Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr N Housden.

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 February 2020.

Minutes of the meeting held on 12^th February 2019 were agreed 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.

Cllr N Housden has submitted the following request:

‘Would the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the impact of Norfolk County Council’s proposed cuts to the Norfolk Music Service on children in the District? It is suggested that the number of tutors it currently provides are reduced by half and the cost of lessons to parents is increased by almost a fifth. This will have a significant impact on children living within the District, limiting their options to learn music and partake in extra-curricular activities that benefit their health and wellbeing. Although, the responsibility for the provision of music tuition sits with the County Council, the impact on our residents is potentially very significant.

The Chairman informed Members that whilst Cllr N Housden had given his apologies, he had submitted the following request for consideration by the Committee:

‘Would the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider the impact of Norfolk County Council’s proposed cuts to the Norfolk Music Service on children in the District? It is suggested that the number of tutors it currently provides are reduced by half and the cost of lessons to parents is increased by almost a fifth. This will have a significant impact on children living within the District, limiting their options to learn music and partake in extra-curricular activities that benefit their health and wellbeing. Although, the responsibility for the provision of music tuition sits with the County Council, the impact on our residents is potentially very significant.’

The Chairman stated that he was mindful of Cllr Housden’s absence, and reminded Members that a statement from NCC on the issue had been shared with Committee Members prior to the meeting. Cllr J Toye commented that the statement from NCC suggested that lessons would be cheaper, but it also appeared that there would be an increase to individuals. He added that anything that reduced extra-curricular activity would have an effect, and having previously worked in high schools, he knew that all Councils would be looking at making cuts to these services.

Cllr L Shires stated that the issue was a big difficulty, and that her son had previously taken drum lessons, but had now stopped due to timetable clashes. She added that the loss of 30 minutes of academic study for music lessons was not fully supported by teachers, and students had begun to avoid these lessons as a result. It was suggested that there had been up to a 30% fall in the number of children taking music lessons as a result of timetable clashes. Cllr T Adams agreed with Cllr L Shires’ concerns, and noted that music was very important to children’s learning and development. In terms of costs, he added that he would be surprised if the rise from £34 to £40 per hour was sustainable. Cllr T Adams then suggested that the reduction from 46 to 21 tutors could undermine the range of instruments available to students, and could also make music tuition more exclusive. He added that whilst music services were not a District Council function, there was potential for £700k of savings, and he expected it would go to Scrutiny at NCC, which could provide NNDC with an opportunity to communicate its concerns.

Cllr H Blathwayt commented that playing music aided the overall education of children, and he felt that it would be appropriate for the Committee to communicate its disquiet to NCC.

Cllr V Gay stated that the decision from NCC was very regrettable, and that if the Committee were minded to express its disquiet, it would be a good idea. She added that NNDC did do some work to develop music with young people, but this was a small part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

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

At the February meeting of Council held on 26^th February 2020, the following comments were made by the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance – Cllr E Seward, in response to the Committee’s recommendations on the 2020-21 budget:

“I should also like to thank members of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee for the very thorough way in which they scrutinised the Council’s draft budget at their meeting on January 15^th and for the recommendations they made. These recommendations were designed to improve the monitoring of the Council’s capital and revenue budgets against the key themes in the Corporate Plan which are followed through to the recently approved delivery plans. The administration welcomes this approach as we wish to be as transparent and open as we can with, what is, public money. It will aid good decision making.”

The Democratic Services & Governance Officer (Scrutiny) informed Members he had included in the agenda a statement made by the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance in acceptance of the Committee’s budget recommendations.

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 HFAM introduced the report and informed Members that with the end of the financial year approaching, a very small surplus was predicted and there were no issues to report. He added that of the three recommendations included in the report which had been accepted by Cabinet, the most significant was the acceptance of a new energy contract. The contract would enable 94.5% of the Council’s energy to be supplied from renewable sources, at a lower cost that would save approximately 64 tons of Co2 per year.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr P Grove-Jones noted that she had heard that interest rates would now fall to 0.25%, and asked how this might affect the Council. The HFAM replied that the base rate had a low impact on the Council, mainly with regards to overnight funds which had a very low impact on the Council’s overall investment income. Cllr P Grove-Jones stated that municipal bonds were an interesting means of raising money, and asked if the Council utilised these. The HFAM replied that the Public Works Loan Board could change its rates, and there were also alternatives in the market that could provide loan functions. He added that these providers would prefer to offer larger loans around the £15m mark. It was noted that the Council would borrow for costs related to Splash and the new waste contract, and these decisions would be made at the appropriate time.

