AGENDA MEETING VENUE: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham Our Ref: HM/L.18 Contact: Direct Dial: 01362 656381 e-mail: helen.mcaleer@breckland.gov.uk Date: Thursday, 20 January 2011 Dear Sir/Madam, I have to inform you that a Meeting of the District Council will be held at 10.30 am on Thursday, 27th January, 2011 in Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham Yours faithfully Member Services Manager The Member Services Manager to call the roll of Members Members of the Council requiring further information, or with specific questions, are asked to raise these with the appropriate officer at least two working days before the meeting. If the information requested is available, this will be provided, and reported to Council. Note – The Conservative Group meets in the Anglia Room and the Labour Group meets in Room 2 before Full Council at 9.30am. Public Document Pack
Transcript
AGENDA
MEETING VENUE:
Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House,
Dear Sir/Madam, I have to inform you that a Meeting of the District Council will be held at 10.30 am on Thursday, 27th January, 2011 in Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham Yours faithfully
Member Services Manager
The Member Services Manager to call the roll of Members
Members of the Council requiring further information, or with specific questions, are asked to raise these with the appropriate officer at least two working days before the meeting. If the information requested is available, this will be provided, and reported to Council.
Note – The Conservative Group meets in the Anglia Room and the Labour Group meets in
Room 2 before Full Council at 9.30am.
Public Document Pack
Council
27 January 2011
Page(s) herewith
1. MINUTES
a) Minutes of the Meeting held on 16 December 2010 1 - 14
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2010.
b) Minutes of the Special Meeting held on 11 January 2011 To Follow
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2011.
2. APOLOGIES
To receive apologies for absence.
3. DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests pertinent to items on this agenda. The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.
4. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
(Including the engagements of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman.)
5. CABINET MINUTES - 11 JANUARY 2011 To Follow
Unconfirmed minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 January 2011. With regard to Minute No 7/11 (Budget Setting) a copy of the report and appendices from the Head of Finance are attached for Members’ information.
15 - 59
6. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION - 6 JANUARY 2011 60 - 71
Unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission held on 6 January 2011
7. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 13 DECEMBER 2010 72 - 77
Confirmed minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 13 December 2010.
8. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 5 JANUARY 2011 78 - 90
Unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 5 January 2011.
9. GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE - 12 JANUARY 2011 91 - 94
Unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on 12 January 2011.
Council 27 January 2011
Page(s) herewith
10. AUDIT COMMITTEE - 14 JANUARY 2011 To Follow
Unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 14 January 2011.
11. STANDARDS COMMITTEE - 4 JANUARY 2011 95 - 97
Unconfirmed minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 4 January 2011.
12. YOUTH COUNCIL CABINET MINUTES - 14 DECEMBER 2010 (FOR INFORMATION)
98 - 100
To note the Youth Council Cabinet minutes for the meeting held on 14 December 2010.
13. CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE CYCLE 101 - 103
Report of the Director of Corporate Resources.
14. NOMINATIONS FOR COMMITTEE AND OTHER SEATS
To receive nominations for any changes to Committee and other seats from political groups.
MEMBER BRIEFING
Following the meeting there will be a Census briefing by the Area Manager for the Office of National Statistics. The briefing will explain what the Census is about and what Councillors can do to help.
For Information
CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE MEMBERS' SURGERY
At the end of the Council meeting, Chairmen of Committees and Executive Members will be available to members who wish to put forward specific questions, for example on ward issues.
1
BRECKLAND COUNCIL
At a Meeting of the
COUNCIL
Held on Thursday, 16 December 2010 at 10.30 am in the Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
PRESENT Mr S. Askew Mr G.P. Balaam Mrs J. Ball Mr S.G. Bambridge Councillor Claire Bowes Mr A.J. Byrne Mrs M.P. Chapman-Allen Mr P.D. Claussen Mr J.P. Cowen Mr R.W. Duffield Mr P.J. Duigan Lady Fisher Mr P.S. Francis Mr R.F. Goreham Councillor E. Gould Mr J.R. Gretton Mr M.J. Griffin Mr A.P. Joel Mr C.R. Jordan Mr R. Kemp Mr M.A. Kiddle-Morris
Mr R.G. Kybird Mr T.J. Lamb Mr K. Martin Mrs S.M. Matthews Mrs K. Millbank Mr I.A.C. Monson Mrs L.H. Monument (Chairman) Mr D.G. Mortimer Mr D.S. Myers Mr J.W. Nunn Mrs P. Quadling Mr J.D. Rogers Mr S. J. F. Rogers Mr F.J. Sharpe Mr I. Sherwood Mr W.H.C. Smith Mrs P.A. Spencer Mrs A.L. Steward Mrs L.S. Turner Mr N.C. Wilkin (Vice-Chairman)
In Attendance Mark Finch - Head of Finance Alison Chubbock - Accountancy Manager Mark Stokes - Deputy Chief Executive Stephen McGrath - Member Services Manager Phil Daines - Development Services Manager (Capita
Symonds for Breckland Council) John Chinnery - Solicitor & Standards Consultant Tracy Miller - PA to the Director of Corporate Resources Robert Walker - Director - Community Services Chris Brooks - Governance and Performance Accountant Maxine O'Mahony - Director of Corporate Resources Andrew Egerton-Smith - Kathryn Ralphs - Human Resources Adviser Richard Wills - Breckland Pride Coordinator Dominic Chessum - Marketing & Communications Officer Roger Wilkin - Interim Environmental Services Manager Terry Huggins - Chief Executive Julie Britton - Senior Committee Officer Jane Osborne - Committee Officer Jordan Bailey - Youth Councillor Stuart Green - Youth Councillor Alistair Wright - Youth Councillor
151/10 MINUTES (AGENDA ITEM 1)
Public Document Pack Agenda Item 1a
1
Council 16 December 2010
2
Action By
The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
152/10 APOLOGIES (AGENDA ITEM 2)
Apologies for absence were received by Mesdames T Hewett and D Irving and Messrs W Borrett, S Chapman-Allen, R Childerhouse, M Fanthorpe, K Gilbert, P Hewett, J Labouchere, B Rose, M Spencer, A Stasiak and D Williams.
153/10 DECLARATION OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM 3)
The following declarations were made:
• Lady K Fisher – personal and prejudicial interests in reference to the Stone Curlew report (Cabinet Minute No. 127/10), and Agenda item 14 (Moving Thetford Forward Board).
• Mr P Cowen – personal interest in the Cabinet meeting held on 30 November 2010 (see Minute No. 118/10), and Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 6 December 2010 (see Minute No. 117/10). He also declared a personal interest in Development Control Committee Minute No. 204/10(e).
• Mr R Kybird – personal interest – see Overview & Scrutiny Commission Minute No. 117/10.
154/10 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 4)
At the commencement of the meeting, Members were made aware of the passing of Peter Pearce, former Deputy Town Clerk with Thetford Borough Council and District Administrator at Breckland Council, who had sadly passed away in May this year aged 78, after a sudden and brief illness. After retiring from Breckland, Peter and his wife, Renee moved to Cornwall. Understandably, during that sad time, Renee had overlooked to let anyone at the Council know of her husband’s passing. The Chairman had been privileged to attend the Elizabeth Cross Medal and Scroll Presentations, the first ever event of this kind held in Norfolk. The Elizabeth Cross was presented to families of service and men and women killed in operations since 1948 (one family from the Breckland area had been presented with a medal and scroll). In total, ten medals had been awarded. The Chairman felt sorry that she had missed the opportunity at the previous Council meeting, which the Vice-Chairman had chaired in her absence, to announce the passing of Mrs Peggy Duigan, former County Council Member, Mayor of Dereham and long standing Member of Breckland Council who had sadly passed away in October. Members stood for a minutes silence and paid their respects. The final announcement was in relation to the Council agenda itself. It had been found that the page numbering in some of the agendas issued was incorrect.
2
Council 16 December 2010
3
Action By
Engagements List – Chairman 4th November, 2010 to 15th December, 2010
Date Event Host
14 Nov
Remembrance Sunday Parade and Wreath Laying Ceremony
Royal British Legion
26 Nov
Medal Presentations RAF Marham
2 Dec
Reception Mayor of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, Councillor Mrs. Zipha Christopher
10 Dec
Holiday Reception Colonel Chad T. Manske, Commander 100th Air Refuelling Wing, RAF Mildenhall and Colonel John T. Quintas, Commander 48th Fighter Wing
13 Dec
Elizabeth Cross Medal and Scroll Presentations – Elizabeth Cross is presented to families of service and men and women killed in operations since 1948 (one family from the Breckland area will be presented with a medal and scroll)
Chairman of Norfolk County Council, Councillor Tony Tomkinson
13 Dec
Civic Carol Service His Worship the Mayor of Great Yarmouth, Councillor M. Jeal, and the High Sheriff of Norfolk, Charles Barratt
Drinks Lieutenant Colonel A. G. C. Fair DCO* and The Light Dragoons
14 Nov
Annual Service of Remembrance
Mayor of Thetford, Councillor Pauline Quadling
3
Council 16 December 2010
4
Action By
24 Nov
Thanksgiving Service RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath Chapel Communities
2 Dec
Reception Mayor of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk, Councillor Mrs. Zipha Christopher
10 Dec
Christmas Dinner The County Towns Initiative
155/10 CABINET MINUTES - 30 NOVEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 5)
a) New Executive Arrangements (Minute No. 120/10)
The Member Services Manager read the following statement from Section 25(4) of the Local Government Act 2000, on behalf of the Solicitor and Standards Consultant, the author of the report: “In drawing up proposals for the new Executive arrangements a local authority must consider the extent to which the proposals were likely to assist in securing continuous improvement in the way in which the authority’s functions were exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness”.
A Member said that he had never been enraptured with the position of Leader and therefore welcomed this opportunity to propose the Mayor/Cabinet model. No-one seconded the Member’s proposal and he accordingly voted against the recommendation. RESOLVED that the Strong Leader and Cabinet option for Executive Arrangements from May 2011 be adopted.
b) Active Land Management – Tranche 2 (Minute No. 123/10)
Thetford – Land at Ramsey Close A Member felt that the Cabinet had been ill-advised by the Executive Member for the Corporate Development & Performance Portfolio by making the point that the land at Ramsey Close in Thetford was not suitable for allotments; whereas, Thetford Town Council had agreed that it was the best piece of land for that purpose. He reminded Members about the covenant on the land which restricted development and which had been designated to remain as open space. He therefore queried the Cabinet’s resolution of selling the land on the open market and finding alternative open space for allotments if the land was sold. It was pointed out that Thetford Town Council had secured funding from another source to assist with turning the land into allotments. He hoped that the Council would refer it back to Cabinet.
John Chinnery
4
Council 16 December 2010
5
Action By
The Leader of the Opposition felt it was very important that the principles of active land management were embraced and applauded the Council for looking at every parcel of council-owned land. Most land could be fully supported but occasionally there were some that caused concern. He pointed out that he and a number of other Members had received emails from a certain Town Councillor who was not at all happy with being confronted with finding alternative open space in Thetford that was suitable for allotments, as there was none. The Leader reassured Members that the funding from Thetford Healthy Towns would not be lost. He pointed out that in these difficult financial times Breckland Council had to get best value, not just for an individual community, but for all the communities it served. The Council had to do what was considered best for its assets, and in terms of value, this particular piece of land, compared to agricultural land, which could be used for such a purpose, had been valued at £240k. He reminded Members of the £500k that the Council had recently given for improvements to Swaine Close in Thetford. A Member remembered this particular site during his tenure as Leader and reminded the Council that its former use was a play area but due to its position near to a railway line and being very much on its own the play area had been closed as it had encouraged vandalism, and had lain dormant since. He questioned whether this was a suitable area for allotments. A Thetford Member did not dispute anything that had been said but was very much aware that allotment land was in short supply as most had been swallowed up by development. He urged Members to gift the land to the Town. The Executive Member for the Corporate Development & Performance Portfolio agreed with the Leader’s aforementioned comments and reminded Members that the Cabinet had agreed to make a contribution to top up the secured funding so that suitable alternative land could be found. The Chief Executive highlighted the fact that the decision had already been resolved by Cabinet and was not a recommendation to Council. In response to the comment made about open space being swallowed up by developers, the Leader knew that there was a great deal of development going on in and around Thetford but reminded Members that developers had a duty to provide open space; therefore, it would be up to the Town Council to ask for allotment land to be provided. The Executive Member for the Economic & Commercial Portfolio entirely endorsed the Leader’s comments and thanked the Leader of the Opposition for his. He reported that this particular piece of land had been owned by Breckland Council since 1974 and there was a S106 agreement on it which this Council could easily remove; therefore, there were no constraints. If sold the
5
Council 16 December 2010
6
Action By
matter would then be brought back to Cabinet where the possibilities for alternative land would be sought. It was proposed and seconded that the matter be referred back to Cabinet but the vote was lost and the original decision of Cabinet remained.
c) Attleborough Transport Study (Minute No. 125/10)
RESOLVED that: i) the development and completion of a Transport Study be
approved; and ii) funding up to the value of £100,000 be released from the
Housing and Planning Delivery Grant to complete the work.
d) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (Minute No. 126/10)
The Opposition Leader had been surprised to learn that the sum required to cover the cost of implementing the CIL in stages had been released from the Organisational Development Review Reserve and asked why it was coming out of this particular pot. The Head of Finance explained that this was the most appropriate reserve for this type of expenditure. The reserve had sufficient funds to also cover the shared management recommendation later in the agenda and remained robust.
e) Impact of Housing Development and Roads on Stone Curlew –
The Way Forward (Minute No. 127/10)
The Executive Member for the Environmental Wellbeing & Communications Portfolio left the room whilst this item was being discussed. A Member had concerns in relation to the resolution and asked if it was to question the extent of the meterage. The Development Services Manager explained that the intention of the report was to provide greater clarity on the effect of development on the species. There had been a number of alternatives put to Cabinet and this approach was seen to be the most appropriate and cost effective; it was not an attempt to get the figure lowered.
f) Adoption
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 30 November 2010 be adopted.
Mark Finch, David Spencer Julie Britton, Helen McAleer
156/10 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION - 18 NOVEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 6)
a) Executive Member Portfolio Update – Strategic Housing (Minute No. 105/10)
6
Council 16 December 2010
7
Action By
The Opposition Leader made Members aware of the questions that he had raised at the Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting particularly with regard to the response received relating to the Council’s statutory obligations to homelessness. He wished the response to be used as a plea to those preparing the budget to try and keep the housing and homelessness pot as topped up as possible so that these vulnerable people could be protected.
The Leader agreed that this type of grant should be supported.
b) Adoption
RESOLVED that the confirmed Minutes of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 18 November 2010 be adopted.
157/10 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY
COMMISSION - 6 DECEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 7)
The Overview & Scrutiny Commission Chairman stated that the special meeting held to discuss the Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP) had been very constructive and he endorsed the Minutes. A Member made a general point about the effort to expand Thetford and pleaded with Officers to ensure that the infrastructure was in place before the people moved in. In response, Members were reminded that the TAAP was a comprehensive document and the development would be phased. RESOLVED that the unconfirmed Minutes of the Special Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 6 December 2010 be adopted.
158/10 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 1 NOVEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 8)
RESOLVED that the confirmed Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 1 November 2010 be adopted.
159/10 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 22 NOVEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 9)
RESOLVED that the unconfirmed Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 22 November 2010 be adopted.
160/10 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE AND OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMISSION - 6 DECEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 10)
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Special Joint meeting of the General Purposes Committee and the Overview & Scrutiny Commission held on 6 December 2010 be adopted.
161/10 APPEALS COMMITTEE - 20 OCTOBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 11)
RESOLVED that the unconfirmed Minutes of the Appeals Committee
7
Council 16 December 2010
8
Action By
meeting held on 20 October 2010 be adopted.
162/10 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE - 5 NOVEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 12)
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Special Audit Committee meeting held on 5 November 2010 be adopted.
163/10 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE - 19 NOVEMBER 2010 (AGENDA ITEM 13)
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Special Audit Committee meeting held on 19 November 2010 be adopted.
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Moving Thetford Forward Board meeting held on 17 September 2010 be adopted.
165/10 BRECKLAND AREA MUSEUMS COMMITTEE - 1 OCTOBER 2010 (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM 15)
The Minutes of the Breckland Area Museums Committee meeting held on 1 October 2010 were noted.
166/10 YOUTH COUNCIL MINUTES (FOR INFORMATION) (AGENDA ITEM 16)
a) Minutes of the Meeting held on 20 October 2010
The Minutes of the Youth Council meeting held on 20 October 2010 were noted.
b) Minutes of the Campaign Meeting held on 8 November 2010 (for information)
Jordan Bailey, Alistair Wright and Stuart Green were in attendance to seek Members’ support for the YESS campaign. The Youth Council was trying to raise its profile and a number of ideas had been put forward and an action plan had been agreed. One of the ideas included taking photographs of local areas highlighting issues that could cause problems to both the young and the elderly. An article would be included in Breckland Voice and a questionnaire would follow. The Youth Council would also be holding a Question Time event as well as a Media Amnesty. The latter would include asking the media to publish more articles that promoted the good that young people did in their area. Members were impressed with what the Youth Council was trying to achieve and wished them well in their campaign. RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Campaign meeting held on 8 November 2010 be noted.
8
Council 16 December 2010
9
Action By
c) Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 15 November 2010 (for information)
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Youth Council Cabinet meeting held on 15 November 2010 be noted.
167/10 PROPOSAL FOR JOINT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS (AGENDA ITEM 17)
William Smith and Paul Claussen left the room at this point as they had another meeting to attend. The Member Services Manager reminded the meeting that any person who was at risk under the shared management structure would not be permitted to remain in the meeting during discussion of this item. Paragraph 8.3 of the Officer Code of Conduct in the Constitution stated: “that those officers would need to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the item and withdraw from the meeting”. The Officers that were at risk left the room whilst this item was being discussed. The Chief Executive presented the proposal for joint management arrangements between South Holland District Council and Breckland Council. Members had been constantly updated on this matter, therefore, a quick overview of the report was provided. One key point related to the two papers that had been circulated following the agenda issue which included the comments of the Deputy Monitoring Officer from South Holland District Council and Appendix M, which highlighted the financial implications of the proposal prepared again by South Holland District Council. Members were informed that South Holland District Council at its Full Council meeting held the day before on 15th December 2010 had approved the implementation of the shared management structure subject to two joint committees being formed. The membership of the Joint Appointments Committee and the Joint Appointment Appeals Committee would be eight, four Members from each Council and the quorum would be four (two members from each authority) and not three as stated in appendix F of the report. The structure had been designed and based upon three core functions which both Councils had considered earlier in the process. All issues and concerns had been taken into consideration. Part of the staff consultation was on the implementation procedure. This required agreement on a joint process to be used with all affected staff regardless of which of the two Councils they were presently employed by. The process as documented within the consultation had been independently reviewed and amended by an independent recruitment consultancy Attenti. Members were asked to note an amendment to this part of the report (page 6, last but one sentence),
9
Council 16 December 2010
10
Action By
to read: “in order to ensure that this process does not place either council at risk”. Job descriptions and examples of person specifications had been attached at Appendix J of the report. If Members were mindful to approve the new structure the said documents would be finalised and competencies would be added as appropriate. As part of the consultation process all staff had been invited to indicate their future wishes if their job application was unsuccessful in regard to voluntary redundancy or early retirement. It was recommended that in these circumstances the Chief Executive be authorised to approve these subject to consultation with both Leaders. Where jobs were offered to staff which represented suitable alternative employment but carried a lesser salary than their existing job, under pay protection this eventuality was already covered at Breckland Council by an approved policy and required no further consideration. At South Holland, however, custom and practice had been to offer two years pay protection although this had not been enshrined in a formal policy agreement. A simple memorandum of agreement between the two authorities had been devised which had been designed to be a ‘light touch’ agreement based around trust. Appendix K provided details of the financial data that underpinned the annual costs and set up costs. Based upon present salaries the costs indicated a potential gross annual saving in excess of one million pounds which may be reduced in the early years through pay protection. These savings did not include the saving which had already been made on the joint Chief Executive. The various set up costs would be shared and it had been recommended that each Council transferred monies from their respective Organisational Development Reserves into the Transformation budget. Systems issues, for example, integrated IT and communications for emails, calendars etc, had not been resolved and as a first step, the Local Government Group network group of joint Chief Executive Officers would be approached to resolve this issue; national monies may be applied for. Referring to the comments of the Deputy Monitoring Officer for Breckland Council in relation to the awaited and requested legal assessment from Attenti, the Chief Executive reported that the legal advice, although quite limited, had come forward which had been shared with the said Officer. He explained that the advice received pointed to a couple of areas that both Councils would need to be mindful of - redundancy tactics, not to fall into discrimination issues and the consultation process. The Leader of the Opposition raised concern as he thought that appropriate consultation had been carried out. The Deputy Monitoring Officer referred to the lack of a full business case and pointed out that the legal advice obtained so far did not
10
Council 16 December 2010
11
Action By
cover the whole process relating to the shared management proposals. The Council was therefore relying on advice from Attenti. He said he would have preferred to see advice covering, for example, the consultation process. There was a risk that the Council might receive unfair dismissal claims. The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission said that he was completely happy that the consultation process had been carried out correctly, and Members generally indicated that no further legal advice was necessary. The Leader of the Opposition was satisfied with the response. A Member queried the pay scales and asked how these levels had been arrived at, and if they were comparable to others. The Chief Executive explained that these figures were not actual salaries as they included PAYE and NI contributions. The grades were indicative at this moment in time and had been based on Breckland Council’s pay scales. From a Project Board perspective, the Leader asked for it to be noted that all comments had been taken on board prior to this paper coming forward to Council. The main driver of the shared management structure was to ensure that savings could be made at the top without cutting services at the bottom. A number of amendments to the report were required which included:
• Implementation (page 6 of the report) - “in order to ensure that this process does not place either council at risk”.
• Appendix C (e) – Final Interviews – “the applicants for the Director roles would be interviewed by the Joint Appointments Panel and not the project board.
• Appendix F – the quorum for the Joint Appointments Committee and the Joint Appointments Appeals Committee would be four, two members from each Council, and not three.
• Appendix L – the joint costs are estimated in appendix K and not appendix J
Subject to the above amendments, Members were asked to consider the recommendations contained within the report and each was explained, and accordingly, it was: RESOLVED that:
a) the joint management structure as at Appendix A of the report be approved;
b) the current posts that fell within the scope of the shared management proposals, as set out in Appendix B, be approved;
c) the structure be implemented using the process as described in Appendix C;
d) the core competencies as described in Appendix D be incorporated as requirements for all jobs in the new structure;
e) the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) be authorised to approve voluntary redundancies/early retirements subject to consultation with the two Leaders;
Terry Huggins, Roger Wilkin Natalie King Stephen McGrath, Councillor William Nunn Mark Finch
11
Council 16 December 2010
12
Action By
f) South Holland Council states its intention to follow its practice of two years pay protection (subject to caveats) where a person is assimilated into suitable alternative employment but where the grade is less than their present salary and that HR be asked to follow due process to introduce a written policy;
g) a Joint Appointments Committee be established in accordance with Appendix E, subject to the quorum being four, two from each Council;
h) a Joint Appointments Appeals Committee be established in accordance with Appendix F, subject to the quorum being four, two from each Council;
i) the Memorandum of Agreement in Appendix G covering the way in which the two Councils intend working with each other be approved (subject to minor amendments to be approved by the Chief Executive);
j) each Council pays from its reserves the sum of £400,000 into a Transformation Budget to be controlled by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leaders of the Councils; and
k) the Breckland membership of the Joint Appointments Committee and the Joint Appointments Appeals Committee be the members nominated by the Leader.
