Agenda item

  Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

  Nick Baker, 01263 516221 – nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Cllr S Bütikofer – Leader of the Council introduced the report, and informed Members that the purpose of the Delivery Plan was to outline the implementation of the key priorities defined in the Corporate Plan.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr P Heinrich referred to point 4.2 of the report on page 18, and asked for further clarification. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that the Delivery Plan had been built on the Corporate Plan, which had its foundations in engagement with the public and the survey work that had been completed during the election. It was noted that additional stakeholder engagement had taken place since, that included working with outside bodies to ensure a joined-up approach had been taken. Cllr S Bütikofer stated that she would ensure that this point was revisited and made clear.

Cllr J Toye asked whether the objectives outlined in the DP had been subject to any prioritisation, or whether they would be going forward. Cllr S Bütikofer stated that the objectives were in the process of being prioritised by Cabinet. She accepted that the wide array of objectives could not all be completed on day one, and as a result, dates and milestones would be added to the document once agreed. Cllr J Toye referred to the customer focus theme, and asked whether customers would be properly informed of the Council’s responsibilities, to limit questions and complaints on issues not relating to the Council. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that she hoped to reinstate the NNDC magazine, and would look to include information on the responsibilities of NNDC, but also provide the relevant contact information for services that NNDC did not provide to help point members of the public in the right direction. The HLS added that there were two elements to the customer focus work, the first of which was related to LGA surveys, that would enable the Council to benchmark its services against other authorities. The second would focus on more specific surveys that would consider failure demand, e.g. cases in which customers had not been able to satisfactorily resolve their issue by contacting the Council. This information would then be fed to Cabinet and the proposed Scrutiny Panels to make the necessary improvements.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle referred to issues around developing the local housing supply on page 22, and stated that carbon reduction targets would not be met if homes continued to be built with gas boilers. In addition, he noted the harmful chemicals present within solar panels, and suggested that ground source heat pumps would be a viable alternative. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that she was aware of the issues with solar panels and other heating sources, and was accordingly working with the Planning Policy Team to develop the environmental requirements of the emerging Local Plan. She added that she was unsure whether the Council would be able to incentivise renewable energy projects, but noted that much of the district didn’t have access to mains gas. Members were reminded that the Council’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030 applied to the Council and its estate only. In his role as Environment Portfolio Holder, Cllr N Lloyd stated that the overarching goal was to reduce carbon emissions, and in order to do this, all forms of renewables would need to be considered. On the Local Plan, he added that there had been a significant response to the consultation from environmental groups, and as a result it, was expected that the Council would give extra weight to developers that utilised renewable energy. It was also hoped that there may be some policy grounds to enforce the use of renewable energy on new builds.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle sought clarification on whether the Council had an economic development leader, and stated that this would be a crucial role for the Council to become self-sustaining. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that the Council did have a dedicated portfolio holder and head of service for economic development, and added that many projects that sought to make the Council self-sustaining were in the pipeline.

Cllr N Housden referred to the climate issues discussed, and noted that the Council was relatively limited in its powers to influence the types of renewables used, and suggested that the Council should remain focused on tackling local climate issues. He then asked how information would be communicated to the proposed Scrutiny Panels, and suggested that it would be helpful for Members to see an information trail, to help them understand the full picture of issues under review. Cllr S Bütikofer agreed that this would be a useful tool, and suggested that she would look into whether this would be feasible.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated that he was impressed by the Town and Parish Council Forum, and asked for further information on the proposed Youth Forum. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that the Town and Parish Forum had met and was progressing well, but noted that the Youth Council was still at an exploratory stage, with different operational models being considered. The DSM added that she was developing the Youth Council and had contacted high schools across the district, with the potential to appoint up to three representatives per school. It was hoped that the Youth Council would be operational by May 2020. In response to a follow-up question from Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, it was suggested that rotating appointees could be difficult to manage, and that schools would likely run their own nomination process. The Vice-Chairman stated that consideration was needed to determine how the feedback from these groups would be collected and fed back to Cabinet and the proposed Scrutiny Panels.

In response to a question from Cllr N Housden on financial sustainability, the HLS stated that suggestions made during the risk training brainstorming session would be picked up by officers working on the issue. She added that the Council had to ensure its financial sustainability, and that in order to do this, the Council had to look beyond its normal remit, whilst also balancing risk. It was suggested that there could be some quick wins for the Council around advertising and sponsorship, which would be relatively straightforward, and would come to the Committee as a policy in due course.

Cllr H Blathwayt referred to the CP, and asked how much work NNDC would do with neighbouring authorities on the key themes, and added that it often seemed as though there was a barrier between North Norfolk and other local authorities. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that she was actively involved in the Norfolk Leaders meetings, and the Norfolk Working Better Together project, which she used to promote the importance of North Norfolk. It was hoped that through these groups, ideas such as dedicated lines of communication could be implemented. Cllr H Blathwayt acknowledged the existing work, and noted that special consideration should be given to issues such as the pressure on A&E departments to cope with the rising demand on services.

The Vice-Chairman referred to the proposed Scrutiny Panels, and noted that these were intended to align with the key themes of the CP, in order to monitor its implementation. The DSM stated that the recommendation before the Committee, aimed to establish three panels that would cover two key themes each. It was suggested that this approach would be a good opportunity for all Members to get involved in the delivery of the CP. The DSM informed Members that the Panels would be politically balanced with five Members each including a Chairman from the Scrutiny Committee, and two additional Cabinet Members. It was suggested that the performance framework would be ready by April, with the first report expected in July, which would feed directly into the Panels. Members were reminded that the recommendation only sought to establish the Panels, and that details would be agreed at a later point. The DSM noted that she had discussed the panels with the Chairman of the Committee, and it had been suggested that the panels would run for one year initially, with an annual review to determine efficacy.

Cllr N Housden asked whether the Scrutiny Panels would be able to provide input into the Council’s engagement process and Cllr S Bütikofer replied that whilst the Panels sought to encourage cooperation between Cabinet and Scrutiny, they were not expected to lead Cabinet projects. The DSM added that the Panels would intended to review and monitor the implementation of projects contained within the CP. In response to a follow-up question from Cllr N Housden, it was confirmed that three panels had been proposed to align with available resources, and they would each cover two key themes of the CP.

The Vice-Chairman asked to take the recommendations en bloc, which were proposed by Cllr W Fredericks and seconded by Cllr J Toye.

RESOLVED

1.    To agree the content of the draft Delivery Plan 2019-2023.

2.    To agree with authorisation given to the Corporate Directors and Heads of Paid Service, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to agree any minor revisions and changes to the final draft of the Delivery Plan document and thereafter the format and design of the document for publication.

3.    To establish Scrutiny Panels to act as a mechanism to review and monitor decisions made relating to the strategic policy, performance and resources required to deliver the priorities of the Council as set out in the Corporate Plan and Delivery Pan.