Agenda and minutes

Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Items
No. Item

53/14

Minutes (Agenda item 1) pdf icon PDF 75 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2014.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2014 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

54/14

Apologies (Agenda item 2)

To receive apologies for absence. 

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from the Chief Executive.

55/14

Urgent Business (Agenda item 3)

To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any item as urgent business, pursuant to Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

None.

56/14

Declaration of Interests (Agenda item 4)

Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. 

 

In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.

Minutes:

None.

57/14

Non-Members Wishing to Address the Meeting (Agenda item 5)

To note the names of any non-members who wish to address the meeting.

Minutes:

Mesdames M Chapman-Allen, S Matthews, J North and Messrs G Bambridge, T Carter, P Duigan, T Jermy, A Joel, R Kybird, K Martin, A Joel and M Robinson.

58/14

Chairman's Announcements (If Any) (Agenda item 6)

Minutes:

None.

59/14

Breckland Community Funding Applications (Standing Item) (Agenda item 7) pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Report of Lynda Turner, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Community and Environmental Services.

 

To consider the grants put forward from Share Point, the on-line grant process.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Vice-Chairman and Executive Member for Community & Environmental Services presented the report and summarised the funding recommendations that had been made by both the Match Funding and Pride Funding Grant Panels between March and May 2014.  She also drew attention to the two recommendations to Cabinet on the allocation of Match Funding for two new funding applications. Both applications stood very strongly against the Corporate Plan.

 

Referring to the North Elmham application, the Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development stated that the local communities had aspired to build a village hall and he fully supported the application and wished them all the best.

 

Councillor North was in attendance for the Attleborough Boxing Club application.  She said that the boxing club was an excellent facility that was open to all across the District.  The club itself opened 4 years ago and had a very good reputation.  It attracted Boxers from not just for Norfolk but from all over the country.  The application was for a fitness room extension which would be built alongside the existing building and she hoped that Cabinet would support it.

 

The Executive Member for Corporate Services and Quality Assurance said that he would certainly be voting for the Attleborough application.  He had had dealings with this club in some respect as the coach lived in his village. He felt that the club was very worthwhile as it taught youngsters discipline, self respect and self reliance and challenged youthful aggression.

 

The Executive Member for Communications, Organisation Performance, Development & Public Protection supported the applications as both had been well researched and informed.  He could foresee the good work and help these facilities would provide.  He drew attention to section 1.5 of the report where the smaller grants awarded had been listed and felt that the grants system should be further advertised as he knew that some groups would be unaware of the funding available.  He thanked the Executive Member for her support.

 

Mr Labouchere was in attendance and was allowed to speak in relation to the North Elmham application.  He had been delighted and very grateful to hear that Cabinet would be supporting these applications particularly in relation to North Elmham.  The three separate halls in the village currently provided meeting points for 54 working clubs and societies and the hope of one brand new village hall being built on village land would be a fabulous opportunity.

 

The Vice-Chairman pointed out that the Council had received new applications amounting to £30k and the Council had given out over £4.5k grant funding in support of the WW1 centenary celebrations.  She said that the remit for grant funding was far and wide and she encouraged all to use up her available pot of money.

 

The Executive Support Member for Planning, Building Control & Housing said that no grants would have been given if it was not for the support of the Ward Representatives who supported their communities.

 

The Executive Member for Corporate Services and Quality Assurance reminded Members that there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59/14

60/14

Freedom of Information Act and Data Protection Act Policies (Agenda item 8) pdf icon PDF 52 KB

Report of Ellen Jolly, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Democratic Services.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive Member for Finance & Democratic Services presented the report and highlighted the policies as two matters of great significance.

 

Members were being asked to support the recommendations as it would ensure that the Council’s policies were up to date and reflected current legislation.

 

Options

 

  1. Do nothing – if the Council did not update its policies then this could lead to a breach of legislation to which the Council would be potentially liable.

 

  1. Approve the revised policies – revised policies would ensure that the Council was compliant with both Acts and any recent changes to legislation and guidance.

 

Reasons

 

The revised policies would promote openness, transparency and accountability throughout the Council.  The current policies were out dated and were in need of an update.

 

RESOLVED that the revised Freedom of Information Policy and Data Protection Policy be approved.

61/14

Breckland Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule and Viability Assessment (Agenda item 9) pdf icon PDF 647 KB

Report of Mark Kiddle-Morris, Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Development.

 

Appendix A:  Community Infrastructure Levy Amended Regulations 2014: Impact upon Breckland’s Charging Schedule

Appendix B: Breckland’s Draft Charging Schedule

Appendix C: Breckland’s Regulation 123 List

Appendix D: CIL Revenue and Funding Gap Paper – Revised version

Appendix E: Summary of Responses to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation

 

Due to the size of the aforementioned documents, a limited number of paper copies will be available on the day (see supplement).