168/10 MEMBERS' SCHEME OF ALLOWANCES (AGENDA ITEM 18)
The Member Services Manager presented the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel. The Panel had been appointed to consider and recommend a scheme of allowances that complied with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989, the Local Government Act 2000 and associated regulations. The Panel had met on two occasions and had taken account of considerable evidence and correspondence. It was familiar with the culture of Breckland and had previously made it clear what was expected in terms of performance in recognition of the levels of allowance recommended. In reaching its conclusions, the Panel had taken note of the key developments during the past year. The Leader had been interviewed on 17th November 2010 and the Panel had been grateful for his attendance and for the information that he had provided. It was noted that the Panel had remained of the same view as far as pensions were concerned and was recommending that Members not be given access to the Local Government Pension Scheme. Given these financial uncertainties and the intention of Breckland to create a joint management structure with South Holland Council, the Panel had recommended a one year scheme for the period 1st January to 31 December 2011. The current basic allowance would remain the same as would the Special Responsibility Allowance with the exception of the Deputy Leader’s role, the Task & Finish Group Chairmen and the Licensing
12
Council 16 December 2010
13
Action By
Committee Chairman. It had been agreed that an additional amount should be paid to the Deputy Leader, and rates for Task & Finish Group Chairmen should be increased from £58 to £115 per meeting chaired. It had also been agreed that the Licensing Chairman should also get paid per meeting chaired instead of the annual allowance. Members were informed that the Licensing Committee had only met on a limited number of occasions during the past two years whilst the Licensing Sub-Committee had still met regularly and the Chairmen of these meetings were being paid an additional allowance. Allowances for co-opted Members and for child-care would remain the same and the travel and subsistence, as they were in-line with National Rates, would be unchanged. Requests for allowances for Town and Parish Councils would be referred to the Panel on receipt and would be considered on an individual basis. The Panel had been disappointed with the attendance levels from some Members at Committee meetings and therefore had requested that a letter be sent to the Department of Communities and Local Government to highlight this concern and the fact that the basic allowance could not be reduced in the event of poor attendance levels (if felt appropriate). The recommendations had been set out at section 13 of the report and Members were asked to put their views forward and suggest any changes. A Member queried the travel rate for training which, in her opinion, at 15.1p per mile, was disgraceful and felt that it needed further consideration as most of what Members did involved training. The Chairman pointed out that these were national rates that had been set and could not be changed. A Member complimented the Remuneration Panel but had concerns with regard to the proposed change to the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the Chairman of the Licensing Committee. He was aware that there had been a reduction in work but reminded Members of the work that this particular role covered which included being in control of the Licensing Sub-Committee Hearings. For these reasons, he believed that this particular role had a greater commitment to the Council and should have a SRA to reflect this work and be paid the same as the Chairman of the General Purposes Committee. It was proposed and seconded that the SRA be retained at £5200 per annum. Mr A Egerton-Smith, Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel, was in attendance. He pointed out that when the Panel interviewed the Chairman of the Licensing Committee a number of years ago, it was quite clear that the workload and meeting schedule was quite considerable. It was since felt that the SRA could only be based on the number of meetings that had taken place over the last 24 months and reminded Members that over the past year, the Licensing Committee had only met on three occasions. However, he
13
Council 16 December 2010
14
Action By
apologised on behalf of the Panel if it had failed to take the due diligence into this role and asked Members to highlight any further aspects that had been ignored that should be taken into account. As the Chairman of the Licensing Committee, the said Chair highlighted the two aspects that the role covered (which included being the Chairman of the Licensing Committee and the Licensing Sub-Committee) and reported that, when taking both roles into consideration, 14 meetings had actually taken place over the stated period. He did point out, however, that he had not been able to Chair all the aforementioned meetings due to Ward issues. A Member agreed with the recommendations as proposed by the Panel and did not think it to be a good idea to increase allowances in these difficult financial times. A vote was taken on the new proposal and the vote was won – one Member voted against the proposal. The Leader informed the Council of the Deputy Leader’s workload and he was pleased that this had been recognised by an increase in the allowance. However, Members were asked to note that the Deputy Leader would not be taking the additional allowance at this present time. A Member felt that in these financially difficult times, and whilst the Council was considering shared management and reducing the amount of Officers, the number of Councillors should also be reduced. In response, the Leader stated that if the number of Councillors were reduced, the democratic representation of the people the Council served would also be reduced. He pointed out that Members did have the option to cut back on the amount they claimed but did not have the option to cut back on the service to their communities. RESOLVED that, subject to the Licensing Committee Chairman being paid the Special Responsibility Allowance of £5,200, the scheme of allowances for the year commencing 1 January to 31 December 2011 be adopted as recommended.
Stephen McGrath, Carol Wade
The meeting closed at 12.35 pm
CHAIRMAN
14
Pa
ge
1 o
f 29
BR
EC
KL
AN
D C
OU
NC
IL
CA
BIN
ET
: 11
JA
NU
AR
Y 2
01
1
RE
PO
RT
OF
ST
EP
HE
N A
SK
EW
, T
HE
EX
EC
UT
IVE
ME
MB
ER
FO
R C
OR
PO
RA
TE
RE
SO
UR
CE
S
(Au
tho
r: S
tra
tegic
Dire
cto
r in
con
jun
ctio
n w
ith
th
e H
ea
d o
f F
ina
nce
) B
UD
GE
T S
ET
TIN
G R
EP
OR
T -
ES
TIM
AT
ES
20
11
/12
Agenda Item 5
15
Pa
ge
2 o
f 29
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
•
Bre
ckla
nd P
recep
t re
qu
ire
men
t 2
011
/12
£2
,77
0,0
58
(20
10
/11
£2
,724
,574
) a
n in
cre
ase
of
1.6
7%
•
Co
un
cil
tax in
cre
ase 2
01
1/1
2 0
% (
201
0/1
1 0
%)
•
Co
un
cil
Ta
x b
and
D 2
01
1/1
2 £
64
.05
(20
10
/11 £
64.0
5)
•
Co
st
pe
r w
ee
k 2
011
/12
£1.2
3 (
20
10
/11
£1
.23
) –
mo
st h
ou
se
ho
lds w
ill p
ay le
ss t
ha
n th
is
•
Ch
an
ge
s t
o f
ee
s a
nd
ch
arg
es a
re p
rop
ose
d f
rom
1st
Ap
ril 2
011
•
Gra
nt
sett
lem
en
t 20
11/1
2 £
9,3
02
,25
2 (
201
0/1
1 £
11
,30
9,0
66
)
•
Sp
ecia
l E
xp
en
se
Accou
nt 2
011
/12
£6
2,5
50 (
20
10
/11 £
16
5,1
80
)
•
The
fu
nd
ing ga
p in
20
11
/12
£1
55
,86
0 is
m
et
fro
m a
o
ne
-off
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n fr
om
th
e G
en
era
l F
un
d o
n th
e p
rovis
o th
at
eff
icie
ncie
s a
re intr
od
uce
d in
20
12
/13
to
co
ver
this
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
T
his
re
po
rt o
utlin
es t
he
20
11
/12
re
ve
nu
e a
nd
ca
pita
l e
stim
ate
s f
or
the
Gen
era
l F
und
and
th
e p
rop
osa
ls f
or
the
se
ttin
g o
f d
iscre
tio
na
ry f
ee
s a
nd ch
arg
es.
The
pu
rpo
se
of
the re
po
rt is
to
ask M
em
be
rs to
re
com
me
nd
th
e 20
11
/12
estim
ate
s t
o
Co
un
cil,
an
d fo
r M
em
be
rs t
o b
e a
dvis
ed
on t
he
outlin
e f
ina
ncia
l p
ositio
n t
hro
ugh
to 2
01
5/1
6.
1.2
T
he
Lo
ca
l G
ove
rnm
ent
Act
200
3 i
ntr
od
uce
d a
re
qu
ire
men
t th
at
the C
hie
f F
ina
ncia
l O
ffic
er
rep
ort
s o
n t
he
ro
bu
stn
ess o
f th
e
bu
dge
t. T
he
estim
ate
s h
ave
be
en
pre
pa
red
in a
pru
de
nt
ma
nn
er,
alth
ou
gh
it
sh
ou
ld b
e r
eco
gn
ise
d t
ha
t th
ere
are
a n
um
be
r of
ele
me
nts
ou
tsid
e o
f th
e C
ou
ncil’
s c
on
tro
l. T
he
se
ha
ve
be
en
id
en
tified
in
se
ction
15
of
this
re
po
rt a
nd
wo
uld
be
mitig
ate
d
thro
ugh
th
e b
ud
ge
tin
g m
on
ito
rin
g a
nd r
isk m
an
age
me
nt p
roce
sse
s o
f th
e C
oun
cil.
16
Pa
ge
3 o
f 29
2.
ASSUMPTIONS
2.1
T
he
estim
ate
s c
ove
r th
e p
erio
d 2
011
/12
to
20
15
/16
. O
ve
r th
is t
imesca
le it
is im
po
rtan
t w
e m
ake
rea
listic a
ssum
ption
s a
s t
o
ho
w c
osts
ma
y r
ise
or
fall.
Th
e m
ost
sig
nific
ant
assum
ptio
ns a
re g
ive
n b
elo
w in
ta
ble
1.
2.2
T
he
re is a
n a
ssu
mp
tion
tha
t re
ve
nue
bu
dge
ts w
ill b
e u
sed
to d
eliv
er
se
rvic
es d
urin
g t
he
ye
ar
for
wh
ich
th
ey a
re a
pp
rove
d.
2.3
W
e h
ave
allo
we
d f
or
un
avo
ida
ble
gro
wth
on
se
rvic
es,
for
exa
mp
le n
ew
sta
tuto
ry o
blig
atio
ns a
nd
con
tra
ctu
al
infla
tion
, b
ut
ha
ve
no
t a
llow
ed
an
y in
cre
ase
fo
r ge
ne
ral in
fla
tio
n.
2.4
In
pre
pa
rin
g t
he
bu
dge
ts i
t w
as a
nticip
ate
d t
ha
t se
rvic
e s
pe
cific
gra
nts
wo
uld
red
uce i
n v
alu
e a
s p
art
of
a p
rogra
mm
e o
f p
ub
lic s
ecto
r sp
end
ing c
uts
ann
oun
ced
in
the
Co
mp
reh
en
siv
e S
pen
din
g R
evie
w.
Th
is a
ssu
mptio
n h
as l
ed
to
ou
r p
rud
ent
ap
pro
ach
in
th
at
wh
ere
se
rvic
e d
eliv
ery
is d
ep
en
den
t on
spe
cific
gra
nt
we
ha
ve
on
ly a
ssu
med
con
tin
ua
tion
of
gra
nt
wh
ere
su
ch
no
tifica
tion
ha
s b
ee
n r
ece
ive
d.
2
.5
The
tr
ien
nia
l pe
nsio
n
fun
d
va
lua
tion
w
as
ca
rrie
d
ou
t a
t th
e
end
of
200
9/1
0.
Pro
po
sa
ls
to
sta
bili
se
fu
ture
e
mp
loye
r co
ntr
ibu
tio
ns h
ave
re
su
lte
d i
n a
sh
ift
fro
m a
com
po
site
ra
te c
ove
rin
g c
urr
en
t se
rvic
e p
rovis
ion
an
d d
eficit r
eco
ve
ry t
o a
se
pa
ratio
n o
f th
e t
wo
ele
men
ts.
Th
e c
urr
en
t se
rvic
e c
ost
will
be
co
ve
red
by a
pe
rce
nta
ge
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n b
ase
d o
n p
en
sio
na
ble
p
ayro
ll, a
nd
th
e d
eficit r
eco
ve
ry b
y a
ca
sh
su
m c
on
trib
utio
n.
Th
e a
ssu
mptio
ns b
ase
d o
n t
he
actu
ary
’s v
alu
atio
n a
re s
et
ou
t in
th
e ta
ble
1.
2
.6
We h
ave
pre
pa
red
th
e e
stim
ate
s o
n t
he u
nde
rsta
nd
ing t
hat
ap
pro
pria
te s
erv
ice
bud
ge
ts w
ere
pro
du
ced
fo
r 201
0/1
1 w
hic
h
ha
ve
th
en
be
en a
dju
ste
d to
refle
ct th
e c
ha
ngin
g f
ina
ncia
l circum
sta
nce
s t
ha
t th
e p
ub
lic s
ecto
r is
re
qu
ire
d t
o p
repa
re f
or.
2
.7
With
in
tere
st
rate
s c
on
tin
uin
g t
o r
em
ain
at
low
le
ve
ls,
the
re
turn
on
ca
sh
in
ve
stm
en
ts r
em
ain
s r
ela
tive
ly f
lat
until
20
12
/13,
wh
en
it
is f
ore
ca
st
tha
t in
tere
st
rate
s w
ill b
egin
to
re
turn
to
mo
re “
no
rma
l” le
ve
ls o
f o
ve
r 4
%.
17
Pa
ge
4 o
f 29
Tab
le 1
- S
tatistica
l a
ssu
mptio
ns w
hic
h influen
ce
th
e 5
ye
ar
fin
an
cia
l p
lan
Assu
mp
tio
n
20
10
/11
2011/12
2012/1
3
2013/1
4
2014/1
5
2015/1
6
Ge
ne
ral in
fla
tion
0
%
0%
0%
0
%
0%
0
%
Pa
y
co
sts
in
cre
ase
(no
n
AR
P
sta
ff)
0.3
25
%
0.325%
0.3
25
%
1.8
%
3.2
%
3.2
%
Fu
ll T
ime
Equ
iva
len
t E
mp
loye
es
28
0.1
6
252.44
24
7.9
5
24
7.0
5
24
7.0
5
24
7.0
5
Pe
nsio
n c
on
trib
ution
rate
2
0%
14.0%
14
.0%
1
4.0
%
14
.0%
1
4.0
%
Pe
nsio
n c
on
trib
ution
lum
p s
um
£
0
£399k
£4
34
k
£4
69
k
£5
07
k
£5
48
k
Re
turn
on
ca
sh
in
ve
stm
ents
2
.78
%
2.96%
3.4
8%
4
.25
%
4.8
2%
4
.82
%
Sta
ffin
g le
ve
ls
95
%
95%
95
%
95
%
95
%
95
%
18
Pa
ge
5 o
f 29
3.
2010/11 OUTTURN
3.1
A
n a
sse
ssm
en
t of
the
20
10
/11 o
utt
urn
will
in
form
th
e r
elia
nce w
e c
an
pla
ce
on
th
e b
ase
line
we
use f
or
se
ttin
g t
he
20
11
/12
estim
ate
s. T
he
ta
ble
be
low
sh
ow
s t
he
origin
al b
ud
ge
t a
nd t
he
ke
y v
aria
nce
s a
s a
t S
ep
tem
be
r 2
01
0.
T
ab
le 2
– A
sse
ssm
ent of
the
20
10
/11 O
utt
urn
£
£
Origin
al b
ud
ge
t 20
10/1
1
1
4,3
92
,32
0
Co
rpo
rate
Eff
icie
ncy r
equ
ire
me
nt
1
67
,98
0
ICT
Eff
icie
ncy r
equ
ire
me
nt
1
11
,77
0
Bu
dge
t C
ha
llen
ge
Da
y e
ffic
ien
cie
s
(4
91
,43
0)
Sa
lary
eff
icie
ncie
s
(2
3,7
30
)
Ca
r P
ark
ra
te r
efu
nd
s
(40
,260
)
Ad
ditio
na
l re
cyclin
g in
co
me
(8
,00
0)
Lic
en
sin
g r
estr
uctu
re
5,4
40
Tra
nsfe
r to
Re
se
rve
2
78
,23
0
Ou
ttu
rn 2
01
0/1
1 (
as a
t S
ep
tem
be
r 2
010
)
14
,39
2,3
20
3.2
A
s s
ho
wn
in
ta
ble
2,
the
eff
icie
ncy t
arg
et
for
20
10/1
1 h
as b
ee
n o
ve
rach
ieve
d a
nd
th
is e
xce
ss a
mo
unt
ha
s b
een t
ran
sfe
rre
d
to t
he
Org
an
isa
tion
al D
eve
lop
men
t R
ese
rve
an
d is a
va
ilab
le t
o b
e u
se
d f
or
futu
re b
usin
ess t
ran
sfo
rma
tio
n r
equ
ire
men
ts.
As
at
Sep
tem
be
r 2
01
0,
Off
ice
rs a
re f
ore
ca
sting a
ba
lan
ced
ou
ttu
rn f
or
20
10
/11
. C
ab
ine
t a
pp
rova
l is
so
ugh
t fo
r th
e b
ud
get
vir
em
ents
se
t o
ut
in a
pp
end
ix 8
.
3.3
O
n 1
5 J
an
ua
ry 2
01
0,
Co
un
cil
agre
ed
to
re
lea
se
cap
ita
l fu
nd
ing o
f £
2.9
m t
o e
na
ble
the
Th
etfo
rd E
nte
rprise
Pa
rk (
TE
P)
pro
ject
to p
roce
ed
, sub
ject
to d
ue d
ilige
nce
. T
he
ca
pita
l sum
in
clu
de
d a
n a
llow
an
ce
in r
esp
ect
of
pre
-in
cu
rred
co
sts
wh
ich
w
ere
elig
ible
to
be c
ap
ita
lise
d o
r re
co
ve
red
th
rou
gh
the
pro
ject
if t
he
TE
P p
roje
ct
pro
ceed
ed
. T
he
20
09
-10
fin
al
acco
un
ts
reco
gn
ise
d t
he
ris
k o
f n
ot
be
ing a
ble
to
ca
pita
lise
or
reco
ve
r th
ese
co
sts
sh
ou
ld t
he p
roje
ct
no
t p
roce
ed a
s a
co
ntin
ge
nt
liab
ility
. B
reckla
nd
and
th
e C
row
n a
re n
o l
on
ge
r w
ork
ing i
n c
olla
bo
ratio
n t
o d
eliv
er
TE
P;
he
nce
the
re i
s a
ne
ed
to
write
off
the
se c
osts
.
Ne
go
tia
tio
ns c
on
tinu
e w
ith
th
e C
row
n a
nd
EE
DA
to
de
term
ine
th
e f
ina
l p
ositio
n o
n a
bo
rtiv
e c
osts
, bu
t C
ab
ine
t a
re r
equ
este
d
to r
ecom
men
d t
o F
ull
Co
un
cil
to a
pp
rove
wri
te o
ff o
f th
ese p
re-in
curr
ed
co
sts
of
a m
axim
um
of
£75
4,6
75 t
o b
e f
un
de
d f
rom
th
e C
ou
ncil’
s G
en
era
l F
un
d (
cu
rre
nt
ba
lan
ce
£4
.8m
).
19
Pa
ge
6 o
f 29
4.
GRANT SETTLEMENT
4.1
T
he
Com
pre
he
nsiv
e S
pe
nd
ing R
evie
w p
rep
are
d l
oca
l a
uth
oritie
s f
or
un
pre
ced
ente
d c
uts
in
ce
ntr
al
go
ve
rnm
en
t fu
nd
ing,
in
pa
rtic
ula
r th
e f
ron
t lo
ad
ing o
f sp
end
ing r
ed
uctio
ns.
It a
lso
in
trod
uce
d a
gra
nt
to a
ssis
t co
un
cils
in
fre
ezin
g c
ou
ncil
tax i
n
20
11
/12.
The
d
raft
lo
ca
l go
ve
rnm
en
t se
ttle
me
nt
wa
s e
ve
ntu
ally
a
nno
un
ce
d o
n 1
3th
D
ece
mb
er
20
10
. It
is
a
tw
o ye
ar
se
ttle
me
nt
with
no
in
dic
atio
n o
f ye
ars
3 &
4,
so
we
ha
ve
assu
med
th
at
the
cu
ts i
n f
utu
re y
ea
rs w
ill m
irro
r th
e r
ed
uction
s
an
no
un
ce
d in
th
e C
SR
. T
he
ad
justm
en
t to
th
e b
ase 2
01
0/1
1 gra
nt,
w
hic
h fo
rms th
e b
asis
fo
r ca
lcu
latin
g th
e 20
11/1
2
se
ttle
me
nt,
am
ou
nte
d to
£58
2k. T
his
re
du
ction
in
clu
de
s t
he
tra
nsfe
r of
con
ce
ssio
na
ry f
are
s t
o c
ou
nty
co
un
cils
. 4
.2
We h
ave
bud
ge
ted f
or
a g
ran
t to
co
ve
r a
fre
eze
in
co
un
cil
tax f
or
201
1/1
2,
wh
ich
am
ou
nts
to
£6
9,8
00 f
or
the
ne
xt
two
ye
ars
, a
s a
nn
oun
ced
in
th
e C
SR
. 4
.3
The
he
ad
line
re
du
ction
of
8.9
% m
axim
um
re
du
ction
w
as b
ased
o
n a ‘R
eve
nu
e sp
endin
g p
ow
er’ (R
SP
) fo
rmu
la w
hic
h
inclu
de
d p
arish
co
un
cil
pre
ce
pts
, an
d t
he
refo
re m
asks B
reckla
nd
’s a
ctu
al re
du
ction
. A
tra
nsitio
n g
ran
t is
pa
id t
o u
s t
o m
ake
up
th
is s
ho
rtfa
ll in
spe
nd
ing p
ow
er.
Th
is a
mo
un
ts t
o £
55
k in
20
11
/12
alo
ne,
as w
e d
o n
ot
qua
lify in
20
12
/13
. 4
.4
The
ca
sh e
xp
ecte
d t
o b
e r
ece
ive
d in
fo
rmu
la g
ran
t re
du
ce
s b
y £
1.9
m in
20
11/1
2 w
he
n c
om
pa
red
to
the
201
0/1
1 s
ett
lem
ent
aft
er
takin
g i
nto
accoun
t tr
an
sitio
n g
ran
t a
nd
th
e g
ran
t to
off
se
t th
e f
ree
ze
in
co
un
cil
tax.
Th
is i
s t
he
equ
iva
len
t of
an
actu
al
red
uction
in
ca
sh
of
17
.1%
, a
lth
ou
gh
it
mu
st
be
rem
em
be
red
th
at
we
no
lo
nge
r w
ill h
ave
re
sp
on
sib
ility
fo
r con
ce
ssio
na
ry
fare
s,
so
th
e r
ed
uctio
n a
ga
inst
the a
dju
ste
d b
ase f
igu
re i
s 1
3.8
%.
Th
ere
is a
fu
rthe
r ca
sh
re
du
ctio
n b
etw
ee
n 2
01
1/1
2 a
nd
20
12
/13 o
f £
1.1
m,
or
aro
un
d 1
1.4
%.
4.5
P
revio
usly
we
we
re a
‘ce
ilin
g’
au
tho
rity
with
th
e f
loo
rs a
nd
ce
ilin
gs d
am
pin
g f
orm
ula
ta
kin
g f
und
ing a
wa
y f
rom
us.
No
w w
e
are
in
re
ce
ipt
of fu
nd
ing t
o k
eep
us a
bo
ve
th
e ‘floo
r’.
4.6
A
na
lysis
of
the
sp
ecia
l gra
nts
su
gge
sts
th
at
no
Are
a B
ase
d G
rant
will
be
pa
id.
To
pu
t th
is i
n c
on
text
we
ha
ve
re
ce
ive
d
£2
92
,500
fo
r th
is in t
he c
urr
en
t ye
ar
4.7
A
‘N
ew
Ho
me
s B
onu
s’
is t
o b
e i
ntr
od
uced
in
20
11
/12
. T
his
will
de
live
r a
dd
itio
na
l fu
nd
ing b
ack t
o l
oca
l a
uth
oritie
s a
s a
n
en
cou
rage
men
t to
in
cre
ase
th
e h
ou
sin
g s
up
ply
. W
hile
the
in
itia
l co
nsu
lta
tion
in
dic
ate
s t
hat
sig
nific
ant
leve
ls o
f fu
nd
ing c
ou
ld
be
ge
ne
rate
d in f
utu
re y
ea
rs,
it w
ou
ld n
ot
be
pru
den
t to
ma
ke
an
y a
ssu
mptio
ns u
ntil th
e s
ch
em
e is f
ina
lise
d in
th
e N
ew
Ye
ar.
T
his
wo
uld
be
to
o l
ate
fo
r 2
01
1/1
2 p
recep
t se
ttin
g,
bu
t sh
ou
ld e
ve
ntu
ally
be
co
nsid
ere
d i
n n
ext
ye
ar’s b
ud
ge
t a
nd
med
ium
te
rm f
ina
ncia
l str
ate
gy.
The
refo
re n
o a
llow
ance
ha
s b
ee
n m
ad
e in
re
sp
ect
of
this
re
wa
rd,
this
co
uld
be
wo
rth
aro
und
£47
0k
in 2
01
1/1
2 b
ased
on
the
pro
po
sa
ls s
et
ou
t in
th
e c
on
su
ltatio
n d
ocu
me
nt a
nd c
urr
en
t fo
recasts
fo
r ho
usin
g g
row
th.
20
Pa
ge
7 o
f 29
4.8
O
ur
ba
se
assu
mp
tio
ns o
n th
e s
ett
lem
en
t a
re s
ho
wn
be
low
,
Tab
le 3
– G
ran
t S
ett
lem
ent
2
010
/11
£
2011/12 £
20
12
/13
£
2
013
/14
£
2
014
/15
£
2
015
/16
£
ND
R
9,9
27
,12
9
7,066,445
6,2
90
,37
8
6,2
33
,76
4
5,8
84
,67
4
6,0
14
,13
7
RS
G
1,3
81
,93
7
2,180,646
1,9
41
,15
8
1,9
23
,68
8
1,8
15
,96
1
1,8
55
,91
2
Co
un
cil
Ta
x F
ree
ze
Gra
nt
0
69,800
69
,80
0
69
,80
0
69
,80
0
0
Tra
nsitio
na
l G
ran
t 0
55,161
0
0
0
0
Ho
me
lessn
ess G
ran
t 0
141,470
14
1,4
70
0
0
0
Tota
l 1
1,3
09
,06
6
9,513,522
8,4
42
,80
6
8,2
27
,25
2
7,7
70
,43
5
7,8
70
,04
9
% +
/-
2.2
7%
(15.88%)
(11
.25%
) (2
.55
%)
(5.5
5%
) 1
.28
%
21
Pa
ge
8 o
f 29
5.
COLLECTION FUND
5.1
E
ve
ry y
ea
r th
e C
oun
cil
is r
equ
ire
d t
o c
alc
ula
te t
he
ba
lan
ce
on
its
Co
llectio
n F
un
d.
