Agenda Item 2__
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 15 April 2013 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present: Mrs A Fitch-Tillett Mr J Lee
Mr T FitzPatrick (Chairman) Mr W Northam
Mr T Ivory
Also attending: Mrs S Arnold
Mrs L Brettle
Mr R Oliver
Ms B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr B Cabbell-Manners Mr E Seward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds Mr R Shepherd
Ms V Gay
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B Smith
Mr G Williams
Mr P High Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance: The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (NB), the Head of
Finance, the Revenues and Benefits Services Manager, the Coast and Community Partnerships Manager and the Community projects
Manager
130. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr R Wright
131. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 04 March 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
132. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
133. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
134. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
135. JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED that
Cabinet 1 15 April 2013

The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 11
February 2013 be received.
136. CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the CCTV Working Party held on 12 February 2013 be received.
137. DISCRETIONARY HOUSING PAYMENTS POLICY
Mr W Northam introduced this item. He explained that the purpose of the report was for members to review the Discretionary Housing Payments Policy in the context of
Government changes to benefits that reduced entitlement and therefore increased demand for additional discretionary assistance. The Government had allocated additional funding to the scheme in recognition of this.
Mr Northam informed members that the Government provided funding for the scheme up to a certain limit but local authorities were able to spend more than this from their own resources. The Council’s expenditure had never gone above the set limit. He advised that the Council would not be able to use Discretionary Housing
Payments to help with council tax liabilities.
It was proposed by Mr W Northam, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
To approve the revised Discretionary Housing Payments Policy.
Reason for the Decision:
The Council needs to adopt a consistent approach to assessing and awarding
Discretionary Housing Payments and to ensure the effective use of limited resources.
138. BIG SOCIETY FUND REVIEW AND PROPOSALS
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that the report provided an appraisal and review of the Big Society Fund which had successfully operated for a year, administered by Norfolk Community Foundation. A recent review of the Fund, undertaken by a panel of Members, had concluded that the scheme had been successful in facilitating the delivery of many beneficial projects but that the outcomes of the funding scheme could be better achieved by changing the way the fund was administered and by setting up a different process of support and funding for larger or more complex projects.
The following key changes were proposed:
1. The ceiling for the small grant applications would be raised to £15,000. These would be assessed by the Big Society Fund Grants Panel.
2. To bring the operation of the grant fund in-house
3. To change the way larger, possibly more complex projects were dealt with.
Support would be further improved by establishing a separate ‘enabling’ fund which would mean that projects could benefit from bespoke advice and support in the early stages of their development.
Cabinet 2 15 April 2013

