Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr N Housden, Cllr A Varley and Cllr E Spagnola.

None.

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

A public statement had been received from Mr Tom MacKeown of Parklands Resiednts’ association, which would be heard during the relevant agenda item.  

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 6^th April 2022.

Minutes of the meeting held on 6^th April 2022 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.

An item of urgent business on proposals for the Levelling-Up Fund had been received, though it was agreed that the item could be taken after the Engagement Strategy report as a courtesy to public speakers and officers attending the meeting.

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:

The DSGOS informed Members that at the meeting held on 3^rd May, Cabinet accepted the Scrutiny Panel for Environment & Quality of Life’s recommendation in relation to the Quality of Life Strategy.

To receive and note the briefing.

The Chairman introduced the item and informed Members that the briefing had been arranged as a result of a recommendation from Full Council to request that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee monitor the efforts made by Anglian Water (AW) to mitigate sewage outflow events in North Norfolk. It was noted that the Director of Quality and Environment (DQE) and the Regional Engagement Manager (REM) were in attendance for the briefing.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The DQE began with responses to questions submitted in advance and noted that these fell into two categories relating to planning, or sewage overflows and storm discharges. The REM stated that with regards to planning, AW were not statutory consultees for planning applications, though they did play a role as developers had a ‘right to connect’ to the existing water and drainage infrastructure. He added that AW sought to work with local planning authorities and developers to ensure that any development proposed would be sustainable and not cause detriment to the environment. It was noted that the first question asked whether the existing networks in the region were combined foul drainage and surface water sewers or separate, to which it was confirmed that the region was mixed, though coastal areas often had more mixed networks, as a result of historical installations. The REM stated that inland drainage systems were more likely to be separated into distinct surface water and foul sewerage networks. He added that AW were responsible for foul sewage and some combined systems, whilst the majority of surface water drainage systems were managed by the lead local flood authority - NCC. It was suggested that going forward, all new developments would have separate systems wherever possible.

      ii.          The second question related to network capacity, and the extent to which AW were consulted on any planning decisions that may impact the network. The REM stated that AW did seek out and request planning authorities to apply conditions where these were considered necessary. It was noted that developers could not be charged for fixing any existing issues, which necessitated efforts to ensure that any new development would not cause detriment to the network. The REM reported that the Strategic Flood Alliance had made excellent progress in bringing together key stakeholders to address areas with persistent surface water flooding issues.

     iii.          The third question related to the frequency and issues caused by heavy rainfall events, and the REM noted that AW were one of the most effected water companies in the UK for issues related to climate change, including periods of excess water flow and water scarcity. He added that generally speaking foul flows were entirely manageable within the constraints of AW’s existing assets, and where growth was expected investment was concentrated to mitigate potential issues. It was noted that surface water issues remained the responsibility of NCC, though AW did encourage and advise on the best solutions to avoid overwhelming the foul drainage network. The REM stated that where all other options were exhausted, some surface water  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200.

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)

Officer Neil Turvey, Strategic Asset Manager

Tel:  01263 516124  Email: Neil.turvey@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The EASM introduced the report and informed Members that it sought to outline the process that had been undertaken to ensure due diligence in relation to the disposal of the Parklands residential site near Fakenham, which was a 38 pitch mobile home site owned and operated by the Council.

A public statement was made by Mr Tom MacKeown – Chairman of the Parklands Residents Association.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr E Seward informed Members that the report outlined the process of the commercial sale of the Parklands site, and the Committee were invited to scrutinise the robustness of this process, to ensure that they were satisfied the sale would meet the necessary requirements. He added that he was not aware who the highest bidder would be, but was assured that all due diligence had been adhered to during the bidding process. It was noted that he was aware of similar sites in other parts of the District, and Members were reminded that all residents had a right to security and peace.

      ii.          Cllr V Holliday asked whether the due diligence included consideration of each bidders prospective plans for the site. The EASM replied that this question had been part of the interview process for each bidder, with the interview Panel comprised of officers, the selling agent, and two members of the Parkland Residents Association.

