Please Contact: Emma Denny
Please email: emma.denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Please Direct Dial on: 01263 516010
06 July 2012
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, 16 July 2012 at 10.00 a.m.
At the discretion of the Chairman, a short break will be taken after the meeting has been running for approximately one and a half hours. Coffee will be available in the staff restaurant at 9.30 a.m. and at the break.
Members of the public who wish to ask a question or speak on an agenda item are requested to arrive at least 15 minutes before the start of the meeting. It will not always be possible to accommodate requests after that time. This is to allow time for the Committee Chair to rearrange the order of items on the agenda for the convenience of members of the public. Further information on the procedure for public speaking can be obtained from Democratic Services, Tel: 01263
516047, Email: democraticservices@north-norfolk.gov.uk
Sheila Oxtoby
Chief Executive
To: Mr T FitzPatrick, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr T Ivory, Mr K Johnson, Mr J Lee, Mr W Northam.
All other Members of the Council for information.
Members of the Management Team, appropriate Officers, Press and Public.
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

A G E N D A
1.
2.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
MINUTES (Page 1)
To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 11 June
2012.
4.
To receive questions from the public, if any.
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.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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.
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 contained with the provisions contained within the Overview and Scrutiny
Procedure Rules or the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules.
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.
JOINT STAFF CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (page 9 )
To receive the minutes of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee of 26 March 2012
CROMER COAST PROTECTION STRATEGY (page 13)
( Appendix A – page 18)
(*exempt Appendix 1 – page 36)
*The exempt appendix is not for publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule
12A (as amended) of the Local Government Act 1972.
Definition of paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding the information)

Summary: At their meeting of June 2010 Cabinet resolved to;
Approve the Cromer Coast Protection Strategy
1. To authorise the Head of Coastal Strategy to obtain all necessary consents to implement the strategy.
2. To initiate the procurement of the design consultants and contractors, subject always to compliance with the relevant
Standing Orders and to funding
This report summarises the processes taken to implement the
Cromer Coast Protection Strategy (Cromer Scheme 982) to date.
It informs members about the process untaken to procure design consultants URS (formerly Consultants Scott Wilson).
It recommends the appointment of a design consultant subject to obtaining all statutory consents, a successful submission of the
Project Appraisal Report (PAR) and final approval of the
Scheme and funding by the Environment Agency.
It explains the rationale of obtaining early contractor involvement and recommends that a contractor procurement tender process is implemented.
Conclusions: The Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982 should be designed and implemented following funding approval by the Environment
Agency.
Recommendations: 1. To delegate the appointment of URS Consultants to the
Chief Executive subject to a) the approval by the Environment Agency of the Project Appraisal Report; b) the approval by the Environment Agency of
Flood Defence Grant in Aid; c) securing all statutory consents.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s) affected:
Contact Officer, tel. no and e-mail:
2. Subject to 1 above to instruct URS to implement a procurement process for the main contractor in accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders and European tendering procedures.
Cllr A Fitch-Tillett
Cromer
Brian J Farrow 01263 516193. brian.farrow@north-norfolk.gov.uk

10. LOCALISATION OF COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT
Summary: The Government requires councils to consult on their draft scheme for council tax support that they intend to operate from April 2013, during the Summer so that a final scheme can be formally adopted by Council by
January 2013.
(Page 19)
( Appendix B – page 26)
( Appendix C – page 27)
( Appendix D – page 31)
Conclusions
Recommendations:
Cabinet Member(s)
Wards affected
In order that the authority is in a position to realise the estimated savings in the region of 15%, a draft Council tax support scheme needs to be developed for consultation to begin in August 2012. This will allow a final scheme to be produced and agreed by January
2013.
1. To establish a politically balanced working party to consider options for a local scheme.
2. That the Chief Financial Officer in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder and Leader be given Delegated Authority to determine the consultation process and draft scheme.
3. To publish a draft council tax support scheme for consultation, in order to meet the statutory timetable to approve a final scheme before the end of January 2013 and to model the affordability as part of the Councils medium term financial planning.
4. It is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Chief Financial Officer (as outlined at
4.8) to release funding from the benefits earmarked reserve upto £30,000 for the implementation.
All
All wards
Contact Officer Louise Wolsey tel number and email: 01263 516061, Louise.wolsey@north-norfolk.gov.uk
11. POSITION STATEMENT ON THE FORMER RAF COLTISHALL SITE (Page 32 ) i) ii)
Outlines Norfolk County Council’s proposed purchase of the former RAF Coltishall site;
Details the current position of the District Council with respect to the future use of the asset based upon previous masterplans prepared on behalf of the
Ministry of Justice by planning consultants Lambert
Smith Hampton and the designation of the asset as a
Conservation Area;

iii) Welcomes the proposal by the County Council to establish a Community Liaison Reference Group to support the development of a new masterplan for the future use of the site and formally nominates Cllrs
FitzPatrick and Ivory, supported by a senior officer of the Council, to represent the authority on the
Reference Group
Recommendations : 1. Given the significant public interest in the future use
/ redevelopment of the former RAF Coltishall site following the public announcement by the Ministry of Justice that Norfolk County Council is the preferred bidder for the asset; Cabinet is asked to confirm the current position of the District Council with respect to the asset in terms of the prevailing planning policies covering the site and outline the engagement it wishes to have with the County
Council in the future development of plans for the site.
2. Request that Full Council endorses the nomination of Cllrs FitzPatrick and Ivory as the Council’s representatives on the Former RAF Coltishall
Community Liaison Reference Group
Cabinet member(s):
Cllr T FitzPatrick
Contact Officer, telephone number, and e-mail:
Ward(s) affected:
Scottow
Steve Blatch - 01263 516232,
Steve.Blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
12. 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.”

Agenda Item 2__
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 11 June 2012 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present: Mr K Johnson (Chairman) Mr T Ivory
Also attending: Mrs L Brettle Ms B Palmer
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds Mr J Perry-Warned
Ms V Gay
Mr G Jones
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mrs V Uprichard
Mr G Williams
Mr J Wyatt
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance: The press
The Chief Executive, Corporate Director (N. Baker) the Head of
Finance (for items 19, 20 and 21)the Technical Accountant (for item
20) the Housing Services Manager (for item 22) the Coast and
Community Partnerships Manager (for item23),
FOR
None
13. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
14. PUBLIC
None
15. ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
Cabinet 1 11 June 2012

Member(s) Minute
No.
Item Interest
Mr K Johnson
Mr T Ivory
Mr N Lloyd
North Norfolk Housing
Strategy 2012-2015
North Norfolk Housing
Strategy 2012-2015
North Walsham Sports
Centre Joint User Agreement
Personal and non prejudicial as a
Member of the Board of Victory Housing
Trust
Personal and non prejudicial as a
Member of the Board of Victory Housing
Trust
Personal and non prejudicial as the
Council’s appointed representative to the
North Walsham
Sports Hall
Management
Committee
17. MEMBER TRAINING DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT GROUP
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Members’ Training, Development and Support
Working Group held on 28 February 2012 be received.
18. PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
RESOLVED that
The minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Built Heritage Working Party held on
23 April 2012 be received.
19. 2011/12 OUTTURN REPORT
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services, introduced this item. He explained that the report presented the outturn position for the revenue account and capital programme for the 2011/12 financial year. Details were provided of the more significant year-end variance and of recommended contributions to earmarked reserves for future spending commitments. An update to the current capital programme was also included.
The outturn position on the revenue account as at 31 March 2012 showed an underspend for the year of £241,601. The general fund balance remained within the current recommended level.
Members discussed the report: a) Ms V Gay sought clarification regarding the underspend on coastal protection and the unspent pathfinder project grant. She was particularly concerned about the
Cabinet 2 11 June 2012

