Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr A Varley.

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 21^st April 2021.

Minutes of the meeting held on 21^st April 2021 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.

The DSGOS informed Members that an urgent item had been shared in advance of the meeting to request that the Committee makes a recommendation to Council on which OSC Members to appoint as representatives to the NCC NHOSC. He added that the document shared in advance suggested maintaining the current appointments.

It was proposed by Cllr W Fredericks and seconded by Cllr P Heinrich to recommend to Council that Cllr E Spagnola be appointed as the NNDC representative to the NCC NHOSC with Cllr W Fredericks as substitute.

RESOLVED

To recommend to Council that Cllr E Spagnola is appointed as the NNDC representative to the NCC Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee, and that Cllr W Fredericks is appointed as substitute.

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.

Cllr A Brown declared a pecuniary interest for item 14 of the agenda and stated that he would withdraw from the meeting for this item.

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:

At the meeting held on 10^th April 2021, Cabinet approved the following recommendations:

1.     To recommend to Cabinet that consideration is given to developing and including a Charter Mark system setting standards across the spectrum of environmental improvements sought, such as: Energy Conservation; Renewable Energy Generation and Storage; Water Capture, Usage and Quality; Flood Prevention and Mitigation, Reductions in Single Use Materials and Carbon Capture projects. Such a system should link up with relevant Planning Policy standards, include an annual award/recognition scheme and seek accreditation with an external environmental body.

2.      To recommend to Cabinet that consideration is given to increasing the educational and public engagement opportunities to promote active commitment to the Charter and the wider climate change agenda..

3.      To endorse the draft Environmental Charter for consultation with the Environment Forum, prior to a revised draft being considered by Cabinet and Council for adoption.

The Chairman noted that at the meeting held on 12^th April 2021, Cabinet had approved the Committee’s recommendations in relation to the draft Environmental Charter.

To review and comment on the Norfolk County Community Safety Partnership’s draft Safer Norfolk Plan 2021-2024.

The DFC introduced the report and informed Members that he was presenting as the NNDC representative on behalf of the Norfolk Community Safety Partnership (CSP). It was stated that the Partnership was formed in 2012 when the District Community Safety Partnerships had been merged, and that a key aspect of its work was to undertake an annual strategic assessment to determine priorities, and to consult with the public on the issues identified. This was then used in the development of the Safer Norfolk Plan to replace the last Plan adopted in 2018. It was noted that the landscape had changed significantly since the last plan was developed, as Covid-19 had caused a substantial shift in community safety requirements. The DFC stated that changes in legislation and the election of a new PCC could also be expected to impact the development of the new Plan. He added that the Plan had been developed using the Cambridge Harm Index, to consider the impact of more harmful crimes. It was reported that the priorities outlined in the Plan included serious violence including domestic abuse, sexual abuse and county lines linked violence, preventing extremism, criminal exploitation, neighbourhood crimes, hate crimes and fraud. The DFC stated that the Plan would go out for public consultation for eight weeks from 24^th May, and had already been reviewed by the CSP Scrutiny Panel.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that many priorities raised in the Plan would be funded by the PCC, and that Committee had not had an update on the Plan or Partnership for some time.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the average number of road traffic incidents and stated that he was therefore surprised that the Plan did little to address speeding offences. The DFC replied that whilst road fatalities had not been identified as a priority by the CSP, he expected it would be a Police priority handled separately, though could be fed back as a concern if necessary. He added that the OPCCN had committed funding of £500k to tackle the priorities raised within the Plan, and that a memorandum of understanding had been agreed with NCC to ensure improved joint working practices going forward. The Chairman noted that road safety incidents were regularly raised at Parish level meetings, and it was therefore important to raise its omission from the Plan.

     iii.          Cllr W Fredericks noted that there was little understanding of how the CSP operated, which caused concern that the Plan could change following the election of a new PCC.

    iv.          Cllr N Housden stated that it was important to understand how the Plan would be implemented, as he was aware of fraud incidents with little support for victims and no clear agency responsible for dealing with these crimes.

      v.          The DFC responded to concerns and stated that the Plan was a strategic level document developed to identify CSP priorities, as opposed to an operational document that established policing priorities. In response to Cllr W Fredericks’ question, he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To review and note the update.

The DSGOS noted that due to social distancing limitations in the Council Chamber, Cllr V Gay was not able to attend the meeting though had supplied a statement:

‘Ladies and gentlemen, we are sorry not to be with you in the Chamber this morning. The report on the construction of The Reef is before you.  We have nothing to add to this today but, if you do have questions, we will give written answers to you as quickly as possible.  Thank you.’

