Agenda and minutes

There were no substitutes.

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 15 November 2023..

Minutes – there was one amendment to the minutes. During the Waste and Related Services Update (Minute 78) Cllr N Housden had asked Serco about the pesticide used to kill weeds and they had confirmed that it was glyphosate. This had been omitted from the minutes and Cllr Housden requested that it was included.

Cllr J Toye, Chairman of the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee (GRAC) referred to Minute 83, Coastwise – The North Norfolk Accelerator Programme and the following recommendation from Overview & Scrutiny Committee to GRAC:

‘To request that Governance, Risk & Audit Committee reviews the risks presented by the Coastwise Project in respect of the likelihood and impact elements of the risk scores (pre and post the mitigation actions) so that there is clarity about how those actions will work and thus provide greater reassurance that they are being managed effectively and who owns them’.

Cllr Toye said that the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee reviewed the risks and having clarified several key points, was satisfied that the additional evidence presented to them demonstrated that the proposed mitigation actions will work and therefore provide assurance that they are being managed effectively, with clear evidence of ownership for each action. During the discussion, the Committee emphasised the importance of ensuring that specialist knowledge was available to all in the Coastwise team to guard against any potential loss of key individuals.  It was established that there were systems in place and members were satisfied that this was being carefully monitored.

The Committee made the following recommendations:

To help members understand and quantify the risks, the risk register for the Coastwise project should include the following:

·         Additional information setting out the consequences of the risks.

·         Additional information setting out the impact of the mitigation actions.

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.

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None.

To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, submitted to the Democratic Services Manager 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:

There were no responses from Cabinet to recommendations made by the Committee.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Cllr L Shires, introduced this item. She began by explaining that it was going to the committee for pre-scrutiny and had not been seen elsewhere yet. Overview & Scrutiny Committee was being asked to recommend to Cabinet any areas where it felt savings could be achieved. Cllr Shires then drew members’ attention to the following key areas of the report;

-       Section 2.3 highlighted the rapid rise in temporary accommodation costs

-       Section 3.3 referred to the delayed introduction of the second homes premium which meant it could not be implemented for 2024.2025

-       Section 3.5 set out the impact of a proposed increase in council tax for 2024/2025.

Cllr Shires asked the Committee to consider how to balance the budget whilst minimising the impact on the residents of North Norfolk. Their needs must be considered as part of the challenging process to make savings.

The Chairman asked the Director for Resources (DFR) if she wished to speak. The DFR said that she would like to highlight section 3.4 of the report which highlighted the impact of pay inflation on the budget for the next few years. She reminded members that the budget for 2024/25 was not balanced and the Council needed to achieve this by the February meeting of Full Council. This meant that the Council would need to look at service delivery and managers had been asked to put forward proposals for savings. Cabinet and the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) would then consider these and report back to Cabinet in February. Overview & Scrutiny Committee would be able to review the savings proposals prior to that meeting if they wished.

The Chairman referred to section 3.3 of the report and the forecast deficit of £1.810m. He said that the predicted £600k overspend for 2023/24 was not included in the overall deficit and he asked whether it should actually be £2.4m.

Cllr L Shires replied that it was hoped that the forecast £600k overspend would be covered by the end of the year so it would not be carried over, however, temporary accommodation costs would continue to rise in the coming years unless government funding was provided.

Cllr S Penfold referred to the increase in homelessness and the rise in temporary accommodation costs. He suggested that there might be a role for the committee to look at some of the drivers for this problem and possibly invite the Police & Crime Commissioner to attend a meeting to respond to questions, particularly regarding the rise in domestic abuse cases.

Cllr V Holliday said that it wasn’t clear why the £600k overspend for 2023/2024 was not included in the forecast deficit. She then referred to the General Fund summary (Appendix A) and said that there were significant projected increases in the budget for the Communities and Resources service areas and she wondered whether there may be a possibility for savings there. The DFR replied that the rises related to increases in inflation and contract costs.

The Chief Executive (CE)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

The Chairman began by seeking clarification from the statutory officers about the requirements needed to scrutinise this document, in terms of skills, knowledge and competence. He referred to section 1.4 of the strategy document which set out the expectation that scrutiny committee members would be adequately trained in treasury management.

The Monitoring Officer (MO) advised that the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA) Treasury Management Code required members undertaking scrutiny of the strategy to have an adequate understanding of treasury management. In her view, this meant that specific treasury management training should be provided to members of Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Governance, Audit & Risk Committee (GRAC). She said that she understood that this training was being arranged through the Council’s treasury management advisers in the new year.

The DFR said that the committee was required to review the treasury management outturn report and members would receive the required training prior to that. Training could be provided for all members on treasury management in the new year.

The Chairman sought clarification regarding whether a formal record of members who had attended training was required. The DFR said she didn’t think it needed to be a formal record as such but attendance could be logged. The Chairman referred to page 45 of the agenda and the reference to a formal record of the treasury management / finance training received by members. The DFR said that the level of training required related to the complexity of the treasury management strategy and in her view, NNDC’s strategy was relatively straightforward with the majority of investments being held in either the money market fund or externally as managed investments, with no borrowing at the current time.

The Chairman asked members of the committee whether they felt knowledgeable enough to continue with scrutiny of this item. He said that it was linked closely to the Budget and MTFS and it may be necessary to make changes to the treasury management strategy to accommodate the future financing needs of the Council.

