Agenda and minutes

None received.

None.

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

None received.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 12^th July 2023.

Minutes of the meeting held on 12^th July 2023 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 Democratic Services Manager with seven clear working days’ notice, to include an item on the agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The following matter was submitted for consideration by Cllr C Cushing:

‘I am mindful that we have been seeking more detailed information on the NWHAZ project at various times since October 2022, and so far not received any adequate responses. I understand that responses have been chased on the Committee’s behalf through the offices of the Chief Executive. Please can we be advised of the progress on those matters and when we are likely to receive acceptable responses so that we move towards some form of closure without further delay.’

      i.        The Chairman referred to a question received from Cllr C Cushing on the NWHSHAZ project and read-out the question to the Committee.

     ii.        The CE stated that there had been correspondence around some elements of the funding of the project, and that communications between the Chairman of the Committee and officers had resulted in a meeting with the Chair, Vice-Chair, Cllr N Housden, the DFPCC, and the ADSG. He added that the meeting was reported to have been useful, but otherwise he was happy to provide a written response, unless there were any further questions.

    iii.        Cllr C Cushing stated that he had raised the issue as the original questions had been raised in December 2022, on the basis that previous project updates had given no indication of the need for additional funding. He added that there was no indication within the funding request as to how the figure had been calculated, and this was therefore requested by the Committee in a not unreasonable request. It was noted that any change requests made throughout projects should be properly explained, and it was surprising that this had not been included in the original report. Cllr C Cushing asked when the requested information would eventually be provided, given that it had been requested in December 2022.

   iv.        Cllr S Penfold stated that he was not in full agreement with Cllr Cushing, as it was his opinion that the funding request had been fully explained. He added that despite this, the meeting held with officers had been useful for providing greater detail on the questions raised by the Committee. It was noted that the project was yet to be completed, and some figures contained within the £400k remained to be determined. Cllr S Penfold stated that it would have been helpful if there had been some warning of the potential need for additional funding earlier in 2023.

     v.        Cllr N Housden stated that he agreed with Cllr Cushing, and said that he had raised the initial question about project contingency, and whilst the meeting with officers had been particularly helpful, it was unfortunate that the information could not have been provided in a more timely manner. He added that in future the Committee should be more investigative in its questioning, and he would like to see shorter, more definitive reports going forward.

   vi.        The Chairman stated that despite the positive meeting with officers, it had still taken several months to review requested information, and efforts had to be made to improve information sharing. He added that many new Committee Members would be unaware of the full details surrounding the matter, and therefore proposed that it would be helpful to have a concluding report at the next meeting to draw together key points and outline the context of the discussion. Cllr N Housden seconded the proposal.

  vii.        It was noted that a written reply would also be prepared in respect of the question posed by Cllr C Cushing, but in reference to requests  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

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

At the July meeting of Full Council recommendations relating to the Outturn report and Treasury Outturn report were approved.

The DSGOS stated that recommendations from the Outturn and Treasury Management reports had been accepted at the July meeting of Full Council.

Cllr L Shires – Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets introduced the report and stated that the budget position could fluctuate significantly, but the projected full year overspend of £25k was expected to come from IT costs and returns from the cancelled Mammoth Marathon. She added that she welcomed comments on the format of the report to ensure Members fully understood the financial information provided.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr C Cushing noted that there had been a number of additions to the budget since February, and asked whether there was a systemic reason for this, and whether the Finance Team were able to cope with the significant changes. Cllr L Shires replied that on issues such as the Marram’s footpath expenditure, it was a matter of health and safety, though it was right to ask why the Council had not been more proactive in maintaining the footpath to avoid unexpected costs. It was noted that public conveniences in Holt had been hit by a car, and additional funding was required to repair and improve the facility. Cllr L Shires stated that many other budget additions were the result of external funding received, and would not negatively impact the Council’s finances.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing stated that external audit sign-offs were known to be two years behind schedule, and in addition to EY’s limited resources there had also been resource limitations in the Finance Team, and sought assurance that the Team would be given adequate resource to meet requirements. He added that the report contained much more information than was required for a quarterly update, and suggested that it may help to make reports more concise going forward. Cllr L Shires replied that a fine balance had to be found on the level of information provided as it was sometimes helpful to include all information to be able to drill down into issues. She added that she did aim to make the reports as accessible as possible, and additional training could be arranged if required.

