Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 13 May 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 J Lee
Mr R Oliver (Chairman)
Mr R Wright
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr G Williams
Mr D Young
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P High
Officers in
Attendance:
1.
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Finance,
Planning Legal Manager, the Revenues and Benefits Services
Manager, the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager and the
Community projects Manager
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr T FitzPatrick and Mr W Northam
2.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 04 March 2013 were confirmed as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Mr N Morter wished to speak in relation to Item 13 of the Agenda: The Chairman
proposed that the item was moved so that it could be taken earlier and a response
could be provided to Mr Morter’s question.
4.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
An item of urgent business had been received in relation to Planning Application
PF/11/0983 for the erection of a wind turbine and associated infrastructure at Pond
Farm, Bodham. The Planning Legal Manager explained that the initial application
was refused by the Development Committee at their meeting on 23 August 2012 but
an appeal against that decision had been allowed. Cabinet was required to consider
as a matter of urgency whether that appeal decision should be challenged by way of
an application of the High Court under s288 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990. The item was urgent because the time limit for lodging an application to
challenge an appeal decision was six weeks from the date of the decision and the
deadline would expire on 20 May 2013. He informed Members that there was a
Cabinet
1
13 May 2013
potential cost to the Council of £20,000 if they agreed to challenge the appeal
decision.
The Chairman invited Mr B Cabbell Manners, Portfolio Holder for Planning and
Planning Policy to speak. He said that the decision by the Development Committee
to refuse the initial planning application had been unanimous and he proposed that
the appeal decision was challenged. Mr R Wright commented that he felt that it was
important to recognise that the site was situated adjacent to an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB).
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mr R Wright and
RESOLVED
To instruct the Head of Legal to initiate a legal challenge against the Inspector’s
decision, reference no: APP/Y2620/A/12/2184043
2. To make budgetary provision for £20,000 from the general reserve.
1.
5.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
6.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 25
March 2013 be received and the following recommendations contained therein
adopted as follows:
1. That the car allowance assessment form be reviewed.
2. That the impact on recruitment and retention of staff of the removal of the cash
equivalent/lease car allowances be reviewed and reported back to the Joint Staff
Consultative Committee at its meeting on 9 September 2013.
7.
CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the CCTV Working Party held on 18 March 2013 be
received.
8.
PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER ON LAND AT
EGMERE – REPORT ON RESPONSES RECEIVED DURING THE
CONSULTATION PROCESS AND PROPOSED FURTHER ACTION
The Chairman invited Mr N Morter to speak. Mr Morter explained that he resided at
the Old Control Tower in Egmere and that he had been encouraged by the
consultation exercise and now supported the proposals. He urged Members to give
further consideration to the following points:
 The heritage of the airfield at North Creake. There was some concern
regarding the status of the hangar which was located in the area of land
proposed for LDO designation to the east of the B1105 road.
 The speed limit on the B1105 road. It was essential that the current limit
through Bunkers Hill / Egmere was reduced to 40mph.
Cabinet
2
13 May 2013


The design guide. There should be further consultation to ensure that
residents’ views were considered regarding any development.
Sustainability. A longer-term view should be taken regarding providing better
public transport to access the proposed site
The Corporate Director then briefly summarised the report. He said that it sought to
provide Members with details of the consultation exercise undertaken and the
responses received, following the endorsement by Cabinet of the initial proposal to
designate land at Egmere for future development in support of offshore wind energy
developments off the North Norfolk Coast at its meeting of 13th December 2012. He
updated members on the recent enactment of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill
which meant that there was no longer a requirement for a Local Development Order
to be approved by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
In response to the points that Mr Morter had raised, the Corporate Director said that
all of the issues would be considered further as details of the LDO were finalised..
Consideration was being given to revising the boundary of the LDO and the
commissioning of a landscape visual impact assessment and habitat survey would
ensure that any impact on the local environment was fully assessed.
Members were invited to ask questions:
a)
b)
Mrs P Grove-Jones was concerned about the inclusion 14.8 hectares of
greenfield land currently in agricultural use within the proposed area. She felt
that it could trigger interest in further development and sought assurance that
there were conditions in place to prevent this. The Corporate Director said
thatthe production of a design guide and a landscaping plan were a requirement
of the Local Development Order and would ensure that development would not
proceed in an unco-ordinated way or outside of the defined area of the LDO.
Mr P W Moore said that he was pleased to see a recommendation to
commission a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and Stage 1 Habitat
Survey.
The Chairman then read a brief statement from the local member for Egmere and
Portfolio Holder for offshore energy investment, Mr T FitzPatrick, in support of the
proposal. He said that he was pleased that the proposed revisions to the boundary of
the LDO addressed local residents’ concerns and that he would continue to support a
reduction in the speed limit on the B1105. The statement concluded by saying that
the proposed order would allow the area to seek further benefits from the offshore
renewable industry building on the 50 permanent jobs recently established on the
site by SCIRA, whilst protecting the tourist offering of Wells.
Mr T Ivory said that when the issue last came to Cabinet there were 3 speakers. He
was pleased to see that they were now broadly supportive of the proposals.
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mr R Wright and
RESOLVED:
Cabinet
1.
To note the contents of the comments received on the proposed Egmere Local
Development Order through the public consultation process and invite comment
on the representations received.
2.
To make available a budget of up to £20,000 from the General Reserve to
commission a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and Stage 1 Habitat Survey
so as to strengthen the evidence base in support of the proposed Order,
3
13 May 2013
3.
To agree proposed changes to the area covered by the LDO designation as
outlined at Section 8 of the report.
4.