unfilled vacancy within the coastal team. Mr W Northam responded that the vacancy would be filled once the senior management restructure was completed.
He added that there was a large reserve in place to enable the Council to respond to all their commitments regarding coastal work and the Pathfinder project. Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Issues said that there was still significant work to be done in relation to the slip road and the replacement steps at Happisburgh. In response to a further question from Ms V Gay regarding the timeline for appointing a new member of staff, the Chief Executive said that various options were being considered, including the outsourcing of some work. b) Mrs B McGoun was concerned that budgeted expenditure in relation to the North
Norfolk Youth Voice had not been incurred. She sought assurance that the allocated sum would still be spent on youth projects. The Chief Executive said that the variance occurred when the Communities Team was restructured. The responsibility for working with youth groups had not been reallocated as yet but this would be addressed as part of the Council’s localism agenda. In response to a further question regarding a 14% saving on environmental strategy, the Head of
Finance explained that these costs had previously been charged to revenue and were now transferred to capital. She agreed to provide further information on the
£25,585 recharge from Computer Services to Member Services. c) Mr D Young sought clarification on whether the £20,000 relating to the Strategic
Housing and Choice Based Lettings system was slippage or additional funding.
The Head of Finance confirmed that it was slippage. In response to a further question regarding Grassed Area Deposits, the Head of Finance explained that the budget was allocated to revenue before being transferred to the reserve. This applied to the Local Strategic Partnerships budget too. Mr Young then queried the budget allocated to Earmarked Reserves, he was concerned that there was no plan to spend any money from the reserves until beyond 2016. The Chief
Executive explained that there was a need to maintain reserves at a certain level due to uncertainty over future funding. Mr W Northam added that £300,000 had been allocated to the general reserve to ensure a balanced budget. d) Further concerns were raised regarding delays to coastal projects. The Chief
Executive said that a copy of the coastal works programme would be circulated to all Members.
The Chief Executive advised Members that in future any technical questions relating to financial reports should be submitted in advance of the meeting or directed to the financial team.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council a) The final accounts position for the general fund revenue account for 2011/12; b) The transfers to and from reserves as detailed in the report; c) To transfer the surplus to the restructuring reserve; d) The financing of the 2011/12 capital programme as detailed within the report; e) The balance on the general reserve of £1,948,590 at 31 March 2012; f) The updated capital programme for 2012/13 to 2013/14 and the associated financing of the schemes as outlined within the report and detailed at Appendix E.
20. ANNUAL TREASURY MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR 2011/12 AND STRATEGY
UPDATE FOR 2012/13
Mr W Northam, Portfolio Holder for Financial Services introduced this item. He explained that the report sets out the Treasury Management activities actually
Cabinet 3 11 June 2012

undertaken during 2011/12 compared with the Treasury Management Strategy for the year. An update for alternative investment options for 2012/13 was included.
Mr W Northam drew Members’ attention to the decision taken in December 2011 to reduce the Council’s exposure to the European Investment Bank (EIB) by selling
£4m of its bond holding. The gain made on the sale had been placed into an earmarked reserve and was available to be released to the General Fund. He concluded by saying that in the future, the Council would invest in collective investment schemes focusing on property investment.
Members discussed the report:
1. Mr G Williams asked whether the Council would consider direct investment in property – particularly in local town centres. He added that such investment could help achieve various policy objectives. Mr W Northam replied that it was an option that had been considered and it would be reassessed when the economy was more stable. The Technical Accountant said that a pooled property fund allowed the Council to spread the risk further. The Chief Executive added that the
Council was considering a local investment strategy. This would sit outside of normal treasury investment and she referred Members to the Housing Strategy.
2. Mr D Young asked for further details regarding the LAMIT and Lime Property
Funds. He wondered whether they could be sold and what sort of yields could be achieved. The Technical Accountant explained that they were long-term investments and it was possible to withdraw money but it would take longer. He said that yields were better than fixed-term deposits with banks, at just above 5% but acknowledged that they were more volatile.
3. Mr P W Moore asked for clarification on the figure invested of £105,410 for internally managed (short term) investments. The Technical Accountant explained this was the total value of investments placed in the year and was a turnover figure giving an appreciation of total investments placed (and subsequently matured) during 2011/12.
Mr W Northam proposed that the second recommendation was amended to:
‘When appropriate, consideration be given to a proportion of the investment portfolio being invested in the LAMIT and Lime Property Funds’. Cabinet agreed the amendment.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
That the Council be asked to RESOLVE that a) Treasury Management Annual Report for 2011/12 is approved.
b) When appropriate, a proportion of the investment portfolio is invested in the LAMIT and Lime Property Funds.
21. DEBT RECOVERY 2011/12
Mr W Northam presented this item. He explained that the collection of Council tax and Non-Domestic rates had been particularly challenging during this financial year due to the economic recession and the introduction of 100% rates on empty Non-
Domestic properties. The collection targets had been adjusted to reflect the potential impact of the introduction of the replacement revenues system and ongoing economic difficulties. Despite this, the collection target of 98.6% had been achieved and the officers involved should be congratulated on their hard work.
Cabinet 4 11 June 2012

Members discussed the report:
1. Mr D Young queried the performance indicators for in-year collection. He said that there appeared to be a shift from 1.4% of uncollected debt to 1.7% and that this differed to the figures that were discussed in December 2011 when it was implied that there would be an improvement in the debt collection rates. Mr W
Northam said the shift reflected the reality of the overall economic situation. The
Chief Executive added that the target for 2012/13 was set 12 months previously and would be revisited on the outturn.
2. Mr N Lloyd said that it was important that the debt collection target should not be lowered further.
RESOLVED to
Approve the annual report giving details of the Council’s write-offs in accordance with the Council’s Debt Write-off Policy and performance in relation to revenues collection
22. NORTH NORFOLK HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-15 (HOUSING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE)
Mr K Johnson, Leader and Portfolio Holder for Housing introduced this item. He explained that this strategy was the first in a series of three separate documents reflecting the key areas supporting the delivery of new housing and infrastructure.
This first document set out the vision for the strategy and contained a detailed action plan for the period 2012/2015 which would support the delivery of new homes across the district.
Members discussed the report: a) Mr G Williams said that he was pleased to see a clear link between the housing strategy and the corporate plan. He agreed that more flexibility was needed to ensure the delivery of housing across the district and sought assurance that developers would not be ‘let off the hook’ regarding affordable housing. Mr K
Johnson said that this would not be the case. b) Mr J Perry-Warnes asked for information regarding the number of empty homes that would be ready for occupation this year. Mr K Johnson explained that the plan to bring empty homes back into use was a target only and that the Council hoped to influence owners through the threat of compulsory purchase orders. The aim was to bring 100 empty homes back into occupation over the next 3 years, with a target of 40 during the first year. He added that the Council did not have access to a precise list of empty homes only unfurnished second homes. The issue of empty homes would be covered in the second housing strategy. c) Mrs L Brettle was concerned about the phrase ‘everyone in North Norfolk should have the opportunity to buy or rent a decent home at a price they can afford’ – she felt that the wording could be better. Mr K Johnson explained that the phrase was taken directly from the Corporate Plan. In response to a further comment that from Mrs L Brettle that there was no mention of the allocation of affordable housing, Mr K Johnson said that the allocation policy would form part of the Local
Lettings Agreement and this would be covered by the second housing strategy document. d) Mr G Jones asked how many empty homes had been subject to a compulsory purchase order. The Legal and Democratic Services Manager said that one property in Weybourne had been brought back into use. A second property was not yet fit for occupation but work was being carried out to upgrade it and a third property could be subject to a compulsory purchase order (CPO), following enforcement action. Mr G Jones asked whether there were any other ideas in the
Cabinet 5 11 June 2012