It h
as b
een
a t
arg
et
of
the
Me
diu
m T
erm
F
ina
ncia
l S
tra
tegy t
o h
ave
a z
ero
ba
lan
ce
, w
e r
eco
gn
ise
in
ch
an
gin
g e
co
no
mic
circum
sta
nce
s t
his
ma
y b
e d
ifficu
lt h
en
ce
the
ch
an
ge
to
a
m
inim
al
ba
lan
ce
. F
igu
res in
dic
ate
a
su
rplu
s of
£0.7
9m
. B
reckla
nd
’s share
of
this
fo
r 2
01
1/1
2 w
ou
ld b
e
ap
pro
xim
ate
ly £
58
k.
Tab
le 4
– C
olle
ctio
n F
un
d
2
010
/11
£
2011/12 £
2
012
/13
£
2
013
/14
£
2
014
/15
£
2
015
/16
£
99
,00
0
(57,870)
0
0
0
0
6.
TAX BASE
6.1
T
he
ta
x b
ase
assu
mp
tio
ns a
re s
ho
wn
be
low
(N
um
be
r of
Ba
nd
D p
rop
ert
ies).
6
.2
The
ta
x b
ase
is a
ssum
ed
to
ris
e b
y 1
.14
% f
rom
201
1/1
2 t
o 2
012
/13.
Fo
r a
ll fu
ture
ye
ars
a 1
.14
% i
ncre
ase
ha
s b
ee
n
fore
ca
st.
Tab
le 5
– T
ax B
ase
20
10
/11
2011/12
20
12
/13
2
013
/14
2
014
/15
2
015
/16
42
,53
8
43,248
43
,74
1
44
,24
0
44
,74
4
45
,25
4
6.3
T
he
dra
ft ta
x b
ase
fo
r a
ll p
arish
es is s
ho
wn
in
app
end
ix 7
.
22
Pa
ge
9 o
f 29
7.
2011/12 ESTIMATES
7.1
T
he
fo
llow
ing t
ab
le s
ho
ws t
he
estim
ate
s b
y t
yp
e o
f e
xp
en
ditu
re/inco
me s
plit
ove
r th
e C
IPF
A s
tan
da
rd c
lassific
atio
n.
No
tes
are
pro
vid
ed
to
info
rm u
pon
bud
ge
t va
ria
nce
s.
De
tails
of
the
ove
rall
po
sitio
n a
re s
ho
wn
at a
ppe
nd
ix 1
.
Tab
le 6
– E
stim
ate
s b
y e
xp
en
ditu
re/in
com
e
Notes
2010/11 £
2011/12 £
Variance £
Variance
%
1
Em
plo
ye
es
8,7
22
,11
0
8,5
83
,90
0
(13
8,2
10
) (1
.58
%)
P
rem
ise
s
2,1
79
,72
0
2,1
80
,26
0
54
0
0.0
2%
2
Tra
nsp
ort
3
49
,52
0
35
5,8
60
6,3
40
1.8
1%
3
Su
pp
lies a
nd
Se
rvic
es
14
,63
7,8
40
1
3,6
72
,47
0
(96
5,3
70
) (6
.60
%)
4
Dra
ina
ge
Bo
ard
Le
vie
s
51
,94
0
53
,53
0
1,5
90
3.0
6%
5
Tra
nsfe
r P
aym
en
ts
39
,42
8,2
40
4
3,3
29
,53
0
3,9
01
,29
0
9.8
9%
6
Su
ppo
rt S
erv
ice
s
4,6
17
,27
0
4,7
27
,65
0
11
0,3
80
2.3
9%
7
Ca
pita
l C
ha
rge
s
1,8
61
,95
0
2,1
14
,75
0
25
2,8
00
13
.58
%
8
Ca
pita
l F
inan
cin
g
(1,1
38,4
20
) (2
,27
9,5
80
) (1
,14
1,1
60
) (1
00
.24
%)
T
ota
l E
xp
end
itu
re
70,710,170
72,738,370
9
Re
nts
(2
,63
1,7
60
) (3
,03
7,4
40
) (4
05
,68
0)
(15
.41%
)
F
ee
s a
nd
Cha
rge
s
(2,9
81,5
60
) (2
,97
5,4
80
) 6
,080
0.2
0%
10
G
ran
ts
(41
,594
,70
0)
(45
,714
,74
0)
(4
,120
,04
0)
(9.9
1%
)
11
O
the
r (4
,38
1,7
20
) (3
,78
2,0
90
) 5
99
,63
0
13
.68
%
T
ota
l In
com
e
(51,589,740)
(55,509,750)
G
row
th B
ids
0
0
12
C
on
tin
ge
ncy/(
Eff
icie
ncy S
avin
gs)
(16
7,9
80
) (1
55
,86
0)
12
,12
0
L
ess T
rad
ing U
nits
(4,5
60,1
30
) (4
,66
8,7
60
) (1
08
,63
0)
B
ud
ge
t R
equ
irem
ent
14,392,320
12,404,000
(1,988,320)
23
Pa
ge
10 o
f 2
9
No
te 1
– O
ve
rall
em
plo
ye
e c
osts
ha
ve
de
cre
ased
, h
ow
eve
r th
is l
ine
in
clu
de
s t
he
eff
ect
of
acco
un
tin
g e
ntr
ies f
or
pe
nsio
ns
(FR
S1
7).
If
the
mo
ve
me
nt
in F
RS
17
entr
ies f
rom
on
e y
ea
r to
th
e n
ext
is r
em
ove
d t
he
rea
l d
ecre
ase
in
em
plo
ye
e c
osts
is
£9
49
k (
10
.88
%)
No
te 2
– T
he
in
cre
ase
in
tra
nspo
rt c
osts
is d
ue
to
ch
an
ge
s in
ca
r u
se
rs a
nd m
ilea
ge
.
No
te 3
– T
his
va
ria
nce is d
ue t
o v
ario
us m
ove
men
ts in c
osts
sh
ow
n in
the
tab
le b
elo
w:
Description
Increase/(Decrease)
PF
I A
ccou
ntin
g T
reatm
en
t C
ha
nge
s
(£3
78
,000
)
ICT
Con
tra
ct a
nd
Softw
are
Su
pp
ort
(£
31
7,0
00
)
Co
nce
ssio
na
ry B
us F
are
s
(£6
85
,000
)
On
e O
ffs (
ie, L
DF
, E
lectio
ns,
RE
V A
ctive
etc
) £
507
,000
Re
du
ced
gra
nts
(£
40
,00
0)
Oth
er
mis
ce
llane
ou
s
(£5
2,0
00
)
No
te 4
– D
rain
age
Board
le
vie
s in
clu
de
an
infla
tio
na
ry in
cre
ase
.
No
te 5
– T
ran
sfe
r P
aym
ent
co
sts
are
mo
stly H
ou
sin
g B
en
efit
and
Co
un
cil
Ta
x B
enefit
pa
ym
en
ts a
nd
an
in
cre
ase
in
cla
ims
ha
s b
ee
n a
ssum
ed
in th
is a
rea
due
to t
he
cu
rre
nt
eco
nom
ic c
lima
te. T
he
in
cre
ase is o
ffse
t b
y in
co
me (
se
e n
ote
10
).
N
ote
6 –
Re
ch
arg
es f
or
su
pp
ort
se
rvic
es r
eflect
incre
ase
s in
ite
ms s
uch
as s
ala
rie
s a
nd c
on
tra
cts
.
No
te 7
– C
ap
ita
l ch
arg
es h
ave
ris
en
du
e t
o c
ha
nge
s t
o t
he
accou
ntin
g t
rea
tmen
t fo
r th
e P
FI
co
ntr
act,
re
su
ltin
g in
th
e a
sse
ts
be
ing in
clu
de
d o
n b
ala
nce
she
et.
N
ote
8 –
Cap
ita
l F
inan
cin
g c
osts
refle
ct
the a
pp
rop
ria
tion
s t
o a
nd f
rom
re
se
rve
s a
nd t
he
re
ve
rsa
l of
the
ca
pita
l ch
arg
es
figu
res.
The
cha
nge
in
20
11/1
2 r
efle
cts
the
ch
an
ge
s in
cap
ita
l ch
arg
es a
nd F
RS
17 e
ntr
ies a
nd
als
o,
fund
ing f
rom
re
se
rve
s
for
one
off
co
sts
.
No
te 9
– R
en
tal in
co
me
fo
reca
sts
ha
ve
in
cre
ase
d f
or
ce
rta
in c
om
me
rcia
l p
rope
rtie
s d
ue t
o c
ha
nge
s in t
he
cu
rren
t e
co
no
mic
e
nviro
nm
ent
an
d a
new
pu
rch
ase
ha
s b
ee
n m
ade
, re
su
ltin
g in
hig
he
r re
nta
l fo
reca
sts
ove
rall.
N
ote
10
– G
ran
t in
com
e h
as r
ise
n a
s a
re
su
lt o
f an
in
cre
ase
d fo
recast
of
be
nefit p
aym
ents
(se
e n
ote
5).
24
Pa
ge
11 o
f 2
9
No
te 1
1 –
Oth
er
incom
e in
clu
de
s;
redu
ce
d in
ve
stm
ent
incom
e a
s a
re
su
lt o
f in
tere
st
rate
s n
ot
reco
ve
rin
g a
s a
nticip
ate
d la
st
ye
ar;
an
d c
on
trib
utio
ns f
rom
AR
P p
art
ne
rs r
ed
ucin
g a
s a
re
su
lt o
f re
du
ced
net
ove
rall
pa
rtne
rsh
ip c
osts
.
No
te 1
2 –
Eff
icie
ncy s
avin
gs a
re r
equ
ire
d in
20
11
/12.
Ple
ase
refe
r to
se
ction
13
of
this
rep
ort
wh
ich
giv
es m
ore
in
form
ation
on
th
is a
rea.
25
Pa
ge
12 o
f 2
9
8.
FEES AND CHARGES (excluding rents)
8.1
In
com
e f
rom
fe
es a
nd c
ha
rge
s i
s a
n i
mp
ort
an
t so
urc
e o
f re
ve
nu
e i
nco
me
fo
r th
e A
uth
ority
. C
ha
rge
s h
ave
a c
en
tra
l ro
le t
o
pla
y in
se
rvic
e d
eliv
ery
, ra
isin
g in
co
me
, con
tro
llin
g a
cce
ss,
respo
nd
ing to
co
mp
etition
, fu
nd
ing in
ve
stm
en
t an
d a
ffe
ctin
g
pu
blic
be
ha
vio
ur.
8
.2
We h
ave
re
vie
we
d f
ees a
nd
ch
arg
es a
nd
mad
e c
han
ge
s w
he
re n
ece
ssa
ry t
o t
he
le
ve
l o
f fe
es a
nd
ch
arg
es le
vie
d.
We h
ave
a
lso
re
vie
we
d f
ee
s a
nd
ch
arg
es in r
ela
tion
to
ch
an
ge
s in
dem
an
d f
or
se
rvic
es a
nd h
ave
re
fle
cte
d t
he
se
dem
and
ch
an
ge
s in
the
bu
dge
ted
le
ve
l of fe
es a
nd
ch
arg
es in
com
e. A
ll fe
es a
nd
ch
arg
es p
ropo
sed
fo
r 2
011
/12
are
sh
ow
n a
t a
pp
end
ix 2
/2B
.
8.3
T
he
ma
in c
ha
nge
s a
risin
g f
rom
th
e r
evie
w a
re:
•
A c
han
ge
to
th
e r
egu
latio
ns fo
r B
uild
ing C
ontr
ol fe
es h
as b
ee
n r
efle
cte
d in t
he
fee
s a
nd
ch
arg
es f
or
this
se
rvic
e.
•
Fo
llow
ing a
n in
tern
al re
vie
w o
f th
e lic
en
sin
g s
erv
ice
, lic
en
sin
g f
ee
s h
ave
be
en
am
en
de
d a
cco
rdin
gly
. 8
.4
The
bu
dge
t p
rese
nte
d d
oe
s n
ot
inclu
de
an
y in
co
me
re
latin
g t
o C
CT
V,
ho
we
ve
r th
is r
em
ain
s a
po
ten
tia
l in
com
e e
arn
ing a
rea
an
d th
e b
ud
ge
t ho
lde
r w
ill c
on
tin
ue
to
pro
gre
ss w
ork
in
ve
stiga
tin
g t
his
po
ten
tia
l in
com
e.
26
Pa
ge
13 o
f 2
9
9.
RESERVES
9.1
In
ord
er
to c
om
ply
with
the
re
qu
irem
ents
of
the
Lo
ca
l G
ove
rnm
en
t A
ct
20
03,
the
Au
tho
rity
sh
ou
ld u
nde
rta
ke a
re
vie
w o
f th
e
leve
l o
f re
se
rve
s a
s p
art
of
an
nu
al
bu
dge
t p
rep
ara
tio
n.
Ou
r M
ed
ium
Te
rm F
ina
ncia
l S
tra
tegy s
tate
s t
ha
t a r
evie
w o
f th
e
Co
un
cil’
s r
ese
rve
s i
s c
arr
ied
ou
t a
nd
rep
ort
ed
to
Cab
inet
for
co
nsid
era
tio
n.
A r
evie
w o
f th
e c
urr
en
t po
sitio
n i
n r
esp
ect
of
rese
rve
s h
as b
ee
n un
de
rta
ke
n,
inclu
din
g a
re
vie
w o
f th
e cu
rren
t a
nd
fu
ture
risk a
sse
ssm
en
ts.
Th
is h
as in
clu
de
d an
asse
ssm
en
t of
risk r
egis
ters
, p
ressu
res u
pon s
erv
ice
s,
infla
tion
an
d i
nte
rest
rate
s a
nd
an
y u
nde
rwritin
g a
rra
nge
me
nts
. T
he
p
rop
ose
d b
ud
ge
t d
oes n
ot
requ
ire
an
y l
on
g t
erm
su
pp
ort
fro
m b
ala
nce
s,
ho
we
ve
r th
e c
ha
llen
gin
g c
ircu
msta
nce
s a
rou
nd
pe
rfo
rma
nce
of
Co
mm
erc
ial
Pro
pe
rty,
inve
stm
en
t in
co
me
a
t risk a
nd
sp
ecific
co
ntr
actu
al
ch
alle
nge
s h
as re
qu
ire
d u
s to
u
nde
rta
ke
a r
ob
ust
sen
sitiv
ity a
na
lysis
sh
ou
ld t
he
se
eve
nts
re
qu
ire
us t
o d
raw
up
on
ba
lan
ce
s.
Whils
t it i
s a
ppa
ren
t th
ese
risks c
ou
ld b
e f
ina
ncia
lly s
ign
ific
an
t o
ur
rese
rve
s a
re h
ea
lth
y.
9
.2
The
fo
llow
ing o
bse
rva
tio
ns a
re m
ad
e o
f o
ur
rese
rve
s;
•
Pre
-in
cu
rre
d c
osts
asso
cia
ted
with
th
e T
EP
pro
ject
(se
e s
ection
3)
are
re
qu
este
d t
o b
e w
ritt
en
do
wn
aga
inst
the
Ge
ne
ral F
un
d.
It is a
lso
pro
po
se
d t
hat
£19
6,0
60
be
use
d t
o s
up
po
rt t
he
bu
dge
t re
qu
ire
men
t in
20
11/1
2 o
nly
, to
allo
w
the
au
tho
rity
to
con
tinu
e to
p
rovid
e se
rvic
es w
hile
it p
uts
in
p
lace
th
e tr
an
sfo
rma
tion
pla
ns re
qu
ire
d to
mee
t th
e
fun
din
g s
ho
rtfa
ll in
2012
/13.
•
The
PF
I re
se
rve
is r
un
nin
g a
t a
lo
w l
eve
l, h
ow
eve
r th
e a
nticip
ate
d c
osts
of
PF
I a
re f
ully
allo
we
d f
or
with
in t
he
ba
se
bu
dge
t a
nd
no
t n
ow
re
qu
irin
g s
up
po
rt f
rom
re
se
rve
s.
With
the
pla
nn
ed
ben
chm
ark
ing r
evie
w i
n y
ea
r 7
th
ere
is a
p
ossib
ility
of
incre
ased
or
de
cre
ased
co
sts
wh
ich
th
e C
ou
ncil
will
ha
ve
to
eva
lua
te a
nd r
esp
ond
to
as n
ece
ssa
ry.
The
re r
em
ain
se
ve
ral co
ntr
actu
al m
atte
rs a
rou
nd
the
PF
I a
rra
ngem
ents
tha
t m
ay o
r m
ay n
ot
resu
lt in
ad
ditio
na
l co
sts
to
the
Co
un
cil.
Due
to t
his
un
ce
rta
inty
it
is p
rop
osed
ou
r G
en
era
l F
un
d i
s m
ain
tain
ed
at
a s
uff
icie
nt
leve
l to
pro
vid
e
pro
tection
fro
m s
uch
on
e o
ff e
ve
nts
.
•
The
Co
un
cil
ho
lds £
2.1
9m
at
1 A
pril 2
010
with
in a
ma
tch
fu
nd
ing r
ese
rve
. T
he
Cou
ncil
sh
ou
ld e
nsu
re t
ha
t it is a
ble
to
su
ppo
rt th
is le
ve
l of
inve
stm
ent
and
in
de
ed w
he
the
r th
e m
atc
h f
un
din
g sch
em
e,
be
ing of
a d
iscre
tio
na
ry n
atu
re,
rem
ain
s v
alu
e f
or
mone
y a
ga
inst
the C
ou
ncil’
s o
wn
ca
pita
l in
ve
stm
en
t ne
ed
s.
•
The
Org
an
isa
tion
al
Deve
lop
me
nt
rese
rve
sta
nd
s a
t £
2.7
8m
at
1 A
pril
20
10
an
d i
s l
arg
ely
un
allo
ca
ted.
Th
is r
ese
rve
a
lso
ho
lds th
e o
ve
r a
ch
ieve
me
nt
aga
inst
the
eff
icie
ncy t
arg
et
wh
ich
is a
va
ilab
le t
o b
e u
sed
fo
r b
usin
ess c
on
tinu
ity.
It is
en
vis
age
d t
ha
t th
is r
ese
rve
will
co
ntin
ue
to
be
used
fo
r th
e t
ran
sfo
rma
tion
al a
ctivitie
s t
ha
t w
ill b
e r
equ
ire
d t
o c
ontin
ue
to d
rive
re
ve
nu
e c
osts
do
wn
. T
o t
his
en
d in
20
10
/11
Co
un
cil
agre
ed
to
co
ntr
ibu
te £
400
k f
rom
th
is r
ese
rve
to
sup
po
rt
the
tra
nsfo
rma
tio
n r
equ
ire
d t
o f
orm
a s
ingle
ma
na
ge
me
nt te
am
with
Sou
th H
olla
nd D
istr
ict
Co
un
cil.
•
The
Waste
an
d R
ecyclin
g r
ese
rve
wa
s b
uilt
up
du
rin
g t
he i
nitia
l ye
ars
of
the c
ontr
act
from
sa
vin
gs a
ch
ieve
d a
ga
inst
the
pre
vio
us c
ontr
acts
. N
ow
th
at
the
co
ntr
act
ha
s r
ea
che
d t
he l
ate
r ye
ars
of
the
10
ye
ar
term
, th
e f
un
ds a
re b
ein
g
ap
plie
d o
ve
r th
e r
em
ain
ing y
ea
rs o
f th
e c
on
tra
ct
to s
mo
oth
the
eff
ect
of
price
ch
an
ge
s.
27
Pa
ge
14 o
f 2
9
T
ab
le 7
- S
um
ma
ry o
f th
e p
rop
ose
d m
ove
me
nt
on
Ge
ne
ral B
ala
nce
s
£0
00
’s
20
10
/11
2011/12
20
12
/13
2
013
/14
2
014
/15
2
015
/16
B/f
wd
4
,817
4,067
4,0
67
4
,067
4,0
67
4
,067
In
- -
- -
- -
Ou
t (7
50
) -
- -
- -
C/f
wd
4
,067
4,067
4,0
67
4
,067
4
,067
4,0
67
Tab
le 8
- S
um
ma
ry o
f th
e p
rop
ose
d m
ove
me
nt
on
Sp
ecific
Re
se
rve
s
£000’s
2
010
/11
2011/12
20
12
/13
2
013
/14
2
014
/15
2
015
/16
B/f
wd
7
,859
7,010
6,2
73
6
,054
5
,894
5
,916
In
1,2
65
2,229
2,2
26
2
,214
2
,214
2
,214
Ou
t (2
,11
4)
(2,966)
(2,4
45
) (2
,37
4)
(2,1
92
) (2
,22
5)
C/f
wd
7
,010
6,273
6,0
54
5
,894
5
,916
5
,905
9.3
M
ovin
g f
orw
ard
th
e G
en
era
l F
un
d b
ala
nce
sta
nd
s a
t £4
.06
7m
wh
ich
I b
elie
ve
to b
e p
rude
nt fo
r th
is a
uth
ority
at
this
tim
e.
9.4
Ap
pen
dix
3 o
utlin
es t
he
po
sitio
n s
tate
me
nt
on
re
se
rve
s.
Th
is s
ho
ws t
he
na
me
of
ea
ch
sp
ecific
re
se
rve
, th
e p
urp
ose
fo
r w
hic
h it
is h
eld
, th
e b
ala
nce
as a
t th
e 1
st A
pril 2
011
th
rou
gh
out
the
fin
an
cia
l p
lan
, a
nd
th
e m
ove
me
nts
in a
nd
ou
t.
9.5
The C
ou
ncil’
s co
nstitu
tio
n d
oe
s n
ot
sp
ecific
ally
m
en
tio
n a
uth
ority
fo
r a
pp
rova
l o
f un
-allo
ca
ted
a
mo
un
ts f
rom
e
arm
ark
ed
rese
rve
s a
nd
it
is a
lso
sile
nt
on
gra
nt
inco
me
re
ce
ive
d.
Th
ere
fore
a s
ugge
ste
d a
men
dm
en
t to
the
co
nstitu
tion
is s
ho
wn
at
ap
pe
nd
ix 6
, an
d is r
eco
mm
en
ded
fo
r a
pp
rova
l b
y f
ull
Co
un
cil.
28
Pa
ge
15 o
f 2
9
10.
BUDGET REQUIREMENT
10
.1
The
pro
po
sed
bu
dge
t re
qu
ire
me
nt
an
d d
em
an
d o
n C
oun
cil
Ta
x is illu
str
ate
d b
elo
w.
T
ab
le 9
– B
ud
ge
t R
equ
ire
men
t
20
10
/11
2011/12
Bu
dge
t re
qu
irem
ent
14
,39
2,3
20
1
2,4
04
,00
0
Se
ttle
men
t (1
1,3
09
,06
6)
(9,3
02,2
52
)
Are
a B
ase
d G
ran
t (2
92
,50
0)
0
Ho
me
lessn
ess G
ran
t 0
(1
41
,47
0)
Co
un
cil
Ta
x F
ree
ze
Gra
nt
0
(69
,800
)
Co
llectio
n F
un
d
99
,00
0
(57
,870
)
Sp
ecia
l E
xp
en
se
s
(16
5,1
80
) (6
2,5
50
)
Bre
ckla
nd P
recep
t D
em
and
(2
,72
4,5
74
) (2
,77
0,0
58
)
Ta
x b
ase
4
2,5
38
4
3,2
48
Ba
nd D
Co
un
cil
Ta
x
£6
4.0
5
£6
4.0
5
Pe
rce
nta
ge
In
cre
ase
0
.00
%
0.0
0%
10
.2
The
Co
un
cil
Ta
x p
erc
en
tage
in
cre
ase
fo
r 2
011
/12 w
ill b
e 0
.00
% w
hic
h is in
lin
e w
ith
Go
ve
rnm
en
t P
olic
y.
29
Pa
ge
16 o
f 2
9
11.
FORWARD ESTIMATES
11
.1
Ou
tlin
e e
stim
ate
s t
hro
ugh
to
20
15
/16
are
sho
wn
at
app
end
ix 1
. In
co
mp
ilin
g t
he
se
fig
ure
s w
e h
ave
fo
llow
ed
th
e a
ssum
ptions
reco
rde
d in
Se
ctio
n 2
of
the
re
po
rt a
nd
made
sp
ecific
ad
justm
en
ts t
o s
erv
ice
bu
dge
ts a
s a
nd
wh
ere
Se
rvic
e M
an
age
rs h
ave
ad
vis
ed
of
ch
an
ge
ove
r th
e m
ed
ium
te
rm. T
he
se
fo
rwa
rd e
stim
ate
s a
llow
fo
r in
cre
ase
s in
lin
e w
ith
infla
tion
be
yo
nd
201
1/1
2.
