MINUTES
COASTAL PATHFINDER PROGRAMME
REFERENCE GROUP
19th April 2010
2.00pm, Room 2, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer.
Present
Reference Group Members
Malcolm Kerby
Sue Willis
Dan Corbett
Tony Nash
Rob Wise
NNDC Officers
Rob Goodliffe
Peter Battrick
Action
1
Apologies
Apologies were received from Janice Howell and her stand in Peter
Smith. The group wished Rob Goodliffe to send their condolences on
their behalf following the loss of Janice’s husband.
2
Introductions
3
Rob Wise and Peter Battrick were introduced to the group
Agree minutes and matters arising
Rob Goodliffe
The minutes for the meeting of the 24.01.10 were agreed.
Ring fencing and interest earned on Pathfinder capital.
Rob Goodliffe explained that the predicted interest on the pathfinder
funds was approximately £7000. The project board did not believe that
it would be good use of officer time to separate this from the other
funds. It has also been suggested that there is need for a full time
equivalent accountant for the Pathfinder projects; this would not be seen
by the coastal management team as a good use of the pathfinder
resource. However insistence on monitoring and collecting the interest
would support the need for the accountant position. The Project Board
suggested that it would be more effective if funds of £7000 could be
transferred to the Pathfinder from council funds to make up the interest
Rob
payment.
Goodliffe/Accountants
The Reference Group agreed that the use of pathfinder funds for an
accountant would not be a good use of funds.
Following comments from members of the group that the interest should
be considerably more (£90,000) the group requested that the calculation
for the interest was provided in writing to the Reference Group.
4
Agree Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference were agreed with the correction of a typing
error in point 8e.
Pathfinder Reference Group
1
19 April 2010
5
Update on programme progress
Rob Goodliffe updated the group on the progress of the projects. The
update included questioning from the Reference Group.
Happisburgh
The Open Day at Happisburgh the 24 April was reported and the aims
and methods of engagement presented.
Cliff top Enhancement Project
The group discussed aspects of the Happisburgh enhancement
scheme and believe that the projects should focus on the core
necessities of the community and due to the financial constraints,
should not be distracted by suggestions such as incorporating public art
as put forward by a member of the public. Rob Goodliffe stated that the
Open Day was an opportunity for the community to put forward their
ideas. If for example there was a wish for a play area or public art, it
may be appropriate for the design of the enhancement scheme to
incorporate a future location for these. These then may be pursued at a
later date, or if further funding and resources are available, alongside
the Pathfinder projects. It is however a priority of the Pathfinder projects
to achieve the key aims.
Property Purchase for Demolition and Lease Back Projects
Rob Goodliffe explained the progress with the purchase and demolish
and lease back schemes and the progress with engaging with a
Property Advisor.
The Property Advisor tenders were discussed. As previously requested
by a member of the group the tender submissions can not be shared
with the group as they hold business-sensitive information. The group
were however requested to discuss whether they thought it was
appropriate to have a member involved in the interviews of the final two
candidates. The discussion included whether involvement in the
process of deciding upon the Property Advisor may jeopardise the
independent role of the Reference Group, or if this was an opportunity
to be involved in the process at deciding a critical appointment within
the project. It was decided that the Reference Group would wish a
member to be at the interview in a monitoring observer role and to feed
in their comments to the officers interviewing following the interviews.
Dan Corbett was put forward and accepted the role.
Rob
Goodliffe
to
provide Dan Corbett
with
times
of
interviews
and
information regarding
the tenders.
The role of the new conveyancer (who is also a solicitor) was
discussed. It was suggested that the individual should be located with
the Coastal Team. This however is not possible due to space and he is
part and therefore line managed as a member of the Legal Team. The
conveyancer is part-funded from the legal department and therefore will
complete work outside the Pathfinder projects. There is however a
priority for completing Pathfinder-related enquiries and conveyancing.
The group would like to know the % of the legal team’s contribution.
Rob Goodliffe/Peter
Frew
Members of the group expressed the view that it was unnecessary to
purchase and demolish properties and it would be more cost effective to
underwrite them. Rob Goodliffe and the Project Board were directed to
Malcolm Kerby’s paper entitled ‘Alternative governance for living with a
Rob Goodliffe/Project
Pathfinder Reference Group
2
19 April 2010
changing coastline’ regarding underwriting, available on the Coastal
Concern Action Group website.
Board
They suggested that any lease-back schemes should be for local
people only.
The values the owners on Beach Road might receive were discussed.
