Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr J Toye and Cllr G Mancini-Boyle.

Cllr P Bütikofer for Cllr J Toye.

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

Dr V Holliday registered to speak as Chair of Cley Parish Council on behalf of the coastal parishes of Cromer, Holt, Sheringham, Wells, Blakeney, Cley, Kelling, Morston, Stiffkey and Wiveton. She stated that all parishes were concerned about long emergency ambulance response times, which she suggested put residents at risk.

Dr Holliday asked if response times could be regularly seen broken down by postcode. This was justified on the basis that current monitoring only broke down response times to district level. On category one calls, which were the most urgent, it was noted that the average response time was 10 minutes and 18 seconds, whereas for category two calls, the average response time was 27 minutes and 31 seconds. In terms of targets, emergency response times were set at 7 minutes for category one calls, and 18 minutes for category two. It was suggested that breaking down response times by postcode, would allow for greater variances to show. For instance, it was noted that for the NR23 postcode in May 2019, statistics showed that the average response time for category one calls was 18 minutes and 34 seconds, whereas category two were 35 minutes and 57 seconds. In the NR25 postcode, average category one response times were 11 minutes 33 seconds. In Norwich during the same period, category one average response times were just 5 minutes 41 seconds, whereas category two were 17 minutes 13 seconds. In Kings Lynn during the same period, average category one response times were 5 minutes 43 seconds, whereas category two were 18 minutes 41 seconds. In summary, Dr Holliday suggested that it was difficult to get regular response times data, and hoped that this request might be able to improve reporting practices.

Dr Holliday moved to a second question, and asked if the Committee could request that rapid response vehicles (RRVs) be kept in North Norfolk, as opposed to replacement with more double staffed ambulances (DSAs). She noted that there had been plans for RRVs to be phased out, though EEAST had decided that due to the rurality of the district it was safer to keep the RRVs, whilst also increasing the number of DSAs. She therefore asked the Committee to ensure that this was not a temporary measure.

Dr Holliday thanked the Committee for their time.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11^th December 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11^th December 2019 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

That the Corporate Director (SB) be added to the attendance list.

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:

1.    At its December 2019 meeting, Council voted to request that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee review the Council’s Diversity & Equality Policy.

2.    Please refer to Consideration of Ambulance Response Times Motion report, with regards to resolutions made at the November 2019 meeting of Council.

The Chairman informed the Committee that at the December meeting of Council, Members had resolved to request that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee review the Council’s Diversity and Equality Policy, as it had not been reviewed for several years. Members agreed that the Committee should review the policy, and it was proposed by Cllr L Shires and seconded by Cllr A Varley that the review be added to the Committees Work Programme.

The Chairman noted that the second recommendation in regard to the Council’s motion on Ambulance Response Times, would be discussed during item 12, for which a report had been prepared.

RESOLVED

That a review of the Council’s Diversity and Equality Policy be added to the Committee’s Work Programme.

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, Democratic Services & Governance Officer (Scrutiny),

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

The DS&GOS introduced the item and informed Members that he had prepared the report in response to a motion passed at the November 2019 of Council. He informed Members that, as requested within the motion, the CD (SB) had written to the CEO of EEAST to ask what actions were already being taken to address the issues. It was noted that a response was yet to be received. The DS&GOS informed Members that the motion also requested that the Committee explore the option of creating a Working Group to monitor response times, and engage with EEAST to develop an improvement programme. Finally, the motion requested that the voluntary Community First Responders be offered additional training and support to aid the ambulance service.

Questions and Discussion

The DS&GOS informed Members that he had been in contact with the Scrutiny Team Manager at NCC that managed the Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC), and had formed the recommendations of the report by taking into account their existing work on the issue. As a result, the first recommendation was to invite representatives of both the North Norfolk CCG and EEAST to a future Committee meeting to address the concerns raised and provide a briefing. This would allow Members to hear a first-hand account of the issues and the steps that were being taken to resolve them. On the second recommendation, the DS&GOS noted that NHOSC already undertook annual monitoring of response times. He noted that it was likely that their next report could be brought forward, and that there was a possibility that the issue could be reviewed more frequently. On the final recommendation, the DS&GOS noted that he had contacted the representative for the district’s Community First Responders, which had proved useful in identifying what support may be required.

The Chairman noted the comments of the guest speaker and asked whether the Committee would be happy to integrate the requests into the report’s recommendations. Cllr N Pearce stated that this would provide a constructive level of pressure, and he would fully support the approach.

Cllr T Adams stated that there was a need to increase the frequency of NHSOC’s monitoring of ambulance response times, and that Members should also consider taking part in a ride-along or visiting the operations centre for greater insight into the service. He added that the Committee had to be careful not to duplicate the work of NHOSC, and agreed that it would be helpful to invite the relevant representatives  of the NCCG and EEAST to a future meeting. The DS&GOS stated that both ride alongs and a visit to the Ambulance Operations Centre had been offered. The Chairman agreed that the Committee had to be mindful that it did not duplicate the work of NHOSC, though it was important that North Norfolk’s concerns were being represented at their meetings.

Cllr N Housden suggested that response times monitoring should be a learning process, and suggested that the recommendation to NHOSC should request  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

DRAFT - 2020/19 BUDGET REVIEW

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

Cllr E Seward – Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report and informed Members that pre-scrutiny was the start of the budget setting process, and that it was helpful to hear early views on the budget. It was noted that last year, a deficit of approximately £2m had been predicted, and whilst there was now a surplus predicted for the year ahead, this relied on a certain level of support from Central Government that was not expected in future years. Cllr E Seward added that there was still a deficit of approximately £2m predicted for the 2021/22 financial year, and that it was difficult to plan services without knowing what resources would be available. It was noted that this issue was not unique to North Norfolk, with local authorities across the country facing the same pressures.

