Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr W Fredericks and Cllr T Adams.

Cllr S Penfold substituted for Cllr W Fredericks.

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 27^th May 2020.

Minutes of the meeting held on 27^th May 2020 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 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:

None received.

The CE introduced the Report and informed Members that it covered the period from May to the middle of June, when the Council moved from its immediate response of support for vulnerable residents, to begin to consider how to reopen services, assets and facilities. The details of support offered via the small business grant and discretionary grants was also included in the report. The CE noted that North Norfolk had a relatively low incidence of Coronavirus infection, and thankfully a low level of mortality with respect to the overall number of infections.

Questions and Discussion

  i.         Cllr N Housden asked whether any additional funding available to support local areas should local lockdowns be implemented. The CE replied that local authorities had been provided with additional funding, held by upper tier authorities for local outbreak control plans and controlled by each County’s director of public health. He added that an outbreak control plan that had been signed off by Norfolk leaders in June, which focused on data management and monitoring, but also included a contact advisory centre for local outbreaks. The plan sought to control outbreaks in specific settings such as hospitals, care homes, schools, workplaces, pubs and restaurants, and was based on the track and trace model. Total funding for the plan was reported to be approximately £3m, however the CE was not aware of any additional funding to cover local lockdown losses.

 ii.        Cllr L Shires asked if a breakdown of data was available by ward on the support provided by the Council’s LCCs during lockdown, to better understand which wards would have the highest need should a second spike in the coming months. The CE replied that there was data available on the number of shielding individuals in each ward, and data was also gathered from each LCC on the number of enquiries and the level of support provided from each centre. He added that the data could be circulated after the meeting.

iii.        Cllr S Penfold asked whether the Council was preparing for a curtailed summer season or an increase in visitor numbers in light of lockdown easing over the summer holiday period. The CE replied that the Council was preparing and already responding to larger visitor numbers than usual, and constrained it was expected that this trend would continue due to international travel restrictions. He added that North Norfolk was generally full during the summer season, so capacity to increase these numbers would be limited. It was noted that consideration was being given to extend the season into September and October, in addition to Christmas and winter offers for short breaks and the 2021 season, to account for any reluctant for international travel.

iv.        Cllr N Pearce asked what the response to the ‘You Are Welcome’ campaign had been, and how it was being received. The CE replied that large numbers of visitors to coastal areas had placed pressure on the Council, requiring a swift response on the staged reopening of public conveniences. In terms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

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)

North Norfolk District Council Compliments, Complaints and Comments Policy

North Norfolk District Council Customer Service Strategy

Contact Officer, telephone number and email: David Williams, Customer Services Manager, 01263 516415, david.williams@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The CSM introduced the report and informed Members that the aim was to provide an insight into the frontline service provided to customers, whilst also considering the impact of Covid-19 and the Team’s response to the crisis.

Questions and Discussion

  i.         Cllr N Housden asked for clarification on the planning complaints. The CSM replied that the planning complaints generally referred to the manner in which planning applications were handled, which could refer to applications being processed too quickly, too slowly, or applicants not receiving adequate communication throughout the process. He suggested that it would be better to request service specific information from the Head of Planning, who would have a better understanding of the complaints. The CSM stated that the Customer Service role was to receive complaints and pass them on to the relevant service, which meant they often did not see the full details. Cllr N Housden suggested that it might be useful to have a further breakdown of planning complaints.

 ii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle referred complaints data on p29, and asked why there had been no reduction in complaints from stages two to three. The CSM replied that whilst he did not have the full breakdown of complaints available, some may have been resolved within the timeframe of reporting and others not. He added that it was coincidental that stage two and three complaints were the same number, but this did not necessarily mean these were the same complaints. The Chairman noted that figures taken from a different period did show a small reduction between each stage, and asked for clarification on whether this was the aim of the policy. The CSM replied that complainants were asked whether they were satisfied that their complaint had been resolved at each stage, and they would often choose to progress complaints. He added that LGA guidance on the matter had recently changed, and it was now suggested that complaints should be dealt with in a two stage process. The HIT stated that in the current process, complainants were asked whether they would like to progress their complaint, which gave little disincentive, that might further explain the minimal reduction in numbers between each stage.

iii.        Cllr L Shires stated that the number of interactions handled during the lockdown period had been vast and the Customer Services Team’s response to this demand had been flawless. She referred to the breakdown of complaints on p30, and suggested that it would be useful to have more detail to learn from mistakes and see the impact that Covid-19 on complaints.

iv.        Cllr C Cushing stated that it was important to learn from the report to improve the Council’s complaints procedure and ensure the same issues did not reoccur. The HIT agreed and stated that improving the service for customers was a key objective of the Corporate Plan. He added that the Council completed approximately 100k transactions per year, which in relation to 148 complaints was a relatively good picture, though there was always room for improvements.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

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)

Delegated decision forms – as completed by the relevant officer

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Emma Denny, Democratic Services Manager, 01263 516010

The DSM introduced the report and informed Members that it was a statutory report that had special significance during the lockdown period due to the number of delegated decisions required. She added that a rolling list was available on the Council’s website in chronological order. It was noted that some decisions reversed previous decisions, such as reopening facilities, and that all decisions were taken by senior or statutory officers. A more detailed form was available for each decision that was available to view on request.