     iii.          The Chairman referred to the backlog in annual accounts sign-off and asked whether the financial starting position of each year could be considered sound, and not subject to change. He added that this represented a risk which had not been recognised in section nine of the report, and asked whether there was a reason for this. Cllr J Toye stated that this issue was discussed at GRAC where it had been acknowledged as a risk, but remained hopeful that the 20/21 accounts would be signed-off by the end of the week, with an expectation for the 21/22 accounts to be signed-off by March 2024. He added that despite the concerns, the Council was clear of many financial issues faced by other authorities. It was noted that several accounting disagreements on the annual accounts which had delayed sign-off related to recording practices rather than financial discrepancies, with a pension fund allocation the final issue that had to be agreed for sign-off. The Chairman acknowledged the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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 stated that pressure had continued on affordable housing in a difficult landscape with approximately sixty-five people in temporary accommodation due to increased levels of homelessness. He added that the Invest North Norfolk initiative had been launch and the Council had received a good level of contact on grants, whilst the Cedars building had sixty percent tenancy agreed in principle with further solid interest. It was noted that further capital investment had been made to support businesses and to meet net zero goals, whilst customer contact had also increased significantly. Cllr T Adams informed Members that works on the solar project at the Reef had been completed and was performing exceptionally well, whilst leisure centres continued to exceed expectations in terms of use and membership. He added that thanks should be given to the RNLI and lifeguards for all their work throughout a busy summer, and that public convenience works had finished in Fakenham, with attention now turning to Holt. It was noted that Council Tax collection remained strong and showed exemplary performance from the Team.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr V Holliday referred to housing and suggested that this could be a topic for investigation with issues such as the loss of private rentals, and asked whether the Council could take any steps to address this. She added that delivery of affordable housing was also difficult, with over one hundred planning applications waiting, and asked whether any affordable housing applications could be given priority, once nutrient neutrality issues had been resolved. Cllr T Adams stated that there were a number of factors influencing homelessness and the Council was doing what it could to help those in situations of domestic violence, family breakdown, and other issues causing homelessness. He added that thought did need to be given to prioritisation of planning applications once nutrient neutrality restrictions had been resolved, but it was not a conversation that he’d been involved in. It was noted that there were also businesses struggling with delays to development, and there had to be a balance to the consideration of applications. The ADP stated that conversations on clearing the backlog of planning applications had begun, with recent news suggesting that the Government may try to reverse nutrient neutrality legislation. He added that the Council had in excess of one-hundred applications in its backlog, and clearing these would be a significant challenge. It was noted that whilst affordable housing was a relevant consideration, it was not the only one, and the process had to be dealt with in a fair manner. Cllr W Fredericks stated that work had begun with an independent consultant to determine how to deliver affordable homes faster, but it was a complex subject and would be discussed as part of the Corporate Plan workshop sessions. She added that not all affordable housing was delivered separately from market value housing, and developers often had to deliver market value housing to make affordable housing viable.

      ii.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Cllr J Toye introduced the report on behalf of Cllr L Shires and stated that the Council were the top in Norfolk and top five nationally for business rates collection, and top eleven nationally and second in Norfolk on council tax collection. He added that there had been a significant shift from housing benefit claims to universal credit during the pandemic, which had made recovery more difficult, as housing benefit mis-payments could not be recovered through universal credit.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr V Holliday stated that it was a difficult report to understand, but she had received support and advice from the RM. Cllr J Toye asked whether there were any points that made the report easier to understand, to which Cllr Holliday replied that it contained a lot of technical language and Covid movements had not been clearly labelled, which could be improved with a glossary of terms. Cllr S Penfold agreed that a glossary of terms would be particularly helpful.

      ii.          Cllr N Housden referred to the changes in housing benefit to universal credit, and stated that it would be useful to understand how and when this change had taken place. The RM replied that the report covered a number of services and stated that housing benefit overpayments and collections were a complex issue but information could be sought from HMRC.

     iii.          The RM stated that one of the key recommendations in the report was to increase the delegated authority limits for debt write-offs, with Team Leaders limits doubled to £4000, whilst the RM’s limit would double to £20k to make the service more efficient. He added that the DFR and deputy 151 officer would be given the authority to write-off debts of up to £30k whereas figures over this would be referred to the DFR or CE in liaison with the Portfolio Holder. It was noted that debts as a result of insolvency were unavoidable and could not be recovered, whilst other common reasons for write-offs included ‘gone aways’ where those with debts could not be found. The DFR referred to performance and stated that business rates arrears had stood at £329k, with £200k collected since 1^st April brining total arrears down to £129k. He added that council tax arrears had stood at £4.1m, with £759k collected since 1^st April, bringing the total down to £3.3m.

