Apologies were received from Cllr S Penfold, Cllr N Housden, Cllr E Spagnola and Cllr P Fisher.

Cllr J Toye and Cllr N Pearce.

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 25^th January 2023.

Minutes of the meeting held on 25^th January 2023 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:

At the meeting held on Monday 6^th February 2022, Cabinet accepted the following recommednations:

1.     To recommend to Cabinet that financial modelling of inflationary costs of up to 5% for staff and fees be included in the report to identify potential risks.

2.      To recommend to Cabinet that in recognition of the increasing risk of deficits arising, robust savings and income generation contingency plans need to be developed as soon as possible in FY 23/24, to ensure that financial risks can be adequately mitigated for 2024-25 and onwards.

The DSGOS informed Members that at the meeting held on 6^th February 2023, Cabinet accepted the Committee’s recommendations in relation to the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

To receive and note the briefing.

The SCM introduced the item and informed Members that the number of missed collections continued to decline with steady improvement seen week on week, except for the Christmas period when disruptions were expected. He added that Christmas issues were primarily related to collection crews not being contracted to work weekends, though this was being discussed as part of ongoing contract negotiations. It was noted that following the catch-up weeks, collections had returned to pre-Christmas levels, but improvement was still needed to reach the desired level of performance. The SCM stated that at present weekly missed collections stood at approximately 120, though it was hoped that this could be reduced to the pre-changeover performance below 100. He added that support vehicles remained in place and would stay until the service was stable, with further performance measures including weekly debriefs and potential sanctions being considered for continued poor performance. It was noted that supervisors were also assisting crews to address repeat missed collections.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr J Toye asked if there were many bins that were consistently missed, to which the SCM replied that there had been repeat misses, but additional measures put in place with supervisors had significantly reduced this number.

      ii.          Cllr V Holliday asked how recently the issues had been addressed, as she had been advised of repeat misses up to two weeks prior to the meeting. The SCM replied that the new processes had been implemented following the Christmas catch-up period, though some missed collections were still in the process of being addressed. He added that over the coming weeks missed collections could be expected to continue to fall as improvement measures took effect. Cllr V Holliday noted that total missed bin numbers had varied from 77 to 186, which appeared significant. The SCM replied that the most recent figure was 132, whilst the DFC noted that some degree of missed bins could be expected as these were counted as bins not collected on their scheduled day, though the significant majority would be resolved the following day. He added that there were some concerns about missed collections not being resolved within the rectification period, but the level of response was improving and was within the parameters of expected performance. 

     iii.          Cllr C Cushing raised concerns that improvements were still required five months after implementation, and asked whether there was an expected completion date to reach pre-changeover levels of performance. The DFC replied that he expected this level of performance now, and continued to push to achieve this, as there was no reason it could not be done within the next few weeks. He added that the desire had been to achieve this within twelve weeks of the changeover, and officers would maintain the necessary level of pressure until this was achieved. Cllr C Cushing asked what additional actions would be taken to achieve this, to which the DFC replied that at their own expense Serco had applied significant additional resource, and possible sanctions as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

To receive and note the update.  

Cllr R Kershaw – Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth introduced the report and informed Members that a new Project Manager was in place, three new businesses had opened in the market place, and the physical works had progressed despite delays caused by weather and a recently discovered sinkhole. He added that the sinkhole had been filled within 24 hours and contractors had since exceeded the laying rate of paving. Elsewhere work on Church Lane had begun, the wall around Black Swan Loke had been demolished with small buildings removed and works commenced on the Vicarage Road car park.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman referred to the requested breakdown of the £400k funding uplift and asked if further clarification could be given on how this would be spent. Cllr R Kershaw replied that issues with costing the breakdown were a result of the works being above the procurement threshold, which meant that the Council had gone out to tender but were yet to receive a response, but the information could be shared once available. It was confirmed, following a question from the Chairman that Cllr Kershaw was aware of the full costs, subject to tenders being received. The Chairman noted that in order to justify the approval of this funding, it was important to understand how the figure had arisen, but it was not clear from the information supplied. Cllr R Kershaw replied that until the tenders were received, the speculative figures could not be provided as they would be unconfirmed and commercially sensitive. The EGM stated that the £228k designated for the market place came as a result of an overspend, therefore whilst this could not be broken down in constituent parts, the results could be drawn from an anticipated quantity surveyors report. He reiterated that to provide any more detail on the Loke works at this stage could prejudice the tender process. The Chairman suggested that the information could be provided as exempt if necessary, to which the EGM replied that the full figures were expected within two weeks and could be provided to the Committee once available. The Chairman suggested that it would be helpful to receive the full information in whichever format necessary as soon as possible. He added that difficulties in gathering tenders had not previously been made clear, but it remained important to understand how the funding request had been established, to which Cllr Kershaw confirmed that the figure requested was based on estimates.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing reiterated that it had been extremely difficult to gain information on the project, and it appeared that the reality was often different to what was reported. He added that he was pleased to see that the report had been split into constituent parts, though it would be helpful to include objectives, project timeframes, key milestones and progress for each. Cllr Cushing referred to the risk register and stated that there was very little information provided on the potential impact of risks and the mitigation actions taken.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