Questions & Discussion

  i.         The Chairman referred to the decision to provide financial support to the leisure contractor on p49, and asked for the total of this support. The HECD replied that the Council had agreed to support the contractor on a monthly basis from April, with further payments made in May and June. The monthly payments were reported to be approximately £36k, and the Council was in the process of negotiating with the contractor on payments that would cover up to the reopening of facilities. Due to contractual arrangements the HECD was not able to share any further cost estimates going forward. It was confirmed that the total amount was three separate payments of £36k, and these were outlined in the Covid-19 financial impact report from the Section 151 Officer.

 ii.        Cllr P Heinrich asked for conformation that leisure centre staff had been furloughed, and that the remaining payments were for amounts not covered by the furlough scheme. The HECD replied that the majority of staff were furloughed, though two were retained on normal contracts to maintain the facilities and work on remobilization.

iii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked if the funding provided to support the leisure contractor had come from Central Government or the Council’s own budget, to which the HECD replied that it had been funded directly by NNDC as a contractual requirement.

iv.        Cllr L Shires asked for the number of staff supported via the payments and what the implications would have been, should the support not have been provided. The HECD replied that whilst this was a hypothetical situation, the Government had advised local authorities to support their contractors to avoid redundancies or insolvency. He added that most local authorities had supported their contractors where possible, and NNDC had taken this approach to avoid adverse consequences. Cllr V Gay stated for Members’ reassurance that this was a national issue, and other Council’s had also supported their contractors.

RESOLVED

To receive and note the report and the register of officer decisions taken under delegated powers.

To receive an update on the Sheringham Leisure Centre Project.

Cllr V Gay – Portfolio Holder for Culture & Wellbeing introduced the report and expressed her gratitude to officers for preparing it. It was noted that answers had been provided to written questions in advance of the meeting, though annual maintenance and running costs of the existing Splash facility would be provided once the information had been gathered. On cost overruns, Cllr V Gay stated that approximately £200k of the contingency funds remained unspent, and that all individuals involved in the project had done their upmost to avoid any further expenditure. On professional fees, it was reported that approximately £15k had been required at various stages throughout the project.

In response to Cllr J Rest’s written question, which asked whether the existing Splash facility should be demolished to avoid further expenditure, Cllr V Gay stated that she did not yet feel there were grounds to make a decision on what was prudent, given the current circumstances. It was noted that there had been unexpected expenditure for repairs to the facility, but it was ready to reopen at the start of the lockdown period. It was expected that gyms would be allowed to reopen from 25^th July, with swimming facilities from 22^nd August. Cllr V Gay stated that though these dates were clear, an opening date for the Splash facility was not yet known. It was suggested that additional Government funding may be available to support gyms and leisure centers, though it was not yet known if Splash would be eligible.

Cllr V Gay reported that the cost of delays to the construction of the new facility was approximately £130k, though the original proposal relied on continued income from the existing facility until completion. On that basis, the Council had promised to maintain the old facility until that point. It was noted that there were also contractual obligations, and the Council had a duty to provide services for residents within the District. Cllr V Gay stated that despite concerns regarding the possibility of a local lockdown in the future, she hoped that all of the Council’s leisure facilities would reopen shortly.

Questions and Discussion

  i.         Cllr L Shires stated asked if she was missing any details that would bring her to the conclusion that closing the existing facility would be prudent.

 ii.        Cllr L Withington stated that she was not expecting to see a suggestion to close the existing facility, and asked for clarification of Cllr Rest’s suggestion to the Committee. The Chairman replied that whilst Cllr J Rest was not a Committee Member, he had suggested that analysis of closing the existing Splash facility should be undertaken, to determine whether it would aid the development of the new facility.

iii.        Cllr N Housden stated that had sought to determine the viability of the existing Splash facility, given the current restrictions. He then proposed that an investigation should be undertaken to determine the viability of maintaining the existing Splash facility until the new site had opened, with the inclusion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

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

Rob Young, 01263 516162, Robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Emma Duncan, 01263 516045 Emma.Duncan@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The DS&GOS introduced the report and informed Members that the report was intended to update the Committee on the ongoing MTI projects with reference to the impact that Covid-19 had on their implementation. It was noted that many projects had been placed on hold throughout the lockdown, and as a result, several projects were expected to be delayed beyond the one year timeframe. The DS&GOS informed Members that the original completion deadline for round 2 projects was in September, depending on when applicants had received funding. He added that some applicants had also received funding for public events that could not be expected to go ahead under the current restrictions. As a result, the standing recommendation was to offer a blanket six month extension to applicants, to allow time to implement projects safely. In addition, whilst it was deemed inappropriate to review each active project at Committee, it would be possible to do this at Working Group level, if the Committee were minded to do so.

Questions and Discussion

  i.         Cllr R Kershaw stated that the MTI project was still being monitored carefully, and he did not see any reason why offering a blanket extension would be detrimental in any way. Cllr N Housden stated he would be happy to support the offer of a blanket six month extension where required.

 ii.        Committee Members were satisfied that the MTI Working Group were not yet required to convene a meeting to review each project in detail.

iii.        The recommendation to offer a blanket six month extension to active MTI projects was proposed by Cllr J Toye and seconded by Cllr P Heinrich.

RESOLVED

To recommend to Cabinet that a blanket extension of six months is offered to the completion deadlines of MTI projects from rounds two and three, to account for the impact and delays caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DS&GOS informed Members that there was a Cabinet meeting set to take place on 3^rd August, as a significant number of statutory financial reports were due for review. As a result, it was expected that an August meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee would be required. It was expected that this meeting would take place on Wednesday 12^th August.

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 suggested that from September the Committee would need to consider setting a work programme for the rest of the year, having not set one at the normal time due to the impact of Covid-19. It was noted that several outstanding items could be brought forward.

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.”