Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr N Dixon (Committee Chairman).

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 10^th April 2019.

The minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 10^th April 2019 were agreed as an accurate 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.

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 received.

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.  

The Committee made recommendations to Cabinet in relation to the Annual Action Plan. Cabinet agreed to take the following recommendations into consideration:

None received.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on the write the report and which do not contain exempt information)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: Duncan Ellis, 01263 516330, Duncan.Ellis@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The Portfolio Holder for Finance – Cllr E Seward introduced the Report and informed Members that it provided the final budget monitoring position for the 2018/19 financial year. It was noted that the outturn position at 31^st March 2019 showed an overall underspend of £969,666. Cllr E Seward reported that £273k of this was an underspend that was in-line with forecasts. The remaining figure of approximately £700k was the result of higher business rates returns than had been expected from central government. It was noted that the surplus had been placed in the general reserve.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr T Adams referred to the Fakenham Extra Care Scheme identified on page 34, and asked for further information. The Head of Finance and Asset Management replied that the Council had provided a capital contribution to support the scheme, and suggested that he could send a link with further details.

In response to a question from Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, the Head of Finance and Asset Management informed Members that an increase in wages for handymen had been driven by demand, and explained that with greater use of the Council’s public conveniences, came additional repair costs. He added that overtime was also included in the increase, with extra hours required for special events such as the Antiques Roadshow and BBC ident. Members were informed that the two events had generated approximately £11k of income for the Council, that would go some way to offset the cost of overtime payments.

Cllr N Pearce referred to the annual underspend, and asked whether something similar could be expected again in the future, despite predictions. The Head of Finance and Asset Management replied that the Council could possibly be less cautious when forecasting business rates returns, as it appeared that the tourism economy was still doing well in the district. Members were reminded however, that the fair funding review was pending, and this as well as a business’s rates review, could reset the base line, which would in-turn limit the Council’s additional income. As a result, the Head of Finance and Asset Management suggested that the Council ought to remain cautious, even though Brexit had to some extent delayed the funding reviews.

Cllr T Adams referred to Market revenue figures on page 31 that had not matched forecasts, and asked what had caused the variance in revenue. The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that there was a national decline in market trade across the country, and it was possible that traders were no longer being replaced as they retired.

Cllr N Housden referred to business rates retention and backlogs that had occurred with the NHS, and asked whether the Council had a contingency in place to cope with the backlog. The Head of Financer and Asset Management replied that the Council did have a business rates reserve of £1m, but acknowledged that there was still a backlog. He added that business rates refund would be backdated, and could amount to billions of pounds nationally.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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: Lucy Hume, 01263 516246, lucy.hume@north-norfolk.gov.uk           

The Portfolio Holder for Finance Cllr E Seward introduced the Report and informed Members that its aim was to indicate where the Council had invested, and the rates of return it had achieved.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr E Seward informed Members that the Council’s current investments were approximately £35m, which was notably higher than the Council’s reserves. Of this figure, approximately £20m had been put aside for capital projects. Members were informed that short term funds, such as revenue from collected council tax and benefits were invested prior to being utilised. It was suggested that capital project forecasting improvements could allow for wiser investments in the future.

Cllr E Seward informed Members that the Council was no longer borrowing for capital projects, though significant borrowing was still expected in order to fund the new Splash facility. In support of this, it was noted that whilst interest rates remained low, it was a good time to borrow.

The recommendations was proposed by Cllr P Heinrich and seconded by Cllr N Pearce.

RESOLVED

To recommend to Full Council that the Treasury Management Annual Report and Prudential Indicators for 2018/19 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)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Nick Baker, 01263 516221, Nick.Baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The Corporate Director (NB) introduced the Report and informed Members that it reported on the key work streams of 2018/19, and illustrated the position of the Council at the year end. He added that some projects would have progressed or changed since the Report was published, and that with the performance management software due to be updated shortly, reporting procedures would change accordingly.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr N Housden asked where Members could look to find trends in the data and statistics included in the Report, and suggested for example, if there was any visible trend in the housing waiting list increasing. The Corporate Director (NB) stated that he would need to seek this information from the relevant service area manager, but added that it was hoped that the new software would allow immediate access to this information. Cllr N Housden noted that the Report showed that visitor numbers had increased last year, though not dramatically, and asked whether climate information could be used to predict visitor numbers. The Corporate Director (NB) replied that climate data could be used to an extent, as there was a correlation with warmer weather causing sports centre use to go down, whilst beach use went up. He added that climate change could be expected to bring incremental changes, with higher visitor spending in warmer weather.

Cllr T Adams referred to long term empty homes data identified on page 97, and asked for further information. The Corporate Director (NB) stated that the data covered a wide range of properties, and that the key aim was for the homes to be empty for as short a time as possible. He stated that there were lots of reasons for the homes remaining empty, such as those in probate, some with anti-social behaviour issues and some held for family, but the ultimate goal remained to reduce the number of empty properties. The Corporate Director (NB) informed Members that an enforcement board update would come to the Committee in July, at which point penalties, such as 200% council tax charges for homes that remained empty for three years or more could be discussed in more detail. It was suggested that the number of LTE homes increasing from 137 to 151 was a normal level of growth, and whilst the Council had a good handle on empty properties in the district, it had to keep up the pressure. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked about the accuracy of the information, to which the Corporate Director (NB) replied that it was not perfect, but was considered accurate enough to be reported to central government and was monitored continuously. Cllr J Toye asked what percentage of homes in the district were empty, to which the Corporate Director (NB) replied that of the approximate 54k properties in the district, less than 1% were considered to be empty, which put the district in a good position when compared to the national average of 1.5%.

