Cabinet. Hethel Engineering Centre, Chapman Way, Hethel, Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8FB

Transcription

1 Cabinet Date: Monday 6 January 2014 Time: Venue: am Hethel Engineering Centre, Chapman Way, Hethel, Norwich, Norfolk NR14 8FB PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF VENUE Persons attending the meeting are requested to turn off mobile phones. Membership Mr G. Nobbs (Chairman) Mr M. Castle Mr D. Harrison Mr J. Joyce Mr S. Morphew Mr D. Roper Mrs C Walker Ms S. Whitaker Mrs M. Wilkinson Education and Schools Environment, Transport, Development and Waste Safeguarding Finance, Corporate and Personnel Public Protection Economic Development Adult Social Services Communities For further details and general enquiries about this Agenda Please contact: Sonya Blythe on or committees@norfolk.gov.uk

2 Cabinet 6 January 2014 A g e n d a 1. To receive apologies and details of any substitute members attending 2. Minutes To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 December (Page 7 ) 3. Members to Declare any Interests If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is on your Register of Interests you must not speak or vote on the matter. If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in a matter to be considered at the meeting and that interest is not on your Register of Interests you must declare that interest at the meeting and not speak or vote on the matter. In either case you may remain in the room where the meeting is taking place. If you consider that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to remain in the room, you may leave the room while the matter is dealt with. If you do not have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest you may nevertheless have an Other Interest in a matter to be discussed if it affects: - your well being or financial position - that of your family or close friends - that of a club or society in which you have a management role - that of another public body of which you are a member to a greater extent than others in your ward. If that is the case then you must declare such an interest but can speak and vote on the matter. 4. To receive any items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency 5. Public Question Time 15 minutes for questions from members of the public of which due notice has been given. Please note that all questions must be received by 5pm Tuesday 31 December Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda. For guidance on submitting public questions, please use the link:

3 Cabinet 6 January Local Member Issues/Member Questions 15 minutes for Local Members to raise issues of concern of which due notice has been given. For attendance and speaking rights of members at Cabinet meetings please see Appendix 11 of the Norfolk County Council Constitution. Please note that all questions must be received by 5pm Tuesday 31 December Please submit your question(s) to the person named on the front of this agenda or to committees@norfolk.gov.uk 7. Overview and Scrutiny Panel Issues Opportunity for Cabinet Members to bring forward matters from their respective Overview and Scrutiny Panels Revenue Finance Monitoring Report Month 8 (Page 33) Cabinet is asked to note the forecast overspend at the end of November 2013 of 0.132m, note the creation of the 11m Residual Waste Treatment Contract reserve as set out in paragraph 2 and note the extent to which actual growth has compared with budget assumptions as set out in paragraph 4.4, of the report. 9. Capital Monitoring Report Month 8 (Page 67) To agree the re-profiling between 2013/14 and 2014/15 and other adjustments to the programme totalling m, to note the reduction in schemes shown as red in Table 3, demonstrating the improved profiling of existing schemes between years, to agree the associated changes to funding in the programme and to note the details of savings and benefits to be generated from spend-tosave schemes as set out in Appendix 2 and the alternative ways of funding these projects. 10. Provisional Local Government Finance (Page 95) To consider the changes to the funding announced within the Settlement, note that this will be reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Panels and that the Council will respond to the consultation. 11. Discretionary Bus Passes and Available Walking Routes (Page 107 ) To consider the financial impacts of changing the school transport policy and method of implementation and reaffirm that the current school transport policy is fit for purpose and NCC continues the on-going programme of route reviews and capital investment so that more children can walk or cycle to school.

4 Cabinet 6 January Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (Page 112) To welcome the progress on the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk and endorse the district councils decisions to adopt the part JCS. 13. Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan (Page 117 ) To ask Cabinet to adopt the Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan 14. Exemption to Contract Standing Order for Compass Provision (Page 147 ) To note that an exemption to Contract Standing Orders for has been granted. 15 Great Yarmouth VA High School - Partnership proposal for the provision of accessible playing fields (Page 155) To approve the proposals for further investigations. 16. Norse Group Update (Page 159) To note the on-going growth in the business and the benefits the Company continues to bring to the Norfolk economy. 17. Appointments to Committees etc (Standing Item) 18. Exclusion of the Public The committee may be asked to consider excluding the public from the meeting under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 for consideration of an item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by a Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act, and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The committee will be presented with the conclusion of the public interest test carried out by the report author and is recommended to confirm the exclusion. 19. Norwich: Former Unthank Centre, 3, 3a & 5 Unthank Road

5 Cabinet 6 January 2014 Date Agenda Published: Monday 23 December 2013 All enquiries to: Sonya Blythe Norfolk County Council, Democratic Services, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, NR1 2DH Tel Fax committees@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact or (textphone) and we will do our best to help.

6 6

7 CABINET MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 2 DECEMBER 2013 AT 10.30AM IN THE EDWARDS ROOM, COUNTY HALL. Present: Mr G. Nobbs (Chairman) Mr M Castle Mr D Harrison Mr J. Joyce Mr S Morphew Mrs C Walker Ms S. Whitaker Mrs M. Wilkinson Schools Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. Safeguarding Finance, Corporate and Personnel. Economic Development Adult Social Services Communities Members Also Present: Mr R Bearman Mr B Borrett Michael Chenery of Horsbrugh Mr H Humphrey Mr C Jordan Mrs J Leggett Mrs M Somerville Dr M Strong Mrs A Thomas Mr B Watkins Officers/ Others Present: Mr M Allen Mr P Bennett-Lloyd Mr G Boyd Mr H Bullen Mr G Cossey Mrs A Gibson Ms I Kerry Ms S Lock Ms A Mawbey Mr T McCabe Mrs F McDiarmid Mr P Ronan Mr P Timmins Mr N Tupper Mr P Wright Assistant Director Environment and Waste Climate Change Manager Assistant Director, Education Strategy and Commissioning Head of Budgeting and Financial Management Investment Manager Acting Chief Executive Corporate Parenting User Involvement officer Interim Head of Children s Services SEN Commissioner Interim Director of Environment, Transport and Development Assistant Director Economic Development & Strategy Adoption, Fostering and Residential Care Operations Manager Interim Head of Finance Highways Maintenance Manager Apprenticeships Strategy Manager Prior to the formal start of the meeting the Principal of East Norfolk Sixth Form College, Daphne King, accompanied by members of the Student Association, handed the Chairman a petition regarding proposed cuts to the transport subsidy for students aged 16 and over. Mrs King asked Members a question, as follows:- proposal 27 suggested the virtual removal of the Post-16 transport subsidy in order to save 1m. Had the Council assessed the impact of the young people of Norfolk who lived in rural areas and would not be able to access education? Parents had reported that they would not be able to support the increase and the children would be forced to withdraw. East Norfolk Sixth Form Centre 7

8 was the third biggest centre for year olds in the country and 552 students from villages use the transport subsidy. Was this not a small price to pay for the county s future skills? Were councillors aware of the grave repercussions? The Chairman responded that he had considerable sympathy for the situation. However a consultation was currently being held and all options had to be considered due to the financial pressures which the County Council faced. The Authority had found savings of 140m over the past three years and now had to find additional savings of 189 over the forthcoming three years. In addition, thanks to lobbying by Norfolk MPs, a 169m grant of waste PFI credits had also been withdrawn from the County Council. The Chairman noted his surprise that Elizabeth Truss MP had signed the petition, despite being one of the MPs who had lobbied the Government regarding the removal of the 169m PFI credits. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel advised that all responses to the consultation would be listened to in order to understand the adverse impact of any actions and to recognise the priorities of residents. There were other financial uncertainties which would also need to be taken account of, once they were known. The Cabinet Member for Schools noted that the loss of the Educational Maintenance Allowance had also impacted on year olds. He hoped that the public would continue to respond to the consultation. 1. Apologies Apologies were received from the Cabinet Member for Public Protection. 2. Minutes The minutes of the meeting held on 4 November 2013 were agreed and signed by the Chairman. 3. Declarations of Interest The Chairman welcomed Mrs Walker to her first meeting as Cabinet Member for Econimic Development. Mrs Walker declared an interest in item 12 Transfer of Pension Risk and item 20 Apprenticeships Norfolk One Year on, as a Director of Norse. Ms Whitaker declared an interest in item 16 Exemption to Contract Standing Orders for Specialist Resource Bases, as a Governor at Hewett School, which had two specialist resource bases. 4. Matters of Urgent Business No matters of urgent business were raised. 5. Public Questions 5.1 Appendix A to these minutes sets out the public questions and replies received for this meeting. 2 8

9 6. Local Member Issues/Member Questions. 6.1 Appendix B to these minutes sets out the Member questions and replies received for this meeting. 7. Overview and Scrutiny Panel Issues The Cabinet Member for Safeguarding advised that the Interim Director of Children s Services had been interviewed by Radio Norfolk that morning to discuss missing looked after children, which would be discussed in detail later on the agenda. He also commented on an article in the Eastern Daily Press newspaper on Saturday 20 November which had discussed the fact that most of the current pressures on the County Council budget had been brought about by the Government. He hoped that the local MPs would do more to help Norfolk in the future. The Cabinet Member for Schools noted that Simon Wright MP had appeared in the press campaigning for Cavell Primary School not to be made into an Academy recently, then had been quoted on Friday 29 November saying that all schools should be made into Academies as this would save money which could be used on school transport. The Cabinet Member also advised that he would be meeting with Brandon Lewis MP on 13 December to discuss additional monies for discretionary free bus passes. The Cabinet Member for Communities apologised that she had not responded to additional questions which had been asked at Council as yet; she was awaiting further information and would then reply. The Cabinet Member for Economic Development advised that since taking up her new position within the last week she had attended the Choose Your Future event with the Leader, which had received an excellent turn out from young people looking for career options. She had also attended an entrepreneur event at the Forum, which had helped people who wanted to start their own businesses. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel noted that the outcome of the Constitution Advisory Group had been fully discussed at the Council meeting the previous week. He advised that a new Customer Service Strategy would be considered shortly. Finally he advised that the Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Panel would continue to oversee the County Hall maintenance and refurbishment programme to ensure that the County Council had a building which was fit for purpose, effective and efficient, with reduced running costs. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Service advised that she had attended ten budget consultation meetings since the last meeting of the Cabinet. She confirmed that Care UK would now be given new customers by the County Council, but that they were still being monitored daily. Care UK would be charged the difference between the normal contract cost and the cost of any additional contracts, where customers had had to be placed during the period when Care UK had been unable to accept new clients. Finally the Cabinet Member advised that, as it had been five years since the transfer of staff from the County Council to the Mental Health Trust, a review would now be carried out into how the arrangements had worked. 3 9

