Agenda Item 2__
CABINET
Minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on Monday 15 July 2013 at the Council
Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00am.
Members Present:
Mr B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mr T Ivory
Mr J Lee
Mr R Oliver
Mr W Northam
Also attending:
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mr P High
Mr N Lloyd
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr G Williams
Mr D Young
Officers in
Attendance:
32.
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Director (NB), the Head of
Economic & Community Development, the Planning Policy & Property
Information Manager, the Housing Team Leader (Strategy) and the
Democratic Services Team Leader
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Mr R Wright
33.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 10 June 2013 were confirmed as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
34.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received
35.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
36.
Cabinet
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member
Minute No & Heading
Nature of Interest
Mr B Cabbell
Manners
Housing Incentives
Pecuniary interest by virtue of
being a trustee of an
organisation that has submitted
a planning application
1
15 July 2013
37.
PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
Mr B Cabbell Manners, Chairman of the Planning Policy and Built Heritage Working
Party, spoke in favour of the recommendations.
RESOLVED
(1) That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Policy and Built Heritage
Working Party held on 24 June 2013 be approved.
(2) To adopt the North Norfolk Buildings at Risk Register, with the possible
inclusion of those buildings contained on the Broads Authority’s list which fall
within North Norfolk, and that subject to investigation of the legal
requirements, the list be published on the Council’s website
(3) To approve the Holt Development Brief, subject to minor amendments to the
wording as suggested by the Highway Authority, and to ensure internal
access roads did not divide the open space.
(4) To approve the publication of the Annual Monitoring Reports and Statements
of Five Year Land Supply covering the period 2010/13.
38.
MATERIAL RECYCLING FACILITY
Mr J Lee, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services introduced this item. He said
that there had been a lengthy procurement process and the Council had worked very
closely with the seven other Norfolk councils to achieve the best outcome for
residents. Once the contract was in place, and the new sorting equipment
commissioned, a wider range of materials would be collected, including glass which
could be placed directly into householders’ recycling bins, making recycling easier for
residents and leading to an increase in recycling rates. The benefit of working as a
consortium with other councils mean that the service could be provided at a lower
cost to NNDC.
The councils involved must agree to enter the contract individually before the legal
contracts could be completed by the procuring authority, jointly on behalf of the
consortium. If approved, the new contract would commence on 1 April 2014.
Members were invited to ask questions:
a. Mr D Young had submitted a written question raising concerns about the impact
on the current bottle banks based in local communities when householders began
to put glass directly into their recycling bins. He pointed out that many parish
councils received credits for the glass that they collected in these banks and that
they would need to increase their precept by 8-10 per cent in order to recoup the
income currently budgeted from recycling credits. He wondered whether the
Council would consider using part of its savings to operate a scheme of
compensation for parish councils and other organisations in the event that
recycling credits are no longer available. Mr Lee acknowledged that bottle bank
collection rates were likely to reduce once the new contract was in place. He said
that it was for this reason that the Council had written to all the beneficiaries now,
15 months ahead of the introduction of any changes. He added that the Council
could not continue to subsidise other local authorities and there had been an
increase in the money allocated to the Big Society Fund to provide additional
assistance to local communities.
b. Mr N Lloyd queried whether there would be an increase in the recycling rates or
whether it would ultimately just be a different way of mean counting the same
thing. Mr Lee replied that other Councils who had already gone through this
Cabinet
2
15 July 2013
process had seen an increase in their recycling rates as householders placed all
their glass and plastics in their recycling bin rather than just throwing them away.
In response to a further question as to whether there was just one recycling plant
and it was coincidental that it was based in Norfolk, The Waste and Recycling
Manager replied that there had been a bidding process as the materials had a
value and it was worth transporting them a considerable distance if necessary.
One of the bidders operated a number of recycling sites across the country, and it
had not been anticipated that the successful bidder would necessarily be based in
Norfolk.
c. Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked why the contract was for ten years. She felt that
this was very long and sought assurance that there were get-out clauses if
required. The Waste and Recycling Manager replied that this length of contract
allowed for capital investment in plant and machinery which required a long write
down period. The market had been tested to establish where the best deal was
and this had indicated a 10 year contract to ensure the best prices. Regarding a
get-out clause, the Waste and Recycling Manager said that there was an option to
terminate the contract if the contractor did not provide the services that had been
agreed. The Chief Executive added that it was a Joint Venture Company (JVC)
and all the parties involved were looking to maximise income and profits and they
all wanted the venture to succeed. The Leader said that the Council had a 7%
share in the assets of the company with no capital investment. Officers had
worked very hard to get to this point and he thanked them for all their hard work.
