cabinet agenda and meetings are
well attended by non-executive members.
4.18
Regulatory Committees/ Quasi Judicial
4.19
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee comprises 6 members and meets on a quarterly basis. It
provides independent assurance of the adequacy of the risk management framework
and the associated control environment, independent scrutiny of the authority's
annual statement of accounts and review of internal and external audit plans and
reports which supports the Council’s Corporate Governance Framework. The
Council’s internal audit service is outsourced and the Committee receives an Internal
13
Audit progress report at each meeting. The external auditor also often attends
meetings and their annual reports have indicated their satisfaction with the Council’s
governance arrangements.
4.20
Licensing and Appeals Committee
The Licensing and Appeals Committee comprises 15 Members and has
responsibility for all the licensing functions of the Council. It is scheduled to meets 6
times a year but meetings are cancelled due to a lack of business and during
2014/15 four meetings took place.
4.21
The Committee makes recommendations to the Council as a ‘Licensing Authority’ on
a Statement of Licensing Policy or Gambling Policy and any subsequent review.
The Licensing and Appeals Committee delegates responsibility for determining some
licensing applications such as new premises licenses and variations to existing
premises licenses to a Licensing Sub-Committee, comprising of three Licensing and
Appeals Committee Members selected on a rota basis. It also delegates
responsibility for taxi matters to the Licensing Sub Committee. The sub-committee
meets on a monthly basis.
4.23
Development Committee
The Council’s Development Committee comprises 14 councillors. Whilst most
planning applications are decided by planning officers under the scheme of
delegation, some applications are decided by the Development Committee. These
can include major applications such as supermarkets, large housing developments
and infrastructure projects. Members can also request that individual applications
are considered by the Committee by ‘calling them in’. Until May 2010, the
Development Committee used to be split into two committees ‘East’ and ‘West’ to
deal with the large number of applications. Following a reduction in planning
applications submitted, the committees were combined into one over-arching
committee. The Committee meets on a monthly basis and meetings last
approximately 4 hours.
4.24
The Development Committee also establishes a Panel on an annual basis to
consider entries for the Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design.
4.25
Standards Committee
Standards Committee comprises seven District Council members and 5 co-opted
members (non-voting). The Committee is scheduled to meet on a monthly basis,
however, due to a fall in the number of complaints in recent years, 6 out of 12
meetings have taken place during both 2014 and 2015. The Committee considers
complaints made in relation to the conduct of Parish, Town and District councillors.
It also makes recommendations to Full Council on the Code of Conduct. An
‘Independent Person’ advises the Committee on the assessment of complaints.
5
Scrutiny Functions
5.1
The Council has one Overview and Scrutiny Committee. It comprises 12 Members,
none of whom may be Cabinet members or the Chairman of the Audit Committee. It is
the practice of the Council that the Chairman should be appointed from a political group
that is not the majority group, or if there is no overall control by any political group, a
group that does not have the most members of the Cabinet. The Committee meets on a
monthly basis, with meetings lasting approximately 3 hours.
14
5.2
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee scrutinises and reviews decisions or actions
taken with respect to Cabinet functions. It also looks at the Council's efficiency,
economy and effectiveness, to ensure the Council continuously improves the work it
does. The Scrutiny Committee can also undertake detailed investigations into the way
services are provided and managed and make reports or recommendations to Council
or to the Cabinet on issues or services which affect North Norfolk and its residents.
5.3
The Committee sets its work programme in April each year. All members are invited to
attend this session and encouraged to put forward topics for consideration. The
programme is rolling and new topics are added throughout the year. There is a standing
item on the agenda for ‘consideration of any matter referred to the Committee by a
Member’. Meetings are well attended by both Committee Members and those who are
not appointed to the Committee. Cabinet Members attend to present reports on items
related to their portfolios.
5.4
The Committee encourages members of the public to attend and ask questions. Over
the last two years the public has attended meetings that have covered the provision of
local citizen’s advice services and car park charges. The Committee has also
considered two petitions and these sessions were also well attended by the public.
5.5
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has not used the call-in procedure for the last
two years. However, in 2014, there was a ‘Councillor Call for Action’ regarding a County
Council proposal to introduce charges for on-street parking and residents parking in two
towns. Again, the session was well attended by Members and the public.
5.6
Engagement with outside organisations is key to the work of the Committee.
Presentations are a regular feature on the work programme and include updates from
the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Executive of the District’s largest housing
association and an annual report from the Clinical Commissioning Group. There are
also regular presentations on items of interest to all Members such as tourism, waste
management, housing and planning enforcement.
5.7
The Committee publishes an annual report which is presented to Full Council. It
summarises the work of the Committee over the previous year and their aims and
objectives for the forthcoming year.
5.8
There is little pre-scrutiny at North Norfolk. The Committee has previously looked at
ways to alter the flow of reports so that the Committee can scrutinise some topics before
Cabinet and they do make requests for some items to come forward for pre-scrutiny.
Cabinet has also asked the Committee to look at some subjects and report their views
and recommendations to Cabinet before they make a final decision.
5.9
The Cabinet work programme is included within the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
agenda and Members are advised by the Scrutiny Officer at each meeting as to whether
there have been any changes to the items coming forward or additions to the
programme.
6.0
Representational Role of the Councillor
6.1
Community Development Role
North Norfolk has one of the highest numbers of town and parish councils in the country
- currently 122. Two wards have eight parishes, three have seven parishes and five
have six parishes. Seventeen (or half) of the 34 wards have 4 or more parishes. A full
breakdown is attached at Appendix G. The average number of parishes per member
15
currently stands at 2.54. If the number of Members was reduced to 40, this average
would increase slightly but not significantly to 3. If it was reduced to 36 then the average
number of parishes per Member would rise to 3.4 – almost 1 additional parish per
Member.
6.2
For some Members this can mean a considerable amount of time is spent either
attending parish and town council meetings or dealing with parish business. A recent
survey of Members’ workload indicated that 60% of respondents spent up to 3 hours a
week on this with 30% spending up to 6 hours a week. Many parish and town councils
have ‘Reports from the District Councillor’ as a standing item on their agenda and most
Members will attend meetings to give an oral update. However, changes in technology
mean that members are beginning to move away from attending all such meetings and
more are providing regular updates to their parish and town councils by email ahead of
the meeting. A copy of the survey results is attached at Appendix H.
6.3
Six Members are ‘twin hatters’ and hold County Council seats as well as a District seat.