10 8. Presentation of Norfolk County Council s Promise to Children and Young People in its Care by Representatives from the Norfolk In-Care Council The Cabinet received a presentation (item 8) from the Norfolk In Care Council, which explained the Norfolk County Council pledge to all children and young people in its care. The presentation is attached to the minutes as Appendix C. The Cabinet Member for Safeguarding noted that the County Council had previously held a pledge, but neither young people nor OFSTED had held much confidence in it. This was a welcome piece of work, which had been developed by young people, for young people. He endorsed it as a new way of working, which would help Members to better understand their responsibilities. The Cabinet Member for Economic Development stated that she took her position as a corporate parent seriously and that she agreed with the new promise. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services agreed that the old pledge had not been good enough. All Members had a responsibility and all Members should be made aware of that. She asked that the In-Care Council feedback to Members if they had any ideas on how their circumstances could be further improved. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1. The promise be accepted as a statement of purpose 2. That all elected Members be made aware of the importance of the promise and that they use it to help inform their corporate parent and scrutiny role. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision The In Care Council believed that the recommendations should be agreed because as corporate parent, Norfolk County Council had a duty to provide all children and young people in care with the best possible service they could and to make sure children were well informed of their rights and how to complain if they felt they were not being met. The promise clearly did that in a way that was accessible by all children and young people through a variety of formats and ensured that social care staff and managers took responsibility for making sure that this happened. 9 Norfolk County Council Revenue Finance Monitoring Report Month 7 The Cabinet received a report (item 9), which gave details of the latest monitoring position for the Revenue Budget, General Balances forecast at 31 March 2014 and forecasts for the Council s Reserves at 31 March 2014 The Interim Head of Finance advised Members that the report was laid out in a new format which clearly demonstrated important information. The key point of the report was that 2m from the 2013/14 underspend and 4m from general balances would be placed into 4 10

11 the earmarked contingency reserve in relation to the residual waste contract. He noted that work would be carried out on previously made growth assumptions to determine how accurate they had been, in order to allow for better financial planning in the next year. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel noted that the new format was a milestone in the Administration s commitment to openness and transparency. He reminded that the budget consultation would close on 12 December 2013 and urged the public to carry on responding. A good response had been received so far, with the public being constructive and fully engaging with the process. The budget deficit for the forthcoming year, which currently stood at 81.5m could still increase depending on the outcome of the decision made by the Secretary of State There were no easy savings options left but alternative and better ways of working would be sought. No positive assistance had been received from Norfolk s MPs. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services welcomed the more detailed analysis. She noted that the average debtor days for non-residential care in Norfolk were 38 days, against a County average of 25 days. Officers agreed to look into the reasons for this discrepancy and feedback. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1. The forecast underspend at the end of October 2013 of 2.254m be noted 2. An ear marked reserve be created, as contingency planning in relation to the residual waste treatment contract by the transfer of: a) 4m from General Balances, being the excess above the agreed minimum; b) 2m from the underspend 3. Chief Officers would assess the extent to which actual growth compared with budget assumptions as a contingent matter. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision Having set a budget at the start of the financial year, the Council needed to ensure its delivery within allocated and available resources which in turn would underpin the financial stability of the Council. Consequently there was a requirement to regularly monitor progress so that corrective action could be taken when required. 10. Norfolk County Council Capital Monitoring Report Month 7 The Cabinet received a report (item 10), which presented the progress to date against the Council s Capital Programme at the end of October on a service by service basis. The Interim Head of Finance advised that this report was also in a new format, which displayed information regarding capital monitoring. It would provide insight on areas to look at such as possible areas of slippage. A detailed report would be brought back to Cabinet in January

12 The Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel welcomed the report as it would provide valuable information to Members and the public regarding how the County Council would raise money, in an understandable format. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1. The re-profiling of expenditure between 2013/14 and 2014/15 and adjustments to the programme as shown in Table 3 of the Cabinet report be agreed. 2. Chief Officers would report to the next meeting, as to how progress against schemes, shown as red or amber in Table 4 in the Cabinet report, was improving. 3. The associated changes to funding in the programme summarised in Table 5 of the cabinet report be agreed. 4. A report would be received at the next meeting on the savings from spend-to-save schemes and alternative ways of funding unsupported borrowing. 5. The planned use of capital receipts in the programme be agreed, as summarised in Table 6 of the Cabinet report, details of the allocation of these receipts to be reported to the next meeting. 6. The urgent schemes listed in Table 7 of the Cabinet report be taken forward under delegated authority, subject to funding for the on-going revenue costs of borrowing being identified by the sponsoring service. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision Having set a capital budget and programme at the start of the financial year, the Council needed to ensure its delivery within allocated and available resources. Consequently there was a requirement to regularly monitor the status of the programme including reprofiling, amendments and additions, and the on-going funding of the programme Energy from Waste Risk Funding - contingency planning The Cabinet received a report (item 11), which set out the progress made to date in gathering an earmarked reserve of 26m to cover the financial risk to the Authority associated with a potential refusal by the Communities Secretary to grant planning permission to the proposed Willows Power and Recycling plant at Saddlebow, King s Lynn. The Interim Head of Finance advised that a contingency fund of 11m had already been assembled and the savings target for would be increased by an additional 15m as part of a phased approach to further increase the County Councils flexibility. A further report would be brought to Cabinet on January 27 th 2014 to consider how to further address the risk. 6 12

13 The Chairman noted that if the contract had been cancelled by the County Council the 26m would have had to be paid by the end of 2013 which would have devastated the budget. The County Council did not want to cancel the contract but this was now a planning decision and contingency planning had been required in case it proved necessary. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel stated that many people had implied that 26m was of no consequence and could be found without the budget being impacted. This was not the case. The impact would be huge and by holding the contingency funding aside it was preventing the money from being spent in areas where it was needed. The Cabinet Member for Schools reminded Members of the petition which had been received at the start of the meeting and noted that savings such as the post-16 transport subsidy may not have had to be considered were it not for this situation. He welcomed a swift resolution to the issue by receiving the outcome of the planning decision as soon as possible. The Cabinet Member for Safeguarding agreed that 26m was a large sum and that the amount would be much better spent on every household in Norfolk. Holding it and then potentially paying it in compensation was not in the interests of the people of Norfolk. The Cabinet Member for Environment, Development, Transport and Waste agreed that 26m was too large a sum for the County Council to afford. Decision RESOLVED to note the actions taken to date and the progress made, and that a further progress report be brought to the January Cabinet meeting. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. 12. Transfer of Pension Risk The Cabinet received a report (Item 12) which considered the transference of the pension funding risk from Norse to the County Council, for companies that provide services to the County Council. The Head of Budgeting and Financial Management advised that he had met with external auditors of the County Council and Norse the previous week and in principle they were content with the suggested approach. They had recognised that there were some details to be finalised in particular differences in private and public sector accounting. The aim would be to complete a legal agreement between the County Council, Norse and the Pension Fund by the end of January 2014 to coincide with the Norse year-end. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services asked whether there would be any cost to the County Council. She was advised that the future pension risk could be positive or negative, however the County Council already ultimately held the risk as they owned Norse. Future actuarial valuations would determine if there was any increase or decrease in pension cost. The only difference would be that any risk would now show in the County Council s single entity accounts rather than Norse s. 7 13

14 Decision RESOLVED that the transfer of the pension risk from the Norse Group balance sheet to the County Council s single entity balance sheet be approved, subject to satisfactory agreement regarding the accounting treatment being reached with the external auditors of the County Council and Norse, the respective companies being Teckal compliant and a legal agreement being entered into between the County Council, Norse and the Pension Fund. Reason for Decision Transferring the pension risk to the County Council from Norse Group would improve the Council s investment in the Norse Group by strengthening its balance sheet. It would also ensure that the pension arrangements for all contracts between the County Council and the Norse Group were on the same basis and enable the Norse Group to pass cash to the County Council in the form of a dividend. 13 Mid Year Treasury Management Monitoring Report The Cabinet received a report (item 13), which provided information on the treasury management activities of the County Council for the period 1st April 2013 to 30 th September The Investment Manager advised that the County Council had continued to out perform its benchmarks, in accordance with the strategy which had been agreed by Council in February The report had been considered by the Treasury Management Panel in October Decision RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL the Mid Year Treasury Management Monitoring Report to County Council. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision The Mid Year Treasury Management Monitoring Report provided information on the Treasury Management activities of the County Council for the period 1st April 2013 to 30th September Dealing with Obstructions on the Highway The Cabinet received a report (item 14), which considered arrangements for managing unauthorised items which had been left on the highway within the King s Lynn and West Norfolk area, by delegating relevant powers to the Borough Council. The Cabinet Member for Schools advised that a similar arrangement in Great Yarmouth had been successful. It enabled street trading to take place without any risks to the public and he was pleased to support this development. 8 14

15 The Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste welcomed this delegation of powers as a good example of localism at work. He noted a similar successful scheme was already in place in North Norfolk. The Cabinet Member for Communities, as a District Councillor in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, welcomed this development. Decision RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL:- 1) That delegated authority be given to Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council in respect of the County Council s powers in Sections 143 and 149 of the Highways Act 1980 in relation to the area of West Norfolk defined at Appendix B of the Cabinet report to be carried out in accordance with a defined street activities code, commencing on a date to be determined by the Interim Director of Environment, Transport and Development and on such terms as he shall approve in consultation with the Head of Law and Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. 2) That delegated authority be given to the Interim Director of Environment, Transport and Development, in consultation with the Head of Law and Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste, to implement the above recommendation with other district councils in Norfolk if they request such a delegation. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision The approach built on existing arrangements in the Great Yarmouth and North Norfolk areas which were working well and enabled all aspects of the highway items to be managed locally. 15 Norfolk Energy Futures Limited Annual Report The Cabinet received a report (item 15), which contained the annual report for Norfolk Energy Futures Ltd, submitted to Companies House. It also described forthcoming projects and investment opportunities which had been developed by the company. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services stated that it was an excellent idea to have a separate energy company, however, she had concerns that the company had tried to do too much. No dividend had been paid and projects had received a low success rate for example, only 25% of the expected amount of turbines had been installed. The Assistant Director Environment and Waste and Managing Director of NEF Ltd responded that the investment return rates would be much improved in future reports. The targets for turbines may seem low because they had only been installed where there had been no local objections received. Before future financial commitments were made, officers would take reports to the Investment Panel to allow them to decide what future projects to take forward. 9 15