T
ab
le 1
0 –
Fo
rwa
rd E
stim
ate
s
2
012
/13
2
013
/14
2
014
/15
2
015
/16
Bu
dge
t re
qu
irem
ent
11
,42
0,3
60
1
1,3
10
,58
0
10
,96
2,9
83
1
1,1
75
,81
5
Se
ttle
men
t (8
,23
1,5
36
) (8
,15
7,4
52
) (7
,70
0,6
35
) (7
,87
0,0
49
)
Are
a B
ase
d G
ran
t 0
0
0
0
Ho
me
lessn
ess G
ran
t
(14
1,4
70
) 0
0
0
Co
un
cil
Ta
x F
ree
ze
Gra
nt
(69
,800
) (6
9,8
00
) (6
9,8
00
) 0
Co
llectio
n F
un
d
0
0
0
0
Sp
ecia
l E
xp
en
se
s
(10
5,8
80
) (1
06
,31
0)
(10
6,3
10
) (1
06
,31
0)
Breckland Precept Demand
2,871,674
2,977,018
3,086,238
3,199,456
Ta
x b
ase
4
3,7
41
4
4,2
40
4
4,7
44
4
5,2
54
Ba
nd D
Co
un
cil
Ta
x
£6
5.6
5
£6
7.2
9
£6
8.9
7
£7
0.7
0
Pe
rce
nta
ge
In
cre
ase
2
.50
%
2.5
0%
2
.50
%
2.5
0%
11
.2
The
se
fo
rwa
rd e
stim
ate
s d
em
on
str
ate
a b
ala
nced
an
d s
usta
ina
ble
fin
an
cia
l p
lan
on
the
assum
ption
tha
t th
e a
uth
ority
is
su
cce
ssfu
l in
de
live
rin
g its
eff
icie
ncy t
arg
ets
, is
ab
le t
o c
on
tain
pa
yro
ll co
sts
an
d t
he
le
ve
l of
inve
stm
en
t in
com
e r
etu
rns b
ack
to “
no
rma
l” le
ve
ls.
Fu
rth
er
info
rmatio
n o
n e
ffic
ien
cie
s is p
rovid
ed
in
se
ctio
n 1
3 o
f th
is r
epo
rt.
11
.3
The
spe
cia
l e
xp
en
se
ch
arg
e i
s m
ade
fo
r th
e m
ain
tena
nce o
f lig
htin
g o
n p
ub
lic f
oo
tpa
ths i
n t
he
De
reh
am
, T
he
tfo
rd,
Watton
an
d B
aw
de
sw
ell.
T
his
is
in
a
dd
itio
n to
th
e p
rece
pt
rais
ed
b
y B
reckla
nd
C
oun
cil
acro
ss th
e d
istr
ict.
A
ttle
bo
rou
gh
a
nd
Sw
aff
ha
m h
ave
ele
cte
d t
o b
e r
ech
arg
ed
directly f
or
the
ir p
ub
lic l
igh
tin
g c
osts
, so
it
form
s p
art
of
the
ir o
wn
pre
ce
pt.
Oth
er
pa
rish
cou
ncils
ma
inta
in t
he
ir o
wn
fo
otp
ath
lig
htin
g r
equ
ire
men
ts a
nd t
he
refo
re m
an
age
th
is c
ost
thro
ugh
th
eir o
wn
pre
ce
pt.
30
Pa
ge
17 o
f 2
9
11
.4
The
fo
llow
ing t
ab
le s
ets
ou
t th
e b
ud
ge
t re
qu
ire
men
t fo
r th
e f
ive
ma
rke
t to
wn
s a
nd a
pa
rish w
ho
ha
ve
lig
htin
g m
ain
tain
ed
by
the
co
un
cil.
En
erg
y p
rice
re
du
ctio
ns i
n t
he
pre
vio
us y
ea
r h
ave
le
ad t
o o
ve
r re
co
ve
rie
s o
f sp
ecia
l gra
nt.
Ad
justing f
or
this
in
20
11
/12
le
ad
s t
o a
sig
nific
an
t on
e-o
ff r
ed
uctio
n.
Ho
we
ve
r co
sts
are
fo
reca
st
to i
ncre
ase
to
pre
vio
us l
eve
ls i
n f
utu
re y
ea
rs.
Att
lebo
rou
gh
and
Sw
aff
ham
, w
ho
are
ch
arg
ed
dire
ctly f
or
the
ir s
hare
of
the
lig
htin
g c
osts
, h
ave
se
en
th
e r
ed
uctio
ns i
n t
he
cu
rre
nt
ye
ar,
as th
ere
is n
o d
ela
y c
au
sed
by th
e p
rece
pt se
ttin
g p
roce
ss a
nd
ma
tch
ing o
uttu
rn f
igu
res t
o t
he
estim
ate
.
Tab
le 1
1 –
Spe
cia
l E
xp
en
se
Pub
lic L
igh
tin
g
B
aw
de
sw
ell
De
reh
am
T
he
tfo
rd
Watto
n
Att
lebo
rou
gh
S
wa
ffha
m
Str
ee
t L
igh
tin
g A
mo
unt R
ais
ed
£
159
.45
£
10
,83
8.7
6
£3
4,4
85.5
6
£1
7,0
69.9
5
- -
20
11
/12 T
ax B
ase
2
84
.70
6
,012
.40
6
,758
.04
2
,435
.42
-
-
Ba
nd D
Equ
iva
len
t £
0.5
6
£1
.80
£
5.1
0
£7
.01
-
-
20
10
/11 B
an
d D
Co
mpa
riso
n
£1
.57
£
3.7
8
£1
6.2
8
£1
3.8
2
- -
Am
ou
nt C
ha
rge
d D
ire
ctly 2
01
1/1
2
- -
- -
£2
8,3
74.9
3
£2
3,7
80.9
0
31
Pa
ge
18 o
f 2
9
12.
CONSULTATION
12
.1
In l
igh
t of
the
Com
pre
hen
siv
e S
pe
nd
ing R
evie
w a
nd
un
ce
rta
in d
istr
ibu
tio
n o
f gra
nt
se
ttle
me
nt,
it
ha
s m
ade
it
difficu
lt t
o
co
nsu
lt in
an
y d
eta
il, h
ow
eve
r, p
rio
rity
su
rve
ys h
ave
still
bee
n c
arr
ied
out
to d
ete
rmin
e t
he s
erv
ice
s a
nd
cou
ncil
po
licie
s t
hat
pu
blic
sta
ke
ho
lde
rs m
ost
ap
pre
cia
te,
an
d t
o h
elp
th
e C
ou
ncil
with
its
fu
ture
sp
en
din
g d
ecis
ion
s.
The
No
rfo
lk C
itiz
en
s’ P
an
el
an
d Ip
so M
ori h
ave
bee
n c
om
mis
sio
ned
to
pro
vid
e s
ep
ara
te r
ep
ort
s.
12
.2
The
se
rep
ort
s c
an
be
fo
und
on t
he
Co
un
cil’
s w
eb
site
at:
h
ttp
://w
ww
.bre
ckla
nd
.go
v.u
k/b
ud
ge
t_p
rio
ritie
s_
201
0_
-_w
ith
_co
ve
r_da
te_a
me
nd
s.p
df
12
.3
We h
ave
ca
rrie
d o
ut a
bu
sin
ess r
ate
pa
ye
r’s c
on
su
lta
tio
n e
ve
nt
wh
ich
is a
sta
tuto
ry r
equ
ire
me
nt.
12
.4
In a
dd
itio
n t
o t
his
we
ha
ve
ta
ke
n t
he
hig
h-leve
l b
ud
ge
tary
pro
po
sals
an
d t
he
lik
ely
im
pa
cts
re
su
ltin
g f
rom
the
CS
R t
hro
ugh
the
Au
dit c
om
mitte
e to
allo
w c
ha
llen
ge
fro
m b
oth
a f
ina
ncia
l an
d g
ove
rna
nce
vie
wp
oin
t.
12
.5
The
futu
re o
f th
e N
orf
olk
Citiz
en
’s P
an
el is
unce
rta
in a
s e
ach
au
tho
rity
is c
on
sid
erin
g its
optio
ns.
The
refo
re w
e m
ay n
ee
d t
o
co
nsid
er
diffe
ren
t w
ays t
o c
on
su
lt w
ith
ou
r cu
sto
me
r b
ase
in
fu
ture
ye
ars
.
32
Pa
ge
19 o
f 2
9
13.
VALUE FOR MONEY AND THE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT
13
.1
The
sig
nific
an
t re
du
ctio
n in
ce
ntr
al fu
nd
ing f
or
loca
l a
uth
oritie
s h
as b
rou
gh
t th
e v
alu
e f
or
mo
ne
y issu
e t
o t
he
fo
refr
on
t fo
r a
ll p
ub
lic
se
rvic
es.
De
spite
th
e
ab
an
don
me
nt
of
the
Co
mp
rehe
nsiv
e
Are
a
Asse
ssm
en
t a
uth
oritie
s
are
still
requ
ire
d
to
de
mo
nstr
ate
VF
M.
It is,
ho
we
ve
r, m
ore
th
an
sim
ply
cu
ts in
se
rvic
es a
nd
bu
dge
ts;
the
re
spo
nse
to
th
e V
FM
age
nd
a in
clu
des
inn
ova
tio
n
in
se
rvic
e
de
live
ry,
inve
stm
en
t in
te
ch
no
logy,
ratio
na
lisa
tio
n
of
ba
ck
off
ice
fun
ction
s,
an
d
org
an
isa
tio
nal
de
ve
lop
me
nt. I
t is
mo
re im
po
rta
nt
tha
n e
ve
r th
at
the
ta
x-p
aye
rs in
Bre
ckla
nd
are
re
ce
ivin
g V
FM
an
d t
hat
fun
ds a
re a
va
ilab
le
to m
ain
tain
fro
nt-
line
se
rvic
es t
o t
he
com
mu
nity w
hile
en
su
rin
g t
he
im
pa
ct
on
cou
ncil
tax is c
on
tain
ed.
13
.2
Bre
ckla
nd
sta
rted
th
is f
ina
ncia
l ye
ar
nee
din
g t
o f
ind
an
eff
icie
ncy o
f £
167
,98
0 t
o b
ala
nce
th
e b
ud
ge
t. I
t a
ch
ieve
d t
his
ta
rge
t a
nd m
an
age
d to
in
cre
ase re
se
rve
s b
y £
278
,230
b
y ta
kin
g m
ea
su
res de
taile
d in
se
ctio
n 3
. It ha
s a
lrea
dy p
ut
in p
lace
me
asu
res to
fu
rth
er
red
uce
re
ve
nu
e e
xp
en
ditu
re t
his
ye
ar
an
d fu
ture
ye
ars
with
ou
t im
pa
ctin
g f
ron
t-lin
e s
erv
ice
s b
y:
•
Exp
an
sio
n o
f th
e r
eve
nu
es a
nd
be
nefits
pa
rtne
rsh
ip t
o in
tro
du
ce
a n
ew
pa
rtn
er
from
Ap
ril 2
01
1;
•
Brin
g t
he
IC
T s
erv
ice
in
-ho
use
to s
ave
on c
on
tra
ct
co
sts
an
d to
pro
vid
e m
ore
fle
xib
ility
in
fu
ture
with
pa
rtn
ers
hip
wo
rkin
g;
•
Acqu
isitio
n of
com
merc
ial
pro
pe
rtie
s th
at
ge
ne
rate
re
ve
nue
str
ea
ms in
e
xce
ss of
wh
at
it co
uld
e
arn
fr
om
th
e m
one
y
ma
rke
ts;
•
Sh
arin
g a
Ch
ief
Exe
cu
tive
with
So
uth
Ho
llan
d D
istr
ict
Co
un
cil;
•
Intr
odu
ctio
n o
f a
sha
red
ma
na
gem
en
t te
am
with
Sou
th H
olla
nd D
istr
ict
Co
un
cil;
•
Re
vie
w a
ny s
taff
va
ca
ncie
s w
he
n t
he
y a
rise
an
d r
eo
rga
nis
e w
ork
to a
ccom
mo
date
lo
we
r re
so
urc
e le
ve
ls:
•
Re
vie
w c
on
tra
cts
an
d th
ird
pa
rty g
ran
t p
aym
en
ts t
o e
nsu
re th
at th
ey c
on
tinu
e to
sup
po
rt t
he C
ou
ncil’
s p
rio
ritie
s.
1
3.3
D
esp
ite
the
se
me
asu
res a
nd
pru
den
t a
ssu
mp
tio
ns t
hro
ugh
the
budge
t se
ttin
g s
tage
, th
e r
ed
uctio
n in
cen
tra
l fu
nd
ing h
as s
till
left
th
e a
uth
ority
with
a s
ho
rtfa
ll of
£1
55
,86
0 n
eed
ed
to
set
a b
ala
nce
d b
ud
ge
t in
20
11/1
2.
To
co
ntin
ue
to
ma
inta
in s
erv
ice
s
an
d r
esili
en
ce i
n t
he
esta
blis
hm
ent
du
rin
g a
pe
rio
d o
f tr
an
sitio
n i
t is
pro
po
se
d t
ha
t th
is s
ho
rtfa
ll is
co
ve
red
by t
he
Ge
ne
ral
Fu
nd
fo
r o
ne
ye
ar
on
ly.
Th
is m
ea
ns th
at
on
go
ing r
eve
nu
e s
avin
gs w
ill b
e f
ou
nd
in
20
12/1
3 to
en
su
re th
at
the
re is n
o o
ngo
ing
relia
nce
on
sup
po
rt f
rom
th
e G
en
era
l F
und
.
13
.4
The
eff
icie
ncy r
equ
ire
me
nt
rise
s t
o £
1,3
35
,09
0 i
n 2
01
2/1
3.
Th
is w
ill r
equ
ire
a m
ore
fun
dam
enta
l re
vie
w o
f th
e s
erv
ice
s a
nd
the
w
ay th
e a
uth
ority
o
rga
nis
es th
em
. It
is
p
rop
ose
d th
at
wo
rk o
n th
is co
mm
en
ce
s as so
on
a
s th
e n
ew
m
an
agem
ent
str
uctu
re is p
ut
in p
lace
. A
ll o
ption
s f
or
furt
her
tra
nsfo
rma
tio
n o
f se
rvic
es a
nd
mo
re e
ffe
ctive
wo
rkin
g a
nd
pro
cu
rem
en
t w
ill b
e
co
nsid
ere
d.
33
Pa
ge
20 o
f 2
9
13
.5
The
de
live
ry o
f th
ese
eff
icie
ncie
s is r
eco
gn
ise
d a
s a
ke
y c
ha
llen
ge
to
the
auth
ority
, b
ut
it is o
ne
th
at
is s
ha
red
with
all
oth
er
au
tho
ritie
s,
so t
he
op
po
rtu
nitie
s fo
r co
llab
ora
tive
wo
rkin
g is lik
ely
to
in
cre
ase
.
34
Pa
ge
21 o
f 2
9
14.
LINKING RESOURCES TO PRIORITIES
14
.1
Ou
r M
ed
ium
Te
rm F
ina
ncia
l S
tra
tegy c
om
mits t
o e
nsu
re m
axim
um
re
so
urc
es a
re m
ade
ava
ilab
le t
o d
eliv
er
up
on
th
e a
gre
ed
co
rpo
rate
prio
ritie
s.
As p
art
of
the
20
11
/12
bud
ge
t se
ttin
g p
roce
ss w
e h
ave
se
t a
ba
se
line
to
sh
ow
ho
w t
he
re
so
urc
es w
ill b
e
allo
ca
ted
in
to t
he
se
prio
rity
are
as.
14
.2
The
ch
art
s o
ve
r th
e p
age
sh
ow
ou
r p
rop
ose
d s
erv
ice
bu
dge
ts f
or
20
11
/12
sp
lit b
etw
ee
n s
tatu
tory
an
d d
iscre
tio
na
ry s
erv
ice
s
an
d a
lso
by C
oun
cil
prio
ritie
s.
14
.3
Ap
pen
dix
4
giv
es a
bre
akd
ow
n of
tho
se serv
ice
s ca
tego
rise
d a
s d
iscre
tio
na
ry.
T
he
se ca
tego
risa
tion
s a
re a h
igh
le
ve
l a
sse
ssm
en
t m
ade
du
rin
g v
alu
e f
or
mo
ne
y r
evie
ws c
arr
ied
ou
t du
rin
g 2
01
0/1
1 a
nd
info
rma
tion
ga
the
red f
or
bu
dge
t se
ttin
g
du
rin
g 2
009
/10
. 1
4.4
M
em
be
rs m
ay a
lso
wis
h t
o r
evie
w b
oth
sta
tuto
ry a
nd
dis
cre
tio
na
ry s
erv
ice
s t
o lo
ok a
t th
e le
ve
l o
f in
ve
stm
en
t in
th
ose
are
as
to info
rm fu
ture
de
cis
ion
s.
35
Pa
ge
22 o
f 2
9
2010/11 Gross Expenditure by Priorities 28% 11
%
27%
6%
28%
Bui
ldin
g S
afe
r &
Str
onger
Com
muniti
es
Env
iron
men
tP
rosp
ero
us C
om
mun
itie
sY
our
Coun
cil,
You
r S
erv
ices
Ent
repre
neuria
l C
ounc
il
2010/11 Gross Expenditure Statutory/Discretionary
Split
80%
20%
Sta
tuto
ry
Dis
cret
iona
ry
36
Pa
ge
23 o
f 2
9
2011/12 Gross Expenditure by Priorities
27%
11%
27%
6%29%
Bui
ldin
g S
afer
& S
tron
ger
Com
mun
ities
Env
ironm
ent
Pro
sper
ous
Com
mun
ities
You
r C
ounc
il, Y
our
Ser
vice
sE
ntre
pren
euria
l Cou
ncil
2011/12 Gross Expenditure Statutory/Discretionary
Split
82%
18%
Sta
tuto
ry
Dis
cre
tionary
37
Pa
ge
24 o
f 2
9
15.
RISK AND SENSITIVITY
15
.1
The
Cou
ncil
mu
st
se
t a
bu
dge
t, w
hic
h i
s a
re
alis
tic s
tate
me
nt
of
its e
stim
ate
d I
ncom
e a
nd
Exp
en
ditu
re f
or
the c
om
ing y
ea
r b
ased
upo
n info
rma
tion
cu
rre
ntly a
va
ilab
le t
o it.
It
ha
s a
du
ty t
o t
ake
in
to a
cco
un
t th
e d
em
and
fo
r its s
erv
ice
s,
an
d t
he
eff
ect
up
on
co
un
cil
taxp
aye
rs o
f m
ee
tin
g t
ho
se
dem
and
s a
t va
ryin
g l
eve
ls o
f se
rvic
es.
Th
e m
ost
sig
nific
an
t risks r
esu
lt f
rom
the
ma
gn
itud
e o
f th
e f
ron
t-lo
ad
ed f
un
din
g c
uts
. G
ive
n t
he
go
od
ma
nage
me
nt
pra
ctice
s a
nd
so
und
fin
an
cia
l an
d p
erf
orm
an
ce
m
on
ito
rin
g d
eliv
ere
d i
n t
he
pa
st,
Bre
ckla
nd
ha
s t
he
pla
tfo
rm a
nd
exp
ert
ise
to
de
live
r a
ba
lan
ce
d b
ud
ge
t.
We f
ully
exp
ect
the
re t
o b
e a
nee
d t
o r
evie
w t
he
se
bud
ge
ts b
efo
re t
he
sta
rt o
f th
e f
ina
ncia
l ye
ar
in o
rde
r th
at
we
ca
n r
esp
ond
to
as y
et
un
defin
ed
fin
an
cia
l risks.
As a
n o
rga
nis
ation
we
re
co
gn
ise
a p
erio
d o
f bu
dge
tary
tu
rbu
len
ce
an
d w
e w
ill u
se
ou
r fin
an
cia
l m
ana
ge
me
nt p
roce
sses t
o ide
ntify
op
tio
ns th
at
will
allo
w u
s t
o a
dju
st o
ur
bud
ge
tary
po
sitio
n a
s a
nd
wh
en
re
qu
ire
d.
15
.2
The
fo
llow
ing t
ab
le s
how
s t
he
ke
y r
isks a
nd
ho
w w
e in
ten
d to
tre
at th
em
th
rou
gh
ou
r risk m
ana
ge
me
nt p
ractice
s.
T
ab
le 1
2 -
Ke
y R
isks
Ris
k
Lik
elih
ood
Im
pa
ct
Actio
n
Lo
w
inco
me
leve
ls
fro
m
fee
s
an
d
ch
arg
es
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Re
vis
e s
pe
nd
ing p
lan
s
Co
ntin
ua
tio
n o
f lo
w in
tere
st
rate
s
Hig
h
Hig
h
Ma
rke
t a
dvic
e a
nd
fo
reca
stin
g.
Mitig
atio
n b
y
div
ers
ific
atio
n
Pe
nsio
n f
un
d d
eficit
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Str
on
g lin
ks w
ith
No
rfo
lk C
C P
en
sio
n F
und
Eff
icie
ncy t
arg
ets
H
igh
H
igh
R
ob
ust
eff
icie
ncy
pla
ns,
inclu
din
g
sh
are
d
se
rvic
es
Ina
bili
ty
to
de
term
ine
n
ew
H
om
es
Re
wa
rd f
un
din
g
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Exclu
de
a
ny in
co
me
str
ea
ms fr
om
sp
end
ing
pla
ns
until
the
sche
me
is
fin
alis
ed
a
nd
ho
usin
g b
uild
ing p
roje
ctio
ns a
re v
alid
ate
d.
Impa
ire
d
inve
stm
ent
with
in
Ice
lan
dic
b
an
ks
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Str
on
g
liais
on
w
ith
th
e
Lo
ca
l G
ove
rnm
ent
Asso
cia
tion
an
d L
A’s
le
ga
l re
pre
se
nta
tive
s
Co
ntr
acto
rs
for
the
C
ou
ncil
facin
g
fina
ncia
l h
ard
sh
ip
or
go
ing
into
a
dm
inis
tra
tio
n
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Co
ntin
ge
ncy
pla
ns
in
pla
ce
an
d
fina
ncia
l ch
ecks fo
r n
ew
co
ntr
acts
Ad
ditio
na
l b
ad
de
bts
a
s
a
resu
lt
of
eco
no
mic
circum
sta
nce
s
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Pro
-active
de
bt
ma
na
ge
men
t a
nd
pre
-pa
y f
ee
po
licie
s.
Incre
ased
a
nn
ua
l m
ain
tena
nce
co
sts
of
age
ing p
hysic
al a
sse
ts
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Mo
ve
to
wa
rds
a
pro
a
ctive
ra
the
r th
an
rea
ctive
ma
inte
na
nce p
rogra
mm
e
38
Pa
ge
25 o
f 2
9
Ris
k
Lik
elih
ood
Im
pa
ct
Actio
n
Price
in
cre
ase
s
resu
ltin
g
from
co
ntr
act
re-t
end
er
H
igh
M
ed
ium
V
ary
th
e
se
rvic
e
sp
ecific
ation
w
ith
in
the
aff
ord
ab
ility
en
ve
lop
Big
So
cie
ty/P
lace
Budge
ts m
ay c
rea
te
ad
ditio
na
l dem
and
s o
n c
ore
bu
dge
t M
ed
ium
M
ed
ium
E
va
lua
te
the
o
ptio
ns
for
alte
rna
tive
se
rvic
e
de
live
ry u
sin
g t
he
th
ird
se
cto
r o
rga
nis
atio
ns
Ho
usin
g
Be
nefit
CT
B
gra
nt
ce
ase
s
aft
er
20
11
/12
M
ed
ium
H
igh
D
ete
rmin
e t
he
lik
elih
oo
d o
f th
is r
isk e
ve
nt
at
the
ea
rlie
st
op
po
rtu
nity.
Th
is i
s l
inked
to
the
Un
ive
rsa
l C
red
it r
isk.
Lo
ca
l a
uth
ority
be
nefits
adm
inis
tra
tion
is
tra
nsfe
rre
d
to
the
D
WP
fo
llow
ing
the
w
hite
p
ape
r o
n
the
U
niv
ers
al
Cre
dit
Me
diu
m
Hig
h
Stu
dy p
rogre
ss a
nd
re
po
rt re
gu
larly to
Jo
int
Co
mm
itte
e
Infla
tion
ris
es b
y m
ore
th
an
bud
ge
ted
pro
jectio
ns
Me
diu
m
Me
diu
m
Bu
dge
t a
ssum
ption
s
ke
pt
up
to
da
te
with
mo
st
rece
nt
pro
jectio
ns
39
Pa
ge
26 o
f 2
9
15
.3 I
n a
dd
itio
n t
o t
he r
isks id
entifie
d w
e h
ave
ca
lcu
late
d a
sen
sitiv
ity a
na
lysis
of
ou
r ke
y v
aria
ble
s.
Firstly w
e h
ave
lo
oked
at
the
se
nsitiv
ity
aro
un
d
ba
se
ra
te a
nd
retu
rn
on
ca
sh
in
ve
stm
ents
, se
co
nd
ly
the
se
nsitiv
ity
aro
un
d o
ur
Gove
rnm
en
t S
ett
lem
en
t a
nd
la
stly t
he
se
nsitiv
ity a
rou
nd
th
e p
ropo
se
d N
ew
Ho
me
s B
on
us.
The
fo
llow
ing t
ab
les s
ho
w t
he
se
nsitiv
ity
an
aly
sis
re
latin
g t
o th
ese
are
as.