pipeline, he felt that the use of CPO’s did not seem to be effective. Mr T Ivory said that it was never envisaged that CPO’s would need to be used on a regular basis. It had always been intended that the threat of a CPO would indicate the
Council was serious about tackling the problem. Ultimately the Council should be judged on the number of empty homes that were brought back into use not the number of CPO’s issued. e) Mr G Jones suggested that the Council should consider holding a conference to get ideas from other local authorities and housing organisations on how to deal with housing problems. Mr K Johnson said that he did not feel that further discussions would be helpful at this stage. He added that there was a Housing
Strategy workshop arranged for 20 th
June 2012 and all Members were encouraged to attend. f) Mr R Oliver said that even during better economic times it was hard to achieve targets for housing development. He asked what the Council had put in place to ensure that a higher target could be achieved. Mr T Ivory explained that the
Council now had allocated sites across the district. He acknowledged that there was a need for a more radical way of thinking to address the problem and this would be addressed in the subsequent strategy documents. g) Mr P W Moore said that Members were often aware of empty properties within their wards and that they could provide housing officers with the details. It was agreed that this was a good idea.
RECOMMENDED to Full Council
The adoption of the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Housing and Infrastructure)
23. THE BIG SOCIETY FUND
Mr T Ivory, Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society, introduced this item. He apologised that local Members had not been notified about applications to the Fund and said that all Members would be notified in future.
He explained that Full Council had delegated responsibility for determining applications for up to £10,000 to a newly created Big Society Fund Board. The inaugural meeting had been held on 21 May and Mr Ivory had been elected as
Chairman and Mr P High as Vice-Chairman. The majority of first round applications were successful and the Board made total grants of £81,776.
Mr Ivory then outlined the applications that had been received for funding in excess of £10,000 and requested that Cabinet determined each application in turn. Two of the applications related to skate parks and he explained that it was important to ensure that the decisions taken by the Big Society Board were consistent and that as
£10,000 had been awarded to the Skateboarding scheme in Wells, it was proposed that a grant of £10,000 should also be awarded to the Cromer and Sheringham skate park organisations. Both awards were subject to conditions.
Two of the applications had been recommended for refusal. In both cases this was because they did not meet the criteria set out in the Big Society Fund prospectus.
The final application related to the Wells Maltings Trust. It was proposed that this was deferred to allow further discussion with the Trust and to ensure that an award was not made without taking into account the support already given to the project by the
Council and the future needs of the scheme. If, following further discussions, it was felt that an application to the Fund could be supported then the Wells Maltings Trust would be encouraged to apply again.
Cabinet 6 11 June 2012

Mr Ivory concluded by thanking the Board and officers for their support. He also thanked the Norfolk Community Foundation for their assistance.
Members discussed the report: a) Mrs B McGoun said that of the 14 grants awarded, 10 had been north of North
Walsham and she was disappointed that her ward had not been included. Mr T
Ivory said that he also felt some disappointment that there had been no applications from his own ward. However, this was just the first round and he encouraged Members to promote the Fund to their local communities. He referred them to the Big Society Fund Prospectus which was available on the
Council’s website b) Mr R Oliver was concerned about the size of the grant awarded to the
Sheringham skate park project. It was considerably less than the £30,000 requested. He stressed that the scheme was well supported within the town and that there was a lack of other sporting facilities for young people to use. He asked whether the Portfolio Holder would be prepared to meet with the organisers of the project to discuss it further. Mr Ivory said that there were several skate park schemes in the pipeline across the district and Wells had set a benchmark. He added that some communities, such as Mundesley, had raised a substantial amount of money themselves to fund their skate parks and this should also be taken into consideration. He agreed to meet with the organisers to discuss it further if they wished. c) Ms V Gay commented that it would be useful for Members to be kept informed of all applications to the Big Society Fund, including those that had been unsuccessful. Members may be able to signpost them to other sources of funding. d) Mr G Jones said that he was very pleased to see that Stalham Brass Band had received a grant. He felt that more applications would be received if Members were able to provide assistance. He suggested that a training session could be provided to councillors on how to help local community groups make an application to the Fund. It was agreed that this was a good idea. e) Mr G Williams said that as a member of the Big Society Fund Board, he agreed that it was important to be consistent when dealing with applications. He was concerned that the application from Visit North Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd was allowed to progress as far as it had and that the process should be reassessed. He added that it was important to recognise the impact of the Fund on equality and diversity across the District and this should be reflected in future reports to Cabinet. f) Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds said she was disappointed that no applications had been received from Fakenham yet but she was encouraged to see a substantial amount of funding being awarded to youth projects.
Mr T Ivory thanked Members for their comments. He said that members of the Board were due to meet with potential providers for the capacity building support shortly. He added that Voluntary Norfolk would be running workshops on this theme in the near future.
Determine the Big Society Fund grant applications in accordance with the Big Society
Fund Prospectus and having regard to the decisions made by the Big Society Board at its meeting on 21 May 2012.
Cabinet 7 11 June 2012

a) approve grant funding of £10,000 for the Cromer Skate Park Project (subject to conditions) b) approve grant funding of £10,000 for the Sheringham Skate Park project (subject to conditions) c) defer a decision on the application for grant funding on the Wells Maltings Trust pending further discussions with the applicant d) refuse grant funding for the Fit Together North Norfolk project because it does not meet the criteria set out in the Big Society Fund Prospectus (as outlined in
Appendix L of the report) e) refuse grant funding for Visit North Norfolk Coast and Countryside Ltd because it does not meet the criteria set out in the Big Society Fund Prospectus (as outlined in Appendix L of the report)
24. NORTH WALSHAM SPORTS CENTRE JOINT USER AGREEMENT
The Chairman proposed that this item be deferred to allow for a meeting of the governors of North Walsham High School and to enable further consultation with local Members.
RESOLVED to
Defer the item to allow for further consultation
The Meeting closed at 11.38am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet 8 11 June 2012

Minutes of a meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held in Room 1,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer on 26 March 2012
Members Present: Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs H Eales
Mr K E Johnson (Chair)
Mrs B A McGoun
Staff Side Present: Mr A Mitchell
Mrs C Lowin-Green
Mr P Godwin
Officers in Attendance: The Chief Executive, The Organisational Development
Manager and the Democratic Services Team Leader.
1 APOLOGIES ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mr P W High.
2 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee held on 21
November 2011 were approved as a correct record.
See item 8
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS 4
None
5 DECLARATIONS
The Staff Side declared personal interests in item 7, Pay and Grading.
6 SICKNESS ABSENCE UPDATE
Figures for the 3 rd
quarter of 2011 – 2012 indicated that this was going to be the best year yet regarding reduction in sickness absence, possibly because there had been less long term absence.
7 PAY GRADING
The report was in draft form. The final version would go to Full Council on 18 April
2012. The deadline for receipt of reports was 29 March, therefore there was still time to incorporate any amendments suggested by JSCC.
The Organisational Development Manager outlined the report section by section:
JSCC 9 26 March 2012

PAY AND GRADING (Continued) a) BACKGROUND
On 19 October 2011 Full Council approved a statutory 90 day consultation period with employees on the option to dismiss and re-engage the workforce to implement the proposed pay and grading model. The 90 day consultation finished on 2 February 2012 with 42 responses received from individuals and a formal response from UNISON. A draft response from Management was imminent. b) SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Appendix A contained the UNISON response, as requested. Appendix B contained a summary of the employee responses with a link to the full responses on the intranet. A paper copy of the full responses was also available in Human
Resources. The key concerns highlighted by the consultation were:
•
Pay protection period
•
Dismissal and re-engagement
•
Impact on employees
•
Seen as a cost-cutting exercise
•
Dissatisfaction with the process and the timescales taken
•
Market testing and new grade boundaries c) MARKET SUPPLEMENTS
Should the Council at any point in the future face difficulties on recruitment for
“hard to fill” or “national shortage” posts it might have to consider applying a market supplement. d) OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Model B hadn’t reduced the number of employees who would have a decrease but had increased the number who would gain and those who would remain neutral. Of the 2 options UNISON preferred model B, although they didn’t agree with either model. However this model adversely affected some staff who, in
2010, would not have been aware that this would happen. It was thought that approximately 22 members of staff were involved. UNISON asked that they should have a further period of pay protection and time to appeal. It was agreed that consideration should be given to treating these people as special cases. The
Organisational Development Manager would hold one-to-one meetings with the affected staff if model B was chosen. e) IMPLEMENTATION
As it had not been possible to reach a collective agreement with UNISON the
Council would need to use the “dismissal and re-engagement” process to implement the new pay model. f) EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
An Equality Impact Assessment would be done on model B if Members decided to proceed with it.
JSCC 10 26 March 2012