16 The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services queried whether two Cabinet Members should sit on the Board instead of the current one. It was agreed that consideration would be given to this at a later date. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1. The Norfolk Energy Futures Ltd Annual Report and Accounts 2013 be noted 2. The appointment to the Chief Officer roles on the Investment Panel as set out in para 5.3 of the Cabinet report be agreed. 3. The County Council continue to be supported with investing in renewable energy projects through Norfolk Energy Futures Ltd, in line with the current investment programme. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision The Terms of Reference for the Investment Panel required Cabinet to agree Chief Officer and Member appointments. 16 Exemption to Contract Standing Orders for Specialist Resource Bases (SRBs) The Cabinet received a report (item 16), which noted that an exemption from contract standing orders for the re-commissioning of the Specialist Resource Base programme was required. This would allow the direction of travel regarding Specialist Resource Bases, which Cabinet had agreed on 4 November 2013, to be taken forward. The exemption had already been agreed by the Head of Procurement and by the Practice Director of NP Law. Decision RESOLVED that the exemption to Contract Standing Orders for the recommissioning of SRBs which had been granted from the Assistant Head of Procurement and Head of Law be noted. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision The decision had already been taken by Cabinet on 4th November 2013 on the direction of travel for recommissioning SRBs 17 Statement of Purpose Norfolk County Council Adoption Agency Annual Review The Cabinet received a report (item 17), which provided a performance review of Norfolk Adoption Service and set out its goals and challenges. The Cabinet Member for Safeguarding recognised that the rate of young people coming into the system had increased

17 The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services raised concerns regarding the breakdown of adoptions and asked whether the process was rushed on occasions rather than ensuring that the right match had been found. Officers assured Members that the process and timescale was adopter led. The process was complex and potential adopters often took a break between stage one and stage two of the process to consider it further. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1) The information within the report be noted. RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL:- 2) The Statement of Purpose and Functions for the Local Authority Adoption Service to comply with the Care Standards Act Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision This was a statutory requirement. 18 Statement of Purpose of Norfolk s Fostering Services Annual Review The Cabinet received a report (item 18), which described the ethos and goals of the fostering service, its management and oversight arrangements and the experience of its staff. The Interim Director of Children s Services noted that there were some issues in relation to performance within the report, but these would be addressed as part of the overall improvement plan. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services raised concern that it appeared that the service was losing carers faster than it was gaining them and asked whether the service was sustainable. Officers responded that the same issues had been experienced in other parts of the country. Fostering was a difficult and challenging role but a lot of work was currently ongoing to improve this, including an improved offer which would be made to foster parents. Many foster parents had taken more than one child so, despite the fact foster carers had reduced, placements had not. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1) The information within the report be noted. RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL:

18 2) The Statement of Purpose and Functions for the Local Authority Fostering Service to comply with the Care Standards Act Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision This was a statutory requirement. 19 Annual Approval of the Statement of Purpose of Norfolk s Residential Children s Homes and a Summary Review of the Year The Cabinet received a report (item 19), which reported on the performance and outcomes achieved by the Norfolk Residential Service. The Cabinet Member for Safeguarding reminded Members that the Interim Director of Children s Services had discussed this report on Radio Norfolk previously. The media had highlighted the Cabinet report as it appeared that there had been a substantial increase in the number of children and young people who had been reported missing from children s homes. The Interim Director of Children s Services clarified that the capacity of children s homes had increased so the size of the cohort being measured had also increased. In addition this service dealt with mainly older children who it was difficult to monitor constantly. If it was not known where the children were for a short while, as they had not returned at the appropriate time, they had been reported as missing. The Interim Director also advised that all children s homes had been judged by OFSTED as good or outstanding which was an excellent achievement. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1) The performance and outcomes within the report be noted. RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL:- 2) The Statement of Purpose and Functions for the Local Authority s Children s Homes to comply with the Care Standards Act Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision This was a statutory requirement. 20 Apprenticeships Norfolk one year on The Cabinet received a report (item 20), which provided Members with an update on the progress of Apprenticeships Norfolk, an initiative set up to tackle youth unemployment and encourage more businesses to employ apprentices, thereby increasing the skills base in 12 18

19 the Norfolk economy. 333 young people had commenced in an apprenticeship position so far and it was expected that it would meet its target of 441. The Chairman paid tribute to the efforts of Norse and to Mr Richard Bridgman, Chairman of Warren Services in Thetford, the Authority's Cabinet Adviser on Apprenticeships. The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services noted that there had been a target of 40 care leavers to obtain apprenticeship positions, but that only nine had actually secured positions. Officers advised that the figure was now 15 placements. There had been some challenges around care leavers caused by HMRC and officers had been working with them to ensure that the apprenticeship positions would not cause tax problems for them in the future. The Cabinet Member for Schools asked how we could sustain this level of apprenticeships in the future as funding had only been made available for a year. The Assistant Director Economic Development and Strategy responded that now the profile had been raised she was working closely with local colleges to embed the principles and keep the momentum going. The Cabinet Member for Economic Development congratulated officers on the amount of young people who had been helped to find employment. As a Director of Norse she gave thanks to Norse for the amount of positions they had provided, for which they had won a Business in the Community award. Decision RESOLVED that:- 1) The progress of the Apprenticeships Norfolk Programme be noted 2) The review of the final 12 months of the programme be approved, to take into account the changing local and national landscape, including City Deals, as set out in paragraph 2.5 of the Cabinet report 3) The performance and outcomes within the Cabinet report be noted. Alternative Options: Refer to the Cabinet report. Reason for Decision The local and national landscape had changed, including the potential for a City Deal for Greater Norwich. The proposed review would look at results and lessons learned over the programme as a whole, taking account of the changing landscape and lay the foundations for the Programme s legacy. 21 Appointments to Committees (Standing Item) There were no changes to note. The meeting closed at 12.30pm

20 CHAIRMAN If you need this document in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact or (textphone) and we will do our best to help

21 5 PUBLIC QUESTIONS Appendix A 5.1 One question from Mrs Ann Claydon a) I understand that you are considering a 2 charge per visit for using the local recycling facility. Please could you explain how you will make this pay? I, along with numerous people save rubbish to recycle (metal, batteries, small electrical goods, garden rubbish...) and visit the facility about once a month. If there is a charge, we will put it all in the green bin which will then go to landfill. There will also be a large increase in fly tipping which would be unsightly and could be a health hazard and again an additional cost to clear up. Please will you throw this proposal out. Thank you. Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. The proposal is part of the Putting People First budget consultation and, if implemented, will save the Council money through additional income and more residents using the Main Plus Recycling Centres which are cheaper to operate. 5.2 Two questions from Mr John Martin a) Please state the total amount of the liability incurred by NCC to date in respect of fees for professional advice and assistance from external sources in connection with the Saddlebow incinerator project, and in particular in relation to the planning inquiry including its own fees and its contractual contribution towards the fees of Cory Wheelabrator. Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. The total cost of external professional advice incurred by the County Council on the Saddlebow energy from waste project is currently 3.5 million. The figure for expenditure incurred by the county council as the waste planning authority is just under 200, 000. This includes the costs incurred by the county council associated with hosting the inquiry such as the costs of the venue, programme officer and print costs as well as the external technical specialists. The Public Inquiry process is now finished but the contractor s final costs for participating are not yet known. However they can reasonably be expected to be between 1.6 million and 2 million pounds. Under the terms of our agreement, the County Council must meet some 90% of the cost above a five figure sum and the current estimate is that this is equivalent to around 1.5 million. This cost reflects the length of the Public Inquiry as determined by the Inspector. b) In the event of Cory Wheelabrator challenging a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse planning permission for the Saddlebow incinerator in the High Court, to what extent is NCC contractually bound to support that challenge financially and otherwise? Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste

22 The contract (with essential redactions) is available on the Council s website and NCC s commitments in relation to this question can be found there. Schedule 26 of the contract states that if the contractor decides to challenge the Secretary of State s decision to refuse planning permission it must seek a QC opinion on the likely success of any challenge. If the QC advises there is a likelihood of a successful challenge then the County Council should not unreasonably withhold its approval for the challenge. In which case the County Council would be responsible for 90% of any challenge costs. The contractor can also decide to challenge the decision without the approval of the County Council, in this case the contractor would be responsible for all the costs of any challenge. As the waste planning authority the county council is under no contractual obligations regarding a potential legal challenge to a decision by the Secretary of State. 5.3 Two questions from Mrs Carolyn Martin a) With his detailed knowledge, gleaned from reading the whole of the contract entered into with Cory Wheelabrator, will the Cabinet member for waste confirm that it does contain material departures from the WIDP 2010 standard form of contract? Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. No. One of the criteria for the award of PFI credits to a project is that the contract terms adhere to Standardisation of PFI Contracts (version 4) (SOPC4) drafting/principles and any sector specific amendments to SOPC4 The contract adopts the standard drafting of SOPC4/Widp where possible and any amendments to SOPC4/Widp drafting necessary did not derogate from SOPC4/Widp principles and were subject to intense scrutiny by HM Treasury, Defra and Widp to ensure that this was indeed the case. This scrutiny resulted in the approval by Defra and Treasury of the project, which in itself is evidence that the project did indeed adhere to the standard principles of SOPC4 and Widp. b) Does the Cabinet propose to send any of Norfolk's residual municipal solid waste to Cory Environmental's waste incinerator at Belvedere? Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. No. 5.4 One question from Mr Michael de Whalley a) The Labour county elections manifesto states: "We will use all legal means to suspend any plans for building any incinerators in Norfolk so that a detailed study of current, suitable methods of waste disposal can be undertaken." What suitable alternatives were fully investigated in advance of the decision to proceed with the revised project plan? 16 22