Cllr N Pearce stated that whilst the report covered 43 pages, it did not show the level of work involved and he wished to place on record his thanks to the officers.

The Chairman referred to proposed changes to the Budget Monitoring Report that would bring it in-line with performance monitoring. It was noted that the level of detail from both reports would need to be condensed to focus on high level reporting, and this could be expected around June. The HFAM stated that the Committee’s budget discussion this year had been the best he’d seen, and it was now important that the Committee maintained the same approach of looking at strategic issues and additional pressures. This would reduce the focus of the reports to around 15 key issues, and aim to link more closely with the MTFP and performance reports. The HFAM suggested that the new Inphase system would aid the process of moving to this more joined-up approach, which would allow the Committee to get the best from the reports. The HLS added that she was involved in the work that had brought various teams together to deliver the new style of reporting, and added that the changes would be introduced slowly, with a focus on strategic direction over minor details. The Chairman agreed that it was important for the Committee to place greater focus on strategic issues to look at the bigger picture.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked for an update on the progress of the agreed scrutiny panels that would review the delivery of the Corporate Plan. The DS&GOS replied  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Following the adoption of the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism on 17 December 2019, Council agreed to refer the Equality and Diversity Policy to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee for review, together with the motion supported at Council, so that the policy could be updated accordingly.

The Notice of Motion to Council on 17 December was:

‘That this council accepts the request from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (letter attached) to adopt the following non legally binding working definition of anti-semitism:’

‘Anti-semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities’.

Please note – the attached policy statement (employment) is currently in draft form. Unison is in the process of being consulted and there may be amendments arising from this.

A full version of the Policy (dated 2006) is also attached.

The DSM introduced the item and informed Members that it had come to the Committee as a result of a motion to Full Council to accept a revised anti-Semitism  statement. She added that it was apparent that the Equality and Diversity policy document had not been reviewed since 2006, though a draft of the new associated employment statement was attached for review. It was suggested that it would be up to Members to determine how to review the policy.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr S Bütikofer stated that she was keen to look at a wider inclusion, and suggested that work to review the policy could be picked up as part of the work of the upcoming Scrutiny Panels. She added that after looking at the current policy, that there was a reasonable amount of work to be done, and that the anti-Semitism statement currently sat alongside the policy. The HLS informed Members that the policy formed part of the Council’s corporate governance framework, and as a result it must be addressed as a matter of priority, as it exposed the Council to risk. She added that officer resourcing would be required to draft a new policy.

Cllr E Seward stated that it was at the December meeting of Full Council during the anti-Semitism statement discussion that he had noticed when the policy had last been reviewed. He added that the Equality and Human Rights Commission had developed the Equality Act in 2010, and since then the understanding of equality had progressed significantly to become much more inclusive. He added that he had spent 30 years with the Committee for Racial Equality, so it was an issue dear to his heart and he believed the Council’s policy needed updating as soon as possible. Cllr S Bütikofer stated that she agreed with the comments of Cllr Seward, and added that whilst the issue was raised in relation to discussion around anti-Semitism, the policy must be updated to cover all communities. She added that big increases in hate crimes such as islamophobia were being seen, and it was important to address these issues.

The Chairman stated that the Committee needed to decide how the issue should be addressed, and suggested that it could form part of the work of the Scrutiny Panels that were in the process of being established.

Cllr J Toye stated that all Members needed to be involved, and that the Council should be sure not to exclude any groups from this involvement. He then referred to planning policy, and stated that ‘access to all’ should be a meaningful statement. The Chairman agreed but reminded Members that they needed to agree how to take the work forward, and suggested that everyone could provide input to the process at work-stream level.

The HLS suggested that officers could draft a policy if the Committee were to request resource for this as part of its recommendation.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle suggested that that this should be the start of a talking point, and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

To receive an update on the Sheringham Leisure Centre Project.