Cabinet
4. To establish a Localism Board to provide a steer on development of projects to be assisted by the enabling fund alongside the support given to communities in the development of localism initiatives (see item 12 of the agenda)
Members were invited to ask questions: a) Mr R Shepherd said the residents of Sheringham were very pleased with the funding that they had received in the past year. b) Mr R Reynolds asked about the social impact of the Fund and whether there had been any feedback on whether the money was going to the desired places and projects. Mr T Ivory said that it was still early days for feedback and that it was just starting to come through. It was clear that projects were having a positive impact but they should continue to be monitored and this would be done by the
Norfolk Community Foundation as part of the Service Level Agreement. c) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said that she was pleased to see a grant of £10,000 awarded to Fakenham Recreation Ground. She asked for further information on the Garage Trust which had been awarded £5,000. Mr Ivory explained that the
Garage Trust was based in Norwich and affiliated with the Theatre Royal. It was a youth organisation that worked with drama. The initial project would be targeted at Fakenham and Stalham in order to reach more remote areas, from which the
Norwich base was less accessible.and would aim to provide opportunities for young people to become involved with the performing arts. In response to a further question as to whether it would be operated through schools, he replied that schools may be involved but would not be a lead partner but that he would provide details. d) Mr P High said that he endorsed Mr Ivory’s comments. As a Member of the Big
Society Fund Board he was pleased to see that the involvement of local members would increase. e) Mrs P Grove-Jones said that she was very pleased to see a grant for the drop-in centre in Stalham, another project aimed at young people. She asked whether there was a cap on large grants that could be awarded and whether the formfilling process had been improved as it could be off-putting to smaller groups. Mr
T Ivory replied that no upper limit had been se for the enabling fund, although there was a limit on the overall fund. In response to the second question he said that the Review Panel had recognised the need for simplicity and that the forms would be tailored to make the process as simple as possible. By bringing the assessment process in-house, no project should be rejected due to insufficiencies on the application form as assistance would be provided if needed. f) Mr D Young commented that he was pleased to see additional support for capacity building. He asked about additional resources that would be required to bring this in-house and queried the additional £50,000 in the budget. Mr T Ivory explained that Voluntary Norfolk had provided support to charities but had not been required to provide capacity building. The situation regarding resources would need to be assessed and he would discuss this further with the Coast and
Community Partnerships Manager. The Chief Executive explained that £50,000 had been allocated for capacity building and sufficient additional resources were in the budget to support the process; the actual amount needed would not be known until the level of demand for both Big Society Fund grants and prjects supported from the enabling fund were apparent. This would be kept under review as it was vital that sufficient resources were in place to maximise the benefits of the funding schemes and it is likely that greater flexibility would be had from providing this in-house rather than through a service level agreement. g) Mr G Williams, a member of the Review Panel confirmed that the report reflected their discussions and recommendations. Regarding the assessment of the impact of the grants, he sought assurance that this would be looked at over the next 12 months. Mr T Ivory agreed that this was very hard to do but that it was one of the
3 15 April 2013

reasons for bringing the scheme in-house. It was vital that the long-term impact was evaluated. Mr G Williams then asked about future funding and that as the source was Norfolk County Council, it was vulnerable to policy change. He wondered whether there was a buffer in place to help manage if the funding was withdrawn. Mr Ivory replied that obviously future policy could not be anticipated but that he would vehemently oppose any attempts to remove money that came from North Norfolk originally. As far as a buffer was concerned, he said that to ensure that the fund was managed effectively, not all the money was spent in any one year and there was a reserve in place to ensure a smooth transition. In response to a further question regarding the interaction between the Localism
Board, the enabling fund and the Big Society Fund Grants Panel, Mr Ivory explained that the Localism Board would work closely with officers, cabinet members and local members to bring expertise together and provide a unified approach. There were lots of localism related projects running at any one time and this would bring all of these together. Mr G Williams concluded by asking how ward members could be encouraged to engage effectively with the Fund in the future. Mr Ivory replied that ward members would continue to be notified when an application was received and he would urge them to engage more with the process. h) Mrs S Arnold said that she had been with Parish Councils when they had been notified that their application had been unsuccessful and she asked whether now that the process was being brought in-house unsuccessful applicants could come to the Council for feedback and assistance. Mr Ivory confirmed that there would be much better engagement with all applicants in the future. i) Mr B Smith thanked the Fund for the grants allocated to Mundesley. He said that he had been involved with the skate park project and he would encourage other members to get more involved with local projects.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr W Northam and
RECOMMENDED to Full Council:
1. That the SLA with NCF be delivered for the remaining period (i.e. administration of outstanding (conditional) grant awards, monitoring of projects awarded funded in the first year and providing reports as appropriate).
2. To set up a Big Society Fund for 2013/14 of £225,000 for applications for grant aid of not more than £15,000 per project, in accordance with the draft prospectus included as Appendix A.
3.
To set up an ‘Enabling Fund’ of £225,000 in order to support initiatives developed in partnership with local communities (to help realise opportunities arising from the provisions of the Localism Act and to respond to local needs) or for community projects above £15,000 in value which otherwise meet the provisions set out in the Big Society Fund Prospectus.
4.
To establish a ‘Localism Board’ to provide a steer for officers on the development of initiatives supported by the enabling fund noting that decisions on funding for them would be brought back to Cabinet or Council for decision as appropriate
(with appropriate local member involvement).
5. That the Big Society Fund should be administered’ in-house’ by NNDC officers.
6. To approve the terms-ofreference for the ‘Big Society Fund Grants Panel’ set out in Appendix B and delegate any subsequent minor amendments of those to that
Panel.
Cabinet 4 15 April 2013