Rob Goodliffe stated that any valuations were quite unknown at present
and the process of valuing the properties and any subsequent
negotiations are to be undertaken by the Property Advisor. A view was
expressed that the owners should get 100% of the full “no risk” market
value. It was then suggested that the date of purchase may have an
effect on the value dependent of if the risk was known or not. The last
purchase price may also have an impact on the valuation if it was
purchased recently. It may also be necessary to take into account if the
property is the owner’s only home, or if it is a second home. These
views were noted.
Rob Goodliffe
The Reference Group would like to meet the Property Advisor prior to
contact with the owners of Beach Road.
It was suggested that second homes are not eligible for the £6000 of
demolition and disbursement funds from Defra. This fund is new and
will require further investigation as the property acquisition for
demolition project progresses.
The Group expressed a view that the funds allocated to the purchase
and demolish and purchase and leaseback would not be enough to
meet payment of 100% of the “no risk” value. Rob Goodliffe stated that
these views would be passed to the Project Board for consideration.
[post meeting addendum: to avoid the possibility of confusion, the
budgets allocated to each project are not fixed and may be amended by
the project board if necessary as the projects progress].
Rob Goodliffe/Project
Board
Business Advice and Marketing Projects
The Marketing and Business Advice Projects were discussed; the
planned launch date is the 20 May. The North Norfolk Business
Forum’s role was introduced-they will act a co-ordinators of the
elements of support. It was asked which businesses will be eligible and
did it include business which are on the coast which could be located
elsewhere. Rob Goodliffe replied that businesses within the 100 year
line and potentially others in key settlements (possibly Happisburgh and
Mundesley); these may be solely coastal related, but may just be
businesses affected by their coastal location. Malcolm Kerby asked
what would happen if the business was failing. Rob Goodliffe replied
that if this was the case it would be highlighted in the initial business
health check diagnostic report and would become part of the report the
business receives.
Sue Willis raised a query as to whether the business projects were
identifying types of and sites for large scale visitor attractions. It was
answered that this was not part of the project however the Marketing
project may identify future markets for the East Norfolk coast.
Trimingham Village Hall Project
The Trimingham Village Hall Project was discussed. The community’s
preferred site is the ‘Dive Club Site’ adjacent to Staden Park. The
Reference Group agreed with this. The site has been valued at £30,000
Pathfinder Reference Group
3
19 April 2010
by the District Valuer. Rob Young was meeting with the site owner to
discuss the project, availability and cost. The group expressed the
opinion that it was not appropriate to incorporate the village hall with an
affordable homes element should this be proposed, they stated that it
could set a precedent for other development sites and felt that the
project should not consider this option. It was suggested that the
community may like to donate funds to the project (like Happisburgh did
for the rock armour); this suggestion will be passed on to Rob Young.
Rob
Goodliffe/Rob
Young
Marram’s Footpath Project
The progress with the Marram’s footpath was discussed. The group
queried the need for moving the water tank. Rob Goodliffe explained
that this was required and that all options have been investigated and
considered carefully with the private owners of ‘The Lookout’. Malcolm
Kerby suggested that the project could be funded through the
Countryside and Rights of Way Money for the coastal footpath. Rob
Wise did not believe the money would be available in Norfolk for some
time. Malcolm will investigate. Sue Willis asked whether the remaining
path had a long life expectancy. It was stated that the cliff below was
currently defended.
Rob Goodliffe
Malcolm Kerby
Rob Goodliffe/ Brian
Farrow
Beeston Beach Debris Project
The group was informed that the work had Beeston clearing Beach
Debris had started. They wished to know the total cost of this project.
Heritage & Wolferton Creek Projects
The Group were updated on the appointment of a project officer starting
on the 26 April and the Heritage Open Day at Happisburgh on 22 May.
Concerns over the Heritage Project and Wolferton Creek project were
voiced. The Group asked why NNDC was funding these. It was
explained that these were part of the bid and formed an important
partnership approach whilst itself was an important element for
obtaining Pathfinder funding in the first place. Questions over why the
budgets of these projects were not reduced following the reduced fund
from Defra. The Wolferton Project was reduced by £5000 to £20000.
The Heritage Project required the funds to be viable, and NNDC agreed
to provide the £80,300. Some members of the group questioned the
value of the Heritage Project. Rob Goodliffe explained about it being
part of the suite of projects which seek to find solutions to the impacts of
coastal change. Rob Goodliffe suggested if any members of the group
would like to learn more about the Heritage Project to discuss it with
David Roberson from Norfolk Landscape and Archaeology who will be
available at the Happisburgh Open Day on the 24 April.