     iii.          Cllr H Blathwayt asked who would make judgement on the fit and proper person, to which it was confirmed that this was established via Licensing as a relatively new requirement.

    iv.          It was confirmed following a question from Cllr A Brown, that there were bidders from outside of North Norfolk.

      v.          Cllr P Heinrich suggested that any successful bidder could potentially sell the site in the future, and asked whether there were any guarantees that could be provided on the long-term commitment to the site and residents. It was noted that all bidders had suggested a long-term commitment to the site, but protections would also be provided by the Mobile Homes Act.

    vi.          Cllr L Withington asked whether there were any constraints on the sale of homes, to which the EASM replied that the Mobile Homes Act did protect owners from being forced to sell or otherwise harassed by park owners.

   vii.          Cllr J Rest referred to the existing homes on the site and asked whether there was any age limit on mobile homes and any requirement to continue this. The EASM replied that she was not aware of an age limit, though the mobile homes were expected to be kept in reasonable condition by owners.

  viii.          Cllr C Cushing asked for clarification on the timescale of shortlisting and selection of bids, to which the EASM replied that initial bids had been received in October and officers had been reviewing them since to ensure due diligence, and were now at the point of assessment to be determined by Cabinet on June 6^th.

    ix.          Cllr S Penfold asked if representatives of the Residents Association  ...  view the full minutes text for item 201.

To review the draft Engagement Strategy and consider any necessary amendments or recommendations for Cabinet.

The DFC introduced the report and informed Members that engagement was an aspect of the customer focus theme of the Corporate Plan, and a framework had been developed to deliver a high level and consistent approach was across all service areas. He added that it had been developed alongside the Quality of Life Strategy, as this also placed an emphasis on engagement with residents. It was noted that the Council already undertook a substantial amount of public engagement, though feedback suggested that this was done in varying ways and was not consistent. The DFC noted that five questions had been posed to Members on the Strategy document, which would also be shared with other consultees.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that there had not been a Member workshop during the developmental stages of the Strategy, and suggested that he felt this would have engaged more thoroughly with Members. The DFC replied that the document had only been prepared in draft form, and he would be happy to seek wider comments from Members if required. The Chairman suggested that it would be beneficial to host a workshop to ensure that input could be gained from a wider selection of Members, rather than just those present at the meeting.

      ii.          Cllr A Brown stated that engagement had been demonstrated recently on two conservation area appraisals, which had been undertaken differently with one more successful than the other. He added that one had been criticised and he would therefore reiterate comments that some improved consistency would be beneficial.

     iii.          Cllr V Holliday stated that the proposed steps for measuring engagement did not appear to have any SMART objectives, and asked whether this could be improved. The DFC replied that metrics could be developed as part of the action plan, but this would require engagement to determine what should be included. Cllr V Holliday suggested that the delivery capacity of Parish Council was limited, and comments on p11 were a concern. The DFC replied that many Parish Councils already undertook autonomous activities, such as establishing flood warning teams that NNDC had empowered to operate without the need for control. He added that empowerment of local groups and Parish Councils would not always be pursued, but it was a positive opportunity in some cases to give communities ownership of their services.

    iv.          Cllr V Gay stated that she recommended the Strategy and reiterated the importance of its connections with the Quality of Life Strategy, as research had shown that giving residents a voice within their communities improved their sense of self. She added that it also had an effect on democratic engagement, which was important to show residents that their input mattered. It was noted that there were also many different kinds of communities, and recognising different groups and their interests would lead to better engagement.