PAY AND GRADING (Continued) g) APPEALS
15 appeals had been received covering 30 posts. The first stage appeals process would finish on 5 April 2012 and the final appeal stage would start directly after that should there be any final appeals received. h) FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There was an error in the figures shown for model A. This would be corrected in the version that would go to Full Council. i) CONCLUSION
The pay and grading review had aimed to deliver a situation where employees receive the same salary for work of equal value. UNISON had not agreed the proposed model or the updated market adjusted model and the Council now needed to go through dismissal and re-engagement to implement a new pay model. j) RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee, having considered the recommendations, asked that their comments should be forwarded to Full Council.
The Chairman said that Pay and Grading had been a difficult process but it was now coming to an end. He thanked UNISON and the Organisational
Development Manager for the work they had done.
8 UPDATES a) Car Allowances
The changes were due to take effect from March 2013. Nationally there was going to be no refreshing of car allowances. b) Redundancies
An update on this topic had been requested by UNISON but a subsequent meeting with the Chief Executive had resolved the question. UNISON expressed concern about the number of fixed term contracts within the authority and hoped that this could be reviewed once the Senior Management Team had been reorganised.
UPDATES (Continued) c) Management restructure
The consultation had closed on 22 March 2012 with a response received from every service manager. A response would be made within 2 weeks and a report
JSCC 11 26 March 2012

brought to Full Council on 18 April 2012. How the Council worked together was seen as more important than how services were grouped.
Recruitment would start after 18 April with interviews taking place in May. Where possible recruitment would be internal but it was important for public perception that the Council should also go out to the market.
The process would be carried out with as little delay as possible because it was recognised that staff were feeling unsettled.
The meeting concluded at 11.25 am.
_______________
Chairman
JSCC 12 26 March 2012

Agenda Item No______9_______
CROMER COAST PROTECTION STRATEGY
Summary:
At their meeting of June 2010 Cabinet resolved to;
1. Approve the Cromer Coast Protection Strategy
2. To authorise the Head of Coastal Strategy to obtain all necessary consents to implement the strategy.
3. To initiate the procurement of the design consultants and contractors, subject always to compliance with the relevant
Standing Orders and to funding
This report summarises the processes taken to implement the Cromer
Coast Protection Strategy (Cromer Scheme 982) to date.
It informs members about the process untaken to procure design consultants URS (formerly Consultants Scott Wilson).
It recommends the appointment of a design consultant subject to obtaining all statutory consents, a successful submission of the
Project Appraisal Report (PAR) and final approval of the Scheme and funding by the Environment Agency.
It explains the rationale of obtaining early contractor involvement and recommends that a contractor procurement tender process is implemented.
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
The Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982 should be designed and implemented following funding approval by the Environment Agency.
1 To delegate the appointment of URS Consultants to the Chief
Executive subject to a) the approval by the Environment Agency of the
Project Appraisal Report; b) the approval by the Environment Agency of Flood
Defence Grant in Aid; c) securing all statutory consents.
2 Subject to 1 above to instruct URS to implement a procurement process for the main contractor in accordance with the Council’s
Standing Orders and European tendering procedures.
Cabinet member(s):
Ward(s)
Contact Officer, telephone number, and e-mail:
Cllr A Fitch-Tillett
Cromer
Brian J Farrow 01263 516193. brian.farrow@north-norfolk.gov.uk
13

1. Background
1.1 In 2001 the Council produced a strategy for the management of the coast defences in
Cromer. This identified the need for major works to ensure the long term stability of the beaches and walls. In line with the grant system in place at the time design commenced in mid 2005 with an expectation that grant would be made available in
2006/07. The consultants were Royal Haskoning. In December 2005 Defra imposed a 2 year grant moratorium and so work was suspended. Important safety work was undertaken to reduce the risk of a failure until such time as a major project could be put in place.
1.2 When funding did become available it was within a revised funding mechanism. It was now a requirement to have an up to date strategy before grant could be secured for works. The 2001 Strategy was regarded (by the EA and Defra) as potentially out of date and so they asked for it to be reviewed.
1.3 Funding for the review was secured and Scott Wilson appointed.
1.4 The completion of the Strategy Appraisal Report (StAR) by Scott Wilson
(Subsequently becoming URS) formed the basis for subsequent approvals for funding and was substantially used for the subsequent Project Appraisal Report (PAR) recently submitted to the Environment Agency (EA) for approval by their Project
Appraisal Board. (PAB)
1.5 Final approval of the PAR by the EA will recommend release of all the necessary funding to progress the Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982.
2 Scheme Staged Approach
2.1 The report recommends a staged approach. The first stage, initiated immediately and carried out over two years, would generally involve the central and western sections.
The second stage (mainly the eastern part) would follow on with the aim of completing it within five years from now. The cost of these two elements is £6.22 million. The proposed work is mainly wall and groyne refurbishment.
2.2 Following from this are medium term works to be undertaken in the period 2015 to
2060 and which would focus on ensuring wall integrity, groyne effectiveness and measures to prevent outflanking. A significant level of further capital expenditure is unlikely to be necessary unless the identified short terms works have not been completed. Routine monitoring and maintenance would continue.
2.3 In terms of the long term expenditure, much will depend on the rate of sea level rise and the outcomes of the continuing monitoring.
3.1 A number of processes are being undertaken in parallel with the submission of the
Project Appraisal Report (PAR) to secure funding
•
Advertise for and seek tenders from design consultants - complete
•
Consult on the strategy - ongoing
•
Dissemination of the strategy - ongoing
•
Advertise and consult in accordance with the Coast Protection Act - complete
•
Seek Planning Consent - ongoing
•
Seek Listed Building consent – ongoing
14

•
Obtain a Food and Environment Protection Act (FEPA) Licence - complete
Following approval of the PAR:-
•
Appoint design consultants
•
Advertise for main contractors
3.2 As can be seen from the above the process of implementing a coast protection scheme is complex and heavily process biased with a strong emphasis on the correct sequence of approvals. Therefore in considering this report Members should be aware that any formal appointment should only be made when all necessary approvals are in place to ensure the scheme can proceed.
4. Design Consultants – Appointment process
4.1 The scheme was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) and consultants were invited to submit an Expression of Interest (EOI) including details of their relevant experience.
4.2 The EOI’s were assessed and six consultants: Aecom, Halcrow, Martin Wright
Associates, Mott Macdonald, Royal Haskoning & URS were sent the Consultants
Brief and invited to submit a tender to undertake the design and management of the
Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982.
4.3 The Consultants Brief (See Appendix A) contained:- Instructions for Tendering; Form of Tender (NEC Professional Services Contract Third Edition), The Scheme ~
Professional Services Brief and the Tender Appraisal Form (which describes the methodology in which the tenders will be assessed).
5.1 The Consultants Brief describes the tender appraisal process noting that the final score is based on an 80/20 quality price ratio.
5.2 The appraisal is biased towards quality but also examines the consultants pricing submission.
5.3 Five tenders were received and were appraised in accordance with the methodology detailed in the Consultants Brief.
5.4 The three appraisers were Peter Frew Associates, the Coastal Engineer & the
Procurement Officer.
6.1 The individual appraisers all gave URS Consultants high marks for quality. The combined score places URS significantly higher for quality than the other tenderers.
6.2 The quality assessments and pricing models were examined together in accordance with the methodology stipulated in Appendix 4, Tender Appraisal and URS
Consultants were the preferred tenderer. The full report of the tender appraisal is appended to this report as an Exempt appendix.
15

7.1 It has long been accepted as good practice that the early involvement of a contractor can substantially influence the manner in which works are designed and implemented and engender significant savings in costs.
7.2 Specific forward planning, separation of ‘wet & dry’ works, effective use of temporary works, pre-aligning plant & access arrangements can all have a major impact on costs.
7.3 Subject to the funding approval of the scheme by the Environment Agency it is proposed to instruct consultants to procure early contractor involvement.
8. Risks
8.1 The staged process outlined above significantly reduces the financial risks to the
Council. Grant aid approval is obtained at each stage of the process before work commences. The only financial risks associated with delivery of the strategy are the limited sums expended in each of the grant application processes. Even these are grant eligible and are subsequently recovered when the scheme is approved.
8.2 The bigger risks are those that would result in the inability to justify the grant application. The latest report confirms the previous findings that work to the sea walls is urgently required if their long term future is to be secured. Failure to implement a scheme will result in progressive failure of the defences. In that situation it may be possible to secure emergency grant aid, but that is only supposed to prevent further immediate loss, not implement the current proposed strategy. The alternative of local funding of the works is not realistic.
9. Sustainability
9.1 The strategy proposed by Scott Wilson is intended to provide for the long term (100 years) sustainable management of the Cromer frontage and the adjoining lengths of coast. Few negative impacts were identified in the Strategic Environmental
Assessment. Those that were identified were associated with short term impacts connected to the construction activities.
9.2 The sea walls and retaining walls in The Gangway and westwards as far as the
Melbourne Slope are Listed Buildings (Grade ll). Specific consent will be required to undertake works to these structures, but the intent of the strategy, so far as it is possible, is not to change their form or character. The Cromer Preservation Society has been consulted and it has given its support to the proposals.
There are no equality and diversity issues.
11. Crime and Disorder
There are no crime and disorder issues.
16