Cllr T Adams referred to planning targets identified on page 109, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

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:

Matt Stembrowicz Matthew.Stembrowicz@north-norfolk.gov.uk 01263 516047

Cllr T Adams introduced the Report and informed Members that the Task and Finish Group had been formed as a result of a CCfA prior to the election. The Group were yet to make any recommendations, but had considered several options which were included in the Report. It was noted that that many of the issues identified were functions of Norfolk County Council.

Questions and Discussion

The Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) provided further information on the work of the Task and Finish Group, and explained the limitations of NNDC’s ability to implement any recommendations, as it did not administer the necessary services.

Cllr N Pearce stated that he accepted that both highways and schools were not the jurisdiction of the District Council, but stated that the issues continued to persist, and therefore asked if the schools could be contacted to implement any recommendations. Cllr N Housden stated that he saw no benefit in continuing the Task and Finish Group, but asked if it would be possible to implement a ‘bike walk scoot’ style scheme via NCC. Cllr P Heinrich stated that there was no benefit in continuing the Task and Finish Group, and suggested that it would be difficult to encourage children to cycle on their own. He added that he had helped to promote a walking bus approach in Portsmouth.

Cllr W Fredericks stated that working parents would have significant time pressures, and therefore walking children to school may be difficult. She then asked whether work to introduce such a scheme could be outsourced to Broadland District Council. The Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) explained that BDC had in fact outsourced some of the implementation of the bike walk scoot scheme to NCC.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle suggested that car sharing was another opportunity that could be considered.

Cllr L Shires stated that she had been a school governor for six years, and had dealt with similar issues in the past, at which point a park and stride scheme had been implemented, though success was limited by a lack of viable pathways. Cllr T Adams suggested that pathways shouldn’t be such an issue at Sheringham Primary School, as it was located in a housing estate.

Cllr W Fredericks asked if any grants were available to help fund similar schemes, to which the Head of Economic and Community Development suggested that it was possible that the Big Society Fund might be possible, otherwise the community transport fund could be considered. Cllr T Adams asked whether the BSF was open to educational institutions, to which the Head of Economic and Community Development replied that this was not strictly the case, but it was possible that funding could be provided to a community organisation, though it would need to be properly constituted.

In reference to alternate parking arrangements for parents at the nearby community centre, the Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) stated that Sheringham TC had originally rejected the Group’s proposal to allow parking on the community centre car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Contact Officers, telephone number and email:

Emma Duncan, Head of Legal Services ext 6045

Emma.Duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Rob Young, Head of Economic and Community Development ext 6162

Robert.Young@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Matt Stembrowicz, Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) ext 6047

Matthew.Stembrowicz@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The Head of Economic and Community Development introduced the Report and informed Members that the Market Town Initiative scheme had given the district’s four inland market towns the opportunity to bid for £100k each, in order to make improvements to help reinvigorate the towns and highstreets.

Questions and Discussion

The Head of Economic and Community Development informed Members that following the first round of grant awards, approximately £130k remained to be awarded in the second round to each town respective of first round awards. He added that the original deadline for second round applications had been in February, however due to delays in seeking necessary information on bids, followed by the local and European elections, applicants were granted a two week period to make adjustments and resubmit bids, prior to the Working Group meeting to judge applications in July.

It was noted that a key aspect of the scheme was to encourage collaboration in the town between community organisations, which had worked well in North Walsham, but had not been as successful in other towns. Cllr T Adams asked how many applications had been received in the second round, to which the Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) confirmed that five applications had been received from across the four towns.

In response to a question from Cllr J Toye on monitoring, the Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) confirmed that a formal request for a progress report would be sent to successful round one applicants in the coming weeks, and that these would be presented to the Committee once received. In addition, an MTI process review was placed on the O&S Work Programme to be reviewed at the appropriate time once the scheme was nearing completion. The Head of Economic and Community Development added that applicants had been given specific funding condition agreements that had to be signed and returned prior to funds being granted.

Cllr N Housden referred to the Fakenham Facelift scheme and asked whether it was appropriate to fund improvements to independent businesses. The Head of Economic and Community Development replied that this issue was discussed by the MTI Working Group, who deemed that the scheme was justified on the basis that it made necessary improvements to the public realm, that would encourage increased footfall and spending in the proposed location.

Cllr P Heinrich asked how the success of the scheme would be measured, to which the Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) replied that the relative success of each project would be determined by its adherence to the purpose of the fund, and the benefits that had been brought to each town as a result.

RESOLVED

To note the work of the Market Towns Initiative Working Group to date.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) informed Members that the Cabinet Work Programme contained statutory items and would updated with additional items once the Corporate Plan had been finalised.

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 Democratic Services and Governance Officer (Scrutiny) informed Members that an annual Work Programme of statutory items had been included in the agenda for Members to review, and that a session to set the Programme with additional items would take place after the July meeting.

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.”