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development presented the report that asked the Cabinet to consider the options on the progression of a Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL).  He asked that the recommendations be amended as the CIL was going through hiatus at the moment in relation to guidance and regulations not matching up.

 

The Planning Policy Officer stated that the Planning Policy Team had been through a considerable amount of work which included a consultation in 2013.  Since the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule was consulted upon, further viability evidence had been undertaken in response to some of the representations received.  This work particularly aimed to address the concerns of Norfolk County Council.  The work looked to exclude education contributions from CIL and instead fund them through S106 Agreements.  However, the additional viability work showed that it would not be viable within Breckland to seek a larger S106 Agreement to fund education in addition to a CIL charge for individual dwellings.

 

The Planning Policy Officer provided Members with a detailed overview of what the amendments to the CIL regulations would mean to Breckland Council.  These amendments came into force on 24th February 2014 and had been reviewed so that their impact upon the potential CIL in Breckland could be considered.  It was noted that this was the 7th version of regulations received.  The key amendments were:

 

·          Delaying the restrictions on pooling of S106 agreements from April 2014 to April 2015

·          Exemptions from CIL for Self-Build properties. This included both traditional self-build dwellings and those commissioned by individuals to use as their sole or main residence plus in-kind payments

·          Allowing the phasing of CIL

·          Allowing CIL to be set by size of development, not just by type (or Use Class)

 

The report at Appendix A showed that the amendments to the CIL regulations were likely to lead to a reduction in the amount of money Breckland Council could expect to raise through this charge.  The reduction to the CIL pot primarily related to the exemptions for self build dwellings.  These dwellings would predominately relate to windfall schemes for individual dwellings.  Overall this could lead to a reduction in the CIL pot by up to 39.8% over the remainder of the plan period to 2026.  The money raised through CIL over the remainder of the plan period would be £6.86 million.

 

A key difference between CIL and S106 Agreements was the meaningful proportion of CIL that would go to Town and Parish Councils.  If Cabinet was mindful not to progress CIL in Breckland, Town and Parish Councils would not receive a meaningful proportion of the money to put towards infrastructure with their Parish.

 

Parishes with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan would receive 25% of the CIL receipts, whilst parishes without such a Plan would receive 15%; however, this would be capped at £100 per council tax paying dwelling per year.

 

In relation to future S106 Agreements, from April 2015, the use of such agreements would be restricted to five or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61/14

62/14

Croxton Neighbourhood Plan - Plan Area Designation & Croxton, Kilverstone & Brettenham Neighbourhood Plan - Plan Area Designation (Agenda item 10) pdf icon PDF 82 KB

Report of Mark Kiddle-Morris, Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Development.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was for Members to consider any strategic issues or consultation responses and to formally designate the Croxton, Kilverstone and Brettenham Neighbourhood Plan area.

 

The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development highlighted the Neighbourhood Plans and explained the differences between the two.

 

Members were being asked to approve Option 1 of the report due to the fact that the proposed boundary was considered appropriate to be designated without any modification and would include the whole of the land that formed part of the Thetford Strategic Urban Extension (SUE).  The impact of additional Neighbourhood Plan policies on the SUE would not be realised until later.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen said that a colleague Ward Member had worked on this matter and had urged the Cabinet to support Option 1.

 

Councillor Kybird mentioned the guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) on Neighbourhood Plans and felt that the report gave rise to two different types of Plans that required two different types of policies.

 

The Executive Member for Finance & Democratic Services felt that it was the Parishes wish to have a shared vision for the future of the villages that fell outside the SUE and had felt that the best way forward would be to combine policies to allow for a cohesive and strategic vision.

 

The Opposition Leader said that Thetford was intrinsically linked to these parishes and felt that this matter should be taken forward in a more joined up way.

 

The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development stated that Breckland Council had no control over submissions of Neighbourhood Plans as anyone could apply.  There had been nothing to stop Thetford and the aforementioned parishes submitting a Plan in its entirety; however, these two parishes had worked together and had decided that they wanted one of their own.  The detail of whether it would be compliant with Thetford’s Neighbourhood Plan would be included in their policies.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to section 3.4 of the report where it highlighted the legalities of excluding land within the SUE as adopted in the Thetford Area Action Plan.

 

Option 1

 

To consider the content of this report to confirm the joint Neighbourhood Plan area as submitted by Croxton, Kilverstone and Brettenham Parish Councils as set out at Appendix A and reject the single Croxton Neighbourhood Plan area.

 

Option 2

 

To consider the content of this report and confirm an amended joint Neighbourhood Plan area of Croxton, Kilverstone and Brettenham excluding land identified as part of the Thetford Sustainable Urban Extension and reject single Croxton Neighbourhood Plan area.

 

Reasons

 

It was recommended that Cabinet endorsed Option 1. This was due to the fact that the proposed boundary was considered appropriate to be designated without modification.