Conclusions
The Cromer Coast Protection Scheme 982 should be designed and implemented following funding approval by the Environment Agency.
Recommendations
1 To delegate the appointment of URS Consultants to the Chief Executive
2 a) the approval by the Environment Agency of the Project Appraisal
Report; b) the approval by the Environment Agency of Flood Defence Grant in
Aid; c) securing all statutory consents.
Subject to 1 above to instruct URS to implement a procurement process for the main contractor in accordance with the Council’s Standing
Orders and European tendering procedures.
17

Cromer Sea Defence Strategy – Contract Summary
Appendix A
1. The Contract for the appointment of the Cromer Sea Defence Consultant will be structured around the provisions of the NEC Professional Services Contract (third edition). The NEC Professional Services Contract is a standard form contract used for the appointment of consultants providing technical input into engineering and construction works or preparing reports in advance of construction projects. As the
NEC contract is a standard form contract, the Council’s detailed work requirements and minor pre-contract variations, if any, agreed with the consultant will be reflected by incorporation of the Consultant’s brief and successful tender submission into the contract.
2. With regard to contract price, this can initially be protected by means of a clause within the contract providing for an overall upper cap on the value of the contract. In addition the standard provisions of the NEC Professional Services Contract contain pricing mechanisms to protect against inefficient use of resource or over-charging.
The mechanism selected to control price will to a large degree be governed by the structure of the Consultant’s brief prepared by the Council and members will appreciate that any substantial re-negotiation of the tender price or any other element of the successful tender is likely to breach procurement regulations with a consequent risk that the Contract may need to be re-tendered. The Consultant’s Brief indicates that it is intended to structure the contract to provide for payment of lump sums on completion of some elements of the contract. For these items of work, other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. delay caused by the council), any costs for an element of the work over and above the lump sum are in effect absorbed by the consultant.
3. The other pricing mechanism from the NEC Professional Services contract identified for use in the Consultant’s brief is pricing by means of time based charging.
This type of charging is used where the relevant work cannot be identified in the
Consultant’s Brief with sufficient accuracy to enable lump sum charging. The contract price for these items will primarily be calculated by means of staff rates set out in the successful tender submission and the consultant will carry only those risks reasonably within its control i.e. those costs arising from control of the consultant’s own employees and resources. By definition work priced by reference to time worked entails a significantly greater cost risk and the Consultant’s brief therefore required tenderers to indicate in their tender submission how time based cost could be used to mitigate the cost of lump sum items once the scope and duration of the time based work has been fully identified.
4. The Sea Defence Consultant contract will include other appropriate clauses prepared with a view to limiting risk to the Council and indemnifying the Council against risk. The NEC Professional Services Contract also includes additional clauses e,g governing price adjustment in the event of inflation and damages in the event of delay that can be incorporated as necessary.
Martin Pettifer, Solicitor, North Norfolk District Council
18

Agenda Item No______10______
Localisation of Council Tax Support
Summary:
Conclusions
Recommendations:
The Government requires councils to consult on their draft scheme for council tax support that they intend to operate from April 2013, during the
Summer so that a final scheme can be formally adopted by Council by January 2013.
In order that the authority is in a position to realise the estimated savings in the region of 15%, a draft
Council tax support scheme needs to be developed for consultation to begin in August 2012. This will allow a final scheme to be produced and agreed by
January 2013.
1. To establish a politically balanced working party to consider options for a local scheme.
2. That the Chief Financial Officer in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder and Leader be given Delegated Authority to determine the consultation process and draft scheme.
3. To publish a draft council tax support scheme for consultation, in order to meet the statutory timetable to approve a final scheme before the end of January 2013 and to model the affordability as part of the Councils medium term financial planning.
4. It is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Chief Financial Officer (as outlined at 4.8) to release funding from the benefits earmarked reserve upto £30,000 for the implementation.
Cabinet Member(s) Ward(s) affected
All wards
Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Louise Wolsey, 01263 516061,
Louise.wolsey@north-norfolk .gov.uk
1
19

1. Introduction and Background
1.1 As part of the 2010 Spending Review the Government announced that it would localise support for Council Tax from 2013/14 with an expectation that government support for the scheme would reduce by 10%. Earlier this year the government consulted on proposals for the localisation of support for council tax in England.
1.2 The effect of reduction in support is that Councils will only be able to afford a scheme which is less generous unless it can find the money from elsewhere in its budget or from other residents. Councils will need to budget for any increased amount of council tax support it may have to pay out during the year as a result of demographic changes and increased benefit entitlement.
1.3 In the 2011/12 financial year, the cost of Council Tax Benefit was
£8,200,981, of which 100% was funded by central Government. Similarly the costs are budgeted to be fully funded for the 2012/13 financial year.
1.4 Localisation of Council Tax Support is part of a wider set of reforms of the welfare system which the Government sees as:
•
improving the incentives to work,
•
ensuring resources are used more effectively,
•
reducing worklessness, and
•
ending a culture of benefit dependency.
1.5 Councils are required to design and consult on their draft scheme for adoption by January 2013. Failure to implement a Council Tax Support
Scheme will result in the default of retaining the existing scheme and as a result the council bearing the full cost of the grant reduction.
2. Requirements of the scheme
2.1 The new Local Government Finance Bill states that the following requirements will have to be incorporated in the local schemes
•
the reductions which are to apply to council tax payable
•
who is entitled to a reduction, which may be determined by reference to their income, capital (or both), the number of dependants or whether the person has made an application
•
the procedure for applying
•
the procedure for making an appeal
•
the procedure by which a person can apply for a discretionary reduction
•
that for each financial year, each billing authority must consider whether to revise its scheme or to replace it with another scheme
•
that in exercising any function relating to schemes, a billing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
2
20

2.2 The Government has set rules to protect pensioners on low incomes.
The scheme is required to replicate as far as possible the existing provisions under which pensioner eligibility for council tax benefit is assessed. Based on current claimant data it is estimated that approximately 62% of the total benefit entitlement are to those of pension age.
2.3 No rules have been prescribed to protect other vulnerable groups but local schemes should have regard to them.
2.4 Councils need to agree a set of principles in order to develop the local scheme. The following outlines some of the principles to be considered:
•
Being means tested with most income taken into account and most outgoings not taken into account
•
Provide support for those who work so that they are better off than if they had relied on public funds
•
Protect those of pension age and protect if agreed, other residents who we consider could not be expected to work
•
Be seen to be a fair and reasonable use of public funds
•
Feature rules that are similar to those for other state benefits, to make the scheme easier to understand
•
Be operationally efficient and within budget.
2.5 Rules and procedures to administer the scheme have to be developed e.g. how to make a claim to Council Tax support, awards, changes to entitlement, overpayments.
2.6 The Council will need to consider whether a Discretionary Payment
Scheme/Hardship scheme should be established for council tax support.
Agreed levels of funding and policies would need to be developed.
3. Scheme Considerations
3.1 Given the current legislative position, and the limited capacity of software companies to respond to the demand; Governments own advice is for councils to base their revised schemes on the current means tested arrangements in the first year.
3.2 The current scheme has the advantage of containing some incentives for those in work and provides some protection for vulnerable groups.
3.3 As pensioners are protected the savings target of a minimum of 10%
(advice says 12-15% to factor in for increases in demand) will fall on those of working age. Some initial analysis for NNDC shows this translates into a cut of 28%.
3.4 It will be important not to inadvertently create a culture of non-payment should this full increase be passed on. Consideration will need to be given to the potential increase in non payment of council tax and its recovery.
3
21