Several members are also town or parish councillors. This dual role can have the benefit
of creating a flow or network of information through which issues of local concern can be
channelled from grass roots through to strategic level.
6.4
To help councillors engage further with parish and town councils, the Standards
Committee has established regular engagement sessions covering issues of interest
and concern. These are run on a six monthly basis and are very well attended by parish
and town council representatives and district councillors.
6.5
The workload survey indicated that ward work is key to Member’s role in the local
community. One third of Members receive between 6 and 9 issues a week to deal with
and 32% of Members spend up to 6 hours a week responding to them. Although most of
these issues are dealt with by telephone, email has now overtaken face to face
meetings as a means of receiving and responding to issues of concern.
6.6
Social media is also on the rise a method of communicating with constituents. 32% of
survey respondents said that they now used it as a way to communicate. The recent
provision of mobile technology to all Members means that this figure is likely to rise
considerably over the next few years. It is not clear yet whether this has actually
increased the number of ward issues dealt with by Members as it is still quite a recent
development but it is possible that over the next 5 years the number of ward issues
dealt with by members will increase simply because it is a lot easier to for constituents
to contact them. However, this additional increase in workload should be easier to
manage because Members will be able to respond quickly and more easily rather than
by telephone or by meeting in person.
6.7
Representation on Outside Bodies
The Council currently has 35 outside bodies with a total of 50 appointments. A full
breakdown of bodies and appointments is attached at Appendix I. 50% of these
appointments are taken up by Cabinet members, resulting in the average number of
appointments per member (excluding Cabinet) as 0.5. If the number of Members was
reduced to 40, this would rise slightly to 0.6. Currently, opposition Members only hold
seven out of the 50 appointments. This has been an issue of concern in the past and the
Council has reviewed the way appointments to outside bodies are allocated. Prior to the
annual meeting of Council, submissions for these appointments can be put forward by
Group Leaders together with a supporting statement and Council considers each
‘application’ before voting on the appointment.
16
6.8
An annual review of outside bodies is undertaken prior to the May Council meeting. The
bodies and the Members are sent a feedback form to provide information on
attendance, regularity of meetings and provision of information. Members are invited to
comment on whether the body reflects the Councils priorities and whether the
appointment is beneficial. The list of outside bodies is reviewed on a regular basis by
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and recommendations are put forward for
removal and additions to the approved list.
6.9
Members are encouraged to provide regular reports on the work of their outside bodies.
Depending on the body, these reports are made to a Committee, such as Overview and
Scrutiny or via the weekly Members’ Bulletin. All Members are expected to provide an
annual written update to the May Council meeting.
6.10
Responsibilities in addition to Council work
The workload survey also looked at Members commitments in addition to their
council work. 30% of respondents work full-time and 30% work part-time. Over 50%
undertake voluntary work. This can be beneficial as it brings a wider perspective to
the role of a councillor but it can also bring additional pressures particularly in the
amount of time that can be spent attending meetings and on ward work.
7.
The case for change
7.1
The initial stage of an electoral review is to determine the preferred council size and
to identify the average number of electors per councillor to be achieved across the
wards of the district.
7.2
In identifying the optimum number of Members, it was imperative that any reduction
in numbers should not reach a ‘tipping point’ where the performance of the Council
could be affected. With this in mind, and taking into account the criteria set out by
the LGBCE for assessing Council size submissions, the Council has considered the
impact of possible councillor numbers in relation to:

The decision-making processes of the Council

The Scrutiny process

The representational role of the councillor
Following this assessment, the conclusion is that the Council can run effectively and
efficiently with a reduction in Councillors from 48 to 40 – as set out below.
7.3
Impact on decision-making and the quasi-judicial process
No changes are intended to be made to the current decision-making structures. As
outlined in section 4 of this report, the Cabinet system operates very efficiently and
the Committees are well-attended with the length of meetings being manageable
(see Appendices A and J) A reduction of 8 Members to 40 represents 1/6 of the
current membership of the Council. Looking at the decision-making process
specifically, such a reduction would have no significant effect as we currently have 6
members who are not appointed to any committees. It can therefore be argued that
reducing the number of councillors by eight would have no detrimental impact on the
decision-making process as it currently stands. The table below shows that even if
the current seat allocation on committees is maintained, the average number of
seats per member only increases slightly if the number of councillors is reduced to
40. However, the average increases by almost one seat per Member if the number
of councillors is reduced significantly, for example by ¼ to 36 Members. This could
be seen as too large a reduction as it would increase the number of committee seats
allocated to each Member, on average by one third.
17
83 committee seats
(minus Cabinet member
seats on committees )
Average no. Seats per
member
48 Members
40 non-Cabinet
40 Members
32 non-Cabinet
36 Members
28 non-Cabinet
2.075
2.59
2.96
7.4
The table at Appendix K shows how the seat allocations could be reduced
proportionately in line with a reduction in the number of councillors. This shows that
with a reduction in the seat allocations, the impact is minimal, with no real increase
in the average number of seats per member.
7.5
Compared to some authorities, the allocation of committee seats to Cabinet
members is low, with only 5 out of a current total of 88 seats being taken by Cabinet
members. They do not sit on any of the regulatory committees and the 5 current
appointments are on Cabinet sub-committees or working parties. This means that it
is hard to calculate a tipping point where a reduction in the number of Members
would reach a point where the allocation of workload between Cabinet and nonCabinet becomes unrecognisable. As it stands, the workload of Cabinet members
remains high, with a recent survey for the review of Members allowances indicating
that they spend an average of 25 – 30 hours a week on Council related work, with
the Leader spending a considerably higher amount of time.
7.6
If the number of Members was reduced to 40, then the seat allocations on
committees could remain at 83 without a substantial impact on the workload of
Members. If Members were supportive of this approach, it could open up more
committee seats thus enabling more Members to engage in the decision-making
process, providing the opportunity for every Member to have a full and meaningful
role within the Council, as referred to in section 1.3 of this report.
7.7
The Scrutiny Process
The Scrutiny process at North Norfolk is effective and valued by Members, as
outlined in section 5 of this report. It is one of the Council’s largest committees and
even if the seat allocation was reduced in line with a reduction in the number of
Members, it would retain 10 seats and the current position of 1/3 of eligible nonexecutive Members having a seat on the Scrutiny Committee would continue.
7.8
It could be argued that if the current seat allocation was retained but the number of
members was reduced to 40, then there would be two additional seats available to a
reduced pool of members and this could improve engagement, particularly with
Cabinet, without compromising Members workload.
