MINUTES
COASTAL PATHFINDER PROGRAMME
REFERENCE GROUP – Emergency meeting
31 August 2010
2pm, Room 1, NNDC Offices
This meeting was called by the Chair – Malcolm Kerby following the publication of the
September Cabinet report and media articles in the pervious week concerning the
valuation methodology for the properties at Beach Road.
Present
Reference Group Members
Malcolm Kerby
Janice Howell
Dan Corbett
Tony Nash
Sue Willis
NNDC Officers
Peter Frew
Item
1
Rob Goodliffe
Action
Apologies
Apologies were received from Rob Wise (on holiday) and Peter Battrick (on
holiday).
2
Emergency Item - Properties at Beach Road
Rob Goodliffe thanked members for attending at short notice.
Malcolm Kerby opened the meeting. The meeting took the form of
discussion and has been minuted as the group members comments
followed by the officers responses.
Reference Group members comments
The members of the group considered that the owners should have
received their all risks and no risk valuation before any valuation
methodologies were made public and that the Reference Group had not
had the opportunity to comment on the Cabinet report or policy prior to the
press article.
It was stated by some group members that the owners of the properties
should receive 100% no risk market value and not the valuation calculated
through the proposed methods of between 40-50% no risk market value.
The members did not believe the proposed method will solve the blight
Pathfinder Reference Group
1
21 July 2010
issue for the wider community.
The Reference Group considered that it was difficult to comment on the
process of approaches when they are part way to being agreed rather than
become involved at earlier stages.
It was felt that there was a misunderstanding as to the importance of the
properties between the 20-100 year erosion lines, most particularly those
beyond the 50 year line as these are beyond the most people’s ability to
plan.
Some group members were of the opinion that due to the little warning of
the press article they were not ready to respond to members of the public
and felt in a difficult position and potentially exposed. Some expressed
their thoughts of resignation, of which they decided would be of little benefit
to anyone.
Members of the group expressed that they would wish to see the ‘private
papers’ to the report, however others believed that the amounts involved
with individuals and any transactions should be kept private.
The group expressed their thanks to the coastal team for the effort put into
the report, but felt that there should be a better way of keeping them in the
informed.
The Chair and a number of members of the group requested details as to
how they can make a representation at the Cabinet meeting should they
choose to do so.
Officer responses
Peter Frew explained the procedure for gaining approval to proceed
through the cabinet process and the deadlines involved. The report went
for consideration of the project board on 16 August which involved
discussing and assessing the valuation approach. The report was then
required to be submitted for cabinet on 18 August. Between the 18 – 26
August the report was circulated further internally for comment as is
required by the procedure for the pre cabinet meeting on the 24 August.
Final additional information was provided for publication on the 26 August.
This meant that when the report was made public (26 August), the press
would become interested in the ‘story’, therefore a press briefing was
arranged to ensure the press could interpret the report.
The report and public appendices were forwarded to the Reference Group
on the 25 August once all the appendices were complete following the
internal circulation, comment and cabinet pre agenda discussion. There
has been a considerable pressure from different directions to progress with
this project. This was particularly evident at the meeting with the Beach
Road owners on 4 August. Therefore time has been limited. Officers
appreciated the groups frustration regarding knowledge of progress and
approach but were of the understanding that the general concepts had
been discussed and that preparing the project for delivery in a short space
Pathfinder Reference Group
2
21 July 2010
of time was of great importance. The team will continue to endeavour to
improve in communication.
It was explained that some of the appendices were not available to the
group or members of the public as they contained valuations for properties
and potential offer values. Peter Frew did not believe that these could be
provided to the group, but would seek guidance on this if they wish him too.
A hypothetical valuation was provided in the report, which was picked up on
by the media and stated in the newspaper article. Peter Frew explained
that this was to give an idea of how the valuation equation works and that
some valuations may be less than this, others may be more as they take
into account each individual properties circumstances and characteristics.
The methodology of the valuation was explained and the potential use of
any purchased properties ‘EN12’ roll back possibilities. The roll back
options are currently under investigation.
It was agreed between officers and the group that there are different levels
of success for the project to attain, government, local and individual.
It was reminded to the group that Defra have funded the whole package of
pathfinder projects. It is understood that the government have not looked
favourably on purchasing houses which are ‘written off’, however this is part
of the package and we wish to trial an approach. This approach will deliver
some learning, but locally it is very important as it will offer another avenue
for property owners and it is hoped tackle localised blight.
The approach in the report was drawn together jointly by Bruton Knowles
and NNDC. It has tried to enable the authority to offer owners a fair deal
which is also defendable and based on precedence. It is believed that this
approach is the best we can put forward in the circumstances which may
also be most likely to be acceptable and sustainable for the government.
The group was informed that should they choose to do so they can make a
verbal representation at the Cabinet meeting and would have 3 minutes to
speak. A further 1 minute may be offered to reply to any questions. Written
representation can be circulated on the day, if copies are provided to
members or these can be posted to the members prior to the meeting.
6
Next Meeting
7
The next meeting will be arranged (subject to availability) in September.
Post meeting note:
Following the meeting some concern has been expressed by the Norfolk
Rural Community Council [NRCC] representative, Janice Howell. Her
understanding is that the Reference Group’s remit was one of scrutiny, not
the ensuring of a particular outcome – in this case, 100% full market value
for the properties discussed.
All though she can understand and has personal sympathy for the
viewpoint, as an organisation NRCC are primarily concerned that that local
communities are heard and involved, hence their involvement in a scrutiny
Pathfinder Reference Group
3
21 July 2010
group. Her concern was primarily that the level of information available to
the group was insufficient to judge the way in which the methodology was
reached. She does not feel that any representation made by the group to
Cabinet can come from the whole group as this would be an uncomfortable
position for her organisation as it does not have the remit to make decisions
on coastal management options. Therefore any representation should be
made with this in mind and either come from individuals, a specific
organisation or be stated by which members it is supported by.
On this note the CLA member was not present and therefore their position
is not currently known.
Pathfinder Reference Group
4
21 July 2010