3.5 It was initially proposed that a Norfolk wide scheme be developed. The
Norfolk Authorities and other precepting bodies have agreed that given the authorities different demographics that it will not be possible to have one scheme. However basic principles are being adopted, learning shared and joint working in areas of consultation and equality impact assessments.
3.6 Some initial modelling work has been done to look at the potential savings by amending certain existing criteria. The modelling requires a number of combined scenarios to be run on current system data to arrive at potential savings. Appendix B illustrates the results of the work completed to date. There has been a number of constraints on the amount of modelling to date due to system conversion and associated issues.
3.7 Appendix C provides a summary of existing Council Tax Benefit rules.
4.1 The Department for Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on the funding arrangements for Localising Support for
Council Tax. The national savings target as announced in the Spending
Review was 10%. However the consultation document sets out indicative levels of funding for 2013/14 and the anticipated impact can be seen below.
COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT
2012/13 Council Tax 2011/12 Indicative
Final
Subsidy
£ %
Funding
(£) (£)
Change
£ %
2011/12 Final
Subsidy 8,200,981*
(a) (b) a)
Norfolk County
Council
Norfolk Police
Authority
North Norfolk
District Council
Local Precepting
1,145.07 75.43%
196.92 12.97%
138.87 9.15%
6,186,000
1,063,667
750,390 663,000
200,924 178,000
Total for Billing
Authority 176.07 11.60% 951,314 841,000
Total Average
Band D Amount 1,518.06 8,200,981
4
22

*This is for illustrative purposes only based on the unaudited subsidy claim.
4.2 The table above illustrates that the anticipated reduction in funding for
North Norfolk District Council is 11.6% and is higher than the overall national 10% reduction.
4.3 The final subsidy payment for 2011/12 was £750,390, the proposed grant allocation for NNDC for 2013/14 is £663,000, which represents a cash reduction of £87,390. Any shortfall in achieving this saving will have an impact on the Council’s budget.
4.4 Council tax benefit could reasonably be expected to rise over time. The average growth over the last three years from 2009/10 to 2011/12 has been 2.7%. If a comparable growth takes place between 2011/12 to
2013/14 then the saving in the level of support required to achieve a cost neutral scheme is 14.3%, based on the indicative level of grant above.
However, the government have indicated that final allocations of grant will be based on revised forecasts of subsidised council tax benefit expenditure to be issued this autumn. It is therefore likely that the final allocations of grant will differ from the indicative figures provided.
4.5 As outlined earlier the impact of protecting pensioners within the new scheme will require the savings to be delivered over a reduced percentage of the claim base (approximately 38%).
4.6 For local precepting authorities (i.e. the parishes) the new council tax reductions are likely to have the effect of leading to a higher level of
Band D council tax (the tax base on which the local precepting authority’s tax is raised will reduce). The Government expect billing authorities to work together with local precepting authorities to manage this impact.
This could be achieved by passing an element of funding down to the local precepting authorities. How much is passed down will depend on the design of the scheme and will enable the Council to manage the impact on local precepting authorities Band D levels. It is important that the Council works with them to avoid significant increases in their Band D levels as a consequence of introducing the local scheme.
4.7 The Government has not ruled out applying the excessiveness principles, which define an excessive increase in council tax, to higherspending town and parish councils, thus giving local residents the power to approve or veto excessive council tax rises.
4.8 A new burdens grant of £84,000 has been awarded to billing authorities to assist with the costs of designing schemes. This will need to cover for example, the communication and consultation process, software development, external support and advice, design and production of documentation, training and publicity. Funding is available within the benefits earmarked reserve for any implementation costs in excess of the grant received in 2012/13. It is recommended that delegated authority be given to the Chief Finance Officer to release funds from the reserve upto
5
23

a maximum of £30,000. This will be monitored within the budget monitoring process.
5. Risks to the Council
5.1 Council tax benefit is currently demand-led and is financed by the
Department of Works and Pensions annually managed expenditure budget. In the future however, funding will be cash limited and paid from the departmental expenditure limit budget of the Department of
Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The cash limited grant made available will be reduced by 10%. Therefore, councils’ will need to consider how to manage any possible financial pressures as a result of a fall in collection rates or increases in demand. The potential scenarios are:
•
Collection rates decline because households receive a reduction in support they receive to pay their council tax bill;
•
There are unexpectedly high levels of demand for support from eligible claimants which exceed the forecasts at the point where the budgets and council tax levels were set.
5.2 The financial pressures arising from unexpectedly high increases in demand for support will fall on the billing authority and major precepting authorities. In effect, if demand is higher than estimated, this would result in a deficit on the Collection Fund, whereas if demand is lower than estimated, this would result in a surplus on the Collection Fund. Deficits and surpluses on the Collection Fund would be shared at the start of the new financial year.
5.3 The Council does hold a benefits earmarked reserve which can be used to mitigate the impact of any shortfall of the scheme on the Council’s budget in the short term. However use of reserves is a one-off and does not represent a sustainable option to funding the budget on an ongoing basis.
5.4 Timetable - The timetable for the development and implementation of the scheme is extremely challenging particularly so for North Norfolk given the Revenues & Benefits Partnership Project. In order to meet the implementation deadline, consultation needs to commence on 20.8.12 and close 30.9.12. A timetable detailing the key dates is included at
Appendix D.
5.5 Software - costs and development time, with all councils potentially trying to design bespoke schemes at the same time.
5.6 Training - A new scheme will significantly increase training resource at a time when there is already significant change from the welfare reform effective from April 2013. Further changes will occur as Universal Credit is introduced from October 2013.
5.7 Ability to incentivize those returning to work will be very limited given the level of savings needed to be realized.
6
24

5.8 Equality Impacts – vulnerable groups should not be adversely impacted.
Often implication leads to greater inequality hence the complexities of the current system.
6. Sustainability
6.1 There are no sustainability issues as a direct consequence of the report.
7. Equality and Diversity
7.1 An equality and diversity impact assessment will be undertaken on the final scheme and this will form part of the public consultation document.
Appendices
A Modelling results to date
B Current Council Tax Benefit Rules
C Timetable
25
7

Appendix B
Appendix A
Individual Option
1 Child Benefit and all received maintenance not disregarded
2 No second adult rebate and no backdate
3 Apply 10% reduction to both passported and non passported
4 Apply 20% reduction to both passported and non passported
5 Non dependant deductions all £10
6 Maximum Band E
7 Capital upper limit £6K
8 Full Time Work upto 24 hours per week
9 Maximum Band C
10 Reduce income taper for all claims to 15%
11 Apply 20% reduction to passported only
12 Apply 10% reduction to passported only
13 Maximum band D
14 Non dependant deduction all £5
15 Move non dependant income over £65 week to applicant
Initial Modelling results - % Savings from the change
-0.02%
-0.61%
2.97%
-5.33%
-2.58%
-0.22%
-0.16%
-1.50%
-2.86%
-0.02%
-3.96%
-8.27%
-1.29%
-0.05%
-0.54%
26

Appendix C
A Summary of Council Tax Benefit (CTB) Rules
What does CTB pay for?
CTB is only payable to a person who has a liability to pay council tax at the property they live in.
There are sometimes joint and several liabilities where more than one occupier is treated as liable, for example friends who share a house but are not a couple. These claims would be based upon a percentage of the charge (eg 50%, 33.3% etc).
Paying CTB
CTB is paid directly to the council tax account and a reduced bill produced.
Second Adult Rebate (2AR)
This is an alternative type of CTB claimed by the liable person, where there is another person living in the property who is on a low income. If this person were not there, the customer would be entitled to a 25 % single person discount (SPD) on the council tax bill.
As this ‘second adult’ is on a low income, they may have difficulty in paying the 25% difference, so the council tax payer can claim 2AR on their behalf. The council tax payer’s income and capital are not taken into account.
Calculating CTB
Several elements are taken into account when working out benefit entitlement.
This includes:
•
Personal and family circumstances
•
Income and capital of the claimant and his household
•
Eligible council tax
•
Anyone else living in the property
•
The applicable amount (how much the Government says that the household needs to live on each week).
Eligible Council Tax
Main Scheme Council Tax
The maximum eligible council tax is 100% of the council tax liability.
To calculate entitlement, the annual charge is converted to a weekly figure.
There are various discounts and disregards that will reduce the annual council tax charge. These are not benefits but are reductions in the charge and are either 25% or
50%. Entitlement to CTB will be based upon the net eligible council tax figure.
Second Adult Rebate (2AR)
(Also known as Alternative Council Tax Benefit)
The maximum 2AR payable is 25% of the charge, again converted to a weekly figure.
The rates are as follows:
•
25% - second adult on Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) or Pension Credit.
•
15% - second adult’s income is up to £179.00
•
7.5% - second adult’s income is between £180.00 and £234.99
This is paid directly to the council tax account.
Non Dependants
27