He added that it was very good news that the recycling facility would be in Norfolk.
d. Mr E Seward said that he was Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services when
the original waste contract had been set up and the option of taking glass via the
recycling bins was considered at the time but the costs were prohibitive. He
welcomed the move now and asked if anything would be put in place to deal with
a surplus of glass at some households. The Leader replied that larger bins could
be provided if necessary. Mr J Lee added that additional recyclable waste would
be collected at the kerbside as long as it was clean and marked for collection.
e. Mr B Smith commented that many parish councils had bottle banks and paper
banks to support their local communities and the proposed changes would have a
negative impact. He felt that the Council should be more supportive. Mr J Lee
reiterated that parish and town councils had the option to retain their collection
banks if they wanted to, although this was unlikely to be collected by the Council’s
contractor.
It was proposed by Mr J Lee, seconded by Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and
RESOLVED
To inform Council of the following resolutions:
a) to award to Norse Commercial Services Ltd (“Norse”) a ten year contract for the
recycling of dry recyclable material (being the enhanced contract with glass) pursuant
to the procurement process carried out, on the basis that such contract be entered
into between the District Councils of the Norfolk Waste Partnership and the JVC (as
defined below);
b) to approve the entry into a joint venture shareholders’ agreement between the
District Councils and Norse on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding
attached at Appendix 1 for the purposes of establishing a JVC to be the contractor
under the recycling contract; and
Cabinet
3
15 July 2013
c) to approve the entry into such ancillary documents and the taking of any further
actions as shall be necessary or appropriate pursuant to the establishment of the
JVC and the award of the recycling contract to the JVC.
d) to grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer in consultation with the
relevant Portfolio Holder to conclude those agreements and ancillary documents on
behalf of the Council, including any minor changes to approve the final terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding and Contract with Norse and to conclude such
arrangements between the start date of the new contract and the commissioning date
of the new equipment to be installed as are appropriate to enable the extended range
of materials to be efficiently and cost effectively recycled
Reasons for the Decision:
To ensure that arrangements are put in place to process the dry recyclates collected
in the Council’s area from 1 April 2014, resulting in an increase in recycling rates.
39.
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
The Portfolio Holder for Planning, Mr B Cabbell Manners introduced this item. He
explained that although the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been introduced
in other districts, it was felt that it did not provide enough value to make it viable in
North Norfolk. Evidence indicated that the growth that was planned in the district
could be delivered without CIL and as market conditions continued to remain
uncertain and delivery rates for development were already below required targets, it
was likely that many large scale proposals would be unable to deliver fully policy
compliant development whilst remaining commercially viable. Consequently, it was
recommended that consideration of introducing the Community Infrastructure Levy
should be suspended and reconsidered at a future date when there were clearer
signs of economic recovery.
Members were invited to ask questions:
a.
b.
c.
Mr E Seward commented that parish and town councils would be concerned at
the loss of income if CIL was introduced. Mr T Ivory agreed and said that the
Council would continue to use s106 agreements for the foreseeable future.
Mr G Williams agreed that the introduction of CIL should be postponed. He said
that one advantage of CIL was that resources could be applied across the district
whereas s106 agreements applied to specific areas. He said that he hoped the
Council would voice its support for the Government to make s106 agreements as
effective as possible.
Mr N Lloyd asked whether the Council had considered incremental
developments at a smaller level where CIL would have benefitted the district and
s106 agreements would not. Mr T Ivory replied that if developers chose this route
specifically to avoid s106 agreements then that would be unacceptable. He
reiterated that CIL was not a viable option at this time for the district.
It was proposed by Mr B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Mr T Ivory and
RECOMMENDED to Council:
That consideration of the potential introduction of CIL is suspended.
Reasons for the recommendation:
To encourage the delivery of development in the District.
Cabinet
4
15 July 2013
40.
