Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr S Bütikofer and Cllr A Varley.

Cllr J Toye.

To receive questions / statements from the public, if any.

None received.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 28^th September and 12^th October 2022.

Minutes of the meetings held on 28^th September and 12^th October 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

None received.

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.

None declared.

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None received.

To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days’ notice, to include an item on the agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

None received.

To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or recommendations:

The DSGOS informed Members that he was in the process of arranging a meeting with the Leader and Cllr V Holliday to discuss the potential inclusion of further contextual information within performance reports.

To receive and note the report, or consider any necessary recommendations.

The DFC introduced the report and informed Members that Serco were now several collection cycles into the new operating model and whilst performance had begun to improve, frustration remained around the rate of improvement. He added that repeated issues seen at Ward level needed to be bottomed-out to resolve ongoing issues for residents. The SCM reported that Serco was in week nine of the twelve week changeover period, with North Norfolk’s changeover being the largest of the tripartite agreement. He added that collection crews had previously operated on an east or west basis, but this had changed to a near and far model, so most crews had new areas to learn, leading to some missed collections in new areas. It was noted that crew members had been mixed to ensure a base level of knowledge across the District, whilst six additional vehicles had been brought-in on a temporary basis to catch-up missed collections with agency crews. The SCM noted that it had been difficult to recruit drivers, which had impacted collections, though a full support crew was now in place with staff working overtime to ensure that bins were collected.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        The Chairman sought an explanation for missed collections from Serco, to be followed by comment from NNDC officers. The SCM replied that the primary issue was the scale of the change, with over ninety percent of collection days changing, which had caused some residents to put their bins out on incorrect days. He added that drivers had also had to learn new routes as a result of the near and far model, and it could take several weeks for drivers to fully adapt, but maps had been shared with drivers to address problem areas. The DFC agreed that changes to collections had been significant, and it was accepted that there would be a settling-in period. He added that whilst the change would allow Serco to be more efficient, it did come with a degree of unfamiliarity for the drivers and crews. It was noted that there had also been national issues such as driver shortages, which had affected all sectors dependent on HGV drivers that Serco could not fully mitigate. The DFC noted that changeover plans were also based on the premise that everything would go as planned, but this could not account for unforeseen circumstances such as vehicle breakdowns, accidents or significant crew sickness, which would all have an impact on collections. He added that these issues had begun to be addressed with additional agency drivers and temporary vehicles, but there was more to be done.

     ii.        The Chairman asked with the benefit of hindsight, what might have been done differently in the lead-up to the transition. The DFC replied that Serco had undertaken a significant preparatory work and whilst the vast majority of residents had their bins collected successfully, all efforts were being made to ensure the service ran effectively as soon as possible. He added that it should be noted that some issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

To receive and note the report, and consider the frequency of any future updates.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett – Portfolio Holder for Coast introduced the report and informed Members that Coastal Management was a primary outward facing service of the Council, with the coast being a key economic driver that presented some of the most significant risks to the District.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The HCPE gave a presentation on the strategic aims of CPE and noted that significant work had taken place to address climate change, coastal erosion and flooding in the past five years, with many areas at high risk from rising sea levels and other climate change impacts. She added that responding to this would involve adaptation, alternative approaches to coastal management and further innovation that CPE were focused on delivering. It was noted that the skills and resources of CPE were shared across East Suffolk, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk District Councils, with a joint business plan to address the Council’s responsibilities and a wider aim to develop a climate resilient coast. The HCPE outlined the governance structure of CPE with two Councillors from each Council, alongside an operational officer group, and a wider team structure covering engineering, funding, resilience and special projects, amongst others. She added that CPE were also worked with several other groups including the National Coastal Group Network, the East Anglian Flood and Coastal Committee, and the LGA’s Coastal Special Interest Group to share knowledge and learn from others across the Country. It was noted that officers would also attended Select Committee meetings in Westminster to ensure that coastal adaptation remained a priority on the national political agenda. The HCPE reported that CPE had a £200m funding programme to cover the next ten years, with £500k per year spent on maintaining existing defences. She added that as significant erosion continued, emergency works and temporary defence barriers would remain a key part of CPE’s work, with an aim to transition from reactive to planned work to protect the coast.