    iv.          Cllr N Housden stated that it would be helpful to know whether the number and level of debt write-offs was comparable to national standards, to which the RM replied that national guidance was provided and write-offs were treated with careful consideration.

      v.          The DFC stated that universal credit enabled a single payment of benefits, and whilst this did not affect all claimants, some benefits covered by this payment were now more difficult to reclaim. He added that it may be more efficient for benefit claimants, but did make the Council’s job more difficult.

    vi.          The recommendations were proposed by Cllr P Fisher and seconded by Cllr M  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The DFPCC introduced the report and informed Members that cases referred to in the report were live cases, and only a limited amount of information could be provided to the Committee in a public meeting.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr C Cushing stated that he found it difficult to understand which cases were getting better or worse from the content of the report and suggested that it would benefit from an executive summary to highlight key points. He added that the report would also benefit from a table to show the number of enforcement cases and a timeline to gain better perspective on the number of cases resolved. The DFPCC stated that the update focused primarily on the eighteen significant cases, with four of these outlined in the report. He added that of this eighteen, four were related to Melton Constable Hall, which was a particularly complex issue. It was noted that others included properties in Fakenham, Tattersett, and Cley amongst others. It was noted that the update covered combined enforcement which included revenues matters as well as planning issues, in order to bring properties back in to use.

     ii.        The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to use specific dates and metrics to help clarify actions within the report. He referred to a stated reduction in caseload though the caseload appeared to have increased and suggested that the report may require amendment.

    iii.        Cllr S Penfold referred to the case in Norwich Street Fakenham and asked when a report would be submitted to Cabinet and what steps were being taken to recover all money owed to the Council by the freehold owner of the property. The ADP stated that he had recently taken the lead on the case and expected a report on potential actions by the end of the calendar year. He added that this would not necessarily conclude the action, but would determine which course of action should be taken going forward.

   iv.        Cllr V Holliday referred to the number of enforcement cases closed and asked how many had been closed as a result of enforcement action and how many were the result of action no longer being required. The DFPCC replied that he would provide a written reply after the meeting.

     v.        Cllr N Housden referred to Tattersett and suggested that it would be helpful to provide potential end dates to proceedings with best and worst case scenarios, to provide clarity on progress. The DFPCC replied that Sutton Mill did have an expected date of completion, whereas Tattersett was expected to take approximately two years to complete if progress wasn’t improved, and he would endeavour to provide this information where possible.

   vi.        The Chairman referred to the case of the King’s Head in Hoveton and declared that it was in his ward, and whilst he was mindful that it was a joint authority issue, he saw little evidence of any progress in closing the case from either authority. He added that the building had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The ADP introduced the report and stated that it had been requested to understand the role and performance of statutory planning consultees in responding to applications. He added that approximately fifty percent of the PSIP actions had been completed, with the remainder expected to be completed by the end of the municipal year, which would tie in with commitments in the Corporate Plan. It was noted that customer feedback had been sought from applicants, but very few responses had been received. The ADP stated that statutory consultee data was provided in section six of the report, and noted that statutory consultees had a period of twenty-one days to either comment or decline to comment on the application. He added that applications could not be determined until the consultation period had been completed, though it was noted that this timeframe did not coincide particularly well with Parish and Town Council meetings, which meant that late comments were often received after the consultation period. It was noted that information on application extensions was also included, in respect of the eight week target date for determination which could be extended with the agreement of the applicant or agent, though officers were keen to see the number of extensions reduced. The ADP sated that beyond this, officers were keen to develop a broader range of KPIs for the Planning service that would help Members better understand performance.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that the frequency and timing of Town and Parish Council meetings not syncing with planning consultations would likely always be an issue, but it was encouraging to hear of the flexibility offered. The ADP replied that whilst there was some flexibility, he encouraged Members on Parish Councils to contact case officers in advance if it was known that there would be a late submission.