7.9
The representational role of the councillor
The table below shows the number of electors per councillor if the number of
Members is reduced together with a comparison based on the forecast number of
electors (generated through the Council’s elections system ‘Express’)
2016 electorate - 82,813
Number of councillors
Number of electorate
48
1725
40
2070
36
2300
2020 electorate 86,550
Number of councillors
Number of electorate
48
1803
40
2160
36
2404
18
Looking at the current figures, if the number of Members was 40, this would result in
an average increase of 345 electors per councillor or a 20% increase. If the size of
the Council was reduced by ¼ to 36, then the number of electors would rise to 2,300
per member – an increase of 575 or 33%. This does seem to be a significant
increase and therefore could be considered too much of a reduction in Council size.
It could be argued that such a reduction may even jeopardise the effectiveness of
Councillors being able to carry out their roles and engage with their constituents on
an individual basis. The figures do increase further when the forecast numbers are
taken into account, however, the reduction to 40 councillors would result in 130
additional electors per Member which is not too substantial.
7.10
A reduction of eight Members to 40 would still have an impact on the
representational role of Members but as more of them incorporate electronic
communication into their role, the demands on their time, particularly regarding face
to face meetings with constituents and attendance at parish and town council
meetings should reduce accordingly.
7.11
Regarding Members’ roles on Outside Bodies, as outlined in section 6.7, very few
non-Cabinet Members are appointed to these bodies and only 7 opposition group
members have a seat. A reduction in the number of Members could improve this
situation, particularly if the current number of 50 appointments is retained.
7.12
There is always the possibility that if the workload of Members increases too much
then prospective candidates will be deterred from standing for election in the future.
Historically, the Council has hosted a prospective candidates event in the October
prior to the district elections in the following May. These sessions have always been
well attended, with 25 people attending the last session and 11 of those going onto
stand for election. At the district election in 2015, the Conservative Party, Labour
Party and the Green Party all put forward candidates for every ward. Since 2011,
there has also been an increase in the number of younger people both standing and
being elected to the District Council. It is likely that the workload for Members would
have to increase substantially to deter people from putting themselves forward for
election and a reduction to 40 Members would not impact significantly on the
workload. The level of Members’ allowances has also been recently reviewed and
was increased, partly as a result of Members wanting to ensure that it was at a level
that would encourage younger, working people to stand for election
8.
Conclusion
8.1
The Council feels that a case can be made for reducing the number of councillors
from 48 to 40. The Governance arrangements of the Council have remained stable
since 2001 and Cabinet and the committees operate efficiently and effectively. Such
a reduction would also increase the Member to staff ratio so that it is similar to the
ratio in 2001 when the Cabinet system of governance was adopted.
8.2
As set out in the report, Democratic Services has carried out impact assessments on
reducing the number of councillors by eight to 40 and also by 12 to 36 and is
satisfied that a reduction of 8 will not adversely impact on the delivery of effective
and efficient services. It will also not over-burden the remaining 40 councillors in
their representational role.
9.
Implications and Risks
The impact assessments on the decision making process, the scrutiny function and
the representational role of councillors show that a reduction to 40 Members will not
have an adverse effect. It is likely that a larger reduction, to 36 for example, could
have a more significant impact particularly with regard to ward work and
engagement with local communities as the number of electorate per Member will
increase by a significant number.
19
10.
Financial Implications and Risks
There is no financial implication to undertaking the review and subsequent
submission on Council size. However, a reduction in Members to 40 would reduce
the budget for Members allowances by £40,000 per annum (£5000 per member pa).
11.
Sustainability
Not applicable
12.
Equality and Diversity
This report considers the impact on all Members regardless of their background.
20
Appendix A
Wards in North Norfolk
Electoral equality
Name of ward
North Norfolk
Astley
Briston
Chaucer
Corpusty
Cromer Town
Erpingham
Gaunt
Glaven Valley
Happisburgh
High Heath
Holt
Hoveton
Lancaster North
Lancaster South
Mundesley
North Walsham East
North Walsham North
North Walsham West
Poppyland
Priory
Roughton
Scottow
Sheringham North
Sheringham South
St. Benet
Stalham and Sutton
Suffield Park
The Raynhams
The Runtons
Walsingham
Waterside
Waxham
Wensum
Worstead
Cllrs
Electorate 2015
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1,797
1,970
1,897
1,923
2,854
1,937
1,991
1,757
2,046
1,541
3,025
1,772
2,842
3,239
3,369
3,362
3,230
3,377
1,982
3,225
1,915
2,017
2,785
3,175
1,780
3,428
3,337
1,963
1,785
1,788
3,548
1,769
1,847
1,945
21
Variance 2015
5%
15%
11%
12%
-17%
13%
16%
3%
19%
-10%
-12%
3%
-17%
-5%
-2%
-2%
-6%
-1%
16%
-6%
12%
18%
-19%
-7%
4%
0%
-3%
15%
4%
4%
4%
3%
8%
14%
Appendix B
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
Appendix 3 - Housing Trajectory Table (April 2015)
Expected
PD and
Built Deliverable development on
additional
planning
unidentified
sources of
permissions
sites
supply
367
428
230
250
446
341
551
258
416
178
337
242
383
503
288
135
12
338
135
12
428
135
10
483
135
6
389