Tab
le 1
3 -
Ba
se
ra
te a
nd
re
turn
on
ca
sh
in
ve
stm
en
ts s
en
sitiv
ity
Average rate
of return
Average cash balance
%
£9
.50
m
£1
4.5
0m
£
19
.50m
£
24
.5m
£
29
.50m
Annual investment income (£’s)
0.9
6
91
,26
5
13
9,2
99
1
87
,33
3
23
5,3
67
2
83
,40
1
1.9
6
18
6,3
32
2
84
,40
2
38
2,4
71
4
80
,54
1
57
8,6
11
2.9
6
28
1,4
00
4
29
,50
5
57
7,6
10
7
25
,71
5
87
3,8
20
3.9
6
37
6,4
67
5
74
,60
8
77
2,7
49
9
70
,88
9
1,1
69
,03
0
4.9
6
47
1,5
35
7
19
,71
1
96
7,8
87
1
,216
,06
3
1,4
64
,23
9
Tab
le 1
4 –
Sett
lem
ent se
nsitiv
ity
% change
Annual settlement (£’s)
Annual movement (£’s)
-10
.00%
8
,372
,02
7
(93
0,2
25
)
-5.0
0%
8
,837
,13
9
(46
5,1
13
)
0%
9
,302
,25
2
0
+5
.00
%
9,7
67
,36
5
46
5,1
13
+1
0.0
0%
1
0,2
32
,47
7
93
0,2
25
Tab
le 1
5 –
Ne
w H
om
es B
onu
s S
en
sitiv
ity
% Receivable by BC
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
80
%
47
1,1
70
9
42
,34
0
1,4
13
,51
0
70
%
41
2,2
74
8
24
,54
8
1,2
36
,82
2
60
%
35
3,3
78
7
06
,75
6
1,0
60
,13
4
50
%
29
4,4
82
5
88
,96
4
88
3,4
46
The
fig
ure
s in
ta
ble
15
are
ba
sed
on
the
Octo
be
r 2
009
to
Octo
be
r 20
10
le
ve
ls o
f ho
me
s,
ho
we
ve
r th
e d
eliv
ery
of
this
nu
mb
er
of
ho
use
s e
ach
ye
ar
is d
epe
nde
nt o
n t
he
econ
om
ic e
nviro
nm
en
t.
40
Pa
ge
27 o
f 2
9
16.
CAPITAL PROGRAMME
16
.1
The
Ca
pita
l P
rogra
mm
e h
as b
een
cre
ate
d t
o m
eet
the
prio
ritie
s o
f th
e C
ou
ncil.
It
is a
pro
gra
mm
e t
ha
t is
fu
lly f
un
ded
. T
he
sch
em
es a
re s
et o
ut in
ap
pe
nd
ix 5
.
16
.2
Ea
ch
sch
em
e is s
up
port
ed
by a
Cap
ita
l b
id f
orm
, fo
rmu
late
d w
he
re a
pp
rop
ria
te a
fte
r th
e c
on
sid
era
tio
n o
f o
ption
s.
16
.3
The
Ca
sh
flo
w im
plic
atio
ns o
f a
ll sch
em
es a
nd
th
e im
pa
ct
on
re
ve
nu
e h
ave
be
en
in
clu
ded w
ith
in t
he
re
ve
nu
e b
ud
ge
ts o
ve
r th
e fo
ur
ye
ar
pro
gra
mm
e.
16
.4
It s
ho
uld
be n
ote
d t
he j
oin
t p
repa
ratio
n o
f bo
th a
Re
ve
nue
an
d C
ap
ita
l P
rogra
mm
e s
hou
ld e
nsu
re a
su
sta
inab
le f
ina
ncia
l p
ositio
n f
or
Bre
ckla
nd C
ou
ncil.
1
6.5
T
he
tab
le b
elo
w d
eta
ils t
he
pro
po
se
d c
ap
ita
l sp
end
fo
r th
e a
uth
ority
.
Tab
le 1
6 –
Ca
pita
l S
pen
d
Description
2011/12
20
12
/13
2
013
/14
2
014
/15
Pro
po
se
d p
rogra
mm
e
1,5
76
,83
8
1,2
69
,82
2
1,0
22
,69
3
83
5,0
00
16
.6
The
pro
gra
mm
e c
on
tain
s b
oth
an
nua
lise
d p
roje
cts
to
be
de
live
red
in
ye
ar
an
d l
arg
er
pro
jects
th
at
will
sp
an
mo
re t
ha
n o
ne
ye
ar.
If
a n
ew
pro
ject
is t
o b
e i
nclu
ded
with
in t
he c
ap
ita
l p
rogra
mm
e i
t m
ust
be m
ore
th
an
an i
dea
. A
s a
min
imu
m c
rite
rion,
co
sts
, tim
esca
les,
fun
din
g a
gre
em
en
ts,
go
ve
rna
nce
arr
an
ge
men
ts,
risks a
nd
ou
tcom
es w
ill b
e c
lea
rly s
pe
cifie
d f
or
all
na
me
d
pro
jects
. T
he
de
live
ry o
f th
e c
ap
ita
l p
rogra
mm
e w
ill t
he
n b
e m
on
itore
d b
y t
he
Ca
pita
l P
rogra
mm
e W
ork
ing G
roup.
16
.7
In r
eco
gn
itio
n t
ha
t th
e C
ou
ncil
will
ne
ed
to
re
act
to o
ppo
rtu
nitie
s o
f fu
nd
ing a
nd
jo
int
wo
rkin
g a
s a
nd
wh
en
th
ey a
rise
, it i
s
an
ticip
ate
d t
he c
ap
ita
l p
rogra
mm
e w
ill b
e s
ub
ject
to a
dd
itio
na
l sche
me
s a
s a
nd w
he
n t
he
y m
ee
t th
e c
rite
ria
sta
ted i
n 1
6.6
.
Th
is i
s p
art
icu
larly p
ert
ine
nt
with
th
e r
ece
nt
de
cis
ion
to
sh
are
ma
nage
me
nt
with
So
uth
Holla
nd
Dis
tric
t C
ou
ncil,
an
d c
ap
ita
l fu
nd
ing w
ill n
o d
ou
bt be
re
qu
ire
d t
o d
eve
lop th
e m
ost eff
icie
nt
infr
astr
uctu
re to
sup
po
rt t
he
tw
o a
uth
oritie
s.
41
Pa
ge
28 o
f 2
9
17.
OPTIONS
17
.1
The
re a
re n
o a
lte
rna
tive
bud
ge
t op
tion
s p
resen
ted,
ho
we
ve
r C
ab
ine
t a
re a
ble
to
ma
ke a
men
dm
en
ts b
efo
re r
ecom
me
nd
atio
n
to F
ull
Co
un
cil.
18.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
18
.1
To c
om
ply
with
th
e b
ud
ge
tary
an
d p
olic
y f
ram
ew
ork
.
42
Pa
ge
29 o
f 2
9
19.
RECOMMENDATIONS
19
.1
Tha
t th
e B
reckla
nd
re
ve
nue
estim
ate
s a
nd
pa
rish
sp
ecia
l e
xp
en
se
s f
or
201
1/1
2 a
nd
ou
tlin
e p
ositio
n t
hro
ugh
to
20
15
/16
are
reco
mm
en
ded
to
Fu
ll C
ou
ncil.
19
.2
Tha
t th
e c
ap
ita
l e
stim
ate
s a
nd
asso
cia
ted
fu
nd
ing f
or
201
1/1
2 a
nd
ou
tlin
e p
ositio
n t
hro
ugh
to
20
15
/16
are
re
co
mm
end
ed
to
Fu
ll C
ou
ncil.
19
.3
Tha
t th
e r
evis
ed
cap
ital e
stim
ate
s a
nd a
sso
cia
ted f
un
din
g f
or
20
10
/11
are
re
com
me
nd
ed to
Fu
ll C
oun
cil.
19
.4
Tha
t th
e fe
es a
nd
cha
rge
s s
ho
wn
at
ap
pen
dix
2/2
B, fo
r a
do
ption
1st A
pril 2
011
, a
re r
ecom
me
nd
ed
to F
ull
Co
un
cil.
19
.5
Re
co
mm
en
d to
Fu
ll C
ou
ncil
tha
t C
oun
cil
Ta
x f
or
a b
an
d D
pro
pe
rty in
20
11
/12
is s
et
at £
64
.05
.
19
.6
Re
co
mm
en
d to
Fu
ll C
ou
ncil
tha
t th
e c
ha
nge
s to
the
Con
stitu
tio
n fo
r R
ese
rve
s &
Gra
nts
(deta
iled
in a
pp
end
ix 6
) a
re a
do
pte
d.
19
.7
Re
co
mm
en
d t
o F
ull
Co
un
cil
tha
t up
to £
75
4,6
75
of
the
pre
-in
cu
rre
d c
osts
(d
eta
iled
in
se
ctio
n 3
) re
latin
g t
o T
EP
be
writt
en
off
to t
he
Ge
ne
ral F
un
d.
19
.8
To a
pp
rove
th
e b
ud
ge
t vire
me
nts
set
ou
t in
ap
pen
dix
8.
Ap
pen
dic
es:
1
Su
mm
ary
by E
xp
en
ditu
re –
Ove
rall
Po
sitio
n
2
Fe
es a
nd
ch
arg
es
2B
B
uild
ing R
egu
latio
n C
ha
rge
s
3
Re
se
rve
Sta
tem
en
t 4
S
tatu
tory
an
d D
iscre
tion
ary
Sp
lit b
y S
erv
ice
Are
a
5
Ca
pita
l P
rogra
mm
e
6
Co
nstitu
tio
n c
ha
nge
s
7
Ta
x B
ase
8
V
ire
men
ts
43
Appendix 1
CODE
DESCRIPTION
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
ACTUAL
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
£
££
£
££
£
COUNCIL
1Employee Related Expenses
9,400,567
8,722,110
8,583,900
8,503,380
8,796,910
9,078,411
9,368,920
2Premises Related Expenses
2,099,869
2,179,720
2,180,260
2,152,570
2,227,810
2,267,110
2,339,658
3Transport Related Expenses
376,115
349,520
355,860
350,620
351,600
362,851
374,462
4Supplies & Services
16,454,631
14,689,780
13,726,000
13,503,690
13,321,990
13,665,218
14,102,505
6Transfer Payments
36,565,333
39,428,240
43,329,530
47,648,410
52,412,060
54,089,246
55,820,102
7Support Services
4,990,141
4,617,270
4,727,650
4,663,500
4,652,750
4,801,638
4,955,290
8Capital Financing Costs
3,027,179
1,861,950
2,114,750
1,991,090
1,549,480
1,549,480
1,549,480
9Income
(51,373,903)
(51,589,740)
(55,509,750)
(59,711,740)
(64,308,250)
(66,366,114)
(68,489,830)
Prior year efficiencies
00
0(155,860)
(1,490,950)
(2,045,080)
(2,893,040)
COUNCIL TOTAL
21,539,932
20,258,850
19,508,200
18,945,660
17,513,400
17,402,760
17,127,547
Appropriations
Revenue Contributions Towards Capital Programme
33,184
00
00
00
FRS17 Contra Entry
720,000
675,020
(135,300)
(97,600)
(81,290)
(83,890)
(86,570)
Deferred Charges Contra Entry
(439,434)
(1,356,410)
(1,081,760)
(994,820)
(732,690)
(732,690)
(732,690)
Contributions W
ritten Down Contra Entry
0270,000
270,000
270,000
270,000
278,640
287,556
Depreciation Contra Entry
(1,009,442)
(505,540)
(1,032,990)
(996,270)
(816,790)
(816,790)
(816,790)
Capital Appropriation To Reserves
00
00
00
0
Capital Appropriation From Reserves
00
00
00
0
MRP
409,042
0438,250
452,480
467,090
482,037
497,462
Reversal of Impairments
(2,032,609)
00
00
00
Contributions To Reserves
4,931,082
2,209,060
2,228,740
2,225,530
2,213,740
2,213,740
2,213,740
Contributions From Reserves
(4,427,616)
(2,430,550)
(2,966,520)
(2,444,920)
(2,374,890)
(2,192,000)
(2,226,000)
COUNCIL SUBTOTAL
19,724,139
19,120,430
17,228,620
17,360,060
16,458,570
16,551,807
16,264,256
Less Trading Units
4,924,036
4,560,130
4,668,760
4,604,610
4,593,860
4,740,864
4,892,571
NET COST OF SERVICES
14,800,102
14,560,300
12,559,860
12,755,450
11,864,710
11,810,943
11,371,685
GENERAL FUND SUMMARY AND PRECEPT REQUIREMENT
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
££
££
££
NET COST OF SERVICES
14,800,102
14,560,300
12,559,860
12,755,450
11,864,710
11,810,943
11,371,685
Supported Growth Bids
00
00
00
0
Corporate Contingency/(Efficiency)
0(167,980)
(155,860)
(1,335,090)
(554,130)
(847,960)
(195,870)
BRECKLAND BUDGET REQUIREMENT
14,800,102
14,392,320
12,404,000
11,420,360
11,310,580
10,962,983
11,175,815
FINANCING
Local Government Settlement
(11,057,615)
(11,309,066)
(9,302,252)
(8,231,536)
(8,157,452)
(7,700,635)
(7,870,049)
Area Based Grant & LABGI
(519,969)
(292,500)
00
00
0
Homelessness Grant
00
(141,470)
(141,470)
00
0
Council Tax Freeze Grant
00
(69,800)
(69,800)
(69,800)
(69,800)
0
Collection Fund - Council Tax
(34,883)
99,000
(57,870)
00
00
Special Expenses
(165,180)
(62,550)
(105,880)
(106,310)
(106,310)
(106,310)
BRECKLAND PRECEPT REQUIREMENT
3,187,635
2,724,574
2,770,058
2,871,674
2,977,018
3,086,238
3,199,456
BRECKLAND BAND D COUNCIL TAX
64.05
64.05
65.65
67.29
68.97
70.70
PERCENTAGE INCREASE
0.00%
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
2.50%
Tax Base
42,538
43,248
43,741
44,240
44,744
45,254
SUMMARY BY SUBJECTIVE HEADING
44
Fees and Charges
Appendix 2
Cost Centre
GL Code
Charge Description
VAT
Rate
Statutory/
Discretion
ary
2010/11
Current Unit
Charge (excl
VAT)
Proposed
Charge
2011/12 (excl
VAT)
2011/12
Budgeted
Volume
2011/12
Budgeted
Income
Licensing
Licensing
304 0000 000 9352Riding establishment licence (plus appropriate vet fees)
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
2,750.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9353Tattooing regs
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
1,000.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9355Dog Breeders licences (plus appropriate vet fees)
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
1,380.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9357Animal boarding establishment
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
2,310.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9359Pet Animals Act - Pet Shops
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
1,260.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9366Wild animal (plus appropriate vet fees)
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
0.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9394Zoo Inspections
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
0.00
Zoo Inspections - Applications
BD
70.00
70.00
Variable
0.00
Zoo Inspections - Inspection
BD
500.00
500.00
Variable
0.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9377Sex establishments
BD
3000.00
3000.00
13,000.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9369Motor Salavge
BD
80.00
80.00
Variable
240.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9372Club registration
BS
70.00
70.00
Variable
4,920.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9373Personal licence
BS
37.00
37.00
Variable
3,270.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9374Temporary Events
BS
21.00
21.00
Variable
9,780.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9365Street Traders
Watton Farmers Market
BD
1.00
1.00
Variable
20.00
King Street, Thetford
BD
90.00
90.00
Variable
920.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9370Tables & Chairs Grant
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
200.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9370Tables & Chairs Renewal
BD
110.00
110.00
Variable
200.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9375Misc LA 2003
BS
Variable
Variable
Variable
3,000.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9362Lotteries
BD
20.00
20.00
Variable
5,480.00
Licensing
305 0000 000 9371Premises Licences
BS
variable
Variable
Variable
59,200.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9360Hackney carriage licences
35,870.00
HCV (plus test)
BD
110.00
110.00
HCV Renewal (plus test)
BD
110.00
110.00
PHV Renewal (plus test)
BD
110.00
110.00
PHV Renewal (plus test)
BD
110.00
110.00
Driver - Grant (plus CRB)
BD
110.00
110.00
Driver - Renewal (plus CRB)
BD
110.00
110.00
PHO
BD
110.00
110.00
Replacement Breckland Stags
BD
15.00
15.00
Replacement Vehicle Plate
BD
18.00
18.00
Replacement Drivers Badge
BD
18.00
18.00
Replacement Licence
BD
18.00
18.00
Replacement Internal Sticker
BD
12.00
12.00
Transfer existing licensed vehicle to new owner
BD
20.00
20.00
Transfer of vehicle licence to new vehicle (e.g. following an
accident)
BD
55.00
55.00
304 0000 000 9345Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Plate Fixings
SD
Variable
Variable
Variable
5,500.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9325Gambling Annual Fee
BD
Variable
Variable
Variable
12,020.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9326Gambling Permits Annual
BD
Variable
Variable
Variable
350.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9378Gambling Premises Licences
BD
Variable
Variable
Variable
2,700.00
Licensing
304 0000 000 9379Gambling Permits
BD
Variable
Variable
Variable
2,050.00
45
Fees and Charges
Appendix 2
Cost Centre
GL Code
Charge Description
VAT
Rate
Statutory/
Discretion
ary
2010/11
Current Unit
Charge (excl
VAT)
Proposed
Charge
2011/12 (excl
VAT)
2011/12
Budgeted
Volume
2011/12
Budgeted
Income
Licensing
304 0000 000
Recharge CRB checks
BS
n/a
36.00
98.00
3,528.00
Pest Control/Dog Warden
Pest Control
Wasps
SD
35.00
36.00
550
19,800.00
Fleas, Cockroaches and Cluster Flies
SD
45.00
46.30
100
4,630.00
Commercial Premises (per hour)
SD
45.00
70.00
5350.00
Bed bugs
SD
45.00
0.00
00.00
Rats/Mice domestic
Dfoc
20.00
950
19,000.00
Dog Warden
356 0000 000 9414Dog Fouling Fines (fixed penalty)
BD
50.00
50.00
150.00
356 0000 000 9418Dog Collection Fines (first time)
Capital Receipts (6,579,582) (5,286,338) (5,103,990) (4,925,768) (4,542,077)
Specific Grants - - - - - -
Capital Reserve - - - - - -
Total (6,579,582) (5,286,338) (5,103,990) (4,925,768) (4,542,077)
Summary Received
Capital receipts (1,597,204) (842,735) (626,778) (186,309) (196,354) (3,449,380)
Specific Grants (677,406) (551,755) (464,822) (452,693) (270,000) (2,416,676)
Capital Reserve - - - - - -
Total -
Summary Used
Capital receipts 2,890,448 1,025,083 805,000 570,000 565,000 5,855,531
Specific Grants 677,406 551,755 464,822 452,693 270,000 2,416,676
Capital Reserve - - - - - -
Total -
Summary C/fwd
Capital receipts (5,286,338) (5,103,990) (4,925,768) (4,542,077) (4,173,431)
Specific Grants - - - - -
Capital Reserve - - - - - -
Total (5,286,338) (5,103,990) (4,925,768) (4,542,077) (4,173,431) -
55
Page 1 of 1 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\9\5\0\AI00012059\$y0k5up2n.doc
Appendix 6
Suggested Changes to the Constitution for Grants & Reserves In Part 4C – Financial Rules & Regulations 4 C2. Finance Procedure Rules After ‘IV Income not Provided For In Budget’ please can we add 2 more sections as follows: V. GRANTS RECEIVABLE Where external funding (such as a grant) is received by the Council and does not form part of the approved budget, then:
1. The Cost Centre Manager will be responsible for ensuring the Council abides by any terms or restrictions applied by the funder.
2. The Strategic Director shall, subject to the prior approval by or on behalf of the S.151 Officer and to any directions given by the Executive Member, have power to agree to any terms or restrictions applied by the funder and to approve the receipt and spend of the funding up to £50,000.
3. Cabinet shall have power to agree to any terms or restrictions applied by the funder and to approve the receipt and spend of the funding between £50,000 and £100,000.
4. Council shall have power to agree to any terms or restrictions applied by the funder and to approve the receipt and spend of the funding and above £100,000.
VI. RESERVES Approval of the re-allocation of un-allocated balances held within Earmarked Reserves:
1. The Corporate Management Team shall, subject to the prior approval by or on behalf of the S.151 Officer and to any directions given by the Leader, have power to approve the re-allocating of un-allocated earmarked reserves balances up to £50,000.
2. Cabinet shall have the power to approve the re-allocating of un-allocated earmarked reserves balances between £50,000 and £100,000.
3. Council shall have the power to approve the re-allocating of un-allocated earmarked reserves balances above £100,000.
In addition: (a) Make reference to the ‘grants receivable’ section in ‘IV Income not Provided For In Budget’: “ Subject to V. below,” (b) Make reference to the ‘reserves’ section in ‘iii. Expenditure Not Provided For In Budget’: “Subject to VI below,” (c) Re-number V (Investment in Commercial Property) to VII.
56
Appendix 7
PARISH/WARD TAX BASE REPORT 2011/2012
PARISH WARD/NAME PROPERTIES TAX BASE PARISH WARD/NAME PROPERTIES TAX BASE
ASHILL 493.80
ATTLEBOROUGH 3544.20 LEXHAM 46.20
BANHAM 517.20 LITCHAM 226.70
BAWDESWELL 284.70 LONGHAM 92.80
BEACHAMWELL 133.60 LOPHAM NORTH 244.70
BEESTON 199.00 LOPHAM SOUTH 167.90
BEETLEY 505.70 LYNFORD 51.30
BESTHORPE 227.90 LYNG 303.40
BILLINGFORD 87.90 MATTISHALL 921.10
BINTREE 119.80 MERTON 48.60
BLO NORTON 107.40 MILEHAM 221.70
BRADENHAM 246.20 MUNDFORD 493.30
BRETTENHAM & KILVERSTONE 200.00 NARBOROUGH 386.80
BRIDGHAM 125.60 NARFORD 13.70
BRISLEY 116.10 NECTON 706.90
BUCKENHAM NEW 187.30 NEWTON BY CASTLEACRE 15.30
BUCKENHAM OLD 495.20 OVINGTON 92.70
BYLAUGH 25.00 OXBOROUGH 97.00
CARBROOKE 597.40 PICKENHAM NORTH 174.30
CASTON 178.30 PICKENHAM SOUTH 36.30
COCKLEY CLEY 48.00 QUIDENHAM 173.10
COLKIRK 247.40 RIDDLESWORTH 49.20
CRANWICH 18.90 ROCKLANDS 268.60
CRANWORTH 168.00 ROUDHAM 106.10
CRESSINGHAM GREAT 91.00 ROUGHAM 48.70
CRESSINGHAM LITTLE 69.00 SAHAM TONEY 584.70
CROXTON 176.00 SCARNING 889.10
DEREHAM 6012.40 SCOULTON 94.00
DIDLINGTON 17.50 SHIPDHAM 735.80
DUNHAM GREAT 118.40 SHROPHAM 150.10
DUNHAM LITTLE 108.30 SNETTERTON 77.50
ELLINGHAM GREAT 407.40 SOUTHACRE 12.80
ELLINGHAM LITTLE 94.90 SPARHAM 110.40
ELMHAM NORTH 497.10 SPORLE 341.60
ELSING 100.20 STANFIELD 61.00
FOULDEN 142.20 STANFORD 3.20
FOXLEY 112.00 STOW BEDON 125.60
FRANSHAM 167.20 SWAFFHAM 2506.70
GARBOLDISHAM 289.70 SWANTON MORLEY 657.56
GARVESTONE 250.20 THETFORD 6758.04
GATELEY 26.10 THOMPSON 143.80
GOODERSTONE 139.10 TITTLESHALL 133.10
GRESSENHALL 393.7 TUDDENHAM EAST 164.70
GRISTON 192.60 TUDDENHAM NORTH 112.70
GUIST 76.40 TWYFORD 15.40
HARDINGHAM 103.20 WATTON 2435.42
HARLING 807.20 WEASENHAM ALL SAINTS 65.10
HILBOROUGH 85.40 WEASENHAM ST. PETER 67.40
HOCKERING 224.80 WEETING 559.90
HOCKHAM 230.70 WELLINGHAM 16.00
HOE 102.20 WENDLING 115.60
HOLME HALE 186.60 WHINBURGH 135.40
HORNINGTOFT 54.20 WHISSONSETT 178.60
ICKBURGH 82.20 WRETHAM 124.70
KEMPSTONE 7.00 YAXHAM 279.00
KENNINGHALL 367.50
TOTAL TAX BASE 43248.32
Amount due to reduction of 2nd homes discount 167.42
(included in above Tax base)
57
Appendix 8 The following budget amendments are required to reflect the latest forecasts of spend and income and ensure reported budget performance remains updated.