      ii.          Cllr H Blathwayt referred to the most vulnerable part of the coast between Cart Gap and Winterton that was managed by the Environment Agency (EA), and asked whether officers were satisfied that their work, communication and funding to defend this area was satisfactory. The CMN replied that as a risk management authority, NNDC had responsibility for erosion areas that extended to Cart Gap, with flanking flood risk areas covered by the EA. He added that EA were a highly capable body for coastal management, and the area referred to was part of the Broadland Futures Initiative, which meant that it was subject to regular monitoring under Hold the Line Policy, and was in good hands with the EA.

     iii.          Cllr J Toye noted that many organisations were involved in coastal management and asked if this was too complex, and whether this delayed matters such as minor repairs. The HCPE replied that there had to be a lead authority, and whilst an alternative such as a national authority could be considered, the local level of understanding was not available  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Alison Chubbock, 07967 325037, alison.chubbock@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and informed Members that it would ordinarily form part of the outturn report, in-line with CIPFA best practice.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The recommendation was proposed by Cllr P Fisher and seconded by Cllr H Blathwayt.

RESOLVED

1.     To recommend to Full Council that the out-turn position in respect of the 2021-22 Prudential Indicators are approved

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information, and which are not published elsewhere)

Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and informed Members that there were noticeable differences from the previous budget monitoring report, with the impact of inflation clearly having an effect on the Council’s finances. He added that Members should note the impact of the staff pay award and energy price inflation, in addition to leisure centre, property and plant running costs. It was noted that despite these increases, the Council was in a better financial position than many, but work was needed to reduce cost pressures, with further inflation expected. Cllr T Adams stated that the Council remained committed to existing services, and whilst other authorities had reduced services, it was fortunate that the new more efficient Reef facility cost substantially less to run than its predecessor.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman asked if the forecasted overspend was identified as a key risk on the corporate risk register, to which the CE replied that the Council’s financial position was identified within the register and would be considered by GRAC in December. He added that he would consider whether the risk needed to be increased, with more focus placed on mitigation measures such as a review of vacant posts.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye referred to borrowing interest and noted that whilst a strong investment position continued to outweigh borrowing costs, he asked how long this could be sustained. The GA replied that this had been forecast to March 2023, but beyond that time investments and borrowing would be reconsidered as part of the budget setting process.

     iii.          Cllr V Holliday referred to mitigation measures and noted that reviewing service plans had not be prioritised, which she expected would be important to address the forecasted overspend. The CE replied that the Pandemic response had been prioritised over other actions, and whilst the Council was now operating in a different context, this would be considered as part of the upcoming budget setting process.

    iv.          Cllr C Cushing reiterated that with the financial position deteriorating from a moderate surplus to an overspend, he was concerned that actions were not being taken to address efficiencies that would help balance the budget in the year ahead. Cllr T Adams replied that he did not feel that the Council was inefficient, but with a new S151 Officer being appointed, balancing the budget would be an absolute priority. He added that Government had to be asked what actions they would take to help alleviate the additional pressures caused by inflation.

      v.          It was confirmed, following a question from Cllr N Housden that the staff pay award accounted for approximately £500k of staff inflation, and despite a two percent increase being expected, the agreed pay offer was just over five percent across the local government sector.