135
0
126
135
0
Deliverable
allocations
Total
367
428
230
250
446
341
551
258
416
178
337
242
383
503
435
485
612
821
669
301
0
0
39
197
145
40
22
Original
annual
average
requirement
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Original
cumulative
requirement
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
4800
5200
5600
6000
6400
6800
7200
7600
8000
Difference
(average completions)
-33
28
-170
-150
46
-59
151
-142
16
-222
-63
-158
-17
103
35
85
212
421
269
-99
Cumulative Cumulative
shortfall
total
-33
-5
-175
-325
-279
-338
-187
-329
-313
-535
-598
-756
-773
-670
-635
-550
-338
83
352
253
367
795
1025
1275
1721
2062
2613
2871
3287
3465
3802
4044
4427
4930
5365
5850
6462
7283
7952
8253
Appendix C
Number of available seats on Committees as at April 2016
Committees
Current - 88 seats
48 members
Audit Committee
Development Committee
Joint Staff Consultative Committee
Overview & Scrutiny
Licensing & Appeals
Standards Committee
Working Parties & Panels
Planning Policy & Built Heritage WP
Member Development Group
Constitution Working Party
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
Total
Seats held by Cabinet members on committees
Seats available to non-Cabinet members
Average no. seats per member (non-Cabinet)
6 seats
14 seats
5 seats
12 seats
15 seats
7 seats
11 seats
6 seats
5 seats
7 seats
88
5
83 (40 members)
2.075
23
Appendix D
Council Decision Making Structure
COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE
OVERVIEW/SCRUTINY
Cabinet
Housing
Panel
Joint
Staff
Consultative
Committee
Working
Parties/
Groups
REGULATORY
Overview and
Scrutiny
Committee
Licensing
and
Appeals
Committee
Task and
Finish
Groups
Licensing
Sub-Committee
Working Parties, Groups and Panels
Planning
Policy and
Built Heritage
Working
Party
Member
Development
Group
Coastal
Forum
Constitution
Working
Party
Big Society
Fund Grants
Panel
24
Development
Committee
Graham Allen
Awards
Judging Panel
Audit
Committee
Standards
Committee
Time in meetings
2014/15
Number of meetings
Time spent
Appendix E
Average per meeting
Audit Committee
4
5hrs 54 mins
89
Cabinet
10
5hrs 33 mins
33
Development Committee
14
48 hrs 21 mins
207
Full Council
8
7 hrs 34 mins
57
Licensing & Appeals
4
6 hrs 37 mins
99
Licensing Sub-Committee
7
17 hrs 30 mins
150
Overview & Scrutiny
9
27 hrs 04 mins
180
Planning Policy & Built Heritage
3
4 hrs 42 mins
94
Standards Committee
7
9 hrs 9 mins
78
Big Society Fund Grants Panel
3
6 hrs 51 mins
137
Constitution Working Party
3
4 hrs 12 mins
84
Council Tax Support
Not currently active
JSCC
Member Development Group
No meetings in this period
1
1 hour
25
Page
1
60
Appendix F
CABINET PORTFOLIO STRUCTURE
Cabinet Member
Portfolio
(Conservative)
o
o
Human Resources
Media and Publicity
Strategic Policy & Governance (including
Shared Services
Big Society
IT Oversight
Angie Fitch-Tillett, Deputy
Leader
o
o
Coastal Managment
Environmental Services (except Licensing)
Sue Arnold
o
o
Planning
Planning Policy
Nigel Dixon
o
o
Business and Economic Development
Tourism (including Tourist Information
Centres)
Wyndham Northam
o
o
Financial Services
Revenues and Benefits
Judy Oliver
o
o
o
o
Legal Services
Electoral Services
Democratic Services
Licensing
Becky Palmer
o
o
o
Leisure and Culture
Health and Well Being
Customer Services
John Rest
o
o
Strategic Housing
Corporate Assets
Tom FitzPatrick, Leader
o
o
o
26
Appendix G
Ward
Parish(es)
No. Parishes
Astley
Briningham
Fulmodeston
Hindolveston
Melton Constable
Thurning
Swanton Novers
Wood Norton
7
Ward
Members
1
Briston
Briston
1
1
Chaucer
Beeston Regis
East Beckham
West Beckham
Gresham
Matlaske
Sustead
Upper Sheringham
7
1
Corpusty
Baconsthorpe
Bodham
Corpusty
Edgefield
Hempstead
Itteringham
Lt. Barningham
Plumstead
8
1
Cromer
Town
Cromer
1
2
Erpingham
Alby
Aldborough
Colby
Erpingham
Hanworth
Ingworth
Wickmere
7
1
Gaunt
Antingham
Gimingham
Knapton
Swafield
Trunch
5
1
Glaven
Valley
Blakeney
Brinton
Field Dalling
Letheringsett
Morston
Stody
Thornage
Wiveton
8
1
Happisburgh
Dilham
Happisburgh
Honing
Walcott
Witton
5
1
27
Appendix G
Ward
Parish(es)
High Heath
Cley
High Kelling
Kelling
Salthouse
Weybourne
Holt
Hoveton
No. Parishes
5
Ward
Members
1
Holt
1
2
Ashmanhaugh
Hoveton
2
1
Lancaster
(North)
Fakenham North
1
2
Lancaster
(South)
Fakenham South
1
2
Mundesley
Bacton
Mundesley
Paston
3
2
North
Walsham
(East)
North Walsham East
1
2
North
Walsham
(North)
North
Walsham
North
1
2
North
Walsham
(West)
North Walsham
West
1
2
Poppyland
Northrepps
Overstrand
Sidestrand
Trimingham
4
1
Priory
Binham
Hindringham
Holkham
Langham
Stiffkey
Warham
Wells
7
2
Roughton
Felbrigg
Roughton
Southrepps
Thorpe Market
4
1
Scottow
Scottow
Sloley
Smallburgh
Tunstead
4
1
28
Appendix G
Ward
Parish(es)
No. Parishes
Sheringham
(North)
Sheringham North
1
Ward
Members
2
Sheringham
(South)
Sheringham
South
1
2
Stalham &
Sutton
Stalham
Sutton
2
2
St Benet
Barton Turf/Irstead
Horning
Neatishead
3
1
Suffield
Park
Suffield
Park
1
2
The
Raynhams
Dunton
Helhoughton
Hempton
Pudding Norton
Raynham
Tattersett
6
1
The Runtons
Aylmerton
East Runton
West Runton
3
1
Walsingham
Barsham
Great Snoring
Sculthorpe
Gt. Walsingham
Lt. Walsingham
Wighton
6
1
Waterside
Catfield
Hickling
Ludham
Potter Heigham
4
2
Waxham
Brumstead
East Ruston
Horsey
Ingham
Lessingham
Sea Palling
6
1
Wensum
Gunthorpe
Kettlestone
Little Snoring
Ryburgh
Stibbard
Thursford
6
1
29
Appendix G
Ward
Parish(es)
No. Parishes
Worstead
Felmingham
Skeyton
Suffield
Swanton Abbott
Westwick
Worstead
6
2 wards have 8 parishes
3 wards have 7 parishes
5 wards have 6 parishes
3 wards have 5 parishes
4 wards have 4 parishes
17 wards out of 34 have 4 or more parishes
Average per Member – 2.54 parishes
Average if Council size reduced to 40 – 3.05
Average if Council size reduced to 36 - 3.38
30
Ward
Members
1
Appendix H
Members workload
Q1 How much time do you spend each week
on the following? (approximately)Please
select all those that apply (please note ward
work is dealt with separately)
Answered: 27
Skipped: 0
Committee
meetings...