RESOLVED

To receive and note the update.

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 – Scrutiny Officer

Email: matthew.stembrowicz@north-norfolk.gov.uk Tel: 01263 516047

The DSGOS informed Members that a draft Work Programme had been prepared for review which included all statutory reports and recurring items. He added that potential items requiring scoping were also included for discussion, and that the next two meetings were already relatively full. It was noted that some items, such as monitoring of the NWHAZ project could potentially be prepared at reasonably short notice, as they had been previously discussed by officers.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr P Heinrich referred to the potential items and suggested that some may be better suited to Task and Finish Groups, and asked whether this would be possible. The DSGOS replied that whilst the Work Programme did not make reference to the Scrutiny Panels, they were expected to begin operating in the year ahead, at which point more detailed reviews could take place at this level.

      ii.          Cllr W Fredericks asked how best to update the Committee on the outcomes of NHOSC meetings, and it was suggested that representatives could provide a short verbal update during the Overview and Scrutiny Update agenda item. The Chairman noted that it would be more helpful to receive verbal updates, as they provided local nuance and better context than the minutes.

     iii.          Cllr L Withington referred to topic scoping and suggested that there were issues that would require careful consideration prior to review. The DSGOS agreed and suggested that officers involved could be invited to take part in scoping discussions.

    iv.          It was proposed by Cllr W Fredericks and seconded by Cllr L Withington to approve the draft 2021-22 Work Programme.

RESOLVED

To review and agree which items should be added to the Overview & Scrutiny Work Programme for the 2021-22 municipal year.

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:

Emma Denny, Democratic Services Manager, 01263 516010

The DSGOS informed Members that the DSM had prepared the report and could respond to any questions if required.

RESOLVED

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

The ADP introduced the report and informed Members that it related to the enforcement functions of Planning, long term empty homes, the Enforcement Board and Combined Enforcement Team. He added that future updates would be provided on a six-monthly basis to OSC and Cabinet. It was reported that the enforcement process had continued to move forward during Covid-19, progressing land mark cases such as the Shannocks. In reference to long-term empty homes, it was stated that the Council continued to perform above than the national average, with less than one percent of the District’s housing subject to long-term empty measures, which was in large part due to the efforts of the Revenues Team. The ADP referred to the Combined Enforcement Team and stated that there were currently 290 live cases, and that from January 2020, 264 cases had been closed. He added that the Team of two and half officers were working well to close cases efficiently and effectively. It was noted that a review of the District’s Enforcement Plan would be undertaken with the Interim Enforcement Manager, and it was expected that changes would be reported as part of the next update.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr W Fredericks asked how Members could receive an update on active cases within their wards, as she was aware that contacting officers directly used  valuable resource. She added that she welcomed the development of an online form for triage of enforcement cases, and asked whether any form of online access for case updates could be made available. The ADP replied that the report and accompanying matrix referred to the work of the Enforcement Board, but it did not cover all enforcement cases in progress. He added that officers would continue to provide a bespoke response via email for the time being, though officers were working towards an online questionnaire to streamline the process. It was noted that due to resource limitations, contacting officers directly remained the best solution, as it was not possible to routinely update and report information on over 200 cases to ward Members.

      ii.          The Chairman sought clarification on whether enforcement information was already available online, to which the DSGOS replied that the Enforcement Board Matrix was available in the ModGov Library. The ADP added that most cases on the Matrix were approaching conclusion, and stated that for ongoing enforcement cases public access was available, though it was advisable to contact the relevant officer to receive the most up to date information.

     iii.          Cllr G Mancini-Boyle sought clarification on the process of pursuing enforcement action, and asked whether officers relied on the empty dwelling management order. He added that many enforcement cases likely dealt with probate, and asked whether the Council often encountered renovation costs once the enforcement process was complete. The ADP replied that whilst most cases did not follow textbook progress, they were often resolved through increased Council Tax banding. He added that the vast majority were therefore resolved in a three, six or twelve month period,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS informed Members that the Outturn Report would be delayed until July, whilst the Equality and Diversity Policy was expected at the June meeting. He added that discussions had taken place to try to bring the Housing Strategy forward for pre-scrutiny at the June meeting.

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 DSGOS noted that the Work Programme had already been discussed earlier in the meeting and that there was nothing to add.

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.”