6
Members
with
concerns over the
Heritage Project
Questions and Comments from the Reference Group
Members of the Reference Group requested hard copies of the original
bid. The bid is available online as previously provided but paper copies
will be provided
Rob Goodliffe
Members of the group asked for reassurance that they would not be
held ‘responsible’ should the projects fail or go wrong. Rob Goodliffe
assured them that this was not the case, as the Project Board is the
final decision-making body responsible for the projects.
Members of the group would like to know if the Project Board disagree
with them in writing. This is the case through Project Board Actions and
Pathfinder Reference Group
4
19 April 2010
Decisions notes, as provided to the group.
Malcolm Kerby asked for his concern that “the 49% cut in funds from the
original bid makes this pathfinder tenuous indeed. I do not believe it will
do what we set out to do. We must work from both ends and must
satisfy the public”, to be recorded.
The Reference Group would like a written list of the members of the
Project Board and Liaison Groups.
Rob Goodliffe
The Reference Group asked that acronyms in the Project Board Actions
and Decisions Notes be kept to a minimum.
Rob Goodliffe
Members of the group expressed concerns about reference to Wind
Farms in the Project Board notes. Rob Goodliffe explained that the
group was also the Coastal Management Board and other items were
discussed which are not part of the Pathfinder and these items do not
fall within the Reference Groups terms of reference. There are no costs
from non pathfinder items charged to the pathfinder account. Sue Willis
provided a newspaper clipping concerning wind farms.
The Reference Group enquired about the report going to Full Council in
June. Rob Goodliffe and Peter Battrick explained that this was a
method of communicating the Pathfinder to members and to receive any
delegations required (for example for property purchases). The
Reference Group requested the opportunity to see a copy of the report
Rob Goodliffe
prior to it going to Council.
Members of the Group asked if they might be seen as a point of contact
for members of the public who had questions regarding Pathfinder
projects. The role of the Liaison Groups being the first contact for
project issues was highlighted. The Reference Group can however
tackle programme issues and the roles highlighted in the Terms of
Reference. Rob Goodliffe to add an article about the Reference Group
in the next Pathfinder Newsletter [post meeting note: reference to the
group will also be made on the Pathfinder website].
7
Rob Goodliffe
Finance
The group was informed that the financial accounting codes are now set
up so that all costs can be allocated to projects. There will be monthly
reports on spend generated for the Project Board and Reference Group.
The second instalment of the Pathfinder funds (£2million) is currently
being processed.
Travel
The travel claim form for the reference group was presented for
recording mileage. Rob Goodliffe stated that if any members used the
train to attend reference group meetings/events, that the receipts could
be presented for reimbursement.
8
Any Other Business
Sue Willis raised concerns regarding whether there was a loophole in
the Core Strategy (Planning Policies) enabling developers to
speculatively purchase properties at greatest risk, and gain planning
permission elsewhere within the parish for developments. This was due
to there being no statement in the Core Strategy saying that the
Pathfinder Reference Group
5
Rob
Goodliffe/Rob
Young/Planning
(&
possibly Roger Howe)
19 April 2010
opportunity to develop would only be granted to residents at risk from
coastal change. Rob Goodliffe did not believe there is a loophole,
however he will request advice on this from Rob Young and the
Planning Department. Sue Willis asked that Roger Howe is invited to
the next meeting. (note: as Sue Willis is not available to attend the next
meeting, it is suggested the invitation should be delayed).
9
Post meeting discussion note between Dan Corbett and Rob Goodliffe:
There needs to be a prepared response for members of the public who
live in the Environment Agency lead coastal area (specifically Cart Gap
to Horsey) as to why most of the pathfinder funds does not relate to that
area. The answer is that the projects are trials and unfortunately can
not meet all the needs of the community and have been set up to learn
what initiatives work in tacking the effects of coastal change. There are
other examples nationally which do look at the affects of coastal
flooding, this includes the project within this pathfinder at Wolferton
Creek. If members of the public do ask this question, they should be
referred to the Coastal Management Team.
Next Meeting
The meeting finished at 4.40pm.
The date of the next meeting was discussed and provisionally booked
for 17 May at 2pm, timed to follow the next meeting of the Project
Board. Following the meeting the Reference Group Chair Malcolm
Kerby has suggested that it would be a good idea to rearrange the
date to ensure all members are present as unfortunately this has
not been possible to date. This would be a valuable opportunity to
refresh all members about each of the projects aims and
objectives and the function of the group.
Pathfinder Reference Group
6
19 April 2010