£
Original Budget at 1st April 2010 14,392,320
Corporate Efficiency Target at 1st April 2010 167,980
ICT Efficiency Target at 1st April 2010 111,770
Virements already approved:
Additional recycling income approved at Cabinet 08/06/10 (8,000)
Sub Total (8,000)
Budget Challenge Day Virements to be approved:
Enabling reduced District Valuers Fees (1,000)
Gypsy & Travellers provision saving (5,000)
Energy Conservation saving (1,200)
Advice & Homelessness saving (8,200)
Strategic Housing saving (3,990)
Access for the Disabled access grants saving (2,000)
General Health Support saving (850)
Occupational & Corporate Health & Safety saving (750)
Pest Control & Dog Warden Saving (750)
Land Drainage & Sewers Saving (3,500)
Economic Development Saving (8,170)
Street Cleansing Saving (24,350)
Parks, Woods & Open Spaces saving (50)
Waste Collection Saving (50,110)
Car Parking Saving (150,000)
Corporate Contingency saving (32,000)
Treasury ARP Dividend removal 50,000
Treasury Saving (670)
Central Admin saving (1,040)
Finance saving (80)
ICT saving (10,300)
ARP saving (40,800)
Customer Contact Centres saving (12,500)
Customer Service saving (110)
Marketing & Communications saving (1,300)
Arts & Cultural saving (60)
Community Development saving (6,820)
Licensing saving (800)
PFI saving (17,000)
Sports Development saving (4,230)
Community Transport saving (9,000)
Human Resources saving (15,760)
Breckland House saving (25,000)
The Guildhall saving (39,000)
Register of Electors saving (1,100)
Member Services saving (4,800)
58
Local Elections saving (3,590)
Policy & Performance saving (720)
Legal saving (310)
Corporate Management saving (42,520)
Telephone bills saving (12,000)
Sub Total (491,430)
Supplementary Budget virements for approval:
Car park rate refunds (40,260)
Salary Savings (23,730)
Licensing restructure 5,440
Norfolk Public Sector Leaders dinner 3,000
Norfolk Public Sector Leaders dinner income (3,000)
Estate maintenance costs replacement fence 2,000
Estate maintenance costs replacement fence from Comm. Prop. Reserve (2,000)
Removal of Thetford Enterprise Park expenditure 35,000
Removal of Thetford Enterprise Park income (35,000)
Swimming expenditure removed (47,580)
Swimming Grant income removed part of government cuts 47,580
Major Planning Fees expenditure 62,980
Major Planning Fees income (62,980)
Redcastle Furze Community Centre roof repairs 4,000
Redcastle Furze Community Centre roof repairs (from Insurance Reserve) (4,000)
Mr R.G. Kybird Mr K. Martin Mrs S.M. Matthews Mr J.D. Rogers Mr B. Rose
Also Present Mr S.G. Bambridge Mr M.A. Kiddle-Morris
Mrs K. Millbank Mr J.W. Nunn
In Attendance Anita Brennan - Assistant Director - Environmental
Health & Housing Zoe Footer - Land Management Officer Helen McAleer - Senior Committee Officer Jane Osborne - Committee Officer Rory Ringer - Elections and Scrutiny Manager Teresa Smith - Committee Officer Mark Stokes - Deputy Chief Executive Roger Wilkin - Shared Services Project Manager
Also in Attendance Roger Atterwill Chairman, Swanton Morley Parish Council George Northall Swanton Morley Parish Councillor
Action By
1/11 MINUTES (AGENDA ITEM 1)
(a) To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2010 (Agenda Item 1a)
The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(b) To confirm the minutes of the Special meeting held on 6 December 2010 (Agenda Item 1b)
The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
2/11 APOLOGIES AND SUBSTITUTES (AGENDA ITEM 2)
None.
Agenda Item 6
60
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
2
Action By
3/11 URGENT BUSINESS (AGENDA ITEM 3)
There was none.
4/11 DECLARATION OF INTEREST (AGENDA ITEM 4)
No declarations were made.
5/11 NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING (AGENDA ITEM 5)
Mr G Bambridge, Mr M Kiddle-Morris, Mrs K Millbank and Mr W Nunn were in attendance.
6/11 EXECUTIVE MEMBER PORTFOLIO UPDATE (AGENDA ITEM 6)
Mr M Kiddle-Morris, Executive Member for Economic and Commercial, updated Members on his Portfolio. The Strategic priorities included identifying and maximising income and trading and promoting development and implementing initiatives to assist growth and improve skills. There was a long list of on-going projects and details of a few of these were provided: RevActive This project had been the subject of a lot of scrutiny. Approximately 200 companies had signed up to the network and the scheme had exceeded expectations since its launch. It had been a finalist in the Regional Creating Futures Awards and was recognised nationally. Moving Thetford Forward This provided the vision for the regeneration of Thetford including the provision of economic growth and housing. Key projects under the scheme were the Bus Interchange and the Thetford Academy, although it was likely that the latter would not go ahead due to its single-site aspirations. The final draft of the Thetford Sustainable Urban Extension and had been circulated. Town Centre enhancements were planned. Snetterton Utilities Efforts were still being made to get the necessary infrastructure, which was likely to cost in the region of £6.8million, for this key employment area. A bid had been put in for regeneration growth funding. An Olympic village site visit had been arranged as they were experiencing the same problems and might provide solutions. Commercial Property Units were 96% let at the current date which was a very good record. Some of the larger properties had been sold and it was hoped to acquire more units with the revenue. The Vice-Chairman said this was a key portfolio and that commercial property was always a winner for the Council. 96% occupancy was excellent and he congratulated the commercial property team. He did not want to see the success bled dry by the lack of funding in other areas as there was a need to re-invest. He hoped the Executive
61
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
3
Action By
Member agreed. He asked if many small and medium-sized businesses were coming through as the Government was relying on the private sector to compensate for the loss of jobs in the public sector. Mr Kiddle-Morris confirmed that the Council’s small business units rarely stayed empty for long which was a sign that small and medium sized businesses were about. He also commented that small businesses provided jobs in rural communities and this was something that he wished to support. He wanted to see some employment opportunities on the outskirts of villages to sustain residential development. He shared the Vice-Chairman’s views on re-investment and would try to get all capital receipts invested in more commercial property. Mrs Irving asked if the 4% of un-let units were all in one area and was advised that they were spread across the district. Mr Rogers noted that on a light industrial site near Watton the developers were refusing to allow sites smaller than one acre to be sold. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed to look into this and provide Mr Rogers with a written response. Mr Joel asked if the dualling of the A11 was bringing interest to the area and Mr Kiddle-Morris said that it could be almost guaranteed that people were looking at Thetford as it had cheaper housing and with improved transport links it would be a prime area of Breckland. The Chairman noted the number of Companies expressing interest in Rev Active and asked if there were any plans to roll this out to other areas to provide income. Mr Kiddle-Morris said that they were looking into it and other Councils were expressing interest as they could see that keeping businesses going helped to support communities. A lot of expertise had been built up and there were many ways to help businesses save money. Mr Rogers pointed out that there was a policy of not supporting development in villages because of the lack of employment. However, to develop the infrastructure needed for places like Snetterton Heath would cost millions and that infrastructure (electricity, drainage, etc) was already available in the villages and therefore development should be allowed. Mr Kiddle-Morris explained that one of the key limitations on businesses in the district was the poor Broadband speeds available. Although there was already a good quality Broadband network supplying the schools, provided by Norfolk County Council, which might be tapped into, this could not be done when the schools were using it, so it was not suitable for businesses. The Chairman thanked Mr Kiddle-Morris for his update.
Mark Stokes
62
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
4
Action By
7/11 SCRUTINY CALL-INS (AGENDA ITEM 7)
(a) Active Land Management - Tranche 2 - Land at Swanton Morley (Agenda Item 7a)
At the Cabinet meeting on 30 November 2010, approval was given to offer land at Middleton Avenue, Swanton Morley, for sale for affordable housing. The decision was called-in within the 5-day scrutiny period by Mrs K Millbank, the Ward Representative for Swanton Morley, on the grounds that ”one of the key points utilised to allow Cabinet to come to this decision is the erroneous belief that there is a housing shortage in Swanton Morley”. The Scrutiny Manager advised Members of the format for this item. The Land Management Officer would outline the report made to Cabinet. The Ward Representative would explain why she had called in the decision. Mr Atterwill (Chairman) and Mr George Northall (Parish Councillor) both of Swanton Morley Parish Council would then have the opportunity to speak. The Land Management Officer explained that the Council had adopted an Active Land Management Programme, looking at all Council owned land. Tranche one had been approved earlier last year and Tranche two had been presented to Cabinet on 30 November 2010. At that meeting the alternative and future uses of the nine sites under consideration had been discussed. One of those sites, Middleton Avenue in Swanton Morley, was outside the existing Settlement Boundary and could therefore only be considered as an ‘exception’ site for affordable housing. Under current policy the site was designated as Open Space, therefore, if it was to be developed, other land would have to be made available for Open Space (or as a play area) or a contribution towards such a facility would be required from the developer. Two other issues; the existence of an Anglian Water sewer crossing the site and the fact that the Parish Council wanted the site, had also been highlighted at the Cabinet meeting. It had also been noted that an application to purchase the site for development had been submitted by Broadland Housing Association. During informal discussion of that proposal a public consultation event had been held. There had been a lot of local opposition and the Housing Association had subsequently withdrawn their interest. All this information had been relayed to Cabinet on 30 November and after consideration they had made the decision to offer the land for sale for affordable housing. Mrs Millbank said that she did not think that the full details had been considered. A statement from Mr Atterwill had been circulated to all Commission Members and this set out those details. Mrs Millbank had been impressed by the work of the Parish Council in Swanton Morley. They had provided a play area, arranged village hall events and won the Norfolk Village of the Year in 2009. The Parish Council wanted to keep the land for local residents. Swanton Morley was a long village and they proposed to build another play area on
63
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
5
Action By
that land, for children at that end of the village. Alternatively, the land could be used as an extension to the cemetery. The Broadland Housing Association proposal had been overwhelmed by local opposition. The Parish Council believed that the land would be given to them and had not realised that it would be offered for affordable housing. They had been pro-active in the LDF process and had agreed to an additional 50 houses. Other development had been approved in the village and there was also the potential for MoD properties to become available. Mrs Millbank said that she did not believe there was a shortage of housing in the village. She understood the Council’s need to raise funds, but not in the face of the level of opposition in this case. The level of affordable housing need in Swanton Morley was requested. The Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing (who was in attendance for another item) did not have this information to hand. She advised that the Broadland Housing Association’s decision not to proceed was not in itself an indication of a lack of need for affordable housing in the village, more often than not such decisions arose from the organisation’s consideration of its business plan. Mr Atterwill, Chairman of Swanton Morley Parish Council, advised that the housing need arising from their Parish Council and Norfolk Rural Council survey carried out in 2006 was seven. He suggested that those seven would be more than adequately provided for by the additional 50 houses approved under the LDF, the 20 homes from the windfall site at Greengate and the potential release of MoD properties. The Parish Council had been very unhappy to learn of the Cabinet decision from the press, it would have been more appropriate for them to have been notified in writing. He referred to the statement that had been circulated in which he explained that the financial aspect was not the only criteria. If Breckland Council submitted an application to build affordable housing on the site much good-will would be lost. There was no evidence of a shortage of housing and four more houses would only represent 5.7% of the total number of houses already proposed therefore housing shortage was not a tenable argument. The Deputy Chief Executive commented on the press release. As the Cabinet meeting was open to the public and the press had been present, the matter had been reported in the newspaper the next day, before the Council had had the opportunity to write to the Parish Council. Mr Kiddle-Morris advised that the housing needs register for Swanton Morley had 330 applicants. Eight lived in the parish and it was difficult to determine where the rest were from and why they wished to live in Swanton Morley, but that was their stated preference. Of the 70 houses allocated in Swanton Morley only 30 to 40 would be affordable. In the current climate it was uncertain when they would be developed. This had been one of the Cabinet considerations. He also mentioned that if no offers were received for the land the decision
64
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
6
Action By
could be reconsidered. The Chairman asked the Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing how the Register was considered. She explained that when people applied for housing they marked their preference for an area. Those with a local connection (living, working or having relatives needing care) to an area, would gain additional preference points to reflect that connection. As the site in question was an ‘exception’ site, under the Council’s current policies, only people with a local connection would be eligible for affordable housing there. With reference to the housing needs number quoted by Mr Atterwill, she pointed out that if a further survey of all households in the parish was carried out, it would be likely to show a higher level of need than the 2006 survey. The Housing Register being only an indicator of those requesting housing at that specific time. Mr Nunn was invited to comment and he explained that one of the Council’s priorities was to make best use of its assets. The Council was proud of its low Council Tax and high service levels and was looking at every potential asset in order to sustain these. The Cabinet process put forward best value proposals. Development Control would look at the planning issues – that was the next stage, before that the land was for sale. There might be no Housing Associations interested; if that was the case another decision might have to be made. The Council had a duty to try to get the best value for its assets for the benefit of the whole district. Mr Atterwill raised concern about the potential for the developer contribution to be spent on other parishes – if the land was sold. Swanton Morley was the only area in its group of parishes that was getting additional development, yet they were not guaranteed to receive any benefit from the sale of land. He asked the Council to look at the bigger picture. There would be a loss of goodwill if the sale was ‘bulldozed through’ against the wishes of the parishioners. A Member understood the need for best value, but said that did not always mean the most money. He supported the parish and did not see the need for the additional four houses. He asked when the existing cemetery would be full and Mr Atterwill advised that there was capacity for another 40 to 50 years. The Vice-Chairman said it was a difficult decision. He supported the Leader in looking at the Breckland-wide issue. At a previous meeting they had heard about the number of people on the Housing Register and they had a duty to look Breckland-wide, not village by village. He also agreed with the need to maximise resources, but furthermore agreed with the previous Member and said that did not always mean maximising the financial benefit. Swanton Morley Parish Council should be congratulated for coming to the meeting and voicing their concerns. There was clear local opposition to this proposal. There were many other parcels of land, so why choose one with such a history of opposition? In light of the
65
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
7
Action By
debate today he proposed that the matter should be referred back to Cabinet for further consideration. Mr Kiddle-Morris emphasised the importance of going through the Active Land Management procedure. Previously this had been done piecemeal. There were over 70 pieces of land and they were being looked at ten at a time. The Council had needed an independent view of the value of its land. That advice had been given and now there was the need to see if the land could realise its value. To provide best value there had to be an audit trail. Under the current scheme that trail was clear: the land was assessed, valued, its potential uses were considered and a decision made. That decision had to start with the highest value. Mrs Millbank said that Broadland Housing Association had already tried to develop the land but had withdrawn, due to local opposition. The Chairman pointed out that the reason for their withdrawal was not known. Mrs Irving spoke as Executive Support Member for Housing and said that the Council had to look after all its residents. There was a lot of homeless need in the District and there were other Registered Social Landlords who might be willing to develop the land. The Vice-Chairman reiterated that everyone was doing everything they could to reduce the numbers on the Housing Register. He also agreed with the principle of Active Land Management. However, in this specific case he felt the argument by Swanton Morley Parish Council had been presented well and the decision should be referred back to Cabinet. His proposal was seconded but was not supported by Members. The Member Services Manager advised Members that under the Constitution there were three options available:
1. To confirm the original decision; 2. To refer the matter back to Cabinet for reconsideration; or 3. To refer the matter to Council for debate.
The Chairman sought confirmation that the current decision was to determine the value of the land not to actually sell it. This was confirmed by the Deputy Chief Executive.
RESOLVED (1) to confirm the Cabinet’s decision to offer the land for
sale for affordable housing; and (2) bearing in mind the strength of local opposition to the
proposal, the Commission requested that once the value of the land had been determined, a final decision on its sale should be discussed formally at Cabinet. The Commission further encouraged the Ward Representative and Parish Council representatives to attend that meeting.
66
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
8
Action By
8/11 POST DECISION IMPLEMENTATION (AGENDA ITEM 8)
This item was deferred until the next meeting.
9/11 CHOICE BASED LETTINGS (AGENDA ITEM 9)
The Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing presented the report which had been issued as a supplement to the agenda. Further papers were tabled at the meeting. She gave some contextual detail to the report, explaining that the Council had been the first Local Authority to outsource the allocations function. Previously this had been administered, free of charge, by Peddars Way Housing Association (PWHA) following the stock transfer. The allocations system was currently points based and it was recognised that it was not transparent and led to numerous enquiries from applicants as to their position on the register. No clear allocations policy was in existence at Breckland and therefore the Council could be seen to have had very limited influence over the allocation of housing in the district. PWHA had served notice on the Council and the allocation function had been taken back in-house. An EU Tender process had been carried out to find a suitable partner to administer the service and ARP(T) had been successful. Delivery had commenced in July 2007. The contract was in two distinct parts: administration of the housing register and development and introduction of a choice based lettings system (CBL). (This moved allocations from a points based to a more transparent banding system). The contract included stringent performance indicators – to drive significantly improvements in performance. It was recognised that in places performance had been inconsistent, but customers and partners had been complimentary about the service they had received. Delays remain however, in introducing the CBL system and ARP(T) had been given until 20 January 2011 to go live. At this point the Chairman explained that this item had been on the agenda for some time and had been deferred on more than one occasion. The system should have gone live months ago. The contract had been won through the due tender process and the company contracted to provide a service. They had chosen to introduce a partner to assist, but the Council’s contract was with ARP(T). Cabinet had taken the decision to introduce a timeframe and it was important that the Commission had the opportunity to scrutinise the contract before the deadline. It was apparent that despite some performance problems, the administration of the Housing Register had been dealt with well. However, the question was, why had the former Chief Executive kept faith with ARP(T) despite the problems with the CBL system. The Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing explained that the main delay had arisen due to a hardware failure. The product had been in development for a significant time, owing to the fact that the system purchased by ARP(T) was not an ‘off the shelf product’. In places, Breckland Key Select was almost bespoke to Breckland’s needs and was therefore a very positive product. The system is highly
67
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
9
Action By
interactive and is considered to be one of the best on the market. Breckland Key Select gives unique levels of access to information for residents and landlords. The system had now been built and was ready to test. ARP(T) had requested some changes to the contract terms prior to the system going live, but the Council was unwilling to negotiate before the system was delivered. Mrs Irving said that she had taken the lead on this project as Executive Support Member, as the Portfolio holder (Mr Claussen) had an interest in ARP(T). She endorsed everything that had been said. It was a superior product and there might be an opportunity to offer it to other Councils. She had spoken with the Government Minister, Grant Shapps and he had confirmed that CBL was to continue. Breckland had an excellent relationship with RSLs and they really liked the system. If it could be made to work it would be very worthwhile. Some details were still commercially sensitive. The Chairman asked Members to consider the performance. Although there was no recommendation to be made the Commission’s comments would be noted by ARP(T) and Cabinet colleagues. The Vice-Chairman was confused and sought clarity. Were the issues about ARP(T) or about the hardware? The Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing advised that although there were a number of commercially sensitive issues around the contract, the main message from the report was that the Housing Register performance had improved but the introduction of CBL was late, fundamentally because of IT issues. A Member noted that some residents had complained about the time taken to process their applications and the Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing advised that this had been caused by staffing issue, but that the Council was satisfied that this was now being addressed and the situation was improving. The Council had been applying the financial penalty clauses within the contract to ARP(T) when it had failed to meet its targets. When CBL was live all application information could be input by the user and therefore processing times would not be an issue. She pointed out that although the performance figures did not look good against the contract requirements, they were in fact excellent when compared to other Local Authority figures. The Chairman put the matter in context saying that the taxpayers were not receiving the service for which they had been paying. The Company was performing but the problem was that the CBL system was not being delivered. The terms were set out in the Tender and when the ARP(T) accepted the contract they undertook to deliver the service and they were failing. On behalf of residents they should be encouraged to improve their efforts. A Member asked what the delay meant in terms of disadvantage to applicants and the Assistant Director - Environmental Health & Housing explained that it was about a transition to fairness and openness. There had been no actual disadvantage in access to housing, but residents had been denied greater freedom and ease of access to information.
68
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
10
Action By
RESOLVED to endorse and support the Officer’s report and encourage colleagues to ensure that the contract was delivered under the current contract conditions.
10/11 TASK AND FINISH GROUPS (AGENDA ITEM 10)
(a) Parking - Swaffham Review (Agenda Item 10a)
The Chairman of the Task & Finish Group informed Members that the Group had met in early December and would meet again later in January. There had been excellent press coverage but not a lot of public response. However, she was not surprised by this as she did not think that there were any particular problems in Swaffham.
The Chairman informed Members that at the latest Panel meeting they had looked at various methods to improve digital use by Members. He had been disappointed to hear that they could not improve Broadband access by tapping into the schools’ system as that was one item that had been discussed. A number of options had been looked at and the Panel had reached the decision to trial iPads across the Council. It was felt important to include Members with large and diverse workloads in the trial. A Member of Development Control and a ‘twin-hatter’ should be included. It had been suggested that four iPads should be acquired and disseminated. This had subsequently been changed to two. The Elections and Scrutiny Manager then read out an e-mail he had received from the Head of ICT in which he advised that the Business Improvement Team had been requested to gather information for the Business Case and other councils also considering ipads (such as Leicester) would be consulted as part of that business case. With regard to the provision of trial devices, the new Ipad 2 was due for release in February 2011. It would be unwise to invest in outdated technology now, therefore to minimise the risk of hardware redundancy they were seeking a short term lease/rental agreement for ipad devices. They were working with a company to determine the viability of ipad devices in a Local Government environment as regards ability to connect and download documentation, and the ability to annotate, comment, review and bookmark large documents for ease of use. The Panel would be informed as and when information became available on rental or lease agreement options. The Chairman thanked Members for all the comments they had submitted. Accessibility had been the biggest problem. Recommendations had been made about agendas, particularly with regard to PDF images and the difficulty of re-orientating them through 90 degrees. They had also stressed the need for big screens. The Council was moving towards a paperless office, it was therefore important to organise the trial in advance of new Members arriving in May. The iPads were light and portable and easy to use. Purdah would begin on 25 March and he felt it was leaving it too late to start the trial in February.
69
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
11
Action By
Another Member noted that the next meeting of the Panel was on 1 February 2011 when a report on iPads was expected. He said they needed to move the trial forward. It could not be put off until later.
11/11 SHARED SERVICES (AGENDA ITEM 11)
The Member Services Manager left the room whilst this item was discussed (as an Officer at risk under the new management structure). The Shared Services Project Manager was in attendance to provide Members with a verbal update. He explained the key milestones of the project which was currently ahead of its timetable with both the Shared Services Management Structure and the Final Memorandum of Agreement having already been approved by both Councils. The project was well into its implementation stage and he was confident it would be completed by 31 March 2011. He acknowledged that it was a difficult time for employees of both Councils. A number of senior managers had been issued with ‘at risk’ letters and it was a stressful situation. The 18 new Shared Management posts had been through a job evaluation process which had been completely fair, objective and robust. All posts had been advertised from 4 January 2011. Some officers might opt for voluntary redundancy, those proceeding with the recruitment process needed to submit their applications by 18 January 2011. The two Director’s posts would be interviewed on 28 January and the Assistant Director and Service Managers posts in February. At the conclusion of the recruitment process those officers without posts would be redeployed if possible or made redundant. Everything was being done to support those at risk. A Member asked if all Members would be notified of the outcome of the interviews at the same time and this was confirmed. There would be a broad announcement as soon as possible. The Vice-Chairman was concerned that with the impending changes to senior managers it would be difficult to know who to contact on specific issues. The Shared Services Project Manager agreed that business needed to continue and in the interests of continuity he would provide Members with a list of key contacts, outside the ‘at risk’ group. The Chairman thanked Mr Wilkin for his update.
Roger Wilkin
12/11 COUNCILLOR CALL FOR ACTION (AGENDA ITEM 12)
Mr Joel advised that he had been going to raise the matter of recycling credits for village halls and schools, but he had received the information he required and so wished to withdraw his request.
13/11 WORK PROGRAMME (AGENDA ITEM 13)
The Elections and Scrutiny Manager advised that the Leader of the
70
Overview and Scrutiny Commission 6 January 2011
12
Action By
Council would be unable to attend the February meeting due to an appointment in London. It was therefore suggested that the Executive Member for Corporate Development should be invited to attend in February and the Leader and Chief Executive be re-scheduled for the March 24 meeting if they were available. It was noted that the Budget papers which had been on the work programme had been omitted as the Audit Committee now took responsibility for their scrutiny. The Vice-Chairman asked if there had been an undertaking from Anglian Water to send a representative to the review of utilities meeting. The Scrutiny Manager confirmed that there was and asked Members if they would agree a date for that special meeting. and a firm date would assist in those discussions. It was agreed that the utilities review special meeting would be held on 10 March 2011, following full Council. Lunch for Commission members would be provided. Discussions were on-going with National Grid and the National Power Network to send representatives, Anglian Water had already agreed to attend. The Chairman asked the Scrutiny Manager and/or Officer to attend a meeting of the Norfolk County Strategic Partnership Joint Overview & Scrutiny Panel on 12 January 2011 when Anglian Water would be giving a presentation, to gather background information. A Member suggested that Maureen Orr (at Norfolk County Council) should be contacted to provide a briefing regarding Health scrutiny.
14/11 NEXT MEETING
It was confirmed that future meetings would commence at 2pm. The arrangements for the next meeting on 10 February 2011 in Level 1 Meeting Room, Breckland House, St Nicholas Street, Thetford IP24 1BT.
The meeting closed at 4.20 pm
CHAIRMAN
71
BRECKLAND COUNCIL
At a Meeting of the
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Held on Monday, 13 December 2010 at 9.30 am in Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
PRESENT Councillor E. Gould (Chairman) Councillor Claire Bowes Mr P.J. Duigan Mr P.S. Francis Mr M. Fanthorpe Mrs D.K.R. Irving
Mr T.J. Lamb Mr S. J. F. Rogers Mr F.J. Sharpe Mrs P.A. Spencer Mr N.C. Wilkin (Vice-Chairman)
Also Present Mr A P Joel - Ward Representative
In Attendance Heather Burlingham - Assistant Development Control Officer
(Capita Symonds for Breckland Council) John Chinnery - Solicitor & Standards Consultant Phil Daines - Development Services Manager (Capita
Symonds for Breckland Council) Mike Brennan - Principal Planning Officer (Capita Symonds
for Breckland Council) Nick Moys - Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)
(Capita Symonds for Breckland Council) Jon Durbin - Capita Symonds Jane Osborne - Committee Officer
Action By
219/10 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
220/10 APOLOGIES & SUBSTITUTES
Apologies for absence had been received from Mr J Labouchere and Mrs M Chapman-Allen. Mr P Duigan was in attendance as substitute for Mr. Labouchere.