To provide delegated authority to the Corporate Director, in consultation with the
Cabinet Portfolio holder for Planning, to proceed with preparing final documents
in support of the Order before seeking approval of Full Council for the adoption
of the Local Development Order.
Reasons for the decision:
To progress the designation of land for future development in support of offshore
wind energy developments. This would attract inward investment and provide new
permanent jobs in the local area whilst protecting the tourist offering of Wells and the
neighbouring villages.
9.
NEW HOMES BONUS
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett introduced this item in the absence of the Portfolio Holder for
Finance, Mr W Northam. She asked the Head of Finance to summarise the report
and the recommendations.
The Head of Finance explained that the report presented a policy on use of the New
Homes Bonus (NHB), including both the unallocated balance and the in-year
allocations from 2014/15. She stressed that the ‘set-aside’ amount of £950m for the
spending review period (2011/12 to 2014/15) had already been exceeded by 2013/14
and therefore future funding was not a bonus but re-cycled formula grant and formed
part of the revenue spending power. The over-riding principles of allocating the NHB
funding needed to balance the loss of core funding, continue to support the delivery
of council services and to promote and encourage growth through rewards or
targeted funding.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett said that the New Homes Bonus was designed to kick-start the
economy and should be supported.
It was proposed by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Mr R Wright and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
1. That the New Homes Bonus is allocated within the base budget from 2014/15
onwards (as detailed at section 4 within the report);
2. That of the unallocated balance of New Homes Bonus (£1,201,097) 50% is
transferred to the general reserve and 50% remains earmarked within the New
Homes Bonus reserve for the delivery of the Council’s Corporate objectives in
respect of housing.
Reason for the Decision:
To support the Council’s financial planning process and the future delivery of priority
services.
10.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A COST SHARING GROUP
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that the report set out a proposal to
establish a cost sharing group (CSG) with Great Yarmouth Borough Council which
would provide services, in particular legal services, to charities and not for profit
groups within the district at cost and exempt from VAT. He said that it was an exciting
and innovative opportunity which built on the success of the Council’s legal team
Cabinet
4
13 May 2013
which had generated £86,000 of income last year – well in excess of their target. The
establishment of a cost sharing group would provide a further opportunity to grow
income and to support the voluntary sector by reducing their legal fees.
Members were invited to ask questions:
a.
b.
Mrs P Grove-Jones asked why Great Yarmouth BC was the other council
involved in the scheme. Mr T Ivory explained that Great Yarmouth BC already
had taken advice in relation to a number of other services and had indicated their
willingness to work with NNDC in terms of setting up the formal structure of the
CSG. Great Yarmouth did not have an in-house legal team so NNDC would
provide the legal aspect of the CSG. There was no intention to deliver services to
each other but simply to allow both organisations (together with others) to use
the same framework for the delivery of services. In response to a further
question as to whether there was potential for NNDC to provide other services
via the CSG, Mr Ivory confirmed that there was.
Mr P W Moore sought clarification regarding the meaning of the phrase
‘shrinking back office function’. Mr Ivory said that it referred to the reduction of
internal demand on the services of the legal team, freeing them up to generate
more income from external sources.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RESOLVED:
To form a cost sharing group by establishing a company limited by guarantee as set
out in paragraph 5 of the report.
RECOMMENDED TO FULL COUNCIL:
To appoint a Member as the executive director to the Board and the Head of Legal
Services as the non executive director to the Board of the company as the Council’s
representatives.
Reason for the Decision:
The establishment of a Cost Sharing Group would enable the cost of back office
services to be reduced whilst maintaining service levels. It will also provide charities
and not for profit groups with access to services to reduce the costs of their back
office services.
11.
ENFORCEMENT BOARD UPDATE
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that that the report provided an update
on the actions of the Enforcement Board since it was set up in December 2012 to
provide a cohesive enforcement approach in respect of long-term empty properties
and other difficult enforcement cases. By bringing the different enforcement powers
of the Council together and taking a joined-up approach, significant progress had
been made on a number of sites. He said that he was very encouraged by the results
so far and further action had been taken with 4 properties since the publication of the
report.
Members were invited to ask questions:
1.
Cabinet
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that she was very pleased with the Board’s
progress, particularly in her ward, Lancaster North.
5
13 May 2013
2.
3.
4.
5.
Mr G Jones asked whether the Board could take enforcement action against
properties owned by Victory Housing. He said that he was aware of several
properties owned by the Housing Association that had been empty for some
time. The Chief Executive said that Victory Housing was responsible for their
own properties but that there was a Liaison Group which she attended and if any
Members had any concerns they should inform her so that she could raise it at
the next meeting.
Mr E Seward, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, said that the
Committee would be interested in receiving future updates on the work of the
Enforcement Board once they had been presented to Cabinet. The Chief
Executive agreed that this would be the process for reporting from now on.
Mr P W Moore asked why the details of the enforcement cases were not
published as an exempt document. He said that they were considered to be
confidential when they were presented to the Development Committee. The
Corporate Director explained that most of the cases were subject to enforcement
notices and were therefore in the public domain. Mr T Ivory added that being as
public as possible in their approach to enforcement ensured that the process
was effective. He welcomed the input of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Mrs V Uprichard said that she had been very pleased to receive an update from
the Head of Legal on the status of empty properties in her ward recently.
RESOLVED
1. To note the progress made to date by the Enforcement Board.
2. That future progress be reported to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on a six monthly basis and Performance and Risk Management Board on
a quarterly basis.
3. That progress on enforcement issues affecting specific wards is reported directly
to Local members.
Reasons for the decision:
To fully inform members of progress relating to enforcement cases in their wards..
The Meeting closed at 10.44 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
6
13 May 2013