 

An amended boundary could be designated that reflected the joint Croxton, Kilverstone and Brettenham submission with the exception of land falling within the Thetford Urban Extension. However, this was not recommended as it was considered that the potential for any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62/14

63/14

Broadband Breckland Investment (Agenda item 11) pdf icon PDF 141 KB

Report of the Leader Michael Wassell, Ellen Jolly, Portfolio Holder for Finance & Democratic Services and Mark Kiddle-Morris, Portfolio Holder for Assets & Strategic Development

 

Minutes:

Members were made aware that Superfast Broadband (defined as 24Mbps+) was emerging as a priority infrastructure within Norfolk.  It had been estimated that the current Rural Broadband programme would deliver returns of £20 for every £1 invested.  Better Broadband for Norfolk (BBfN) was a multi-million pound partnership between Norfolk County Council and BT which was currently implementing the initiative within Norfolk.  The current program would provide access to Superfast Broadband to 83% of Norfolk properties by the end of 2015.  In addition, the programme would also ensure that every property had access to at least 2Mbps.  It was emphasised that currently only county wide figures were available but from research it would appear that both the coverage and indeed the gaps were spread evenly across Norfolk.  The actual figures for each District would only become available early in 2015 once BT had completed its survey work.

 

This was an exciting opportunity to improve the coverage within Breckland; the Government had offered Norfolk a further £5.59 million and the Local Enterprise Partnership was seeking match funding for this from the Department of Transport.  If this funding was secured, the estimate was that a further 7% of Norfolk properties would have access to Superfast Broadband; this would bring total coverage of up to 90%.  The County Council had sought an additional £4 million of further funding for Norfolk.  It had also received ministerial approval for this, subject to local match funding.  The County Council had allocated a further £1 million.  District Councils had been offered the opportunity to participate in the improvement of Superfast Broadband by agreeing in principle to allocate funds.  It was hoped that this would increase the coverage of Superfast Broadband to 95% across Norfolk.  It should be noted that:

 

  • Breckland funding would only be used in Breckland Council
  • Breckland Council would have an input as to the priorities for investment with the District
  • If at this point it was considered that the investment did not represent good value for money the Council need not proceed
  • In terms of areas that were adjacent to Breckland’s borders with other Districts, Breckland Council would work with these authorities to ensure that Breckland Council received the maximum for the investment that was initially made.
  • District funding would be used during 2016/17 and 2017/18.
  • As this covered so many facets of what Breckland did as a District Council, the Chief Executive together with the Leader would lead on this project.

 

Based on the county wide estimates that Breckland Council had been provided with (and Members were asked to note that until early 2015 these were the best figures it could get), Cabinet was requested to recommend to Full Council an in principle agreement to provide funding of up to £950,000 to deliver the project across Breckland.  This amount would be transferred from the Council’s Organisational Development Reserve and earmarked for Broadband Partnership Funding for call down in 2016/17.  It was likely that the actual amount required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63/14

64/14

Reference from the Overview and Scrutiny Commission (Agenda item 12)

To consider references, if any, from the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission held on 19 June 2014.

Minutes:

None.

65/14

Next Meeting (Agenda item 13)

To note that the next Cabinet meeting will be held on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 9.30am in the Anglia Room.

 

Minutes:

The arrangements for the next meeting on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 at 9.30am in the Anglia Room were noted.

66/14

Exclusion of Press and Public (Agenda item 14)

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

 

PART B – ITEMS FROM WHICH THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED 

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

67/14

Proposed Extension to the Domestic Garden Waste Collection Scheme at Breckland Council (Agenda item 15)

 

Report of Lynda Turner, Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Community and Environmental Services.

 

  • Business Case Analysis
  • Norfolk Minerals & Waste Development Framework.

 

Due to the size of the aforementioned documents, a limited number of paper copies will be available on the day (see supplement).

Minutes:

The Vice-Chairman presented the report and introduced Emily Spicer, the Council’s shared Senior Waste & Recycling Officer.

 

The report described the proposal to extend the domestic garden waste collection service and Members were furnished with the information needed in order to reach an informed decision.

 

The Senior Waste & Recycling Officer responded to Members questions.

 

Options

 

See report

 

Reasons

 

See Report.

 

RESOLVED  that the recommendations as listed in the report be approved.

68/14

LABV Project (Agenda item 16)

Report of Mark Kiddle-Morris, Portfolio Holder for Assets and Strategic Development.

Minutes:

The Executive Member for Assets & Strategic Development introduced the report.

 

Officers from the LABV Project Team were in attendance to answer questions.

 

The reasons for the recommendations were highlighted and Members were provided with a detailed overview of the report.

 

Options

 

See report.

 

Reasons

 

See Report.

 

RECOMMEND to Council that the recommendations as listed in the report be approved.