HOUSING INCENTIVES
The Portfolio Holder for Housing, Mr T Ivory, introduced this item. He explained that
work undertaken in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy on development
viability had indicated that the Core Strategy policy site size threshold and affordable
housing percentage requirements were not viable for many locations across the
district, particularly when combined with other policy requirements. It was therefore
proposed that for a temporary period, various measures would be introduced to
incentivise housing development.
Mr Ivory concluded by saying that he had been very disappointed with the press
coverage which had implied that the policy was aimed at reducing the delivery of
affordable housing. He said that at the moment no affordable homes were being built
and it was anticipated that this policy would lead to an increase in the number of
affordable homes across the district. The Leader agreed with his comments. The
Deputy Leader added that the New Homes Bonus (NHB) provided an even greater
incentive for the Council to encourage the development of new homes.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett referred to a Motion which herself and Mrs S Arnold had raised at
Full Council some time ago proposing a reduction in the affordable housing
percentages. She said that she was pleased to see these proposals finally coming to
fruition.
Members were invited to ask questions:
a. Mr G Williams said that the evidence showed that there was a need to do
something and he supported the overall thrust of the proposals. However, he did
have some concerns regarding the proposed relaxation of the Level 3 Sustainable
Homes construction standards. He felt that sustainability could improve the
saleability of homes and that as there would only be minor cash savings for
developers, Cabinet should reconsider this aspect of the proposals. Mr T Ivory
replied that evidence suggested that there was no increase in a property’s value if
it was energy efficient and so the additional cost of meeting sustainability
requirements was imposed on the developer and then not reflected in the sale
price. Consequently lower levels of affordable housing were being delivered. He
added that Building Regulations had come a long way in recent years and
required homes to be much more energy efficient now.
b. Mr N Lloyd commented on the large number of construction workers currently
unemployed and said that he was supportive of any initiative that supported
development. He wondered whether a regular review was planned to ensure that
the number of homes being built did actually increase. Mr T Ivory replied that it
was a temporary measure and that all planning applications must be submitted
prior to 1 September 2014 if they wanted to take advantage of the proposals. A
review would take place after this date. He took the opportunity to thank Mrs J
Fisher, Mr M Ashwell and Mrs N Turner for all their hard work.
c. Mr P High, Local Member for Holt commented on the fact that one of the current
sites in the town fell within the 20% affordable housing zone whilst the other two
sites fell within the 45% zone. He felt that the gap between the two zones was too
large and could cause problems. He also believed that 20% was too low and that
there was already some flexibility available to officers to ensure that the best
figure was reached. Mr T Ivory replied that any developments in Holt were subject
to viability and could be negotiated. In response to the concern that 20% was too
low, he said that the tables within the report demonstrated why 20% was the
optimal affordable housing target as it was the level at which most sites were
viable. The Planning Policy & Property Information Manager added that for
Cabinet
5
15 July 2013
administrative efficiency, it was proposed that only two zones would be
introduced. The A148 was used as a boundary for the zones and this was why
Holt had differing affordable housing targets. It was generally acknowledged that
there was a difference in property values either side of the bypass so it was felt
that there was a justification for having two zones within one town.
d. Mr E Seward said that he agreed with Mr G Williams’ comments regarding
sustainable homes. He felt that people would be able to reduce their energy bill if
their homes were more energy efficient.
Mr T Ivory said that this scheme was only part of the picture. Access to finance was
very important and the Government’s scheme aimed at helping first time buyers
could not work in North Norfolk if there were no new homes available to buy.
It was proposed by Mr T Ivory, seconded by Mr R Oliver and
RECOMMENDED to Council:
1.
2.
3.
That the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, slow housing
delivery rates, and the CIL housing viability evidence are sufficiently material to
justify the revised affordable housing site size thresholds and percentage
requirements outlined in part 4 of this report in the determination of individual
residential planning applications.
That the incentive scheme set out in part 4 is approved
That the measures outlined in the report are widely advertised within
communities and the development industry.
Mr B Cabbell Manner did not participate in the discussions and abstained from voting.
Reasons for the decision:
To encourage higher levels of house building in the District and help address the
identified shortfall in new house completions.
The Meeting closed at 10.50 am
_______________
Chairman
Cabinet
6
15 July 2013