    vi.          The Chairman suggested that given the concerns raised, it may be prudent to amend the third recommendation to suggest that the forecasted overspend be added to the corporate risk register to be considered by GRAC at its December meeting.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and informed Members that he was very proud of the work achieved by officers across the Council, following a significant reprioritisation in response to the Pandemic. Despite this, he added that the Council had still achieved a number of priorities set-out within the Corporate Plan, and this report would outline which actions would be given priority in the lead up to the 2023 local elections.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr J Toye referred to red RAG status items within the report such as the Growth Sites Delivery Strategy, and asked whether this would still be delivered. He added that a proposal to develop a procedure and guidance note for registered social landlords was also outstanding, and asked if this would be progressed. Cllr T Adams replied that the Economic Growth Strategy was expected to come forward for consideration in December, but he would need to seek clarification on the other action.

     ii.        Cllr C Cushing stated that he was concerned that developing an economic strategy so late in the Council term would not be effective, and noted that the delay was difficult to justify. He added that KPIs for boosting business sustainability and growth did not appear within the Corporate Plan and asked why this was the case. Cllr T Adams replied that the Council had been granted an award for its efforts supporting businesses throughout the pandemic and noted that a more detailed response regarding the KPIs could be supplied in writing.

    iii.        The Chairman noted that it was unfortunate that this far into the Council term there was still not an Economic Growth Strategy in place to support the formation of the Local Plan and wider economy. He added that this was not a criticism of the reprioritisation, as this had been a necessary step during the Pandemic to provide vital support to businesses. It was suggested that it would have been prudent to enhance resources so that a strategy could have been brought forward at an earlier stage. The CE replied that whilst it would be appropriate for the Portfolio Holder to provide a written response on the preparation of an Economic Growth Strategy, discussions had taken place as to whether the Strategy would come to the Committee for pre-scrutiny in December, though this was yet to be confirmed. He added that the DFPCC had stated that the Economic Growth Strategy was not critical as an evidence-base for development of the Local Plan, as this would be based on separate evidence prepared by the BE Group on land supply for existing and future business growth. The CE suggested that economic growth in the District’s predominantly tourism-based economy relied on business support rather than land use, and the strategy was therefore not considered a prerequisite to the development and finalisation of the Local Plan.

   iv.        Cllr J Toye noted that he had recently discussed support for rural businesses with the local MP, and whilst the Economic Development Team were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS noted that there were a number of items expected in December including an updated RIPA Policy, though there were no substantive changes expected and it was therefore not expected to be reviewed by the Committee. He added that the potential for the Economic Growth Strategy to come forward in December had been raised, and he had made enquiries as to whether this could come for pre-scrutiny in advance of consideration by Cabinet, though a response remained outstanding. It was noted that the Cost of Living Summit had also taken place, and it was possible that actions were expected in the coming months, which the Committee may want to consider.

RESOLVED

To note the Cabinet Work Programme.

To receive an update from the Scrutiny Officer on progress made with topics on its agreed work programme, training updates and to receive any further information which Members may have requested at a previous meeting:

1.    Verbal update on Sheringham Leisure Centre Project Review requested

       i.          Cllr N Housden noted that he was still awaiting a written response from officers  regarding the NWHAZ contingency funds, and asked that this be shared in advance of the next meeting. The DSGOS replied that he had chased a response but was yet to receive the information, though it would be shared accordingly once available.

      ii.          The DSGOS informed Members that the Car Parking Usage report was expected in December, alongside the Fees and Charges report. He added that the Enforcement Update was expected, alongside the Beach Huts and Chalets Monitoring, and performance reports, which meant that December could be a busy agenda.

     iii.          The CE referred to a request made by the Committee for an end of project review of the Reef Leisure Centre, and noted that there had been some confusion over when this report could be expected. He added that the report would cover the delivery of the project, various decisions taken throughout the Pandemic such as the early demolition of the old Splash facility. It was noted that whilst a completion report could have happened sooner, there were retention funds held until twelve months after completion which had to be agreed, and assessing occupancy levels could now be included in a single report. The CE stated that the report was due to be completed before Christmas and would be presented to the Committee at its January meeting, having been prepared by a new officer with no preconceptions of the project.

RESOLVED

To note the Work Programme.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”