Research and
reading
Parish / town
council...
Outside bodies
Meetings with
officers at ...
Meetings with
external...
Travel time
0
1
2
1-3
hours
3
4
3-6
hours
5
6-9
hours
6
7
9 - 12
hours
8
9
more than 12
hours
10
Total
Weighted
Average
Committee meetings (including pre-agenda
meetings)
46.15%
12
23.08%
6
15.38%
4
3.85%
1
11.54%
3
26
2.12
Research and reading
11.11%
3
48.15%
13
22.22%
6
7.41%
2
11.11%
3
27
2.59
62.96%
17
33.33%
9
3.70%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
27
1.41
73.68%
14
5.26%
1
10.53%
2
5.26%
1
5.26%
1
19
1.63
72.00%
18
4.00%
1
8.00%
2
0.00%
0
16.00%
4
25
1.84
Meetings with external partners / other
authorities
63.16%
12
21.05%
4
15.79%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
19
1.53
Travel time
53.85%
14
23.08%
6
11.54%
3
7.69%
2
3.85%
1
26
1.85
Parish / town council meetings and liaison
Outside bodies
Meetings with officers at the council
131
/6
Appendix H
Members workload
Q2 Approximately how many ward issues
do you receive a week?
Answered: 27
Skipped: 0
1 -3
3-6
6-9
9 -12
more than 12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
1 -3
33.33%
9
3-6
25.93%
7
6-9
37.04%
10
9 -12
0.00%
0
more than 12
3.70%
1
Total
27
232
/6
Appendix H
Members workload
Q3 On average how long does it take you to
deal with ward issues each week?
Answered: 27
Skipped: 0
1 -3 hours
3 - 6 hours
6 - 9 hours
9 - 12 hours
more than 12
hours
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
1 -3 hours
37.04%
10
3 - 6 hours
29.63%
8
6 - 9 hours
14.81%
4
9 - 12 hours
14.81%
4
more than 12 hours
3.70%
1
Total
27
333
/6
Appendix H
Members workload
Q4 How do you communicate with your
constituents? (please select all that apply)
Answered: 27
Skipped: 0
Telephone
In person
Email
Social media
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Telephone
100.00%
27
In person
92.59%
25
Email
96.30%
26
Social media
37.04%
10
Total Respondents: 27
434
/6
Appendix H
Members workload
Q5 When communicating with your
constituents, which method do you use the
most frequently?
Answered: 27
Skipped: 0
Telephone
Email
in person
Social media
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Telephone
22.22%
6
Email
51.85%
14
in person
25.93%
7
Social media
0.00%
0
Total
27
535
/6
Appendix H
Members workload
Q6 Do you have responsibilities /
commitments in addition to your council
work?
Answered: 26
Skipped: 1
Work full-time
Work part-time
voluntary work
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Responses
Work full-time
26.92%
7
Work part-time
26.92%
7
voluntary work
50.00%
13
Other
53.85%
14
Total Respondents: 26
636
/6
Appendix I
REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES
ORGANISATION
NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES
MEMBER (S) &
SUBSTITUTE(S) WHERE
REQUIRED & Status
A Fitch-Tillett
W J Northam
R Price
B Smith
L Walker
Bacton Gas Terminal
Environmental Liaison Committee
5
Broads Authority
(Portfolio Holder )
1
P Rice
Broads Internal Drainage Board
8
Broads Tourism
1
A Fitch-Tillett
P Grove-Jones
W J Northam
P Rice
R Price
N Smith
B Jarvis
L Walker
N Dixon
Citizen’s Advice Stakeholder
Forum (Norfolk CAB)
2
B Palmer
V Gay
Community Rail Norfolk
1
N Dixon
(Director)
Cromer Lawn Tennis & Squash
Association
3
J Oliver
N Pearce
T FitzPatrick
Duty to co-operate Members’
Forum
(Portfolio Holder preferred)
1
S Arnold
Fakenham Community Campus
Trust
Former RAF Coltishall Community
Liaison Reference Group
1
J Punchard
3
N Dixon
S Shaw
G Williams
Happisburgh Lighthouse Trust
1
L Walker
Health and Well Being Board
1
A Claussen-Reynolds
37
Appendix I
ORGANISATION
NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES
HMP Bure Liaison Committee
3
MEMBER (S) &
SUBSTITUTE(S) WHERE
REQUIRED & Status
S Shaw
R Shepherd
G Williams
Local Government Association –
SIG - Coastal issues
1+ Sub
A Fitch-Tillett
(H Cox)
Local Government Association –
SPARSE Rural Sub SIG
1
T FitzPatrick
Mid-Norfolk Citizens Advice
Bureau
1
D Young
1+ Sub
B Jarvis
(J English & M Prior)
1+1 Sub
A Fitch-Tillett
(S Hester & V FitzPatrick)
Norfolk Arts Forum Executive
(Portfolio Holder preferred)
Norfolk Coast Partnership
Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny
Committee (must be a Member of
Overview & Scrutiny Committee)
1+Sub
A Claussen-Reynolds
(N Smith)
Norfolk Rail Group
1+Sub
N Dixon
(H Cox)
Norfolk Records Committee
1
A Claussen-Reynolds
Norfolk Rivers Internal Drainage
Board
5
A Green
P W Moore
B Palmer
R Reynolds
S Ward
Norse Environmental Waste
Services (NEWS)
1
T FitzPatrick
(Director)
North Norfolk Community
Transport Association
North Norfolk Historic Buildings
Trust
2
1
N Coppack
N Lloyd
A Green
North Walsham Sports Hall User
Forum
1
N Lloyd
38
Appendix I
ORGANISATION
NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Rural Development Programme
England – LAG Boards
- Wensum
- Broads
Sheringham Little Theatre Society
Board
(Portfolio Holder preferred)
2
MEMBER (S) &
SUBSTITUTE(S) WHERE
REQUIRED & Status
N Dixon
N Dixon
2
D Smith
R Stevens
Sheringham Shoal Community
Fund Grant Assessment Panel
Sheringham Sports Association
1
T FitzPatrick
2
J Oliver
R Shepherd
Southrepps Commons
Management Committee
1
S Arnold
Visit North Norfolk
2
N Dixon
John Rest
(Directors)
Wash & North Norfolk Coast
Marine Special Area of
Conservation Management Group
(Portfolio Holder preferred)
1
(1 sub)
Wells Harbour Users’ Advisory
Committee
(Portfolio Holder preferred)
1
Wells Maltings Trust
1
(1 sub)
A Fitch-Tillett
H Cox (sub)
V FitzPatrick
S Hester
V FitzPatrick (sub)
Total number of Outside Bodies – 35
Total number of appointments - 50
Number of Portfolio Holder appointments to Outside Bodies – 25 (50%)
Average number of appointments per member (excluding Cabinet) 25 /40 = 0.6
Number if council size reduced to 40 (excluding Cabinet) 25/32 = 0.78
Number if council size reduced to *36 (excluding Cabinet) 25/30 = 0.83
*(assuming Cabinet of 6 members)
39
Members’ Attendance 2015/16*
Member
Expected
attendance
Arnold, S
23
Butikofer, S
30
Claussen-Reynolds, A
39
Coppack, N
32
Cox, H
20
Dixon, N
16
English, J
26
Fitch-Tillett, A
16