Appendix C
A non dependant is anyone aged over 18 living in the customer’s household as part of their family – this can be a relative or a friend.
Non dependant couples are linked and count as one.
Any non dependent on Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)(Income Based(IB)), Income
Support and Employment Support Allowance cases has no deduction.
If the customer or partner receives Attendance Allowance (AA) or Disability Living
Allowance (DLA) there is no deduction.
Capital
Capital means any monies held in any accounts (current and savings), stocks and shares, bonds, cash etc. It also includes any other property or timeshare owned by the customer/ partner, apart from the dwelling that they live in.
If the total capital is above £16000, there is no entitlement to CTB unless they are in receipt of Pension Credit (Guarantee) when all capital and income is ignored.
The value of stocks/ shares and other property is calculated net of any mortgage and after deducting 10% selling costs. Evidence will always be needed of any encumbrances before a decision is made.
A weekly ‘tariff income’ is applied to the total amount of capital held by a customer/ partner. This income is then added to their other income figure when calculating benefit entitlement.
The first £6000 is ignored in all cases for tariff income purposes.
For customers aged under 60, £1 income is assumed for every £250 (or part thereof) above £6000. For example if a customer has £8500, the weekly tariff income is £10
(£8500 minus £6000 divided by £250 equals £10.00).
For customers aged 60 or over, £1 of income is assumed for every £500 (or part thereof) above £6000. For example if a customer has £8500, the weekly tariff income is £5 (£8500 minus £6000 divided by £500 equals £5.00).
Income
Income means any money that the customer and partner have coming into the household, whether in the form of earned income, unearned income, benefits or tariff income via capital.
If a customer or partner is in receipt of any of the following, all other income is disregarded and maximum Housing Benefit/ Council Tax Benefit is payable, less any non-dependant deductions:
•
Pension Credit (Guarantee)
•
Income
•
Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based)
Any claims made where no ‘passported’ benefits are in payment (as above) are known as
‘standard’ claims because the calculation is the responsibility of the LA. There are complex rules regarding the calculation of income.
Some income is disregarded totally:
DLA; AA; War Pensions; Maintenance for Children
28

Appendix C
Some income is partly disregarded:
•
Earnings (depending upon the household and the number of hours worked).
•
Income from rent, eg boarders and sub-tenants.
All other income is taken into account in full.
Applicable Amount
This is made up of Personal Allowances and Premiums. The applicable amount is also known as ‘needs allowance’ and is a figure based on the amount of money that
Government says an individual or family will need to live on.
The basic calculation is :
Income minus Applicable Amount equals Excess Income.
Eligible Council Tax minus 20% of Excess Income Figure equals CTB
Changes of Circumstance
A change in circumstances means that benefit entitlement will change.
The customer has a duty to inform the LA immediately in writing of any change that they think might affect their benefit claim.
If the customer delays reporting a change that may increase their benefit, they will lose benefit if there is no good cause to backdate that change. The general time limit is 1 month.
If the change however reduces benefit and causes an overpayment, the claim will be amended as far back as necessary.
Pensioners who receive Pension Credit (PC) (either component) must report any changes in income, capital or their household to the Pension Service who will re-assess
PC entitlement and inform us once that change has been made.
Different changes affect claims from different dates. For example, if a customer moves to an address within the LA area, the change takes effect from the date of vacation. If the customer moves outside the LA area CTB ends on the day of vacation.
Death of a customer – CTB ends on the day before the date of death, to match council tax liability.
Extended Payments
These are administered by the LA and consist of 4 weeks extra benefit at the current rate when a customer starts work and
•
they have been in receipt of IS, JSA, incapacity benefit or Severe Disablement
Allowance (SDA) continuously for at least 26 weeks and
•
the job is expected to last for at least 5 weeks and
•
the job is for at least 16 hours per week.
Extended payments are made even if there is no entitlement once starting work.
Evidence
Customers are required to provide evidence in support of their claim. The evidence must be what is ‘reasonably required’ to assess entitlement. The onus is on the customer to provide this evidence within the time limit required.
29

Appendix C
Verification Framework (VF)
This is the standard to which all evidence must conform and all Councils comply with this framework. It sets out the level of evidence required and also the number of checks that must be made throughout the life of a claim.
The identity of every new customer and partner must be checked for authenticity; a holistic approach is taken.
The LA must carry out reviews of its caseload to make sure that the customer is still entitled to CTB.
A list is sent to the LA every month from the DWP so that checks can be made to find mismatches in data held.
The LA must visit a selection of customers in their homes to ensure residency and that there is still entitlement to CTB.
Section 19 – Verification of National Insurance Number (NINO) and Identity
Section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997 requires LAs to verify
NINOs of the claimant and partner and to prove that they ‘own’ that NINO; this only applies to new claims.
Identity
Two forms of identity are required for both the customer and partner.
Other Evidence
Supporting evidence is needed for all income and capital, residency and membership of the household.
30

Appendix D
Timetable
Key Dates Action Comment
End of May
June/ July
July/ August
Initial scheme options/ analysis Establish financial requirements and potential changes to the scheme
Sign off the scheme with members and precepting authorities
Creation of scheme publication including Equality impact assesssements for all changes from standard
Formal Sign off required prior to consultation with the public
Full Section 13A policy
– will need to have some legal and equality impact assessment oversight.
Will require every aspect of Working Age scheme to be covered.
Creation of vulnerable policy/ work incentives.
August/September/
October
August/September/
October
Public Consultation
20.8.12- 30.9.12
September- December Full scheme design/
Software/training/publications etc
LA to decide method and approach to consultation.
Analyse responses from public Final scheme amendments (approval may be required from members). Formal acceptance as part of budget setting.
Cabinet 3.12.12
Full Council 19.12.12
Complete scheme implementation prior to
31.12.12 to enable billing on time.
31

Cabinet 16 July 2012
Agenda Item No______11_______
FORMER RAF COLTISHALL SITE – POSITION STATEMENT i) ii)
Outlines Norfolk County Council’s proposed purchase of the former RAF Coltishall site;
Details the current position of the District Council with respect to the future use of the asset based upon previous masterplans prepared on behalf of the
Ministry of Justice by planning consultants Lambert
Smith Hampton and the designation of the asset as a
Conservation Area; iii) Welcomes the proposal by the County Council to establish a Community Liaison Reference Group to support the development of a new masterplan for the future use of the site and formally nominates Cllrs
FitzPatrick and Ivory, supported by a senior officer of the Council, to represent the authority on the
Reference Group
Recommendations:
Cabinet member(s):
Cllr T FitzPatrick number, and e-mail:
1.0 BACKGROUND:-
1. Given the significant public interest in the future use / redevelopment of the former RAF Coltishall site following the public announcement by the Ministry of Justice that
Norfolk County Council is the preferred bidder for the asset; Cabinet is asked to confirm the current position of the District Council with respect to the asset in terms of the prevailing planning policies covering the site and outline the engagement it wishes to have with the County
Council in the future development of plans for the site.
2. Request that Full Council endorses the nomination of
Cllrs FitzPatrick and Ivory as the Council’s representatives on the Former RAF Coltishall Community
Liaison Reference Group
Ward(s) affected:
Scottow
Steve Blatch - 01263 516232,
Steve.Blatch@north-norfolk.gov.uk
32