Cllr E Seward informed Members that Council would decide on setting the level of Council Tax and the future of community funds such as the Big Society Fund (BSF), that required ongoing revenue. It was stated that a Council Tax increase had been assumed within the draft budget, and Cllr E Seward wished to make it clear that the NNDC increase was just under £5, whereas NCC’s was approximately £50. Furthermore, it was reported that for every £1 of Council Tax, just 8 pence was retained by NNDC.

Cllr E Seward stated that going forward, he would likely ask officers to prepare a zero base budget, in order to ensure all spending aligned with the Council’s corporate objectives. He added that whilst the Council still had healthy reserves, these were in the process of being unwound, and as a result, there were also plans for a review of the Council’s fees and charges.

Is summary, Cllr E Seward noted that responsibility for adequately managing the Council’s finances rested with all Members, and examples such as Northamptonshire County Council had been exacerbated by Councillors paying little attention to the budget setting process.

Questions and Discussion

The HFAM thanked Members for attending budget training, then explained the key financial issues facing the Council. He stated that whilst he was happy to present a balanced budget for the next financial year, there would still be challenges in the years ahead, with deficits of £1.8m-£2m predicted, though the Finance Team were looking to plan up to five years ahead. It was suggested that the Council’s reserves would fall from their current position of approximately £22m, down to £17m, then finally to £10m, as several projects were completed. This was still seen to be a good level of reserves, that many local authorities did not have.

As previously noted, the HFAM stated that budget calculations had assumed that the maximum £4.95 increase of Council Tax would be approved. Furthermore, it was suggested that Central Government would assume as part of its fair funding review, that all Councils would take the appropriate steps such as raising Council Tax, to raise revenue.

The HFAM stated that in total, the budget included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

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, 01263 516047, matthew.stembrowicz@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The DS&GOS introduced the report and informed Members that the protocol had been formulated as a means to clarify and formalise the existing working relationship between the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the Executive. He added that the formation of such protocols, was one of the key recommendations that had arisen from  the Statutory Guidance on Overview and Scrutiny in Local and Combined Authorities, which had been published by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government in May 2019.

Members agreed that the protocol was a positive step for maintaining the existing positive working relationship between the Committee and the Executive.

It was proposed by Cllr H Blathwayt and seconded by Cllr P Heinrich that the Committee recommend the protocol to Cabinet and Council for Approval.

RESOLVED

That the Executive-Scrutiny Protocol be recommended to Cabinet and Council for approval.

To receive a briefing on the progress of the Splash Leisure Centre Project.

Cllr V Gay – Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing introduced the update and informed Members that there had been no change to the expected opening date or the budget, and that work remained on-track. It was reported that the construction contingency now stood at £119k, and the re-siting of a problematic gas main would cost an estimated £27k. Communications of the project was noted to be moving forward, with a website now online for the public to view.

Questions and Discussion

The PPM introduced the website and talked Members through each area that could be used to update the public on the project’s progress. It was noted that a time-lapse video of the construction would soon be available. The PPM noted that the old Splash was still open for business during construction and had remained open over the Christmas period. She added that there were now 160 individuals signed-up to receive email updates on the project, and it was expected that the website would be able to answer many of the public’s questions and concerns.

Cllr N Pearce noted that within the update it was stated that there was a continued risk from the potential failure of the old site before the new facility was complete. He therefore asked when the old facility was due to close. The CD (SB) replied that the old facility would remain open until the new facility was complete.

Following a question from Cllr N Housden, it was confirmed that officers hoped to have links to the time-lapse videos of the project working imminently. Cllr N Housden noted his concerns that due to a lack of capacity in the Communications Team, major opportunities to promote the project that had been missed. Cllr V Gay replied that the website was part of the work being done to improve the promotion of the project, and noted that capacity in the Communications Team was a known issue that was under review. She asked if Members received a copy of the Metnor newsletter. Cllr N Housden confirmed that he had received a copy of the newsletter at the last meeting, but it did not adequately promote the project as hoped.

Cllr N Housden referred to the Council’s website and stated that despite declaring a climate emergency, there was no content on sustainability or actions being taken as a result of the declaration. The Chairman asked if there was any environmental proposals on the Council’s website. The CD (SB) replied that capacity issues in the Communications Team had limited the ability of the Council to develop its website content, and added that a job advert would be published for the Communications Manager position the following week. Cllr W Fredericks noted that the Council’s website help system was very poor, and asked whether it was necessary for the website to be added to the Committee’s Work Programme for review, to which Members were receptive.

It was proposed by Cllr P Heinrich and seconded by Cllr W Fredericks to note the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DS&GOS informed Members that the Enforcement Board update had been moved to the March meeting of Cabinet, and that it would follow for the Scrutiny Committee in the same month.

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.

The DS&GOS introduced the O&S Work Programme and informed Members that he would look to invite representatives for EEAST and NCCG to the March or April meetings, once the delivery plan had been reviewed.

The website issues were raised and it was suggested that a review of the Council’s website would likely be included in the job description of the new Communication’s Manager as part of developing a new communications strategy. The HLS added that customer service and website data could be gathered to feed into the customer focus work as part of the CP.

It was proposed by Cllr N Housden and seconded by Cllr W Fredericks that a review of the Council’s website be added to the Committee’s Work Programme.

RESOLVED

To add a review of the Council’s website to the annual 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.”