FitzPatrick, T
18
FitzPatrick V
12
Gay, V
22
Green, A
24
Grove-Jones, P
34
Hannah, B
18
Hester, S
25
High, P
39
Jarvis, B
11
Knowles, M
21
Lee, J
14
Lloyd, N
8
McGoun, B
14
Moore, A
21
Moore, P
17
Northam, W
16
Oliver, J
16
Palmer, B
20
Pearce, N
32
Perry-Warnes, G
17
Price, R
14
Prior, M
17
Punchard, J
15
Rest, J
16
Reynolds, R
42
Rice, P
28
Seward, E
17
Shaw, S
34
Shepherd, R
35
Smith, B
38
Smith, D
17
Smith, N
37
Stevens, R
13
Uprichard, V
35
Walker, L
8
Ward, S
18
Wells, A
8
Williams, G
8
Yiasimi, A
8
Young, D
12
Conservative Party
Actual
attendance
20
26
38
29
16
13
18
12
18
6
19
22
27
8
16
30
1
19
7
8
8
16
13
15
12
15
26
12
10
13
12
16
41
15
15
24
28
32
8
31
12
29
5
3
7
5
7
12
Attended as
Also attended
substitute
0
9
0
1
10
10
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
4
1
8
0
3
0
4
6
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
8
11
2
0
3
3
0
0
8
1
9
0
5
1
0
8
11
0
1
0
12
2
15
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
2
0
6
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
3
1
6
Liberal Democrat Party
*This is based on the Council’s Programme of Meetings for the municipal year 2015/16 up
to 14 April 2016 for Full Council, Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Development
Committee, Audit Committee, Licensing and Appeals Committee Licensing Sub-Committees,
Standards Committee, Members Development Group, Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party and Joint Staff Consultative Committee, but excludes site meetings, the
Coastal Issues Forum and the Big Society Fund Grants Panel which do not have formal
memberships. Members also attend a number of other meetings which are not shown here.
Appendix J
*This is based on the Council’s Programme of Meetings for the municipal year 2015/16 up
to 14 April 2016 for Full Council, Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Development
Committee, Audit Committee, Licensing and Appeals Committee Licensing Sub-Committees,
Standards Committee, Members Development Group, Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party and Joint Staff Consultative Committee, but excludes site meetings, the
Coastal Issues Forum and the Big Society Fund Grants Panel which do not have formal
memberships. Members also attend a number of other meetings which are not shown here.
41
Appendix K
Projections if number of available committee seats reduced in line proportionally with a reduction
in councillors
Committees
Current - 88 seats
48 members
Reduced by 14 (1/6)
40 members
Reduced by 22 (1/4)
36 members
Audit Committee
Development Committee
Joint Staff Consultative
Committee
Overview & Scrutiny
Licensing & Appeals
Standards Committee
Working Parties & Panels
Planning Policy & Built
Heritage WP
Member Development
Group
Constitution Working Party
Big Society Fund Grants
Panel
Total
Seats held by Cabinet
members on committees
Seats available to nonCabinet members
6 seats
14 seats
5 seats
5 seats
12 seats
5 seats
5 seats
10 seats
5 seats
12 seats
15 seats
7 seats
10 seats
13 seats
5 seats
8 seats
11 seats
5 seats
11 seats
9 seats
7 seats
6 seats
5 seats
5 seats
5 seats
7 seats
5 seats
5 seats
5 seats
5 seats
88
5
74
4
66
4
83 (40 members)
70 (32 members)
62 (30 members)
Average no. seats per
member (non-Cabinet)
2.075
assuming Cabinet reduces
proportionally to 6
2.18
42
2.07
9th May 2016
Cabinet
Agenda Item No__10___________
Proposed Cromer Community Sports Pitch facility
Summary:
This report details the efforts made by the District Council to
negotiate the purchase of the former golf practice ground site
on Overstrand Road, Cromer so as to develop a new
community sports pitch facility, to include facilities for future
use by Cromer Town Football Club and the Cromer Youth
Football Club. As it has not been possible to reach agreement
with the owner over the Council’s interest in purchasing the
land the report details the options open to the Council in taking
this project proposal forward.
Conclusions:
The report outlines the options available to the District Council
in seeking to deliver a new community sports pitch facility on
the former golf practice ground site and recommends that the
Council now seeks to acquire the site through the use of
Compulsory Purchase powers.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet confirms that the District Council should
seek to acquire the former golf practice ground site
through Compulsory Purchase powers, and in so doing: notes the advice provided by the District Valuer
regarding the value of the site given its current use,
prevailing planning policy position and proposed
use as a sports ground;
 establishes a capital budget of £50,000 to support
the preparation of a planning application for the
proposed sports pitch facility in support of the
Compulsory Purchase process and authorises
officers to prepare and submit such an application;
 authorises officers to engage specialist advice in
the development and submission of the CPO
application.
Reason for Decision:
To bring a long-term unkempt site back into positive use and
provide a much-needed new community sports facility for the
benefit of Cromer.
Cabinet member(s):
Wards:
Cllr Tom FitzPatrick
Cromer Town, Suffield Park, Roughton, Poppyland,
The Runtons
43
9th May 2016
Cabinet
Steve Blatch, Corporate Director
Contact Officer,
Steve.blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
telephone number, and e-mail:
Tel:- 01263 516232
1.0
Summary:-
1.1
As part of consideration which the Council has given to accommodating a new health
centre facility for the Cromer Group Practice on part of the Cabbell Park site (as per
Cabinet decision number 14/123 taken in April 2014); the Council sees the potential of
supporting the development of shared community sports facilities on a site on the edge
of Cromer. Such a facility could include new football and other outdoor sports pitches
together with clubhouse facilities and parking which could meet the needs of Cromer
Town Football Club and the Cromer Youth Football Club and potentially other outdoor
sports clubs in the future.