7. To appoint five members (plus two substitutes), in accordance with the proposed terms of reference, to the new Big Society Fund Grants Panel.
RESOLVED
To note that minutes of the Big Society Fund Grants Panel will be reported to Cabinet and that an annual report will be produced summarising how resources have been applied and the outcomes achieved.
Reason for the Decision:
To put in place an effective means of operating community grant funding for the forthcoming financial year.
139. THE COUNCIL’S APPROACH TO INITIATIVES ARISING FROM COMMUNITY
RIGHTS UNDER LOCALISM
Mr T Ivory introduced this item. He explained that that the report set out the Council’s procedures for implementing actions in response to Community Right to Challenge and Bid and what the provisions mean for communities and the Council. It explained in detail the functions of the Localism Board and put in place a formal process for dealing with requests from communities who wished to take over local assets. It was hoped that the establishment of the Localism Board would mean that local groups would approach the Council first rather than resorting to the statutory process and that this would be an effective means of facilitating an appropriate way forward.
Members were invited to ask questions: a) Ms V Gay sought clarification on whether the minutes for meetings of the
Localism Board would be made publicly available. The Chief Executive confirmed that all the decisions would be reported to Cabinet or Council as appropriate. b) Mr G Williams queried how the Board would manage if they were swamped with speculative bids from communities. Mr T Ivory replied that experience suggested that the Council was unlikely to be swamped with bids but acknowledged that it could be challenging if private assets were involved. By setting up the Board, it was hoped that all those involved could move forward in a consensual way. c) Mr E Seward asked for further information on the right to bid. He said that he understood that a group of 21 residents on the electoral roll could make a bid but this was not referred to in the report. The Coast and Community Partnerships
Manager confirmed that 21 residents could constitute a community forum. It was the local authority’s role to maintain the register of interested parties and they would decide if such a group met the requirements. In response to a further question regarding whether a property needed to be for sale before a bid could be placed, he said that an interest could be registered at any time but that any moratorium on the sale of a property would only become effective when the property was put on the market. He acknowledged that buildings subject to a request for a change of use did not appear to be covered. Mr Seward then raised the issue of owners seeking compensation for any delays in the process. He felt that this could be off-putting. The Coast and Community Partnerships Manager replied that a central government fund would underwrite any compensation claims. The Chief Executive responded to a further query regarding the source of funding to enable communities to bid for property. She explained that when a property on the register came up for sale, the project bid could, potentially, be supported through the enabling fund, or other external grant sources. Properties could also be removed from the list if they did not meet certain criteria.
Cabinet 5 15 April 2013

d) Mrs A Fitch-Tillett queried the amount of time being spent on answering questions. The Chief Executive explained that the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee had been interested in considering this item and the review of the Big
Society Fund but as there was no scheduled committee meeting prior to Full
Council it was only natural that members may want to ask questions now. e) Mrs P Grove-Jones commented that the right to challenge and bid also applied to land and she believed that several communities would be interested in this as the
County Council were intending to sell off several parcels of land.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
1. That a ‘Localism Board’ (comprising relevant Cabinet members and officers) be set up to provide a steer with respect to Localism initiatives and community projects (particularly in relation to expressions of interest for local public services
(under the Community Right to Challenge) and nominations for assets of
Community Value (under the Community Right to Bid)). Noting that decisions resulting from the Board’s recommendations (with appropriate local member involvement) would be reported to Cabinet/ Council as appropriate.
2. That the process identified in Appendix F of the report be adopted in respect of expressions of interest for local public services (under the Community Right to
Challenge)
3. That the process identified in Appendix G of the report be adopted for the consideration of nominations for assets of Community Value (under the
Community Right to Bid).
Reasons for the decision:
To provide a means by which the Council can support the Localism Agenda in the wider community in North Norfolk and to ensure that sufficient information is made available and that due processes are established and followed within the regulations that have been approved.
The Meeting closed at 10.46 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet 6 15 April 2013