23 Response by Mr George Nobbs, Leader of the Council. A report on contingency arrangements in the event of significant delay or termination for failure to secure planning permission was presented to County Council at its meeting on 28 November It accompanied a series of reports both independently commissioned and from officers. All of these reports are available on the County Council's website. At that meeting Council fully discussed the Revised Project Plan and recommended to Cabinet that the Revised Project Plan should be accepted. Following on from this Cabinet at its meeting on 29 October 2013 resolved to accept the Revised Project Plan. 5.5 Two questions from Mr Ron Cornell a) Will the Cabinet agree not to involve further New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership in the Saddlebow waste incinerator project? Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. The Cabinet did not involve the LEP! It is entirely a matter for New Anglia LEP to decide what issues they chose to involve themselves in. However it is no surprise that the New Anglia LEP has chosen to comment on the decision of government to remove 169 million worth of support to Norfolk. b) When does the Cabinet anticipate being able to publish the results of the investigation by the acting Manager Director into the conduct of Mr Mike Jackson? Response by Mr George Nobbs, Leader of the Council There is no investigation into the conduct of Mike Jackson 5.6 Two questions from Mr Richard Burton a) Cabinet are considering reclaiming the WICs/PFI credits. Their provisional award was influenced by a letter from Mike Jackson (12/01/12). His claim that PFI criterion 6 was met is now known to be incorrect. The Waste Strategy has no mention of incineration or EfW thus Norwich s support of it is not support of a Strategy, reflected in the proposed solution, so criterion 6 is unfulfilled. His letter seeks to show public support, using ComRes s survey. ComRes have stated (EDP 25/11/13) question 4 did not give interviewees all the choices shown in the version given to DEFRA; undermining claims this satisfies criterion 6. Has NCC informed DEFRA of this new information? Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. I dispute a number of your premises. There is no new information to give to DEFRA. The award of credits was not provisional. It was based on a wide ranging review, in compliance with DEFRA criteria. b) In relation to the situation described above as it relates to Norwich and the Waste Strategy, has NCC taken legal advice to determine whether a failure to disclose this information to DEFRA/SoS, in the event it seeks to reinstate the WIC, would constitute fraud? 17 23

24 Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. Certainly not. That suggestion is absurd. 5.7 Two questions from Dr Martin Little a) Did any member of the Cabinet prior to the full Council meeting that considered the Willows revised project plan, receive directly or indirectly a communication, in any form, from the office of Norman Lamb MP that contained a statement or reference to a statement from DCLG. This a statement being one that contradicted NCCs own finance officers views regarding the Councils ability to access reserves or otherwise meet the potential cost of project failure in the event that the Council did not adopt the revised project plan? Response by Mr George Nobbs, Leader of the Council No. I can only speak for myself and my Group. b) If the answer to 1 above is yes then why was the information from DCLG via Norman Lamb not presented to all Council members before or during the meeting that considered the revised project plan? Response by Mr George Nobbs, Leader of the Council If any Liberal Democrat members received such internal party advice it is entirely up to them to determine with whom and when they share it. 5.8 Two questions from Mrs Jenny Perryman a) Gt Blakenham incinerator, on a par with that proposed at Saddlebow, also has surplus capacity for 100,000tpa of non-contract waste. Visiting the site last week I was told the profitability of the incinerator will be totally reliant on receiving waste from Norfolk and some from London. As talks would have taken place for Sita to entertain such certainties, what quantities of Norfolk s waste is under consideration for Gt Blakenham? Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. None. There are no such plans. You are right to indicate, however, that we are running out of landfill space. We are currently sending around 20% of our left over rubbish all the way to Kent for incineration. b) It would appear under the new administration s pledge of greater honesty and transparency, Minutes of meetings are still only reflecting what they want to disclose rather than an accurate account. Why has NCC failed to show honesty and transparency about their intentions to supply Gt Blakenham s EfW incinerator with Norfolk s waste? 18 24

25 Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. I totally refute your unfounded allegations. All minutes of Norfolk County Council are an accurate summary of what takes place at the meeting

26 6.1 Two questions from Dr Andrew Boswell 6. MEMBER QUESTIONS Appendix B a) I understand from the Leader of Norwich City Council that on October 8th, at her request, you asked the interim Chief Executive to investigate why and how, and with whose signoff, an officer of this Council wrote to the government purporting to represent that authority's policy before the grant of the WIC credits was made in January Please provide an update on progress and when Council can expect to see the investigation report. Response by Mr George Nobbs, Leader of the Council Following receipt of a letter from Councillor Arthur I asked the Acting Chief Executive to investigate to enable me to send a full response. I am, pleased to say that I was able to send Councillor Arthur a full answer last week and understand that she accepts that this deals fully with the matters raised b) The chairman of the Local Enterprise Partnership has recently indicated (to KLWIN) that he could host visits to the Adnams Anaerobic Digestion plant at the company's distribution site outside Southwold for those interested in alternative waste solutions. Will the Cabinet member take up this offer and arrange a visit for interested parties including councillors and officers from this Council, Norfolk District Councils and the Norfolk Waste Partnership?" Response by Mr David Harrison, Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport, Development and Waste. This Council has an excellent track record of visiting waste facilities that provide an opportunity to divert waste from landfill. I am sure therefore that Members and officers would especially welcome the opportunity to visit the Adnams Anaerobic Digestion plant at Southwold. I shouldn t read too much into it. Considering its location, I m sure that any visit to a site that involves Adnams would be oversubscribed. 6.2 One question from Richard Bearman Once the new Greater Norwich Growth Board is set up, how will the spending of CIL revenues be determined? Specifically, what percentage of spending will the new Growth Board itself decide, and what percentage of spending will decided by each of the constituent councils and how will this be apportioned? Response by Mrs Colleen Walker, Cabinet Member for Economic Development. The exact figures are yet to be decided. When they have been you will be amongst the first to be advised. The draft governance arrangements for the Greater Norwich Growth Board were made available at the GNDP Board meeting on 19 September and the Councils are in the process of establishing the Growth Board including taking the proposals through the individual Council s democratic processes

27 The draft terms of reference indicate that The Board will oversee delivery of the City Deal including Employment and Skills, Enterprise and Innovation and Infrastructure in line with an annual business plan agreed by the constituent councils. The annual business plan will identify infrastructure schemes for delivery and funding packages; it will be prepared by and signed off by the individual Councils before being passed to the Growth Board to monitor and co-ordinate. The Board will jointly manage the approved annual business plans; the CIL collecting authorities will agree the use of CIL and other funding as appropriate to deliver that plan. As such the GNGB Constituent Authorities will be involved in agreeing the business plan which will determine the projects to be delivered and how CIL and other sources are used to fund delivery of the overall infrastructure programme. Mr Bearman asked a supplementary question. He asked, with regard to the last paragraph of the above response, what public consultation would take place and would the public be involved in prioritising this? The Cabinet Member for Economic Development agreed to discuss this with the partners and send a full written response to Mr Bearman. 6.3 One question from Judy Leggett a) I understand that the recruitment of the 50 plus agency social workers is making a positive difference but how many unfilled posts remain ( including those due to long term sickness) within Children s Service excluding schools? Response by Mr James Joyce, Cabinet Member for Safeguarding The recruitment of agency staff into front line social care teams was not only to cover vacancies but also recognising that there was a capacity issue and that more social workers were needed to meet demands and statutory requirements of the LA. We currently employ full time equivalent permanent social workers across the service not including Team or Assistant Team Managers. We have 21.6 vacancies and 9.5 maternity/long term illness all covered by agency staff within social care. We have an ongoing recruitment campaign for social workers 'Better Futures All Round' and will replace the vacancies currently covered by agency staff as permanent staff join us. You may be aware that the summer recruitment campaign resulted in 30 new permanent social workers joining our teams. The current campaign started at the end of October and has so far resulted in the appointment of 4 experienced social workers. There are further interview dates scheduled during December and January as part of this fast moving campaign for permanent staff in line with our plan to reduce current agency staffing levels. We are already seeing a positive impact evidenced by more timely assessments of our children, young people and their families as well as reduced case loads for social workers. Mrs Leggett asked a supplementary question. She asked whether any agency staff had been employed within the Early Help Team as yet. The Cabinet Member for Safeguarding responded that some people had already been employed within these teams and that the County Council was currently working on adding more. 6.4 One question from Cliff Jordan 21 27

28 a) I was pleased to see the Cabinet decision to start contingency planning in case of an adverse planning decision by the Secretary of State for the Willows EfW project.. As the Cabinet continues to consider options on the Council's budget, could the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Personnel clarify whether the Cabinet is treating any contingency, or need for it, as a debt or as a risk? Response by Mr Steve Morphew, Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel. I am pleased that Cliff is pleased! Item 11 on the Cabinet agenda addresses the very issue of planning for an adverse decision. It is in two parts. A sum of 11m has been provisionally gathered this financial year, as the first part of outline solution. It is dependent on delivering the remaining budget to plan - we still have 4 months to go. Secondly, I anticipate an increase in the savings target for The intention is to propose that the further 15m is collected by way of an increase in the current 66.5m savings target for that year. The proposal is to report back to the January 27th Cabinet on where the additional savings are proposed to fall, which will be the subject of a new round of consultation. As the report says, finding new savings "is not an easy task". Consequently, we will be treating the contingency as cash raised, and not as a debt or a risk. There is one major caveat to all of this, which applies to all Councils. Our careful planning might have to change, if the Government's December grant settlement announcement for local government reduces our room for manoeuvre. Mr Jordan asked a supplementary question. He asked whether the contingency money potentially being held would be treated as a debt or a risk, if planning permission was not granted. The Cabinet Member agreed to send a written response to Mr Jordan. 6.5 One question from Shelagh Gurney a) Many of my residents complain that NCC is not expedient at collecting equipment which has been lent to friends and relatives and sometimes it is never collected. Given the forecast overspend on aid and adaptations, over 1.578m, will the Cabinet Member consider a special collection week where members of the public can hand back equipment at a local community centre or library? Response by Ms Sue Whitaker, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services. A new joint contract, awarded by Norfolk County Council and the 5 NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups for the supply of aids and adaptations to health and social care customers, started on 1 April The contract holder is Nottingham Rehab Supplies (NRS). As part of the contract, NRS is responsible for the collection and recycling of surplus equipment