Cllr Housden said that he felt training was essential. It was likely that treasury management was a matter that would come up time and time again, given the severity of the Council’s financial situation that had been highlighted in the draft budget report.

Cllr Holliday said that she would like training. It was a complex subject and the terminology was difficult to understand.

Cllr L Vickers referred to paragraph 1.4 on page 8 of the report and said it clearly stated that members must be trained in treasury management, especially members responsible for scrutiny.

Cllr J Toye asked how much influence members could have on the strategy and the impact on the ‘bottom line’. The CE replied that the Council had a simple risks around financial exposure. It was debt free with reserves at approximately £22m and there were externally appointed advisers which managed the portfolio on the Council’s behalf. There were no investments in commercial retail or any property where there might be significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Cllr L Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance & Assets, introduced this item. She explained that the fees and charges were broken down by service area and the tables set out whether charges were statutory or discretionary and if they were set by Government or NNDC. She asked members to suggest services where additional income could be generated.

The Chairman invited members to speak:

Cllr R Macdonald referred to page 93 and the section on commercial services. He asked why the fee for officers’ time per hour was projected to be £4 less an hour in 2024/2025. The DFR said that she would look into this and provide a written response.

Cllr N Housden referred to page 83 and the fees for filming on Cromer Pier. He said that as someone with experience of working in the film industry, the Council could charge considerably more, adding that local wildlife parks charged three times the amount. The Chief Executive provided a brief history of the use of the pier for television programmes and filming. He said on those occasions the publicity and interest in Cromer and the wider district outweighed any income that would have been received from charging a fee. That said, he agreed it was a good example of where there was a competitive market and he would ask the Communications team to check that the charges were high enough. Cllr Housden asked about copyrighting images so that the Council could retain the rights to screen anything that was shot within the district. The CE confirmed that there were some licences in place for this. He added that there were several locations for filming and television production in the district and any demand had to be weighed against the loss of car park income and the impact on access for residents and tourists. The Chairman asked how advertising revenue came back to the Council and whether any ‘latent’ value from a production could be quantified in any way. The CE replied that it depended on whether it was a long-term series which was repeated over a period of time then it could have an impact in encouraging people to visit the district. Everything had to be weighed up and balanced. He added that there had been consideration at county level around operating a film office as it was felt that Norfolk locations could be a source of income stream. However, that was not what the current market indicated as many film companies were actually seeking payments to film in certain locations as they realised it had considerable benefits for the area.

Cllr Housden suggested that hosting a stage of the Tour de France could be a very lucrative way to bring money into the district. Any opportunity to host a race should be taken as the economic benefits, television revenue and spin offs could be huge.

Cllr Penfold said that the charges for filming on the pier did seem low and he asked whether the Council was proactive in promoting the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSM provided an update on the Cabinet Work Programme. She explained that as the Cabinet meeting scheduled for 4^th December had been cancelled, the programme for January was relatively full. The Housing Allocation Policy review would be coming to the March meeting of Cabinet and the two property transactions listed for the January meeting of Cabinet would now be coming to the February meeting instead.

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.

The DSM outlined the upcoming Overview & Scrutiny Committee work programme, reminding members that the Treasury Management Strategy would be coming back for consideration once the requested training had been provided.

The Chairman informed members that himself and the Vice-Chairman, Cllr Penfold, had discussed the LGA Peer Review recommendations relating to Scrutiny and how they could be addressed. They had agreed that it could be beneficial to engage an external facilitator, possibly from the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny (CfGS) to lead members through a constructive workshop-based process to consider the key observations highlighted by the Peer Review report. He asked members to indicate if they were supportive of such an approach. It was agreed that arrangements would be put in place to proceed on this basis, once the new Scrutiny Officer had started in post in early January. In response to a question from the CE regarding the scope of any work, the Chairman clarified that the intention was to focus on the Peer Review recommendations relating to scrutiny specifically, rather than the report as a whole.

Cllr J Toye, Chairman of the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee (GRAC) commented on the Peer Review and the references in the final report on the need for clarification on the division of the roles and responsibilities between Overview & Scrutiny Committee, GRAC and Cabinet. The Chairman replied that this was one of the wider aspects of the Peer Review that would be picked up as work progressed. The DSM advised that the ongoing review of the Council’s constitution would include a review of the terms of reference for each of the main committees, ensuring that the functions were set out clearly and that there was no duplication.

Cllr J Boyle said that as the Council’s appointed representative to the Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC), she felt it would be beneficial for regular updates on the work of NHOSC to be provided to Overview & Scrutiny Committee. The DSM advised that minutes from the NHOSC meetings had been circulated to Overview & Scrutiny Committee members in the past and this was one option. The Chairman said that he didn’t feel it would always be appropriate for the committee to receive an update. A lot of the work undertaken by NHOSC was at county level and not always relevant to NNDC. He suggested that information should be circulated to members on relevant topics, as they arose. He proposed that Cllr Boyle sent any NHOSC information to the DSM who would then assess it and share it with members, as appropriate.

The Committee then considered a request from the DFR to move the next meeting back by a week to allow more time for the finance reports to be prepared. An additional week would also allow time for treasury management training to be arranged. Members supported this request and it was agreed to cancel the January meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny scheduled for 17^th January and reschedule it for Wednesday 24th January.

Cllr M Hankins  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

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.”