      v.          Cllr L Withington referred to comments on p31 that suggested outcomes would be used to inform Policy, strategies, and the delivery of services. She added that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that the programme deadlines meant that the item had to be brought to Committee as an item of urgent business. He added that the Government’s prospectus for round 2 of the Levelling-Up Fund had been released in March, with North Norfolk increasing from a priority two to priority one area, which provided increased capacity funding to help develop proposals. It was noted that in this context, it was expected that the Council would submit proposals, and Cabinet had therefore given consideration to potential projects. The CE stated that there had been challenge and scrutiny of the District’s limitations, which primarily related to utility provision and the viability of development, that were beyond the control of the Council. He added that projects that were successful would be given a two year timeframe for completion, expected by March 2025, or March 2026 under exceptional circumstances. It was reported that officers and Cabinet had reviewed potential projects and had developed initial proposals for improved community sports provision in Fakenham, which would include a 25m swimming pool and potentially a 2G hockey pitch, to address the existing lack of provision in the area. Upon further consideration the second proposal included investment into the sunken gardens and North Lodge Park in Cromer, which had not seen investment for a considerable period of time. The CE informed Members that engagement with key local stakeholders had begun with Fakenham Town Council, Sport England and Everyone Active for the Fakenham proposal, alongside Cromer Town Council and the Friends of North Lodge Park for the Cromer Proposal, with bids to be submitted by July 6^th.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman raised a concern regarding process priorities and distribution, and stated that whilst he made no comment on the two proposals, areas east of North Walsham did not appear to feature in any major projects. He added that it was likely that Members and residents from this area would feel some discontent as a result, and suggested that there ought to be a list of project proposals that could be considered in the area. It was suggested that consultation could take place with local stakeholders during fallow periods, to have potential proposals ready in outline for consideration.

      ii.          Cllr H Blathwayt asked whether the eastern area of the District could be prioritised for the next tranche of funding, as he felt the area had been ignored. He added that he would like to see a proposal put in motion that the east is given priority. The Chairman suggested that waiting until the next round of funding would be too late, and proposals were needed now so that they would be ready for implementation on a call-off list.

     iii.          Cllr C Cushing stated that he strongly supported the Fakenham application as it was twelve years since the Town’s last swimming pool had closed, with the next closest being in Dereham or Wells. He added that he also supported the provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 203.

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

       i.          The Chairman noted that he had commented previously at Cabinet on increased mileage rates and asked whether any neighbouring Councils had been contacted or consulted on the increase. The CE replied that the decision had been made under delated powers in consultation with Cabinet and the Director for Resources to reflect recent increases in travel costs. He added that the change had been made to address a short-term requirement and would be kept under review going forward. It was noted that NNDC had consulted with Unison, but was not required to consult with other authorities on the matter. The CE noted that the LGA were in the process of undertaking a pay review for the eastern region that would allow benchmarking, and it was expected that NNDC would be amongst the lower paying authorities in the region, though this was under review to ensure that the organisation remained competitive.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye noted that increases to the fuel allowance would only generate a relatively small increase in costs, but would help staff.

RESOLVED

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

OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – WORK PROGRAMME SETTING 2022-23

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)

N/a.

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 was included for consideration with regulatory items and others requested for consideration by the Committee. He added that some items had been listed as Cabinet recommendations, which had been done with the aim of streamlining the work of the Committee. It was noted that there were four additional items proposed for consideration, and the Committee were required to indicate whether they were supportive of adding these to the work programme. These included coastal defences, mental health support, the economic development strategy, and the cost of living crisis.

Questions and Discussion

Members indicated that they were supportive of the work programme and the additional provisional items, with approval proposed by Cllr P Fisher and seconded by Cllr A Brown.

RESOLVED

1.     To agree the draft Overview & Scrutiny Work Programme for the 2022-23 municipal year, with the inclusion of additional items proposed by Members.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS informed Members that a number of items discussed at the meeting as pre-scrutiny were due for consideration by Cabinet in June, such as the Parklands property disposal. As a result, there was little further substantial business expected in the coming months that the Committee had not already considered.

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.

       i.          The DSGOS noted that there was an annual review of appointments to outside bodies, with the Committee required to make a recommendation on appointments to the NHOSC. He added that given that there had not been any alternate proposals, he assumed that the Committee were happy to continue with Cllr E Spagnola as representative and Cllr V Holliday as substitute.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye noted that due to issues with GDPR, officers were not able to undertake the Planning Customer Experience Survey as planned. He added that a Customer Experience Strategy would still be brought before the Committee for consideration in September. Members agreed that they were supportive to continue as planned, despite setbacks.

RESOLVED

To note the update.

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.”