1.2
Following a public consultation process conducted in the Spring of 2015, the Cabinet
agreed that these new sports facilities could be established on the former golf practice
ground site off Overstrand Road (see attached map and aerial photo). This land had
previously been used for sports purposes, but had been abandoned for a number of
years and was now overgrown and unkempt. Development of new sports facilities at
this location would see the condition of this land improved and its open character reinstated making a positive contribution to the town both as a sports facility and through
improving the setting of the eastern approach to the town.
1.3
Attempts have been made to contact the owner of the land to discuss the Council’s
interest in purchasing the land for development as a community sports facility, but these
approaches have not resulted in any meaningful discussions or negotiations taking place
and so the Council now needs to consider its position moving forward – possibly by
being prepared to consider other potential sites for a community sports facility (although
with the exception of this site, it is not believed that there is any other land within the
boundaries of the town which could accommodate such a facility as per the appraisal
conducted by the District Council and reported to Cabinet at its February 2015 meeting)
or through the Council seeking to acquire the former golf practice ground land under
Compulsory Purchase powers.
2.0
Background:-
2.1
At the meeting of the Cabinet held on 8th June 2015, Cabinet received and considered a
report detailing the outcome of a public consultation exercise which had invited
comments on four potential sites adjoining the boundary of Cromer on which to develop
a community sports pitch facility to provide facilities for Cromer Town Football Club and
Cromer Youth Football Club. The consultation process had demonstrated significant
support for the proposed new sports facility being accommodated on the former golf
practice ground site on Overstrand Road, where it would be proposed developing
outdoor sports facilities similar to those recently established at Youngs Park, Aylsham. It
was envisaged that a new facility at Cromer would include the provision of two full size
football pitches and up to four smaller pitches, with clubhouse, changing room and
parking facilities.
44
9th May 2016
Cabinet
2.2
Cabinet therefore resolved at its 8th June 2015 meeting (Cabinet Minute 14):1. to note the comments received through the public consultation process on the
four shortlisted sites identified for consideration in accommodating the
proposed Cromer community sports pitch facility; and
2. authorised officers to open discussions with the owner of the former golf
practice ground site, off Overstrand Road regarding its possible acquisition to
accommodate the proposed community sports pitch facility.
2.3
Following this resolution, officers asked the District Valuer to provide valuation advice to
the Council regarding the value of the site given its current use, prevailing planning
policy position and proposed use as a sports ground. The advice provided by the
District Valuer is contained for members’ information in an Exempt Appendix to this
report.
2.4
Officers also engaged the services of Strutt and Parker’s Norwich office to represent the
authority in making contact with the owner of the golf practice ground site to discuss the
Council’s interest in purchasing the site for the proposed sports pitch facility. However,
despite a number of attempts to contact the owner of the land, who it is understood lives
abroad, Strutt and Parker have not been able to make contact and therefore establish
his willingness or otherwise to sell the site to the Council.
3.0
Current position:-
3.1
The Council and its agent, Strutt and Parker, have not been able to have any meaningful
discussion with the owner of the former golf practice ground site over the past six
months and the Council now needs to consider its position further in seeking to provide
new community sports facilities for the community of Cromer, for which there is an
established demand, both from the Cromer Youth Football Club which has a thriving
membership but no permanent “home” ground facilities and by the District Council and
Cromer Town Football Club in seeking to accommodate the proposed new health centre
on part of the Cabbell Park site.
3.2
Two options therefore appear to present themselves to the District Council in seeking to
facilitate the delivery of new outdoor community sports facilities for Cromer – these
being:-
3.3

Consider the potential of alternative sites close to the town which could
accommodate such a facility;

Consider the potential of the Council exercising Compulsory Purchase powers to
acquire the former golf practice ground site for such a facility.
In appraising potential sites for the new community sports facility in early 2015, the
District Council undertook a detailed appraisal of areas of land adjoining the town and
their suitability to accommodate such a facility (as per report to the District Council’s
Cabinet on 2nd February 2015). This process considered the potential of 16 parcels of
land either within or adjoining the Cromer town boundary for such a facility and
shortlisted four/five potential sites which were considered able to accommodate the new
sports facility – by virtue of their size, topography, landscape impact and ease of access.
Of the initial 16 sites considered 6 were within the boundaries of the town, but only one,
the former golf practice ground site, was considered able to accommodate the proposed
sports facilities – the other sites being dismissed because of their topography, landscape
impact, and issues of drainage. The three/four other shortlisted sites were to the south
45
9th May 2016
Cabinet
or south-east of the town – in the parishes of Roughton or Northrepps; and whilst
shortlisted for public consultation some of these sites were quite visible in the landscape
and had challenging access issues.
3.4
The public consultation process therefore indicated significant support for the former golf
practice ground site accommodating the proposed sports facility on the grounds that it
was within the parish of Cromer, was well-contained within the landscape having
adopted roads to two sides (north-east and west) and an established area of woodland
on rising land to the south. Further, the site had effectively been “abandoned” for many
years and was now overgrown; having previously, when used as a golf practice area,
made a significant contribution to the landscape setting of this part of the town.
3.5
Given the previous site appraisal and public consultation processes, it is not believed
that there is a large, if any, choice of alternative sites either within the Cromer town
boundary or otherwise which are well-related to the town. Options to consider
alternative sites for such a facility are therefore considered to be limited.
3.6
Against this background it is felt that the District Council should seek to acquire the
former golf practice ground site through exercising Compulsory Purchase powers;
however, in so doing legal advice has been provided that the authority will need to be
able to demonstrate that it has clear plans and reasons for wishing to acquire the land
which would be demonstrated by preparing a detailed planning application for its
intended use of the land and establishing a capital budget for the development of the
facility.
4.0
Financial Implications and Risks
4.1
Development of such plans and progressing the referencing process in support of the
Compulsory Purchase action will involve the Council incurring costs in appointing a
planning agent to prepare the planning application, acquiring professional advice in
relation to the potential capital development costs of the facility and appointing a
professional advisor in the preparation of the legal documents required for the
Compulsory Purchase action, details of which are considered further below.
4.2
It is estimated that the costs of appointing a planning agent to prepare a planning
application, obtaining professional advice regarding capital development costs and
appointing a specialist advisor to support the referencing process might be in the region
of £50,000, which could be at risk if the Compulsory Purchase action is not successful.