221/10 DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
Councillor N Wilkin declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 11 (Watton) by virtue of a family member living on the frontage of the proposed development site.
222/10 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman made her usual announcements regarding the fire exits, mobile phones etc. There would be English Heritage Training for Members and Officers all day on 8 February 2011.
Agenda Item 7
72
Development Control Committee 13 December 2010
Action By
The second part of the CABE Training (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) would take place all day on 18 February. Members were advised that it was beneficial for them to attend, even if they had not attended the first part.
223/10 REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA
There were none.
224/10 URGENT BUSINESS
There were none.
225/10 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (STANDING ITEM)
In relation to Site Specifics, Cabinet had asked that the document was referred back to the LDF Panel to have a final look, and Members had asked for local factors to be taken into consideration. A meeting was being held at Breckland Council on 15 December at 3.30 p.m. With regard to the Thetford Area Action Plan, the intension was that the document would go to Cabinet on 11 January with a four week period of consultation at the end of January. Once the consultation period had been completed, it would go back through the Committee process for a final review. The Attleborough Area Action Plan consultation ends at the end of January, so there would still be time for comments to be received. Following that, consultation issues would be taken into account, with the first point into Attleborough Task Force at the end of February, then through the Committee process at Breckland for preferred options. A question was asked with regard to administration, in that did it mean that Attleborough would be on one set of rules and Breckland another? It was advised that the Attleborough Action Plan was not due for completion until after the TAAP and site specifics, so yes broadly speaking this was correct, as the growth of the two towns warranted separate documents and consideration. The Member was advised with regard to the two Area Action Plans that if the stage was reached where it was felt there was agreement in how issues were taken forward, there would be no reason why the application could not be seen in the light of those documents. The Area Action Plan for Attleborough was at an earlier stage. The Member was concerned and unclear that if one document was approved, how the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) arrangements would fit in. He was advised that if CIL went forward, there would be no reason why it could not pick up specific issues for towns such as Attleborough and Thetford.
226/10 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS
Noted.
73
Development Control Committee 13 December 2010
Action By
227/10 SPORLE : VARIATION OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT : PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, HILL FARM. REFERENCE : 3PL/2007/1303/O & 3PL/2007/1305/O
The context and background to the formal request to vary the terms of a Section 106 agreement relating to the proposed residential development at Sporle were explained. The proposed development would comprise of two linked elements :-
i) an affordable housing scheme of 8 dwellings ii) an open market development of 9 houses
The requested variation related to the phasing of the affordable housing provision, in that the applicant had requested that the clause was varied to allow up to three open market units to be occupied before the completion of the affordable housing. There was a requirement to construct quite a length of access road and associated with the costs this had been a factor in preventing the scheme coming forward to date. Finance had been secured for the road, but was subject to three open market units being available. It was important that a strong link between the affordable and open market elements of the development was maintained and therefore suggested that the whole of the access road was constructed. It was felt that if the Agreement was not varied, there would be very little hope that the scheme would come forward. A Member asked if the three units could be those at the far end of the site which would avoid construction traffic going past units at the beginning if those were done first. A Member stated that if the variation was recommended, he wished it made clear that it was the only variation the Applicant could have. The Chairman explained that future variations could not be stopped. RESOLVED that the application be approved as recommended but subject to the conditions that :-
(i) negotiations take place that the three units at the top corner of the site were developed first;
(ii) if the Applicant did not agree to develop those first, the application would be referred back to the Development Control Committee.
228/10 NEW BUCKENHAM: THE OLD PIGGERY, MARSH LANE: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANCILLARY WORKS TO PROVIDE 6 LOW COST AND 5 AFFORDABLE SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGS FOR C & D BAILEY: REFERENCE: 3PL/2010/0924/O
The application sought outline planning permission (with only access to be considered) for a proposed residential development of 11 dwellings, including five affordable units situated within a Conservation Area on the edge of New Buckenham. The scheme included a new site entrance, parking areas and ancillary works. The matters of scale, appearance, layout and landscaping were reserved for future consideration.
74
Development Control Committee 13 December 2010
Action By
The dwellings would be constructed outside of the Settlement Boundary, although the indicative plan illustrated that the access and some of the parking spaces would be within the Settlement Boundary. Key issues related to development outside of the Settlement Boundary, highway safety and access, residential amenity and the character of the Conservation area. Although the Parish Council strongly supported in principle low cost housing, it had objected strongly due to inadequate highway provision especially access. The Housing Officer had supported the application because there was no affordable housing provision in the area. The Highways Authority had raised strong objections in terms of the narrowness of Marsh Lane, inadequate parking on site, no footway for pedestrians, and absence of full details for surface water disposal. Five letters of objection had been received, and policies that required consideration were as stated in the report. The Applicant’s case was that there was a clear lack of affordable dwellings in the village and an overall shortfall of housing in the district. Mr Farnell, Objector said that whilst there had been some infill in the village, to have such a development stuck on the edge would impact greatly even destroy the character of a medieval village and might result in a “two village syndrome”. The new development would take some of the parking area from the five cottages, with the conservation area roughly in front of the sheds. Mr Farnell questioned that if the outline planning permission for access was refused, would another meeting be convened if different access proposals were submitted. He was advised that that was the correct process. Mr A Joel, Ward Representative stated that there was no social housing provision in the village and there was a need for bungalows for the elderly. However, the development was too big for the village and it would spoil the character, the access was very difficult and there was no public footway. The proposed development equated to a 4.4% increase. He would support it just for social housing and an exception scheme for local people. RESOLVED that, the application be refused for the reasons as recommended in the report.
229/10 WATTON: 43 NORWICH ROAD: PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF 43 NORWICH ROAD AND NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - 14 NO 1 BED UNITS (FOR THE OVER 60S) FOR MR & MRS N DYE: REFERENCE: 3PL/2010/0983/O
Mr N Wilkin declared a prejudicial interest by virtue of a family member living on the frontage of the proposed development site, so left the room for the agenda item. The application sought outline planning permission (including access, scale and landscape) for the erection of 14 one-bed units for the over 60s. Plans showed single storey units in four blocks, 2 pairs of semis, a terrace of 4 and a terrace of 6. The site was to the rear of existing dwellings on Norwich
75
Development Control Committee 13 December 2010
Action By
Road and to the South of Linden Court, a residential care home. Access to the scheme would be created by demolishing a semi-detached dwelling at number 43 Norwich Road. The view was that it would do very little to enhance the character of the area and no affordable housing was proposed. The scheme would conflict with existing trees and would harm local amenities. Access to the development would be substandard. The Applicant had stated the development would be almost car free with parking limited to the warden, visitors and service vehicles, but enforcement and practicality was of concern, and a convincing case had not been made. RESOLVED that the application be refused as recommended.
230/10 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :-
a) Item 1 : New Buckenham : The Old Piggery, Marsh Lane : Residential development and ancillary works to provide 6 low cost and 5 affordable single storey dwellings for C & D Bailey. Reference : 3PL/2010/0924/0
Refused, see Minute No. /10
b) Item 2 : Watton : 43 Norwich Road : Proposed demolition of 43
Norwich Road and new residential development of 14 no 1 bed units (for over 60s) for Mr & Mrs N Dye. Reference : 3PL/2010/0983/0
Refused, see Minute No. /10
c) Item 3 : Oxborough : Field View Barn, Swaffham Road : Open
fronted domestic garage (retrospective) for Mr R Aldridge. Reference : 3PL/2010/1150/F
The Applicant sought retrospective planning permission for an open fronted domestic garage The building was finished in timber boarding over a brick base with pantiles to the roof.
The Parish Council objected on the basis that the Applicant pre-empted planning permission and the garage was visually intrusive. The Chairman read out comments received from Mr I Monson, Ward Representative, as follows :- “Unfortunately no-one is available to speak against the retrospective application. However, the wishes of the majority of the people of Oxborough should be taken into account as reflected in the comments of the Parish Council which you should now have received”. Approved, as recommended.
76
Development Control Committee 13 December 2010
Action By
Notes to the Schedule
Item No. Speaker 1 Mr Joel – Ward Representative
Mr Farnell - Objector Written Representations Taken Into Account
Reference No. No. of Representations 3PL/2010/0924/O 6 3PL/2010/0983/O 3
231/10 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE (FOR INFORMATION)
Noted.
232/10 APPEAL DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION)
Noted. In response to a comment made about the ever increasing length of the Discharge of Condition Lists, the Development Services Manager explained the formal process these had to go through.
The meeting closed at 10.40 am
CHAIRMAN
77
BRECKLAND COUNCIL
At a Meeting of the
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
Held on Wednesday, 5 January 2011 at 9.30 am in Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
PRESENT Councillor E. Gould (Chairman) Councillor Claire Bowes Mrs M.P. Chapman-Allen Mr M. Fanthorpe Mrs D.K.R. Irving Mr J.P. Labouchere
Mr T.J. Lamb Mr S. J. F. Rogers Mr F.J. Sharpe Mrs P.A. Spencer Mr N.C. Wilkin (Vice-Chairman)
Also Present Mr A.C. Stasiak Mr P J Hewett
- Ward Representative - Ward Representative
In Attendance John Chinnery - Solicitor & Standards Consultant Phil Daines - Development Services Manager (Capita
Symonds for Breckland Council) Keith Eccles - Building Control Manager (Capita Symonds
for Breckland Council) Nick Moys - Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects)
(Capita Symonds for Breckland Council) Mike Brennan - Principal Planning Officer (Capita Symonds
for Breckland Council) Jane Osborne - Committee Officer
Action By
01/11 MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
02/11 APOLOGIES & SUBSTITUTES
Apologies for absence had been received from Mr P S Francis.
03/11 DECLARATION OF INTEREST AND OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
Councillor M Fanthorpe declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 13 (Dereham) by virtue of being a member of Dereham Town Council.
04/11 CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman made her usual announcements regarding the fire exits and mobile phones etc. There would be English Heritage Training for Members and Officers all day on 8 February 2011 and the second part of the CABE Training (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) would take place all day on 18 February. Members had previously been advised that it would be beneficial for them to attend, even if they had not attended the first part.
Agenda Item 8
78
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
05/11 REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA
There were none.
06/11 URGENT BUSINESS
There was none.
07/11 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK (STANDING ITEM)
There was nothing new to report.
08/11 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS
Noted.
09/11 ATTLEBOROUGH : LAND OFF HONEYSUCKLE WAY : PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT : APPLICANT : NORFOLK HOMES LTD : REFERENCE 3PL/2010/1041/F
The application was for residential development on land to the north of Honeysuckle Way, Attleborough, and would comprise of 66 dwellings, a new access road and provision of two areas of public open space. A range of house types were proposed and would be either 1½ or 2 storeys, with 26 provided as affordable. In the late 1990s, the site had been proposed for allocation but was deleted due to general housing over supply. Anglian Water had stipulated that no dwelling be occupied prior to March 2012, and the Applicant had stated that that would fit in with their timeframe. The two areas of public open space amounted to 81% of the total open space provision required by Core Strategy Policy DC11. In order to compensate for the shortfall and in lieu of the provision of children’s play equipment, a financial contribution of £28,880 was proposed. The Applicant had indicated that they would be happy for the terms of the legal agreement to be broadened to include general green infrastructure provision. Breckland’s view was that the development had been designed to minimise the affect on local properties, although some local residents had raised concern. Traffic would be spread equally between two arms of access roads and a 20 mph zone would be extended. The proposed development met PPS3 despite being outside the settlement boundary. Mr Harper, for the Applicant said Norfolk Homes wanted to create family homes and that the site was part of the surrounding estate and was deliverable. The 40% affordable housing would meet Code Level 3 with the rest of the housing being 15% above building regulations, they would be air tight and as well insulated as possible. Many changes had been made in response to concerns raised and they wanted to maintain and enhance biodiversity. 10% renewal energy would be met. Mr Stasiask, Ward Representative stated that the 66 dwellings outside the settlement boundary conflicted with the Core Strategy and that there was a
79
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
huge shortfall not just in Attleborough but every town in Breckland, and whilst the Town Council would be grateful for the money, they were opposed to the application. He believed the application came through ‘on the back of’ not having a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land in Breckland. He advised that the Attleborough Task Force was in the middle of a consultation period seeking views of NR17 and NR16 and they wanted residents to decide where growth would be. He stated there were horrendous traffic problems in Attleborough and that the application did nothing to help those. £¼ million funding had been secured and it was necessary to make sure all residents were consulted. Whilst he acknowledged there was a shortage of open space in Breckland, he felt to try and get away with a 1/5th less than was required was unsatisfactory, and he believed that whilst in the fullness of time it might be acceptable, it was not at the moment and hoped that Members would refuse the application. It was confirmed that there would be pedestrian access out of the development onto Carvers Lane. Those who occupied the flats above the open garaging would have access to at least one parking space. A Councillor asked that a condition be made that the open garages were left as ‘open cart designs’ and not to have doors on them, and the Development Services Manager confirmed that this could be imposed. The Applicant stated car ports were favoured, and would be leased with strict covenants, and that the vast majority of dwellings would have garages which had electric garage doors and sound insulation. It was asked if the open garaging would be walled per garage unit or a total open space. The Applicant agreed to look at the plans with regard to the open cart design and walls. Concern was raised that trees would be taken out. The Applicant explained that the hedge that abutted Carvers Lane would be retained, and the one on the other side of Carvers Lane was not theirs. He stated they would improve the hedging by removing dead wood and supplementary planting with new. If the Council adopted the open space they would see it maintained in perpetuity. However, a Councillor believed that to strip out brambles and ivy could be considered contradictory to wildlife and birdlife, and did not want them to suffer. The Committee were made aware that a detailed habitat survey would be done and a report submitted to the Council. In response to a Councillor who believed it would be an over development of the site, the Applicant believed 33 dwellings per hectare was a reasonably low rate. He said local people had been consulted and he believed the infrastructure query had been addressed, but he was not aware that the Town Council had objected. It was stated by a Councillor that Breckland had been over willing in the past to grant planning permission for housing. The Principal Planning Officer explained that Breckland was not unique in not having a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land and that it was common across the country and not due to Breckland being reckless. Due to delays in the local planning system and bringing forward LDFs, the allocation had been used up and as a result, Breckland and many other Councils had a shortfall in housing which was a regular issue that occurred within the country. Currently there was a 1.7 year supply in Breckland.
80
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
The Developer had introduced a number of measures consisting of electric barriers and gates at the parking courts, windows in gables, and no alleyway ‘cut throughs’ which directly addressed the concerns raised by the Police with regard to the proposed layout relating to parking courts, private space and pedestrian access routes. No further comments had been received from the Police. The flats would not have windows that looked out to existing properties, but would have roof lights. There would be a substantial double boundary at Hazel Road. Responsibility for hedging around the site would depend on who owned it. There would be owner occupied and social rented affordable housing. The nearest house would be 70–75m away from the closest part of the A11. It was asked whether anything would be done to mitigate noise from the A11. It was stated that whilst the noise was clearly audible, it was not especially intrusive, but a condition could be added that a scheme for noise mitigation measures be required. Whilst one Councillor described the development as being ‘one field too far’ due to the edge of the field getting close to the bypass, another one felt it was a good site for housing and was an extension of the current build but did cause worry due to the Attleborough point of view despite in principle having been very well thought out. It was not known how many houses had been granted in the last four years. Whilst Norfolk County Council had been consulted it was not known where the children would go to school, or what Doctors or Churches the residents would attend. A letter of objection was read out by the Principal Planning Officer from the Town Council.
RESOLVED that the application be deferred, and the Officers be authorised to approve it on completion of the Section 106 Agreement and subject to conditions as set out in the report as well as the following additional conditions : (1) Ecological (2) Open structure car ports (3) Retention of hedgerows (4) Noise condition with regard to A11
A Councillor asked for direction with regard to what the default was with regard to code levels achieved by houses. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the core strategy included policy on renewable energy, it did not relate to code levels, and there was no policy basis for certain code levels. The aim was to gradually increase requirements through building regulations and over the next few years they would come together, but the code for sustainable homes was an advisory one and developers sought to achieve them for marketing reasons and it made buyers aware of how efficient a house was. The Chairman said it was not possible for the Committee to decide on a default decision, and that the matter would have to be put to Council if a higher code was to be required. She added that the Committee had discussed the subject in the past and agreed that they would strive to
81
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
impose higher standards, but until the Council put through a policy, it could not be enforced.
010/11 HARLING : CLOVERFIELDS, LOPHAM ROAD : PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 17 NO. HOUSES INCLUDING A MIX OF 2, 3 AND 4 BEDROOM HOUSES : APPLICANT MR BURTON : REFERENCE : 3PL/2010/1079/F
The application was for a residential development on the edge of Harling and would comprise of 17 dwellings. The site was already partly developed. Affordable housing fell slightly short of 40%. The Applicant was not a developer but there were no obstacles to development known. The proposal would significantly exceed the planned level of growth for Harling and would conflict with the spatial vision for the area with regard to existing housing commitments in the village. The development would compound over supply and take units over 50. It was important to recognise that the 50 unit allocation was not a ceiling but did give a clear view of the overall spatial vision and concern was that this application tipped the balance. Density was relatively low, with the tree belt being retained. The proposal did have a number of merits as outlined in the report and it would make a contribution towards housing land supply (land with planning permission was included in the 5 year land supply). Mr Belton, Agent said that for clarity, the 50 dwellings were not a constraining number with regard to spatial vision. He stated a Planning Inspector had stated that this allocation would not conflict with Breckland’s core strategy and that paragraphs 69 and 71 of PPS3 were a general guidance and not an absolute requirement. He added that 11 of the 17 dwellings were outside of the Settlement Boundary, and the proposal would help the Authority meet its housing contribution. It had considerable merit and would meet the core strategies and he felt it would be unreasonable to refuse. Concern was raised by a Councillor that the Committee had reluctantly agreed in the past to go up to 65 which was above the 50 house guideline for Harling, and with the current application the Committee had been asked for a 60% increase on the 50 houses. The residents did not want an excess of houses built in their parish and he believed the increase to 82 houses would not be sustainable for the parish. Councillors were concerned that Highways had not raised an objection despite there being one access road shared with an industrial estate. The Principal Planning Officer clarified the history of the previous development and that Highways’ concern was about restricted visibility but since that time, they had raised no objections. A Councillor stated the whole estate had been engineered around retaining access and he felt aggrieved for the previous developer of the original 25 dwellings. East Harling was a service centre and only a very short distance from a train station and fire station, it was very well serviced. Having been through site specific panel meetings Members had been mindful to listen to Parish Councils and once again, Harling Parish Council had made it quite plain that they did not wish any more development. The
82
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
road was very difficult to negotiate, the nursery school was full to capacity and if the objections of Harling Parish Council were overridden, it would be contrary to what had been discussed at the site specific meeting.
RESOLVED that planning permission was refused on the grounds that
(1) the development would conflict with policies designed to limit
new housing development outside defined settlement boundaries
(2) he proposals failed to satisfy the requirements of PPS3, notably paragraphs 69 and 71
011/11 SHIPDHAM : LAND TO THE EAST OF POUND GREEN LANE :
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT : APPLICANT : MR I LEONARD : REFERENCE : 3PL/2010/1095/0
The application was for outline planning permission for 35 dwellings on the edge of Shipdham. The site was situated to the south of Market Street rear gardens. The dwellings consisted of 1-4 bedrooms. Existing access would be upgraded and the Applicant had indicated that screen planting would be added, the majority of trees on site and on boundaries would be retained with some enhancement, the pond would be enclosed by concrete posts and wire fencing. The Parish Council had objected and 16 letters of objection had been received along with some letters of support. No objections had been received from any of the external consultees. Norfolk Landscape Archaeology required a condition to be attached requiring further investigative work to be carried out, as the initial investigation had uncovered evidence of Medieval metal workings and artefacts. There would be a requirement for a contribution to open space and it was for Members to determine if they required a full requirement of open space provision or take a contribution in lieu. The development would be outside of the defined Settlement Boundary, it represented encroachment into the countryside and was of concern as to how it related to the surrounding development in terms of density. Mr Irvine, Agent advised that the site had been part of a submission that formed part of a much larger site, but it had been reduced down to 35 with the aim to deal through Planning and not the LDF process. If approved it would come forward 12 months in advance of an LDF site. It had the advantage of helping the Council’s 5 year supply and with regard to the Government’s New Home Bonus, the Council would receive extra money. He referred to the ‘over cooking of the site’ and stated that whilst it was thought to be a very well located and screened site, it had been a difficult balancing act, so the density had been looked at and it had been realised that they had ‘got it wrong’. However he felt it would be helpful for Members to make comments with regard to the changes at the eastern end of the site and whether or not bigger plots would be favoured with less housing, as opposed to withdrawing the application. Mr Hewett, Ward Representative said it was not a development that had
83
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
strategy in mind, it encroached into the countryside and was a ‘back fill’, it was outside the settlement boundary, contravened policies, and most of all the access was simply inadequate, and he could not believe that Highways had not objected. With regard to the Housing Enabling and Projects Officer’s comment within the report, he said Shipdham had more than 70 properties with planning permission. Councillors had concern over access, it being back land, crowded and of bad design.
RESOLVED to refuse the application on the grounds of it being detrimental to the character and appearance of that part of Shipdham and outside the village Settlement Boundary.
012/11 SHIPDHAM : LAND OFF PARKLANDS AVENUE : RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT : APPLICANT : MR I LEONARD : REFERENCE : 3PL/2010/1096/0
The application sought outline planning permission for residential development consisting of 15 dwellings. However, the Applicant had agreed to withdraw the layout, so the Committee were required to consider access and scale only at the meeting. The site was outside the settlement boundary but was one of the preferred sites. It provided 40% affordable housing, but no designs were shown at the meeting and layout was not looked at in depth. Existing trees would be retained and enhanced. A £5000 payment towards a pedestrian crossing would be required. 17 letters of support and 2 letters of objection had been received along with a petition containing 33 signatures of objection. A good level of consultation had been undertaken consisting of site notices, press advert and all neighbours notified. Mrs Jordan, Objector said the development would be at the bottom of gardens, and most of the affected residents were elderly and unable to attend the meeting or send emails. She advised that most of the objections were with regard to sewerage, access (huge volume of traffic already), village infrastructure, increased noise and disturbance. She queried whether the consultation had been made available to all residents, and asked whether a heritage statement would now be required. She had attended all previous Parish Council meetings and was aware that the development had been formally known as SH3 which had been rejected by Shipdham Parish Council. Mr Irvine, Agent stated that the proposal had been changed from 20 dwellings to 15. Mr Hewett, Ward Representative asked that the Committee should consider and listen to the voices and messages of those affected. Parklands was a quiet area and full of elderly residents. Should the application be approved he requested that it be subject to the very clear concerns of residents and would want the significant conditions covered of timing, access, noise and open space. A Councillor had concern with car parking and that it was an outline planning application. From the layout shown he felt that the end properties
84
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
had been pushed there because of garages. He felt that the end of the site should be looked at carefully to pull away from properties at the end of Watton Road, and wished that a soft boundary be retained. Other concerns were that the development should be of low height housing or bungalows, about drainage (due to the problems reported at the south edge of Shipdham), and access to the main road. Also, the proposal to move a bridleway would involve making a TRO, which would require Norfolk County Council’s approval which might not be received. The Solicitor and Standards Consultant confirmed it would have to be formally diverted, but that a process had to be followed. Breckland had a 1.7 year supply of land available and a Councillor did not understand the emphasis on continuously having a 5 year supply. The Development Services Manager explained the process, and that LDFs had to be reviewed on a regular basis and the PPS expected the Council to find 5 years supply.
RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the Officers be authorised to approve it on completion of the Section 106 Agreement subject to the conditions set out in the report as well as the following additional conditions :
(1) A time limit condition of one year (2) 10% energy on site (3) Single storey properties to be defined (4) Relating to archaeology
013/11 DEREHAM : LAND OFF NORWICH ROAD : PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE & CEMETERY : APPLICANT : TAYLOR WIMPEY : REFERENCE : 3PL/2010/1142/F
Councillor M Fanthorpe declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Member of Dereham Town Council. The application was for full planning permission for residential development and green infrastructure on land at Norwich Road, Dereham which fell outside the settlement boundary. With the exception of drainage, the proposal fitted physically well and would make quite an important contribution to green infrastructure not only for the development but for Dereham too. It had been brought forward in line with local policy and the applicant had confirmed that they would commence development in a reasonably short term if the application was agreed. In terms of landscaping, the proposals had been well conceived. Changes to proposals had been addressed following criticisms received with regard to parapet gables, more traditional patterned windows and flint work incorporated in more prominent locations. Bungalows were proposed around all sensitive boundaries. There were some outstanding drainage issues with regard to foul drainage and water quality and it was recommended that the application be deferred until the issues had been concluded. The Dereham WwTW had limited capacity and concern had been raised by Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England with regard to foul water treatment and the ecologically sensitive areas. It was believed sensible therefore to allow further time for foul surveys to be undertaken. The site had good access to public transport and financial contribution negotiations were ongoing with
85
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
Norfolk County Council Feedback from Committee Members was sought to go through the application to get agreement with regard to the way forward. Mr Hyde, Agent was happy for the application to be deferred. A Councillor was concerned about day to day drainage as the Norwich Road sewer was working above capacity. The Agent said the applicant had commissioned a report to look into the issue with the outcome that foul drainage would be controlled on site, no discharge would occur, and flooding on Norwich Road would not be made any worse. Mr Calvert, Agent said the sewer from the development would be routed to a pumping station in the corner of the development. He was asked why a pre-treatment plant could not be used instead of a holding tank. He explained that Anglian Water had indicated that a 50 cubic metre tank on site would be suitable and was required to meet building regulations, and that nothing else needed to be provided. The Agent advised that if on- site treatment was provided, it would take up much more land and therefore reduce the number of houses on site. Mr Hyde, Agent, said the primary objective should be to connect to the public sewerage system, and if that were not possible then they may well have to fall back and deliver alternative solutions. Four wheelchair adapted bungalows would be incorporated within the development. The Development Services Manager advised that the application would not be brought back to Committee until the drainage issues were clear. Further detailed conversations with the applicants would take place, and he asked if broadly speaking Members were comfortable with the principle of the proposal.