29 As Cllr Gurney was the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care when the contract was awarded and commenced, I am sure she is well aware that Norfolk County Council no longer runs the service. 6.6 One question from Bill Borrett a) Please could the Leader of the Council outline his commitments for the week? Response by Mr George Nobbs, Leader of the Council As usual I have an overfull diary with a series of varied commitments. I won t bore you with the more routine events such as meeting with other Party Group Leaders and a succession of briefings with officers but among the more unusual events are the launch of the Norman Connections at Norwich Castle and a Model United Nations Conference in the Council Chamber. Mr Borrett asked a supplementary question. He noted that in 2010 the Conservative administration had launched the Big Conversation to get the opinions and views of the residents of Norfolk on the budget savings necessary to balance the budget over the following three years. The County Council had needed to find savings of 140m and savings of 155m, which was over the target had been consulted on, so that residents could have a genuine say on what was and was not included. The current Putting People First consultation had consulted on 140m worth of savings when the target required was 189m. He asked whether the Leader had any plans to consult the public on the 50m gap in the proposals and how this would affect things that had already been consulted on? The Chairman responded that the Putting People First consultation was no different from the Big Conversation, where only the first and second years were originally consulted on. It would be imprudent to consult on the third year as yet as there were still some uncertainties around funding, such as money which was expected from the Government for taking on responsibility for some health services in Norfolk. The Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel refuted the allegation that there was a 50m gap and confirmed that the Administration would consult again on any additional savings required if and when needed. The Chairman requested that Mr Borrett speak to Norfolk MPs to persuade them to lobby Government for a return of the Waste PFI credits, which had been withdrawn through no fault of the County Council

30 Cabinet Action Note 2 December 2013 Agenda Report Title Item Number 9 Revenue Finance Monitoring Report Month 7 Action Cabinet Member for Adult Social Services welcomed the more detailed analysis. She noted that the average debtor days for non-residential care in Norfolk were 38 days, against a county average of 25 days. Officers agreed to look into the reasons for this discrepancy and feedback. Response: The data referred to in the Cabinet report is taken from the Cipfa benchmarking report, this data is taken at a point in time and is not updated in the report on a month by month basis. We are now in receipt of the most up to date Cipfa benchmarking data for We are currently reviewing and verifying the data and will update you on the current position with regards to non-residential debtor days as soon as possible. Reasons why there may be a difference between authority s figures: Differences in Charging Policies - Authorities are able to define their own charging polices for non-residential care. In Norfolk we charge from the date a care package is agreed and put in place and we advise the service user of this as part of the personal budget process. Some other authorities do not apply a charge until a financial assessment has taken place. Delay in Charging - there can be a delay between the care package being arranged and a financial assessment being undertaken; therefore as we back date the charge there may be queries arising from this. In addition, we raise charges to customers on actual hours of care received and rely on providers informing us of variations to the care package, sometimes there can be a delay in us being notified however any overcharge is 30

31 retrospectively applied. This may show as a debt until the charge has been amended. In summary therefore it is likely that in Norfolk we raise more bills and apply charges from an earlier point in the care process and as a result deal with more queries all of which could lead to a delay in collection of debt. However as charges are applied from the start of the care package this protects the Councils financial position with regards to collection of income. 6.2 Member Questions Mr Bearman asked a supplementary question. He asked, with regard to the last paragraph of the above response, what public consultation would take place and would the public be involved in prioritising this? The Cabinet Member for Economic Development agreed to discuss this with the partners and send a full written response to Mr Bearman. Response by the Cabinet Member for Economic Development (The section in italics is the para referred to in the supplementary question. ) The Board will jointly manage the approved annual business plans; the CIL collecting authorities will agree the use of CIL and other funding as appropriate to deliver that plan. As such the GNGB Constituent Authorities will be involved in agreeing the business plan which will determine the projects to be delivered and how CIL and other sources are used to fund delivery of the overall infrastructure programme. The Joint Core Strategy has identified in Appendix 7 the major infrastructure required to support planned growth and an indicative delivery date. This appendix was, as part of the Joint Core Strategy, subject to extensive public consultation and public examination. The City Deal seeks to deliver the planned housing and jobs growth as set out in the JCS so the business plan will reflect those projects agreed through the JCS process, updated to reflect latest information such as scheme funding and development rates. The Business plan will be agreed by each of the GNGB authorities before it is presented to the GNGB so there will be opportunity for further engagement and debate in the projects proposed in the 31

32 business pan. It is expected that the plan will be reviewed annually to keep it up to date with changing circumstance to ensure it continues to support the city deal. 6.4 Member Questions Mr Jordan asked a supplementary question. He asked whether the contingency money potentially being held would be treated as a debt or a risk, if planning permission was not granted. The Cabinet Member agreed to send a written response to Mr Jordan. Response by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Corporate and Personnel. At Cabinet on 2nd December I agreed to provide a written response to your supplementary question regarding whether the contingency money being held would be treated as a debt or risk, if planning permission was not granted. Ultimately if planning permission is not granted and the contract is cancelled then the contingency money will need to be transferred from a reserve into a provision, whilst the breakage costs are negotiated, as the County Council will have a legal obligation to pay the contractor their breakage costs, in essence this is a debt. However, there would be a number of stages to go through before that possible position is reached. For example, if the Secretary of State refuses planning permission, the contractor may choose to appeal that decision or the contractor may be able to take mitigating steps to address any reason for refusal. In addition the contractor is required to use all reasonable endeavours to achieve planning permission and that could involve the submission of an alternative scheme. Whilst there is uncertainty whether planning permission will ultimately be refused the contingency money is being treated as a risk rather than a debt. 32

33 Norfolk County Council Revenue Finance Monitoring Report Month 8 Report by the Interim Head of Finance Report to Cabinet 6 January 2014 Item No..8. Summary This report gives details of the latest monitoring position for the Revenue Budget, General Balances forecast at 31 March 2014 and forecasts for the Council s Reserves at 31 March Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to: note the forecast overspend at the end of November 2013 of 0.132m note the creation of the 11m Residual Waste Treatment Contract reserve as set out in paragraph 2 note the extent to which actual growth has compared with budget assumptions as set out in paragraph Summary of financial monitoring position 1.1 At the end of November: Revenue expenditure is forecast to overspend by 0.132m on a net budget of m. The chart below shows the month by month trend. Chart 1: forecast revenue outturn , by month to month 8 General Balances are forecast to be m at 31 March The Council has Reserves which are forecast, at 31 March 2014, to be m, plus the new Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve of 11m. The Council separately holds Reserves in respect of Schools which are forecast to be m at 31 March Creation of an earmarked reserve 2.1 As a result of a recommendation approved at the 2 December Cabinet meeting an earmarked residual waste treatment contract reserve has been created using a transfer from: 1 33

34 General Balances of 4m projected underspends of 2m and savings as a consequence of action to delay, cancel or defer projects, as reported to Cabinet 2 December 2013 totalling 5m. 2.2 The effect on service budgets of these transfers is shown in paragraph 3.2 below. 3 Agreed budget, changes and variations 3.1 The budget was agreed by Council on 18 February 2013 and is summarised in Appendix 1. The budget is monitored in accordance with the timetable at Appendix The following table shows changes to budgets as a result of the Cabinet decision on 2 December 2013 to create an earmarked reserve. Details of the savings transferred are shown in Appendix 3 (Table A3a). Table 1: original and revised net budget by service including transfers to reserves Service Original net budget Revised net budget 31 October Changes to budget November Waste reserve budget Revised budget after transfers adjustment m m m m m Children s Services Community Services - Adult Community Services - Cultural Environment, Transport and Development Fire and Rescue Service Resources Finance General: - interest payable adjustment - Community Fund (second homes) - transfer savings Total There were no other change to net service budgets during November Table A3b in Appendix 3 sets out the flows through the Finance General budget as a result of the budget changes reported to Cabinet 2 December Significant new in-year revenue grants over 100,000 announced are listed in Appendix 3 (Table A3c). 3.6 Chief Officers have responsibility for managing their budgets within the amounts approved by County Council. They have been charged with reviewing all of their cost centres to ensure that, where an overspend is identified, action is taken to ensure that a balanced budget is achieved for the year. 3.7 Based on the position at the end of November the latest projection for the revenue budget shows a net projected overall overspend of 0.132m. 3.8 The revenue projections in Table 2 below show a projected overspend, compared with a projected underspend of 2.254m last month. The main differences are the 2 34

35 projected Environment, Transport and Development (ETD) overspends and changes to the forecast interest receivable/payable. The forecast ETD overspend is mainly due to cost pressures relating to recycling, residual waste, and park and ride provision. The net reduction in the forecast interest receivable/payable results from the recognition of the full year borrowing forecast offset by transfers to the Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve. 3.9 The projected outturn for Finance General includes a dividend of 341,000 received from the Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation ESPO. Norfolk County Council is a member of ESPO with its interest calculated as a proportion of its share of ESPO s turnover Details of all projected under and over spends for each service, together of areas where mitigating action is being taken, are shown in Appendix 4, and are summarised in the following table: Table 2: projected budget variations by service Service Revised Budget m Projected outturn m Projected (under)/ over spend m % Projected (under)/ over spend previous month m Children s Services A Community Services G Environment, Transport A and Development Fire and Rescue Service G Resources G Finance General n/a G Totals RAG 3.11 The following chart shows service outturn projections reported to Cabinet by month: Chart 2: service revenue outturn projections , by month to month The projected outturn in Table 2 above does not take into account unavoidable costs associated with the recent tidal surge and flooding in Norfolk. Additional costs are currently estimated at approximately 330,000, and will be reported in more detail to the next Cabinet meeting. 3 35