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)

The DFPCC introduced the report and informed Members that the action plan had been prepared to address issues identified as priorities by the Committee. The PSM gave a presentation on the key points of the PSIP, the associated action plan, consultation responses and objectives. She added that key issues identified included speed of decision making, communication with stakeholders, access to information and the alignment of planning with sustainable growth interests. It was noted that since the Committee’s last update on the Strategy two external consultations had taken place, alongside a PAS best practice workshop, with quick wins implemented and vacant posts filled where possible. The PSM stated that the public consultation had received 117 responses over a one month period with the key issues identified  as communication improvements, speed of process and enforcement. She added that the Town and Parish Council consultation had received 53 responses with issues identified relating to communication, training, website improvements, enforcement and more regular updates. It was noted that the action plan had been developed using the responses as an evidence base, with actions categorised into people, process or performance.

Questions and Discussion

The Chairman referred to the consultation process and noted that he had not seen reference to developers, architects or agents, though many applications were received from these groups and their views were important. The DFPCC stated that developer forums would be held to facilitate discussions and identify important issues on a quarterly basis. The Chairman noted that whilst this would form a part of future actions, it would be helpful to understand whether these groups had formed part of the existing consultation, to which the DFPCC noted that these groups were able to respond to the public consultation with several known to have done so. He added that there was only so much that could be achieved since the last update and consultation would continue as a rolling programme with all new applicants and consultees routinely requested to give feedback on the service.

The Chairman noted that the consultation responses had highlighted enforcement as an issue, but this did not appear to be extensively covered within the action plan, and asked whether there was more work to be done to address the issue. The DFPCC replied that reviewing the enforcement process had not formed part of the original request made by the Committee, though the consultation response had raised some issues that centred around a lack of understanding of the enforcement process which did have to be addressed through education and communication. He added that whilst some responses had expressed frustration with the length of time required to take enforcement action, there were other steps the Council could take to help speed up the process which would be covered as part of the PSIP. It was noted that two further posts had been recently recruited into the Enforcement Team which would help address the issues identified.

Cllr V Holliday asked whether the 3.8 FTE employees in Enforcement included the recently added staff,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

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)

Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and informed Members that the report now included income from the Council’s parking app, and whilst revenue may not match 2022 it would help to support many of the discretionary services provided by the Council. He added that there was more work to do, such as consideration of future management and enforcement options for larger car parks. It was noted that several of the car parks had received investment to ensure surfaces were maintained and ticket machines were up to date, which would continue as and when required.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr V Holliday asked if the costs associated with each car park were known, as it would be difficult to know where to invest without this information, and suggested that it would be helpful to see net income for each car park. She noted that Weybourne car park appeared to have very low use, and asked whether this was correct given that it was usually a popular destination. Cllr Holliday referred to carbon impact and suggested that it was disingenuous to suggest that the Council’s car parks did not have an impact as they encouraged car usage. The DFC replied that work was underway to determine the management and maintenance costs of each car park with the intention to include this information within future reports. He added that Weybourne figures had been noticed by officers and an investigation was taking place to determine the cause of the reduction. It was noted that in terms of the carbon impact, as a tourism destination that was not served particularly well by public transport, car use was to some extent inevitable across the District and without car parks, visitors would likely park on residential streets. Moreover, it was noted that the content of the report itself did not have a carbon impact, as it was only intended for monitoring with no decision required.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the Limes car park in Fakenham and noted that there was no income beyond October, and asked if there was any explanation. The DFC replied that it was possible that it may be the result of a reporting error, but the car park was also subject to a permit system for a local business, which could have reduced the number of tickets being purchased.

     iii.          Cllr H Blathwayt referred to the Stalham data and asked why the revenue had been so high over the summer period, to which the DFC replied that the data appeared to show that it had been sustained over some months and the income would be investigated. Cllr H Blathwayt asked whether contactless ticket machines would be rolled out across the District, as it was his understanding that they generated higher levels of income. The DFC replied that these had been installed where possible, but they relied on good network coverage, which was not available across all locations, which meant that some would remain cash based for the foreseeable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

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)

Cllr V Holliday noted that there was a significant gap between the dates of decisions and the date they were reported to Cabinet, and asked if there was any explanation. The DSM replied that decision notices were often not received at the time of decision, and they were also reported in groups rather than one at a time which caused a slight reporting delay.

RESOLVED

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

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS noted that several property transactions were expected in March, but one item that may be of interest to the Committee was the Solar Port project, as the Reef’s energy usage and decarbonisation were both topics previously considered by the Committee.

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 confirmed that the PCC had agreed to attend the March meeting to provide an update on his Policing Plan and any other pertinent issues, and that ambulance response times data had been requested from EEAST. He added that written replies had been received on questions relating to the Reef building work sign-off, but a response on the enabling land was still required.

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.”