      ii.          The Chairman referred to agreed extensions and noted that there was a balance to be struck between the quality of work and applicants needs, and asked whether businesses that offered economic growth were given any priority. The ADP replied that there were many different calls on priority, and the aim would be that extensions were only sought where more information or a response was required from the applicant, rather than as a result of delays caused by the Council.

     iii.          Cllr P Fisher referred to comments that some Parish and Town Councils were better at responding to consultations than others, and noted that he had requested training for Wells TC’s new influx of Councillors, and asked when this would be delivered. The ADP replied that this training had been discussed at a recent meeting of the Town and Parish Council Engagement Forum, and the first session had recently been held in Stalham, with Wells next in-line. The DFPCC stated that he would like to see training offered to Wells and the surrounding areas by late October or early November, to allow ample warning for attendance.

    iv.          Cllr N Housden asked whether on the whole statutory  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

The DSGOS introduced the report and informed Members that it covered the work of the Committee throughout the 2022/23 municipal year prior to many current Committee Member’s election to the Council. He added that Members should draw their attention to the key issues section of the report and outlined that the first related to twenty-nine instances where apologies had been given with only nine substitutes arranged, equating to approximately three apologies per meeting. The second point related to access to information, which had been a key concern for some Members of the Committee, having taken approximately ten months to receive requested information on the NWHSHAZ project. The third issue related to delays with financial reports, with some delayed by an entire quarter, which had a significant impact on the Committee’s and Cabinet’s work programme. The final point related to the PCC giving very short notice of his inability to attend a meeting, and it was therefore suggested that a substitute would be sought for his next briefing. The DSGOS stated that the Committee had made seventy-three recommendations to Cabinet and Council, not including action requests made to officers, with only three recommendations not supported as they related to urgent requests that could not be completed. He added that this was a positive sign that recommendations were well founded and that the Committee had a meaningful impact on Council business.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        The Chairman suggested an amendment that would take account of Cabinet’s role in helping to provide information requested by the Committee, and proposed that ‘and Cabinet Members’ be added to the second bullet point in the recommendations. Cllr S Penfold stated the recommendation was too broad, as it was only selected instances where information had not been provided as requested. He added that in most cases information was provided in a timely and satisfactory manner, and suggested that the addition of ‘some’ information, may be a helpful amendment. The Chairman agreed that it was a fair point and suggest that he would be willing to accept the amendment.

     ii.        Cllr S Penfold stated that as Vice-Chair he had not seen the report and suggested that it would have been helpful to have reviewed a draft by email, but accepted that he had missed the pre-agenda meeting where it was discussed. He added that comments on the NWHSHAZ did not reflect the divergence of opinion that was held by the Committee, and suggested that he amongst other Committee Members felt that the necessarily level of information had been provided to justify the funding uplift. It was suggested that ‘some Members felt that’ could be inserted before ‘the requested information’ to again show that there was a divergence of opinion on the matter.

    iii.        Cllr N Housden stated that he would prefer the report to stay as written, as the issues identified a point in time when information had not been provided, as requested by the Committee. He added that it was unacceptable for the Committee to have to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

No questions raised by Members.

RESOLVED

1.     To receive and note the report.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS informed Members that the Managing Performance report had been delayed due to sickness absence, and Cabinet would therefore review the item in October. He added that a number of reports had been deferred from the October Cabinet work programme, and as a result only four reports were expected, with others delayed until November.

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.

       i.          The DSGOS stated that whilst the Managing Performance report had been delayed due to sickness, the officer responsible for the benchmarking and contextual reports was also on long-term sickness absence, and as a result would not be able to provide the reports until December, alongside the next Managing Performance Report. He added that pre-scrutiny of the Delivery Plan was on the work programme for October, but the workshops planned to form the actions were not expected to conclude until after the October the agenda had been published, but efforts would be made to get a report to Committee Members prior to the meeting. It was noted that access to NHS dentistry services was expected on the October agenda for discussion, and information requests had been made to the ICB accordingly, though attention should also be paid to any work done by NHOSC. The DSGOS stated that a review of the Scrutiny Panel terms of reference would also be brought forward so that the Committee was able to respond accordingly when Corporate Plan projects began.

      ii.          The Chairman suggested that it may be useful to hold a workshop to discuss the work programme for the remainder of the year ahead.

RESOLVED

To note the Overview & Scrutiny work programme.

ACTIONS

Online workshop discussion to be held on arrangement of 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.”