Cllr V Gay – Portfolio Holder for Culture and Wellbeing introduced the report and informed Members that the swimming pool at the old Splash facility remained closed, as safety was always the first priority. It was hoped that once repairs were complete, that the facility could reopen by Easter. Members were informed that the normal template and a cost summary of the project was included, and that the top risk remained the failure of the existing facility. It was noted that communications issues were often raised, and that a meeting with the new Communications Manager was planned to address these issues. Cllr V Gay stated that overall the project remained on-track, and though there had been some delays caused by weather, it was hoped that this time could be made up in the future.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr H Blathwayt asked in regards to the planned reopening of the existing Splash site, whether the current health emergency would be taken into account. Cllr V Gay replied that it would certainly be taken into consideration. She added that the rest of the facility remained open, and it was just the pool that was closed for the time being. Cllr S Bütikofer stated that the Council would be following the advice of Central Government and Public Health England on all matters relating to health.

The Chairman asked for details on the contingency fund, to which Cllr V Gay replied that £81k of the construction contingency had been spent, and the client contingency remained untouched.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle questioned whether a health and safety log for the project could be shared with Members. The Chairman noted that the purpose of the project monitoring was to ensure that the project was delivered on time, and on budget. The HECD added that the issues log already included in the update would bring forward any issues of major significance, and reassured Members that the contractors were submitting weekly and monthly updates. It was reported that at present, one of the key health and safety issues was caused by stray golf balls.

The Chairman reminded Members that in addition to noting the report, it was also necessary at this stage, for Members to determine the frequency of reports going forward. He asked if Members would be happy to relax reports to a quarterly basis, with the potential for more frequent updates if any issues were to arise. It was suggested that more detail could be added to the portfolio holder updates at Full Council meetings.

It was proposed by Cllr A Varley and seconded by Cllr W Fredericks to reduce the frequency of the Splash project updates from monthly to quarterly.

RESOLVED

To reduce the frequency of the Splash project updates from monthly to quarterly.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DS&GOS informed Members that the Cabinet Work Programme was up to date.

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 informed Members that the Work Programme was up to date, though there were several items outstanding that could potentially be added to the Work Programme for the next municipal year.

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.”

It was proposed by Cllr A Varley and seconded by Cllr P Heinrich

RESOLVED

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 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.

To receive a review of a Council owned asset, as requested by the Committee.

The HLS introduced the report and informed Members that the Estates Manager (report author), was unable to attend the meeting. She suggested that it might be useful for new Members to understand some of the context of the property, and reported that the associated Itteringham Shop had been in the village since 1637, and had been community run since 1994. It was stated that the shop had changed hands in 2012 with the sale of Fairmeadow House, as it was considered to be part of the same property. Under new ownership, the HLS reported that the five year lease on the shop was due to be terminated upon its expiration in March 2017, allowing six months for the shop to vacate the premises. She added that the shop was subsequently listed as an asset of community value, as a result of significant public concern regarding potential closure of the shop, bearing in mind its history. It was reported that the owners  would not sell the shop separately to the community association (ICA), and as a result the ICA started fundraising to buy both properties. The HLS noted that due to differences between the owners and ICA, the latter approached the Council for assistance, and various options were considered. The HLS reminded Members that the issue was time limited, and that the Council had been involved in the process at a late stage. As a result, the HLS reported that in order to safeguard the shop, Members and officers felt it was right to intervene to give some security to the ICA. The HLS noted that purchasing property in North Norfolk was not deemed to be a high risk investment, an at that point a business case was developed for the neighbouring  Fairmeadow House to be converted in a holiday let, and a subsequent report proceeded to Cabinet. She added that following the purchase, the shop had remained in the premises under a lease, with the potential for the ICA to buy the shop in the future.

Questions and Discussion

The Chairman thanked the HLS for the introduction, and offered Cllr S Bütikofer the opportunity to speak.

Cllr S Bütikofer stated that she wanted to add some further context for new Members, and noted that the purchase had been brought to Committee by the previous administration at very short notice. As Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee at the time, Cllr K Ward had given her permission for it to be an item of urgent business. As the Leader of the Opposition at the time, Cllr S Bütikofer stated that she had expressed concerns regarding the purchase, and though supportive of saving the community asset, stated that she had reservations about the purchase of Fairmeadow House. She added that she believed that the shop should be separated from Fairmeadow House, and that the house should be sold on.

The HLS stated that occasionally urgent items would come before Cabinet and it was reasonable to make appropriate use of this provision. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.