36 4 Control of growth and external cost pressures 4.1 The impact of demographic growth and changes, and external cost pressures are an integral part of the budget planning process. For the current year this is shown as additional costs within the Financial Strategy and Medium Term Financial Plan arising from assumptions in the following key areas: Inflation, including pay and pension costs Demand and Demographics, including numbers of older people, people with learning difficulties, and looked after children Legislative Changes and Other eg grant funding and interest rates 4.2 These factors clearly present an on-going financial risk to the Council, and it is important that: forecasts are checked against actual data so that estimates can be revised and remedial action taken; and services provide robust evidence to support future growth requirements and use of additional resources in Cabinet resolved, on 2 December 2013, that Chief Officers would assess the extent to which actual growth compared with budget assumptions. The key planning assumptions made during the preparation of the budget are shown in Appendix 5 along with a narrative showing outcomes in each of these areas. 4.4 In the majority of cases the planning assumptions have been, or are expected to be realised. Looked After Children, and Waste and Recycling remain areas of budgetary pressure and these are reflected as a projected overspend in Appendix 4. The latest forecast for Purchase of Care for people with Learning Difficulties has shown that the additional provision was not required and the current year underspend indicates a reduction to the estimated provision for future years. This has been reflected in the Budget. 5 Treasury management, payment performance and debt collection 5.1 Treasury management: the corporate treasury management function ensures the efficient management of all the authority s cash balances. A detailed update, including the latest position regarding Icelandic bank accounts, is included as Appendix Payment performance: approximately 450,000 invoices are paid annually. In November 2013, 96.9% were paid within a target of 30 days from receipt against a target of 90%. An analysis is shown in Appendix Outstanding debt: the value of outstanding debt is continuously monitored and recovery procedures are in place to ensure that action is taken to recover all money due to Norfolk County Council. An analysis of the amounts due to the Council, including average debtor days, is included at Appendix For the period since 1 April 2013, 661 debts less than 10,000 have been written off following approval from the Head of Finance. These debts totalled 211,120. Three debts over 10,000 have been written off following Cabinet approval. These debts totalled 34,

37 6 Resource implications 6.1 On 18 February 2013 Council agreed the recommendation from the Head of Finance that a minimum level of General Balances of 16m be held in As at 31 October 2013, General Balance levels at 31 March 2014 are estimated as follows. Table 5: forecast general balances m Actual General Balances at 31 March Less underspend to be used in as approved by County Council 18 February 2013 Transfer from forecast underspend on Finance General in respect of County Council elections in May underspend to be used in in respect of Norfolk Citizenship approved by County Council 13 February 2012 Transferred to Waste Contingency Planning earmarked reserve Latest forecast General Balances at 31 March The forecast does not take into account any projected overspends or underspends in A reserve is an amount set aside for a specific purpose in one financial year and carried forward to meet expenditure in future years. The Council carries a number of reserves with totals as follows: Table 6: forecast reserves Forecast 1 April 2013 Forecast Balances Reported Forecast 31 March 2014 m m m Earmarked reserves - non schools Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve Earmarked reserves - schools Total The forecast indicates a significant use of reserves in The total for earmarked reserves - non schools, excludes the new 11m Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve which is shown separately in the table above. 6.5 Non schools reserves are forecast to decrease due to significant forecast reductions in the majority of large reserves. 6.6 The decrease in forecast schools reserves is accounted for by a reduction in LMS balances due primarily to anticipated academy conversions and forecast use of balances in-year, plus a reduction of 2m in Schools Contingency to fund provision of Special Education Needs. 6.7 A list of reserves can be found in Appendix 9. This appendix also lists the Council s accounting provisions, which are amounts put aside to fund future liabilities or losses which are certain or very likely to occur, but where the amounts or dates when they will arise are uncertain. 5 37

38 7 Equality impact assessment 7.1 This report is not directly relevant to equality, in that it is not making proposals that will have a direct impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups. 8 Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 8.1 There are no specific implications for crime and disorder reduction. However, many of the indicators included in this report have indirect implications for crime and disorder reduction. 9 Alternative options 9.1 Cabinet may wish to review and amend the approved budget. 10 Reasons for decision 10.1 Having set a budget at the start of the financial year, the Council needs to ensure its delivery within allocated and available resources which in turn underpins the financial stability of the Council. Consequently there is a requirement to regularly monitor progress so that corrective action can be taken when required. 11 Risks 11.1 The Prudential Code requires regular monitoring to be undertaken in-year against key indicators. Monitoring of the approved Prudential Indicators has highlighted no significant deviation from expectations. 12 Environmental implications 12.1 There are no environmental implications. 13 Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to: note the forecast overspend at the end of November 2013 of 0.132m note the creation of the 11m Residual Waste Treatment Contract reserve as set out in paragraph 2 note the extent to which actual growth has compared with budget assumptions as set out in paragraph

39 Officer Contact If you have any questions about the matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number address Peter Timmins Harvey Bullen If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Howard Jones on or textphone and we will do our best to help. 7 39

40 Appendices Appendix 1: Approved budget Appendix 2: Monthly timetable Appendix 3: Changes to budget Appendix 4: Projected outturn for each service Appendix 5: Planning assumptions Appendix 6: Treasury management Appendix 7: Payment performance Appendix 8: Debt collection Appendix 9: Reserves and provisions 40

41 Appendix 1 Agreed by Council 18 February 2013 Approved budget Approved budget Analysis by service m Children s Services Community Services - Adult Community Services - Cultural Environment, Transport and Development Fire and Rescue Service Resources Finance General Total net expenditure Funded by Council tax precept Council tax surplus on collection Total Subjective analysis Expenditure Employees - teachers Employees - others Repairs and maintenance Energy costs Premises other Transport Related Expenses Equipment, furniture and materials Other Supplies and Services Third Party Payments Transfer Payments Support Services Capital Financing Contribution to Reserves Total Expenditure 1, Income National Non Domestic Rates Government Grants Other Grants, Reimbursements etc Customer & Client Receipts Interest Receipts Other Income Total Income -1, Net expenditure

42 Appendix 2 Budget monitoring timetable Accounting Period Accounting Month Period End Report to Chief Officers for comments MEMBERS & PUBLIC circulation CABINET meeting April 30-Apr May 31-May June 30-Jun 19-Jul 26-Jul 05-Aug July 31-Jul 16-Aug 23-Aug 02-Sep August 31-Aug 20-Sep 27-Sep 07-Oct September 30-Sep 18-Oct 25-Oct 04-Nov October 31-Oct 15-Nov 22-Nov 02-Dec November 30-Nov 17-Dec 24-Dec 06-Jan December 31-Dec 10-Jan 17-Jan 27-Jan January 31-Jan 14-Feb 21-Feb 03-Mar February 28-Feb 14-Mar 21-Mar 07-Apr March 31-Mar 25-Apr 02-May 12-May Outturn 22-May 30-May 10-Jun 42

43 Appendix 3 Changes to budget Summary of budget movements: savings as a consequence of action to delay, cancel or defer projects, as reported to Cabinet 2 December 2013 Table A3a: Summary of budget movements reported 2 December 2013 Directorate Item m m Commentary Community Services Purchase of care The department is anticipating that it may receive more Continuing Health Care (CHC) income from Health (reimbursements for expenditure incurred). More CHC income will mean that the department does not need to use the money from reserves as currently anticipated. If the CHC income received in does not exceed the current forecast, then the department will take the additional 1.2m from the Prevention reserve.the ASC Prevention reserve was set up by Members' to mitigate the risks and enable the phasing of savings around Prevention, particularly around reablement and Service Level Agreements and the need to build capacity in the independent sector. Using it this way means there is a risk that the department is not able to cover the phasing of the savings it needs to make. Cultural Services Use of the 2012 Arts legacy fund ( 0.010m); reduction in Record office furniture and materials( 0.017m); reduction in Libraries training ( 0.010m); reduction in stock (book) fund ( 0.005m); and not filling posts in Museums ( 0.018m) and Libraries Environment Community Transport Not spending the amount identified at Council in Jan/Feb as one off windfall boost for community transport Planned replacement of a theodolite Defer planned replacement of theodolite equipment for planning enforcement Reductions in Highway maintenance Saving related to vacant Assistant Director post Reduce the planned Highways patching for the remaining part of the year Current saving in relation to Vacant Assistant Director post for Highways Further ICT saving Release ICT funding and stop various upgrades Econ Dev Delay items of project expenditure Resources Fire Underspend on leasing contract. Customer Services Use of forecast underspend & Communications Public Health Non-commissing of weight management services. Finance & Property Anticipated additional net interest receivable/payable savings due the current policy of deferring borrowing between now and the end of March Democracy Vacany management Community Fund Hold back payments - schemes deferred to next year PPP Underspend from vacancy management, previously earmarked to support transition to new Business Intelligence function. HR Vacancy Management across HR and scrutiny of controllable spend Non (or deferred) replacement of staff in current and anticipated vacancies together with close scrutiny of controllable spend ICT Not fill vacant posts Procurement Underspend An underspend arising from vacancy management in anticipation of next year's budget reductions. Process savings arising from e-tendering have been delivered early so service is unaffected Contract refund Refund CPO Housekeeping F: V

44 Analysis of Finance General movement The following table sets out the flows through the Finance General budget as a result of the budget changes reported to Cabinet 2 December Table A3b: Analysis of Finance General movement Transfer source m Transfer to reserve Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve reported to Cabinet 2 December 2013 as part of Energy from Waste risk funding contingency planning Adjustment for interest on balances savings included in 5m savings identified as part of a review of budgets Adjustment for deferred element of Community Fund (second homes) Adjustment for transfer of interest on balances savings approved 2 December Adjustment for transfer from General Balances approved 2 December Net adjustment to Finance General budget In-year Grant Funding No new grants over 100,000 have been announced in November The following table summarises revenue grants greater than 100,000 announced and due to be received in Table A3c: New grant funding > 100,000 since 1 April 2013 New Grant Funding Details m DfE Lacseg refund for school support Troubled Families Grant Adoption Reform Grant Social Enterprise Investment Fund (SEIF) Bus Service Operators Grant Repayment of sums previously top-sliced from authorities. Allocation from a national programme to address the needs of families experiencing multiple problems. One off grant is to provide support to local authorities towards expenditure on adoption services. Conditional Social Enterprise Investment Fund grant to support the setting up of social enterprises. Grants previously paid direct to bus operators will, from January 2014, be paid to the local authority. Total in-year grants > 100,

45 Appendix 4 1 Revenue Expenditure Monitoring Projected revenue budget outturn by service 1.1 Chief Officers monitor their cash limited budgets throughout the year and report the position to the Head of Finance. Chief Officers also monitor performance information for their service, which is reported to Chief Officer Group on a monthly basis and Cabinet on a quarterly basis. 2 Latest Revenue Projections 2.1 Based on the position at the end of November the latest projection for the revenue budget shows a net projected overall underspend analysed as follows: Table A41: projected revenue over and (under) spends by service Service Revised Budget m Service total projected overs spend m Service total projected (under) spend Net total over / (under) spend Children s Services Community Services Environment, Transport and Development Fire and Rescue Service Resources Finance General n/a Totals current month Previous month % 2.2 Although the overall forecast net overspend is relatively small in relation to the overall budget, the range of underlying forecast over and underspends is greater than last month and continues to be subject to detailed monitoring. 2.3 Chief Officers have responsibility for managing their budgets within the amounts approved by County Council. They have been charged with reviewing all of their cost centres to ensure that, where an overspend is identified, action is taken to ensure that a balanced budget is achieved for the year. The projections for services are summarised below in terms of cumulative changes to and changes since last Cabinet. 45