If the action is successful, the expenditure incurred in the preparation of a planning
application would have nevertheless been required had the purchase of the land been
achieved through negotiation.
4.3
It would be proposed that these costs are financed from the capital receipt anticipated
from the sale of an area of land at Cabbell Park to the Cromer Group Practice for the
new health centre facility (assuming this sale goes ahead), or otherwise from within the
Council’s wider capital programme.
4.4
If the Compulsory Purchase action is successful, a consented planning application would
form the basis of a future capital programme project to develop the site for community
sports use. Such a scheme would require the development of a full funding package to
include use of other capital monies from the District Council and applications for financial
support from Sport England, the Football Association etc.
46
9th May 2016
Cabinet
5.0
Sustainability
5.1
The recommendations made in this report do not in themselves raise issues of
sustainability. The site appraisal and public consultation process has identified the
former golf practice ground site on Overstrand Road as being the preferred site for many
local people and stakeholders for such a facility, recognising that the site lies within the
parish of Cromer; is well-related to the town being accessible by foot, cycle or public
transport, as well as personal transport; and is well-contained within the landscape.
More detailed consideration of sustainable development issues will be given in the
development of any detailed proposals for the site.
6.0
Equality and Diversity
6.1
There are no direct equality or diversity issues raised by this report, but the Council’s
wish to support the provision of new community sports pitches in Cromer recognises the
longstanding deficit of facilities for youth football and other outdoor sports in and around
the town. Any facilities provided will be developed in accordance with advice from the
Football Association, Sport England and other sports and grant funding bodies and will
need to be accessible to all sections of the community.
7.0
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
7.1
This report does not raise any issues directly relating to Crime and Disorder; although it
is recognised that the provision of good quality and accessible sports facilities are
positive factors in community cohesion and well-being.
47
Agenda Item No___11_________
Shannocks Hotel Site, Sheringham – Compulsory Purchase
Summary:
This report seeks to update Cabinet on progress so far
and proposed future actions, in respect of the old
Shannocks Hotel building in Sheringham
Options considered:
Under Delegated Authority, the relevant Corporate
Director progressed with a Voluntary Offer from the
Council to buy the property from the current owner who
has confirmed that he will not sell the building voluntarily
Conclusions:
That if the council wishes to continue the CPO process
architects and related professional should be appointed
to progress a detailed Planning application for
regeneration of this site.
Recommendations:
That Cabinet authorises the appointment of
architects and other relevant professionals required
to develop the Planning Application as described in
the report.
Reasons for
Recommendations:
To enable the progression of an application to the
Secretary of State for a Compulsory Purchase of the old
Shannocks Hotel site.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr Judy Oliver
Sheringham (South)
Cllr Dick Shepherd
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker, Corporate Director
01263 516221
Nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
The site of the old Shannocks Hotel in Sheringham has been empty for
several years and is in poor condition, being a blight on the local landscape in
a very prominent position in the town.
The Council has sought action from the owner of the building to improve the
local environment, but this has not been forthcoming and as a last resort, the
council is considering Compulsory Purchase of the site.
2.
Background
Members will recall that Cabinet approved action to progress to compulsory
purchase of the building in October 2015. As a result, delegated authority was
given to the relevant Corporate Director to progress all such matters required
48
to move forward with a Compulsory Purchase of the property, with the first
action being a voluntary offer from the Council to buy the property from the
current owner.
3.
Progress to date
Savills were appointed to take this voluntary offer forward on behalf of the
Council, as they had provided the professional property advice in support of
bringing the original proposal to Cabinet and therefore had existing knowledge
of the issues involved.
After several attempts with no response, the owner of the building was
approached and has since confirmed through solicitors, that he will not sell the
building voluntarily.
In addition, and despite being given additional time in which to respond, no
further action has been forthcoming by the owner in progressing or providing
substantive information regarding his own plans for the site.
Furthermore, no work has been undertaken by the owner to rectify the
property defects contained in the original Planning Enforcement Notice
(successfully prosecuted in 2015) and a further prosecution in respect of the
continuing offence has been instructed.
With the refusal to sell voluntarily now confirmed, the Council needs to
progress its formal application for Compulsory Purchase. In support of this,
further legal advice has confirmed the requirement for the Council to evidence
that it has a viable proposal for the site and that it has the financial capability
to progress and complete that proposal, which will require:
1. Land use viability, through a successful application for detailed planning
approval.
2. Financial viability; firstly, through a statement from our property
professionals that the cost of the regeneration would be covered through
the future use of the site; and, secondly, that the Council has the budget
availability to complete the proposal.
In turn, these requirements give rise to financial implications on which
Cabinet’s views are now sought.
4.
Financial Implications and Risks
The detailed planning application, which will require external support from
architects and other professionals, as well as Planning Application fees, has
been costed by Savills in the region of £35,000. The architect’s costs are
c£20k, with additional costs from structural engineers, Savills management
fees and potentially, archaeological and contaminated land surveys, etc.
adding a further c£15k, although some of these costs may not be required.
The original report gave delegation to do all that was reasonably required to
achieve a CPO, but a full Planning Application was not anticipated and
therefore not costed at that stage, as it was believed that the owner may sell
voluntarily.
49
The fees could properly be funded from the Enforcement Board Reserve,
where delegation also exists, to approve use of this Reserve for such a
purpose.
However, given that these costs would be at risk, officers believe that Cabinet
support is needed to approve this spend, and that this is justified by the
change in the anticipated total budget for a CPO application.
In relation to the financial viability requirement, this would be overseen by
Savills, as part of their management of the design process, to ensure that any
design was appropriate in terms of its cost, potential future use and income
generation.
Once the design is completed, the Council would then need to approve a
capital budget, to evidence that it has the financial ability to undertake the
project and it is proposed that this would come to Cabinet for
recommendation to Council as soon as possible after Planning Approval is
granted.
5.
Implications and Risks
The building has been empty and in poor condition for many years and there
is a reputational risk to the Council if it is not seen to act to remedy the
situation.
6.
7.
Sustainability
There are no sustainability implications arising from this report
8.
Equality and Diversity
There are no equality and diversity implications arising from this report
9.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
There are limited sustainability implications arising from this report in as much
as dilapidated buildings are often associated with crime and disorder.
10.
Conclusion
That if the council wishes to continue the CPO process architects and related
professional should be appointed to progress a detailed Planning application
for regeneration of this site.
50