Cabinet 16 July 2012
1.1 Members will be aware following an announcement made by the Government in August
2004 that the RAF Coltishall base was to close by the end of 2006, that local public sector partners established a Task Group to consider a wide range of issues relating to the closure of the base and future uses for the redundant defence asset.
1.2 Shortly before the formal closure of the base in November 2006, it was announced that the asset would transfer to the Home Office; and subsequently in December 2007 the
Secretary of State for Justice confirmed that a new 500 place Category C prison would be established on part of the site, involving the conversion of the former single airmens’ accommodation blocks and a limited amount of new build floorspace. This development, within the former technical site area, was completed in November 2009, when HMP Bure opened.
1.3 The balance of the former RAF Coltishall site, comprising the main airfield area, officers and sergeants mess buildings, the four hangars and miscellaneous workshop and storage buildings; is surplus to the requirements of the Home Office. The department has therefore been advised by commercial property agents Lambert Smith Hampton since 2008 regarding the future disposal of the balance of the site area, including preparing masterplans and taking forward two marketing campaigns to support the sale of the asset.
1.4 The Ministry of Justice recently informed the District Council that as a result of this second marketing campaign, Norfolk County Council has been identified as preferred bidder for the site, with whom formal negotiations will be progressed in the coming months.
1.5 The County Council made a public statement regarding its proposed purchase of the site at the end of May and has extended invitations to local parish councils, elected district representatives, representatives of local residents associations and the Spirit of
Coltishall association to work with the authority through a Community Liaison Reference
Group to develop detailed proposals and a new masterplan for the site.
1.6 Whilst supportive of the County Council’s purchase of the former RAF Coltishall site in principle, the District Council is aware of some public concerns about the process by which proposals for the site might be developed in the coming months and how any such proposals might be considered through the planning process. This report is therefore intended to provide members and the wider public with details of the current planning policy position pertaining to the former RAF Coltishall site as the basis of the District
Council’s formal position with respect to this asset at the present time.
2.0 PLANNING POLICY POSITION:-
2.1 The former RAF Coltishall site takes in land within the North Norfolk and adjoining
Broadland Districts and therefore planning policies relating to the site are contained within the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy and Greater Norwich Joint Core Strategy documents.
2.2 The North Norfolk Core Strategy was adopted in September 2008 and policy EC4 –
Redundant Defence Establishments is of particular relevance to future development at the former RAF Coltishall site. The policy allows for the re-use or development of replacement buildings within a defined technical area (ie the area of hangars, technical and office buildings and single airmens’ accommodation and mess buildings in the northeast corner of the site), provided that there is no overall increase in gross floorspace of the existing permanent buildings. Other policies within the Core Strategy refer to new development within the Countryside policy area, designated Conservation Areas and the protection afforded to trees subject to Preservation Orders etc which also have a bearing on the future use / redevelopment of the former RAF Coltishall site.
2.3 The Greater Norwich Joint Core Strategy, which applies to those parts of the former RAF
Coltishall site within the Broadland District Council area, was adopted in 2011. This document however has no site specific policies relating to the former RAF Coltishall site.
33

Cabinet 16 July 2012
2.4 As part of the original work programme of the Task Force the local planning and highway authorities considered in some detail the opportunities and constraints of the former RAF
Coltishall asset and in February 2006 identified a long list of potential uses which could be accommodated on the site, subject to the relevant planning permissions being obtained. Subsequently in September 2006 the local authorities prepared a Position
Paper detailing the planning policy context in relation to the site, in support of the proposed disposal of the asset at that time by Defence Estates. Copies of these documents can be made available on request.
2.5 During 2009/10 Lambert Smith Hampton, as agents for the Ministry of Justice, discussed with the local authorities the preparation of a masterplan(s) for the site, to support the future of disposal of the asset. Two masterplans were prepared:-
•
Masterplan A for an Aero Park use recognising the potential of the site to accommodate future aviation uses; and
•
Masterplan B for a Resources Park which envisaged the re-use of existing buildings on the site to accommodate business and employment uses, with large parts of the airfield area being returned to agriculture and/or accommodating renewable energy proposals.
These proposals were the subject of public consultation in May 2010 and the District
Council indicated its in principle support for the two Masterplans at the meeting of the
Council’s Cabinet held on 7 th
June 2010.
2.6 This in principle support recognised that the masterplans would not have any formal status as Development Plan Documents in that whilst the District Council acknowledged that the plans were a positive statement of intent by the Ministry of Justice in providing some context to the disposal of the balance of the former RAF Coltishall site, no guarantee could be given that future purchasers / users of the asset would develop proposals which accorded with the masterplan proposals. In this respect, it was felt important that the District Council as local planning authority did not adopt a position whereby it would compromise or fetter its discretion in terms of the balanced consideration of future developments proposals made in respect of the asset. The
District Council also felt that it would be inappropriate to indicate unqualified support for the Masterplan options without understanding the detail relating to any future uses for example in terms of the volume of aircraft movements, volumes of traffic accessing the site, environmental impact of proposed uses etc, about which local communities would rightly wish to comment and which would be considered through the development control process.
2.7 Separate to the preparation of the masterplans by Lambert Smith Hampton the
Conservation and Design teams in both the North Norfolk and Broadland District
Councils undertook an assessment of the character of the former RAF Coltishall base and proposed that the former base was designated as a Conservation Area. The appraisal of the site recognised the special and distinctive character of the base and its historical importance in charting the development of Royal Air Force bases from World
War II through until the end of the twentieth century in terms of the design and layout of buildings, airfield structures and landscaping. Following a process of public consultation during which significant support was expressed for the designation of the former RAF
Coltishall site as a Conservation Area, both local planning authorities confirmed
Conservation Area designation for the whole of the area covered by the former RAF
Coltishall airbase – ie the airfield, technical site area and former residential estate
(NNDC Cabinet decision of 6 th
September 2010).
3.1 Norfolk County Council has recently announced its intention to purchase the former RAF
Coltishall asset and has advised that it proposes facilitating the re-use / redevelopment
34

Cabinet 16 July 2012 of the site in a way which meets many of the objectives of the Resources Park
Masterplan developed by Lambert Smith Hampton.
3.2 The detail of the County Council’s proposals however are not yet known, and indeed may not yet be fully developed, in that the Council has proposed establishing a
Community Liaison Reference Group which is to meet over the coming months to develop a new masterplan proposal for the site. North Norfolk District Council has been asked to nominate representatives to serve on the Community Liaison Reference Group and it is proposed that Cllrs Tom FitzPatrick, as Cabinet portfolio holder for Economic
Development, and Trevor Ivory, as local ward member and Cabinet portfolio holder for
Localism, supported by a senior officer represent the District Council at meetings of the
Liaison Group.
3.3 The District Council is aware that there is significant debate within the local community and media about elements of the County Council’s proposals and the extent to which the proposals might require planning consent. The District Council’s initial view is that any re-use of existing buildings on the site, development of new buildings, development of renewable energy proposals etc would require planning approval to be obtained from the relevant district council as local planning authority. Any proposals to return parts of the airfield site to agricultural use, would not in themselves require planning consent.
However, if large areas of the former runway or taxiways were to be proposed for removal this would be deemed an engineering operation for which planning consent would be required, albeit that such operations might be subject of determination by the
County Council dependent upon the end use of the aggregate.
3.4 Any proposals for development at the former RAF Coltishall site would require consideration in light of the Conservation Area designation and other statutory protection measures such as the Tree Preservation Order which exists across large parts of the technical site area; as well as considering the impact of any proposed development on the landscape, impact of traffic generated by proposals on the site etc. It is anticipated that all such issues will be explored further through the masterplanning process now proposed by the County Council through the Community Liaison Reference Group.
4. RISKS
4.1
The issues outlined in this report do not have any direct financial implications / consequences for the District Council at the present time beyond the modest costs involved in the Council participating in the Community Liaison Reference Group.
4.2 The report does not raise any equality and diversity issues at the present time.
4.3 This report does not raise any issues which relate directly to the Council’s responsibilities under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
4.4 This report does not raise any issues directly relating to sustainable development. Any future development proposals proposed on the site will require planning consent at which time issues relating to sustainable development will be considered in detail.
35