46 Projected revenue budget outturn by service Appendix 4 continued Projected over spend Projected under spend Change this month m m m Children's Services Additional Looked After Children Agency costs Reduced Looked After Children Transport costs Additional residence orders and kinship costs Reduced social care legal costs Delay in recruitment to the MASH project Additional Special Education Needs Home to School transport costs Reduced school redundancy costs Reduced business support costs Reduced cost of Early Years Services Reduced cost of School Crossing Patrol staff Reduced cost of Integrated Advice and Guidance Services Reduced cost of school sports facilities Additional homelessness costs as a result of Southwark judgement School Psychologist training subscription no longer required Delay in recruitment and reduced running costs of Clinical Commissioning Team Reduced cost of Childrens Centres support Savings on Targeted Support Team salary costs Additional cost of foster caring Additional DSG contribution to Early Years Additional no OFSTED regulated accommodation for 16/17 year olds Savings on computing costs Saving from the deletion of education management posts Use of unconditional grants and contributions reserve Dedicated Schools Grant Reduced cost of school staff maternity Additional cost of non-maintained schools education Additional cost of Early Years Special Educational Needs Additional cost of school staff redeployments Reduced cost of early Years 2 year old infrastructure cost Reduced number of Early Years 2 year old places Reduced cost of school carbon credits

47 Contribution to schools contingency fund as a result of the above Forecast outturn for Children s Services Projected over spend Projected under spend Change this month Community Services m m m Adult Social Services Director, Finance and Transformation Commissioning, including Supporting People Central Services Business Development Human Resources, Training and Organisational Development Safeguarding Prevention Income from Service users Forecast subtotal for Adult Social Services (excluding Community Safety) Community Safety Underspend due to reduction in posts in the department Forecast outturn for Community Safety Cultural Services Forecast outturn for Community Services Further details for Community Services are as follows: As at the end of period eight (November) the forecast revenue outturn position for Community Services for the financial year is a balanced budget. There are financial pressures in Adult Social Care particularly in Purchase of Care (the purchase of packages of care from the independent sector) and service user contributions towards the cost of their care. This is always closely monitored as it could potentially cause an overspend. The pressures are being offset by the additional income received from Health for Continuing Health Care, underspends and the use of reserves. The expected amount needed to be 47

48 used from reserves has been reduced over the year as the overall forecast departmental position has improved. In Adult Social Care are making a one-off budget contribution of 1.2m and Cultural Services are making a one-off budget contribution of 0.100m towards the residual waste treatment contract reserve (see Appendix 3). Director, Finance and Transformation The increase for in Additional NHS funding for Social Care ( m) is being held here and will be allocated to the appropriate service areas in line with the s256 with NHS England when it is finalised. The forecast includes the following that it is expected to be used from reserves in : m from the Legal Liabilities reserve, to offset the purchase of care costs from funding aftercare under s117 of the Mental Health act; and m from the Prevention reserve, to mitigate the risks in delivering the prevention savings, particularly in service level agreements. The change in this period is due to: the extra income forecast within Safeguarding requiring a lower use of reserves to balance the budget the one off budget contribution of + 1.2m to the residual waste treatment contract reserve (see Appendix 3); and m which has been released against other existing pressures as the s256 with NHS England for the additional Health Funding for Adult Social Care has been finalised. Commissioning, including Supporting People Based on expenditure to date there is a forecast overspend on aids and adaptations (the Integrated Community Equipment Service) of m. Work is being undertaken to identify why this is and what mitigating actions should be taken. There is a forecast overspend on Service Level Agreements of m: the estimated shortfall on savings. Work is ongoing to identify further savings. The above is partly offset by a forecast Supporting People underspend of m. The Supporting People underspend represents an earlier achievement than originally budgeted for of the 12% expenditure reduction over the three financial years and includes savings on Mental Health contracts. Central Services Business Development There is a forecast underspend in Business Support where vacancies are being held whilst the restructuring takes place. This is largely offset by the premises savings target. Human Resources, Training and Organisational Development Forecast underspend on recruitment and advertising and learning and development. Safeguarding This includes all of the Purchase of Care expenditure budgets, the budgets used to buy packages of care from the independent sector for: Older People; People with Learning Difficulties; People with Physical Disabilities; People with Mental Health problems; and Drug and Alcohol. It also includes the Hired Transport budgets, Care and Assessment budgets and Continuing Health Care income budgets. 48

49 There is a forecast net underspend on Purchase of Care of m and hired transport of m There are financial pressures in Purchase of Care and this is always closely monitored as it could potentially cause an overspend in Adult Social Care. The change this period is due to an increased forecast of income from Health for Continuing Health Care. Prevention Forecast overspend due to: - Savings budgeted for Assistive Technology/Assisted Living are not being forecast as achieved: the estimated overspend is m. A new service was set up in early 2013 to sell the services to people who fund their own care and the budgeted savings were m. - forecast overspend in the Personal and Community Support Service (Independence Matters) of m, due to a reduction in Supported People funding and staff costs. - Meals saving( m) not being achieved - Forecast salaries overspend in Emergency Duty Team (EDT) of m. The increase this period is due to additional costs arising from the transfer of Independence Matters into a new organisation. Income from Service Users There is a forecast under-recovery of income from service users contributions towards the cost of their social care of m, based on the year end position and including the budgeted increase in income, due to growth in number of service users, in of 1.108m. 49

50 Environment Transportation & Development Projected over spend Projected under spend Change this month m m m Highways Maintenance Highways Network Highways Major Projects Transport Programmes Public Protection Assistant Director and Admin Business operations Trading Standards Consumer Operations Trading Standards Planning Services Travel & Transport Services Assistant Director and Admin Client Services Developer Services Passenger Transport Operations Travel Network Landscape and Biodiversity Environment Management Access Development Residual Waste Services Strategic Waste Environment Transport and Development Business support Forecast out-turn for ETD Further Details for Environment Transport and Development are as follow: Highways The Highways services is currently forecasting a net overspend of 0.125m mainly due to the under recovery of expected income, including the expected income from the Traffic Permitting scheme where the implementation of the scheme has been delayed due to government legislation. This has been offset by efficiency savings with in the highways services and the additional income elsewhere in the service. Public Protection Public Protection are currently forecasting a net overspend of 0.108m due to forecast additional costs with in Consumer Operations trading standards, due to additional staff and legal costs for pending cases and additional costs within planning services due to additional work required for the Willow planning enquiry. 50

51 Travel and Transport Services Travel and Transport service are forecasting a net overspend of 0.374m. This is primarily due to under provision of inflation for Transport Contracts and a hike in business rates at Park and Ride sites. The cost pressures are being partially offset by additional income from developer contributions. Environment and Waste The significant pressure within Environment and Waste relates to higher than budgeted waste tonnages. The original budget was based on previous planning assumptions of a continued reduction of residual waste tonnages. However we have seen a plateau of tonnages higher than expected leading to a forecast cost increase of 1.095m. This prediction is calculated using historic trend data based on the mid-point of our current waste data. There remains a risk that tonnages could continue at a higher level which could lead to an increase in the forecast overspend. Business Development and support The forecast underspend within Business Development Support is due to the management of vacancies and the control of overheads relating to the department. Projected over spend Projected under spend Change this month m m m Fire and Rescue Service Salaries on-going vacancy management Unforeseen repairs to safety tower, and additional spend on Carrow training building off-set by forecast underspends in other building alteration budgets Increased forecast of commercial training income Increased forecast ICT hardware charges offset by reduction in direct training costs Forecast underspend on legal/medical fees Increased forecast fire prevention income Communications new pressures relating to contractual price increases Increased forecast vehicle insurance costs offset by increased income from servicing and reduction in fuel costs Planned savings on utilities Forecast underspend in leasing budget offset by other invest to save budgets Increases in equipment maintenance contract Community Safety saving on budget for smoke detector purchase Youth Development shortfall in chargeable income due to a course not running earlier in the year Additional forecast pressure on expenditure from Grants Forecast outturn for Fire and Rescue Service

52 Projected over spend Projected under spend Change this month Resources m m m Democratic Services - mainly overspend on elections partly offset by underspend on Registrars Finance General Interest payable/receivable (details below) Dividend received from Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation Government refund of amount deducted from formula grant for schools converting to academies Savings on debt repayment due to slippage on the capital programme Investment in Children s Services announced at Cabinet 5 August 2013 (details below) Members Allowances savings on basic and special responsibility allowance and travel expenses Net forecast outturn for Resources Further Details for Environment Transport and Development are as follow: Interest payable/receivable The interest payable/receivable budget was prepared on the basis that borrowing to support capital expenditure would be undertaken on 1 April This assumption was made due to the uncertainty/volatility in the financial markets at that time, and to ensure that, in accordance with the treasury management code of practice, treasury management activities are not impacted by short-term budget considerations. Owing to the deferral of borrowing a net interest saving of 5.994m is anticipated. This is as a result of reduced borrowing costs offset by lower interest earned on investments. As a result of a decision at 2 December 2013 Cabinet, 2 m was been transferred to the new Residual Waste Treatment Contract reserve, with a further transfer of 1.210m from savings, resulting in a net forecast underspend of 2.515m. Interest rates are continually monitored to determine advantageous borrowing and investment opportunities and updates on the borrowing position reported Cabinet within financial monitoring reports. The actual under or overspend within this budget will depend upon the Council s cash flow requirements and movements on short and long term interest rates. Investment in Children s Services announced at Cabinet 5 August 2013 The Investment in Children s Services announced at Cabinet 5 August 2013 comprised: 2.700m to provide 40 frontline agency social workers for six months m to support school improvement. This will include the appointment of additional Intervention Officers and Improvement Advisers. 52