RESOLVED to defer the application and advise the applicant that Members generally approved the principle of the proposal subject to further resolution of the drainage issues.
014/11 SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows : (a) Item 1 : Weeting : David Watson Transport Ltd., Mundford Road :
Vary S106 agreement to allow vehicles owned/operated by Applicant to use A1065 through Brandon on PP 3PL/2005/0326/F. Reference : 30B/2010/0001/OB
Members were made aware of the history of the site and the existing Section 106 Agreement.
Mr Watson, Applicant, felt that the restriction was overly restrictive and hampered his business, stating that the cost to his business was £60,000 prior to the recent fuel increase. His business generated 12-15 movements a day through Brandon, and the vehicles would usually be empty through the High Street.
86
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
Strong objections had been received in respect of any additional movement through Brandon. The Ward Representative had sent an email supporting the recommendation of refusal on the grounds of the impact on local congestion and that the applicant had been well aware of the situation when he took on the tenancy of the building.
The Applicant advised that the direct route to Barton Mills was 10 miles, and the route to avoid Brandon was 22 miles, more than double, which added 37,000 litres of diesel, £40,000 costs and additional driver time, totalling £63,000. One quarter to one third of the trucks were away from site all day, 4-6 rigid vehicles left before the rush hour and returned after it. The extra 37,000 litres of diesel was a waste and the £63,000 costs was crippling to his business. There was one year left on the current lease and he would consider the viability of the depot if the variation was refused.
Whilst the Chairman understood why the restriction had been included in the legal agreement, she believed it unreasonable when the costs of £63,000 were considered against those to the environment.
It was felt by one Councillor that although he was aware of the traffic situation in Brandon, 10-12 movements was marginal, and should not handicap a particular business. There was a need for a by-pass.
Approved contrary to recommendation on the grounds :- (1) of an acknowledged need to support a local business and
local economy and that, (2) the additional movement through Brandon would be only a
marginal increase.
(b) Item 2 : Attleborough : Land to North of Honeysuckle Way : Residential development (66 dwellings & amend 2 no. prev approved dwellings, assoc garages, roads footways etc for Norfolk Homes Ltd Reference : 3PL/2010/1041/F Approved, as recommended, see Minute No. 09/11
(c) Item 3 : Harling : Cloverfield, Lopham Road : Proposed residential development of 17 no. houses including a mix of 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses for Mr P Burton : Reference : 3PL/2010/1079/F Refused , as recommended, see Minute No. 010/11
(d) Item 4 : Shipdham : Land to east of Pound Green Lane : Erection of 35 dwellings with associated open space, access and infrastructure for Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1095/0 Refused, as recommended, see Minute No. 011/11
87
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
(e) Item 5 : Shipdham : Land off Parklands Avenue : Erection of 15
dwellings with associated open space, access and infrastructure for Mr I Leonard : Reference : 3PL/2010/1096/0 Approved, as recommended, see Minute No. 012/11
(f) Item 6 : Dereham : Land North of Norwich Road : Erection of 200 dwellings with assoc. parking, garages, open space & landscaping & change of use of land to cemetery for Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd Reference : 3PL/2010/1142/F Deferred, see Minute No. 013/11
(g) Item 7 : Attleborough : Wood Farm, Deopham Road : Erection of a single detached dwelling for Mr & Mrs D Alston : Reference : 3PL/2010/1181/0 The application sought outline planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling. The applicant ran the business from a building nearby and part of the purpose of the proposed dwelling was to provide a demonstration house showing some of the products the business supplied. In addition to that role, it would provide a house close to the business and to the applicant’s parents. It would be built to Code Level 5 and would be a 100% improvement on building regulations. Mr Took, Agent advised that the application was a re-submission of a proposal from the previous year with the dwelling now relocated to a far better location. It was of innovative and imaginative design and would possibly be the first designed to Code Level 5 in the district; it would be available as a show house of sustainable construction. The Applicant would be happy to link it to the business and confirm it would be a family home. There would be some ‘tweaking’ with regard to windows for example as the design was indicative. Whereas it was felt not to be of ground breaking design by one Councillor another believed that Planning Policy was to support modern ecological low energy buildings. The Agent said it would be linked to the house from the office, and would allow better access to visitors and customers. Deferred, and the Officers be authorised to approve, contrary to recommendation on the grounds that it was an innovative design linked to the business, on completion of a :- (1) Section 106 Agreement that the dwelling be linked to the
business, and subject to conditions including that the design would be similar to the indicative design and be built to Code Level 5.
It was felt that if Councillors tour the area in the future, that the property be included in the tour.
88
Development Control Committee 5 January 2011
Action By
(h) Item 8 : Gressenhall : High House Farm : Extension to existing workshop unit for Mr N McLeod : Reference : 3PL/2010/1258/F The reason for the application was to create an extension as additional floor space to better manage the existing workshop operation. Conditions of no power tools to be used outside and the roller shutter doors to be closed when machines were used, had not been imposed following planning permission granted previously. The Committee were made aware of concerns raised with regard to radio noise, some of which had been heard at 6 a.m in the morning. It had also been heard during the middle of the day on a footpath close by and could also be heard with the doors shut. Mr Bambridge, Agent, referred to the original planning application made in 2009 to change the use from farm building to a workshop. The applicant said that it was not possible to close off the doors to the east and had therefore not implemented that permission but had resubmitted an application. Three people were employed at the premises. The only other activities on site were farming. The applicant said that suggestions had been made to keep the main doors shut but radio noise had not been discussed. However, the applicant would talk to the tenant about the radio. The Environmental Health Officer had asked for conditions to be imposed in relation to hours of operation and the use of power tools, and a recommendation with regard to hours had been received of 7.30 a.m – 6 p.m. An additional condition to deal with the radio was recommended in respect of agreeing any amplification either in or outside the building. Approved, as recommended subject to conditions including :- (1) An additional condition in respect of agreeing any
amplification elating to the radio either in or outside the building.
015/11 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE
(FOR INFORMATION)
This item was noted.
016/11 ENFORCEMENT ITEMS (FOR INFORMATION)
In response to questions submitted by a Member, the Development Services Manager said with regard to :- Billingford : the Enforcement Officer at been out to Billingford and the site enforcement was not affected. Discussions were ongoing with the Solicitor with regards to additional work. Colkirk : the applicants had until 22 March 2011 to comply.
017/11 APPEAL DECISIONS (FOR INFORMATION)
Noted. With regard to The Bull, Litcham, Planning Permission had been granted but Listed Building Conditions had not been approved.
018/11 APPLICATIONS DETERMINED BY NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (FOR INFORMATION)
This item was noted.
019/11 SPORLE : VARIATION OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENT : PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HILL FARM : APPLICANT MRS E GENT REFERENCE : 3PL/2007/1303/0 & 3PL/2007/1305/0
The application was to request a variation of the terms of the Section 106 agreement with regard to 3 plots in the southern part of the site. RESOLVED, approved as recommended
The meeting closed at 2.30 pm
CHAIRMAN
90
1
BRECKLAND COUNCIL
At a Meeting of the
GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE
Held on Wednesday, 12 January 2011 at 10.00 am in Norfolk Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
PRESENT Mr P.J. Duigan (Vice-Chair, in the Chair) Mr G.P. Balaam Mrs K. Millbank Mr I. Sherwood
Mrs L.S. Turner Mr S.G. Bambridge Mr S. J. F. Rogers
In Attendance Stephanie Butcher - Principal Officer Licensing and Business
Support Jane Osborne - Committee Officer
Action By
1/11 MINUTES
1 .1 29 September 2010
The Minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
1 .2 6 December 2010
The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
2/11 APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence had been received from Mr R W Duffield, Mrs J Ball, Mrs M P Chapman-Allen, Mrs S M Matthews, Mr R Goreham and Mr D Myers.
3/11 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
There were none.
4/11 URGENT BUSINESS
There were none.
5/11 LOCAL JOINT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE : 28 OCTOBER 2010
(a) Breckland HR Policy Review - Timetable
(1) the review date of the Smoking Policy be changed to March 2011
Public Document Pack Agenda Item 9
91
General Purposes Committee 12 January 2011
2
Action By
(2) the review date of the Staff Forum be changed to September 2011
(3) HR to investigate why the Whistle Blowing Policy was being
considered by the Audit Committee before the LJCC and to report the findings to the Chairman before the next meeting of the Audit Committee on 5 November 2010
(4) LJCC to be notified of any policies going to any other
Committee that affect staff
(5) Subject to any influence made by the transformation, the Shared Services Transition Team be notified that all policies should be reviewed by both Breckland and South Holland District Council
The Chairman advised that he had spoken to HR and was told that item (3) had occurred and the other items had been actioned or were being done. This concerned the Committee as they felt they could not adopt the Minutes when the actions had been done.
Councillors requested procedural clarification over why, when General Purposes were the Committee to go through with regard to recommendations put forward for approval, had they been adopted, when it was their understanding that they should not have been.
A Councillor advised that the situation had arisen in the past and the Chairman had the delegated authority to approve subject to being appropriate to the Committee, and asked why it had not happened in this instance.
The Chairman said that no one Officer owned the General Purposes Committee.
RESOLVED : that the Solicitor & Standards Consultant be invited to attend the next General Purposes Committee to provide clarification
(b) Adoption
The Minutes of the Local Joint Consultative Committee meeting on 28 October were noted but not approved, due to the fact that actions had already been adopted.
Jane Osborne
6/11 SPECIAL LOCAL JOINT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE : 6 DECEMBER 2010
The unconfirmed Minutes of the Special Local Joint Consultative Committee on 6 December 2010 were adopted.
7/11 PROPOSED DIVERSION : CRF 21 KENNINGHALL
The Chairman went through the report as Mr G Parfitt, the Legal Executive
92
General Purposes Committee 12 January 2011
3
Action By
was unable to attend the Committee. The report sought authority to make an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to the applicant Kenninghall Parish Council who were the landowners. Norfolk County Council had raised no objections and the local Member was supportive. RESOLVED that the Order be made as per recommended in the report.
8/11 TAXI LICENSING FEE INCREASE
The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report which asked Members to consider and determine a proposed level of taxi licence fees for 2010/2011. Following consultation, responses had been received and were shown in Appendix C. However after the consultation period had closed on 28 November 2010 a petition was received on 7 January 2011 which the Principal Licensing Officer believed would be advisable for Members to see. It was a formal petition in the form of a letter from a licensed driver with the addition of signatures on it. The petition was noted. A Councillor felt that some of the comments made within the petition letter were not for the Committee to deal with, and that the petitioner/s should be directed to the correct place instead. Committee Members felt that it would be in tax payers’ interest to approve the recommendation following the full review carried out by the Licensing Team. RESOLVED that the Committee approve the increases in the licence fee levels to bring them to the actual cost levels shown in Appendix A of the Report, but if any further representations are received after the Public Notice, the matter be referred back to the Committee. It was felt by a Councillor that it would be beneficial for the Licensing Team to return to the General Purposes Committee some time in the future for the presentation on the transformation project to be shown again to the Committee.
Stephanie Butcher Stephanie Butcher
9/11 ADOPTION OF SCHEDULE 3 TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1982 AND SECTION 27 OF THE POLICING AND CRIME ACT 2009
The Principal Licensing Officer presented the report which asked members to consider the approval of a recommendation to Full Council to adopt the provisions of section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, which provided
93
General Purposes Committee 12 January 2011
4
Action By
for the regulation of sexual entertainment venues. There were currently no premises exclusively use as a sex entertainment venue within the Breckland District. The Officer explained the procedure that would be followed if the proposal to adopt the legislation went through. She recommended that a policy regarding sexual entertainment venues was drafted and that the policy be brought back to the Committee. RESOLVED that (1) The General Purposes Committee recommends that Full Council
resolves to adopt Schedule 3 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 as amended by Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 which will apply to the Breckland District Council area and that these provisions come into force on 1 April 2011 as ‘the first appointed day’
(2) That Breckland Council set a fee for applications for Sexual
Entertainment Venues, the amount of that fee to be calculated by the Principal Officer and set by the General Purposes Committee
(3) That Breckland Council should draw up a policy on sexual
entertainment venues, this policy to be drafted by the Principal Licensing Officer and subject to public consultation and General Purposes Committee approval.
10/11 NEXT MEETING
The arrangements for the next meeting on 16 February 2011 at 10.00 a.m in the Norfolk Room were noted.
The meeting closed at 10.30 am
CHAIRMAN
94
1
BRECKLAND COUNCIL
At a Meeting of the
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Held on Tuesday, 4 January 2011 at 2.15 pm in Norfolk Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham
PRESENT Mr M.D. Eveling JP Mrs J. Jenkins (Chairman) Mrs S.M. Matthews Mrs M. Oechsle JP Mr B.D Rayner
Mr G. Ridgway Mr F.J. Sharpe Mr M. Whittley Mr D.R. Williams JP
Also Present Mr J.P. Labouchere
In Attendance Susan Allen - Standards Officer John Chinnery - Solicitor & Standards Consultant Helen McAleer - Senior Committee Officer Jane Osborne - Committee Officer
Action By
1/11 MINUTES
It was noted that the date at the end of the second paragraph of page two of the Minutes should be 2010, not 2011. Subject to that amendment the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2010 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
2/11 APOLOGIES
None.
3/11 URGENT BUSINESS
None.
4/11 DECLARATION OF INTEREST
None
5/11 NON-MEMBERS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE MEETING
Mr Labouchere was in attendance for Agenda Item 6.
6/11 ABOLITION OF THE STANDARDS REGIME
The Solicitor advised that the Localism Bill had been published on 13 December 2010. The Government would be revoking the general principles relating to the Code of Conduct and abolishing the Standards for England Board. The First Tier Tribunal would lose its jurisdiction. However, the present regime would continue in its normal manner for at
Agenda Item 11
95
Standards Committee 4 January 2011
2
Action By
least the next twelve months and there would be a further transitional period whilst any complaints under consideration were dealt with. During transition and after, censure and/or the offer of training would be the only sanctions available for those complaints, as the power to suspend or disqualify a Councillor would be removed. Under the new regime, which was likely to come into force in the spring of 2012, Councillors would still be required to register and declare their interests. Failure to do so would become a criminal offence. Local Authorities and Parish Councils would be able to adopt a voluntary Code of Conduct if they so chose. There were still a lot of unanswered questions and more details were awaited from the Government, particularly in relation to the definition of the new criminal offence. There was concern that complaints to the police would be difficult to action and that if no regime was in place new Councillors might act inappropriately and degrade the whole system. Bullying and intimidation would not be covered by the criminal sanctions and Officers, Clerks and members of the public might receive less protection from any voluntary codes that were adopted. If Parish Councils chose to adopt a voluntary Code they would need to specify someone who would act as a ‘Monitoring Officer’. Members discussed the implications of the removal of the current regime and Code of Conduct model. They felt unable to plan for the future without receiving a steer from the Council on its future intentions. The Bill would abolish the requirement to have Independent Members although Councils could still choose to appoint them. Members felt it was extremely important for Independent Members to be retained to maintain public confidence. It was noted that the Chairman’s term of office expired in May and she stated that she would not be standing for re-election. The Standards Officer had prepared a timetable for the recruitment of a new Independent representative. However, Members felt that in the current uncertain times it would not be cost-effective to recruit anyone. It was suggested that the Standards Committee could continue with only eight Members and it was
RESOLVED to Recommend to Council that, as from May 2011, the Standards Committee membership be reduced to eight: two Independent Members, three Parish Councillors and three District Councillors.
The Chairman suggested that the Leader of the Council should be asked to make the Council’s intentions clear for the sake of new Councillors elected in May. However, the Solicitor thought that the Committee should point out that the existing regime would continue for at least the next twelve months. He asked Members if they considered that more training was needed.
96
Standards Committee 4 January 2011
3
Action By
Members agreed that induction training for new Members was imperative but did not feel that any other training should be considered until the way forward was clearer. Mr Labouchere said that he had found the debate very interesting. He felt that he had been the subject of some vexatious accusations which had made his life very difficult. He hoped that the procedures would be addressed in the future to prevent such complaints from inhibiting a Councillor’s ability to do his/her job. He suggested that candidates for membership should be made aware of the requirements of the Code of Conduct in advance of being elected and that the parameters of irresponsible behaviour needed to be made clear to the electorate and the Members. The Solicitor agreed to check that information on the Code of Conduct was included in the prospective Councillor’s application pack. A Member also suggested that prospective Councillors should be made aware of the new criminal offence regarding declarations as he felt that it was something that could potentially affect their livelihoods if they had to face criminal proceedings. He suggested that this should be included in the newsletter sent to Town and Parish Councils.
John Chinnery
7/11 CITIZEN'S PANEL
The Solicitor advised that the report was for information and that the major tables were on pages 19 and 21. Members were surprised at the percentage of people who had heard of the Standards Committee and knew what it did. They suggested that it should be pointed out to the Council that the Standards regime had good support. The Solicitor agreed to check that the Panel’s report went to Cabinet.
John Chinnery
8/11 ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS (STANDING ITEM)
A Member asked if the disclaimer concerning pre-determination by Planning Officers had been added to the website. The Solicitor agreed to check that it had. No items were proposed.
John Chinnery
9/11 NEXT MEETING
The arrangements for the next meeting were noted.
The meeting closed at 3.20 pm
CHAIRMAN
97
14th December 2010
BRECKLAND YOUTH COUNCIL Executive Cabinet Meeting 14th December 2010 Committee Suite Elizabeth House Dereham 16.30- 18.30
AGENDA:
1. Welcome & Apologies
- James whitehead has sent his apologies.
- Lisa Clayton is Absent from the meeting.
- The Chairman welcomed Maire Gaffey from Inspire East to
the meeting.
2. Maire Gaffney- Inspire East
- The Cabinet were visited by Maire Gaffney, the Cabinet and
witnessed the meeting and asked the councillors if she is able to
contact the Cabinet members with a confidential Interview
regarding how the council operates.
3. Manifesto & Code of Conduct
- Jordan Bailey- Youth Engagement & democracy.
- Stuart Green- More Activities for Young People & Community
Safety and crime.
- Alistair Wright- Environmental Issues.
- The remaining cabinet members will be emailed by Alistair to
add to the manifesto.
• The code of conduct will be set out to establish the ground
rules for meetings and vents we attend. This document will
then be sent round to all members. Items to include; Quorum
numbers, Respect to members and officers and Attendance
and Apologies.
• The youth councillors will be provided with a copy of every
month’s finance break down to make the entire council more
aware of BYC’s spending and costs.
4. Past Events
- Thetford Youth Council- Alistair has started to make contact
with TYC to share ideas and involve TYC with the YESS
campaign and affiliate with in March.
Agenda Item 12
98
14th December 2010
- BDC Cabinet Meeting- Stuart Green and Alistair Wright
attended the cabinet meeting on the 30th of November. The
meeting followed up the Executive Board meeting that Alistair
and Stu attended earlier in November. The meeting has
shown how planning issues have an impact upon the district
and how cabinet meetings are managed and operated.
- Build Your Own Politician- Jordan Bailey visited Kenninghall
Primary School and interacted with children to encourage
democracy with young people and challenge stereotypes.
Jordan Encouraged the other councillors to
- V Involved- Jordan and Alistair accompanied Stephanie
Barnard to the V Involved awards ceremony on the 8th of
December.
- Take Part- Stuart Green and Steph visited an event in
Cambridge to present to other community groups within East
Anglia regarding our spending of the Take Part funding we
have received over the last year. Maire Gaffney also
commented at how Stuart was the only young person at the
event to present to the meeting.
- Norfolk IAG group- Stuart Green visited this group to assist
them with engaging with young people. Stuart is going to
attend the next meeting in January and may become a
member in the future.
5. Upcoming Events
- Houses Of Parliament- 25th of January. The cabinet discussed
what the youth council would like to do in the afternoon.
Possible ministers to visit may be those associated with Take
Part (CLG & Cabinet Office).
- YESS Meeting- 20th December. Working meeting to discuss
and work out how we will spend the additional £1000 from
Take Part by the end of January.
- BDC full Council 16/12/10- Jordan & Alistair are presenting to
the council about the campaign and the funding we were
awarded.
6. Any Other Business
- Badges- Steph has ordered the badges with the BYC logo on.
The designs will be forwarded to the Executive Cabinet
members to decide on the look of the badges. Once a
decision has been made they will then be ordered.
- Buddy system- Steph gave a gentle reminder to the cabinet
that communication lines must be kept open to ensure
messages are received and replied to as soon as possible.
- Youth fellowship- Steph proposed that the Youth Council
nominate Kelsey McTaggart for Lord-Lieutenant of Norfolk
Youth Fellowship Award.
99
14th December 2010
- Bernard Matthews Award- Steph has submitted our
nomination, and we are waiting for a reply.
- Big Conversation- Stuart Green told the cabinet about the Big
Conversation which is Norfolk County Council’s Public
Consultation regarding Spending Cuts and Children’s Services
Cuts. By January 15th any opinions must be submitted to the
County Council.
Meeting Close TO ACTION:
1) Meeting/ events attendance and commitment. 2) Financial report every quarter. 3) Fuel/transport Allowance 4) Thetford Youth Council Visit? 5) Build your Own Politician. 6) Houses of Parliament Visit. 7) Pride In Breckland Awards (march 2011)
100
BRECKLAND COUNCIL Report of the Director of Corporate Resources to the COUNCIL – 27 JANUARY 2011 Author: Helen McAleer – Senior Committee Officer CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE CYCLE
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To request a change to the Development Control Committee meetings timetable from a three weekly to a four weekly cycle.
2. Recommendations
It is recommended that the Council approves the change to a four weekly Development Control Committee meeting cycle.
Note: In preparing this report, due regard has been had to equality of opportunity, human rights, prevention of crime and disorder, environmental and risk management considerations as appropriate. Relevant officers have been consulted in relation to any legal, financial or human resources implications and comments received are reflected in the report.
3. Information, Issues and Options
3.1 Background
3.1.1 A request was made at the Contract Monitoring Board to bring the Development Control Committee meeting cycle in line with the working practice of adjoining and other relevant authorities.
3.1.2 South Holland, Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk currently meet on a four weekly cycle. Broadland District Council and the Broads Authority meet once per calendar month. Norfolk County Council has one meeting every five weeks.
3.1.3 A change from three to four weekly meetings would reduce the average number of Development Control Committee meetings from approximately 17 to 13 each year.
3.2 Issues
3.2.1 It is considered that there would be no adverse impact on determination times of all types of planning applications.
3.2.2 There would be savings for both Breckland Council and Capita Symonds in relation to staff time, Members’ expenses and printing and postage costs.
3.2.3 The change is likely to increase the length of committee meetings by approximately one third. This is unlikely to result in an over-run into the afternoon.
3.2.4 A reduction in the number of Development Control Committee meetings would free up the Committee Suite rooms for other meetings. An amended Calendar of Meetings for 2011/12 is attached at Appendix A.
3.3 Options
3.3.1 To approve the recommendation and change to a four weekly cycle.
Agenda Item 13
101
3.3.2 To retain the existing three weekly cycle.
3.4 Reasons for Recommendation(s)
3.4.1 Four weekly meetings would:
• have no adverse impact on the determination of planning applications;
• provide savings on staff time, Members’ allowances and printing and postage costs;
• bring the Development Control Committee cycle in line with that of neighbouring authorities and with its Shared Services partner authority, South Holland.
4. Risk and Financial Implications
4.1 Risk
4.1.1 This report does not require a risk assessment because the issues covered by the recommendations are not significant in terms of risk.
4.2 Financial
4.2.1 None.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 None.
6. Other Implications [Insert statement or confirm ‘none’ as appropriate at each sub-paragraph]
7.1 Your Council, Your Services – Constitution: Standing Order No. 1 and Part 3: Delegations to Cabinet: Paragraph 9
8. Ward/Community Affected
8.1 All.
Lead Contact Officer: Name/Post: Stephen McGrath, Member Services Manager Telephone: 01362 656326 Email: [email protected] This is not a Key Decision. Appendices attached to this report: Appendix A – Amended Calendar of Meetings for 2011/2012