53 Projected revenue budget outturn by service details of changes Appendix 4 continued A reconciliation between the underspend previously reported and the current position is set out below: Forecast outturn reported to Cabinet on 2 December 2013 Children s Services Addition to over spend/ reduction in under spend m Additional Looked After Children Agency costs Addition to under spend / reduction in over spend m Reduced social care legal costs Additional reduced business support costs Additional cost of foster caring Additional DSG contribution to Early Years Additional no OFSTED regulated accommodation for 16/17 year olds Saving on computing costs Saving from the deletion of education management posts Use of unconditional grants and contributions reserve Dedicated Schools Grant Reduced cost of Early Years 2 year old infrastructure cost Reduced number of Early Years 2 year old places Reduced cost of school carbon credits Contribution to schools contingency fund as a result of the above Community Services Adult Social Services Director, Finance and Transformation one off budget contribution of + 1.2m to, residual waste treatment contract reserve; and m which has been released against other existing pressures as the s256 with NHS England for the additional Health Funding has been finalised Net

54 Central Services (Business Development) further savings on vacancies held, pending restructuring Safeguarding increased forecast of income from Health for Continuing Health Care Prevention additional costs arising from the transfer of Independence Matters into a new organisation Income from service users Environment, Transport and Development Net Highways Maintenance Highways Network Highways Major Projects Transport Programmes Public Protection Assistant Director and Admin Business operations Trading Standards Consumer Operations Trading Standards Planning Services Travel & Transport Services Assistant Director and Admin Client Services Developer Services Passenger Transport Operations Travel Network Landscape and Biodiversity Environment Management Access Development Residual Waste Services Strategic Waste Environment Transport and Development Business support Net

55 Fire and Rescue Service Salaries and pensions mainly increase in turn out fees offset by correction in accounting for pension payments Premises additional underspend on building alteration budgets Commercial Training reduction in forecast training income Training and Development reduction in direct training cost Personnel minor change to spend on legal/medical fees Fire prevention purchase of replacement Community Fire Risk Management Information System (CFRMIS) Fleet additional maintenance expenditure Supplies planned utility and contract savings offset by reduction in Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) budget Finance Additional Firelink grant now not expected ( 0.025m) and other minor changes Technical Services increase in equipment costs and one off costs of fitting out EPU vehicle Youth Development based on latest income forecast and reduction in the cost of internal verifiers Grants additional forecast expenditure on Dive Team and dive vehicle purchase Resources Democratic Services overspend on elections Net Finance General Net Net reduction in net interest receivable/payable following transfers to Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve, and recognition of full year borrowing forecast. Dividend received from Eastern Shires Purchasing Organisation Net Forecast outturn

56 Appendix 5 Financial Plan planning assumptions In preparing the financial plan, the following key risk areas have been taken into account. Table A7: key financial planning assumptions Planning assumption Financial Latest position impact m Council Tax Freeze Grant Reduction as forecast Reduction in Formula Grant Reduction as forecast NHS Social Care Grant allocation Allocation as forecast Inflation Pay awards 1% % pay rise confirmed for all teachers, and all staff graded A-O. Price inflation 2% general 4% transport Year to October 2013: Consumer prices index (CPI) 2.2% Retail price index (RPI) 2.6% CPI travel and transport 3.1% (Source ONS.gov.uk) Employer Pension contributions Impact as per actuarial valuation Demand and Demographics Older People The additional provision has been required. See Note 1 below. People with Learning Difficulties The additional provision has not been required. See Note 2 below People with Physical Disabilities The additional provision has been required. See Looked after Children Legislative Changes Waste & Recycling NHS Complaints Advocacy Local Healthwatch for Norfolk Other Support reduction in Early Intervention Grant Funding Increase in borrowing costs Note 3 below Looked After Children remains to be an area of budgetary pressure. See Note 4 below The costs of dealing with residual waste remain challenging over and above the planned cost pressures see Note 5 below. A forecast overspend is reported in Appendix This service has been commissioned as planned, generating an underspend of 0.012m which is reported in Appendix Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 NCC has been required to commission a local Healthwatch organisation The Early Intervention Grant has reduced as expected This projected budget increase has not been needed due to deferral of borrowing. The resulting underspend is reported as part of the Finance General underspend in Appendix 4. 56

57 Note 1: Older People The latest forecast for the Purchase of Care for Older People is an overspend of 1.313m(1.4%) after Continuing Health Care(CHC) income is taken into account. The additional provision was therefore required and the current year overspend indicates a growing need for increasing provision for Older People. Note 2: People with Learning Difficulties The latest forecast for Purchase of care for people with Learning Difficulties is an underspend. The additional provision was therefore not required and the current year underspend indicates a reduction to the estimated provision for future years. This has been reflected in the budget planning assumptions. Note 3: People with Physical Difficulties The latest forecast for the Purchase of Care for People with Physical Difficulties is an overspend. The additional provision was therefore required and the current year overspend indicates a growing need for increasing provision for People with Physical Disabilities. Note 4: Looked After Children: The cost pressure relates to increased residential and foster care agency provision for Looked After Children. The planning assumption was based on the number of Looked after Children being 1100 by the end of the financial year and this was calculated from the growth rate in previous years (for comparison the number of Looked after Children was 835 at the end of 2006/07. By the end of October 2013 the number of Looked after Children had risen to The Ofsted inspection of Looked After Children found no incidences of a child being taken into care where this was not the right decision, however it highlighted that sufficient resource had not been directed into intervening at an earlier stage. Looked After Children remains to be an area of budgetary pressure and given the current improvement journey there is a high level of scrutiny over the Looked After Children population, with an aim to reduce it, as there is a better long term outcome for a child if they can be returned to a stable family environment. Note 5: Waste & Recycling: The cost pressures relate to landfill tax increases, above inflation increases at Household Waste Recycling Centres and additional recycling costs including kitchen waste. The cost pressures have or are forecast to be realised. In addition, the costs of dealing with residual waste remain challenging due to increased tonnages, and a forecast overspend is reported in Appendix 4. 57

58 Appendix 6 A6 Treasury Management Performance Monitoring A6.1.1 The corporate treasury management function ensures the efficient management of cash balances across all 580 bank accounts by aggregating and investing surplus cash balances on a daily basis. For the period 1 st April 2013 to 30 th November 2013 the total average balance across all these accounts was 0.011m in-hand. This is within the overall tolerance limit of plus/minus 0.025m across all accounts. Average Balance In Hand (Overdrawn) 20,000 Cumulative Year to Date 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 A6.1.2 Year to date, income received amounts to 1,073m, while payments (including debt repayment) total 1,051m, resulting in an overall increase in cash balances of 22m. Cash balances available for investment have therefore increased from 213m at 1 April 2013 to 235m at the 30 November Cash Balance Invested 13/14 ( M) Mar- 13 Apr- 13 May- 13 Jun- 13 Jul- 13 Aug- 13 Sep- 13 Oct- 13 Nov- 13 A6.2 Interest Earned on Cash Balances A6.2.1 All monies invested by the County Council in the money markets are placed with institutions on the Council s Authorised Lending List. 58

59 Interest Rate YTD 2013/ % 1.20% 0.90% 0.60% 0.30% Interest Rate YTD (In Year Performance) Interest Rate YTD (Total Performance) YTD 7 Day LIBID Benchmark 0.00% Apr- 13 May- 13 Jun- 13 Jul- 13 Aug- 13 Sep- 13 Oct- 13 Nov- 13 A6.2.2 Gross interest earned for the period 1 April 2013 to 30 November 2013 is 1.953m. A6.3 Long Term Borrowing A6.3.1 In accordance with the approved Investment Strategy, the County Council continues to delay new borrowing for capital purposes, using cash balances on a temporary basis to avoid the cost of carrying debt in the short term. Delaying borrowing and running down the level of investment balances also reduces the County Council s exposure to investment counterparty risk. A6.3.2 The Council s debt portfolio is currently 505m. 50 Debt Maturity Profile ( M) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /56 59

60 A6.4 Icelandic Banks Icelandic Bank Recovery 7.59M 24% Received Escrow Recoverable 1.73M 5% 23.10M 71% Icelandic Bank Recovery Value ( M) % % 20% 5% Recoverable Escrow Received % 80% 95% 0 Landsbanki Glitnir KSF A6.4.1 The recovery process continues to be monitored by the Treasury Management Panel. The latest projected cash recovery from all 3 banks is m against our claim of m. A6.4.2 On18 December 2013 Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander paid an 11th dividend of 260,092 which is reflected in the graphs above. A6.4.3 Realised foreign exchange losses currently total 0.431m. 60

61 Appendix 7 Payment Performance Indicator This BVPI is a measure of our timely payment of invoices specifically, the percentage of invoices for commercial goods and services that were paid by the authority within 30 days of such invoices being received by the authority. Some 450,000 invoices are paid annually. In November 2013, 96.9% were paid on time against a target of 90%. The figures include an allowance for disputes/exclusions. 61

62 Appendix 8 Analysis of Outstanding Debt 30 November The value of outstanding debt is continuously monitored and recovery procedures are in place to ensure that action is taken to recover all money due to Norfolk County Council. In the 12 months to 31 March 2013 the County Council raised 127,651 invoices of which 102,747 were for services provided to customers of Community Services. 2. The table below shows an analysis of the County Council s outstanding debt at 30 November 2013 compared with the outstanding debt at 31 October NCC Debt Analysis NCC Debt NCC Debt 30/11/ /10/2013 m m Total Unsecured Debt Aged Debts (days): Referred to NP Law Awaiting estate finalisation On hold pending investigation Instalments and other debt Total Secured Debt Awaiting estate finalisation Residential care Total Debt Customers of Community Services have certain rights when it comes to paying for residential care. If they declare an interest in a property they can elect to defer payment (all or part) until the property is sold. If the client defers payment the debt is secured by a deferred payment agreement and it may be some time before the debt can be collected. Secured debts amount to 8.006m at 30 November Within this total 1.891m relates to estate finalisation where the client has died and the County Council is in the hands of the executors. 4. Approximately 0.891m of the unsecured debt aged 181+ days that Credit Control is collecting and managing is being paid off by regular instalments. Of the balance the most material amounts relate to invoices due to the Council from the NHS, these total 0.542m and continue to be actively chased. 62

63 5. A test used by the Audit Commission to indicate the effectiveness of income collection is debtor days. The Council s debtor days at 30 November 2013 and 31 October 2013 are shown in the table below. Debtor days Type of debt 30/11/ /10/2013 Unadjusted Excluding secured and estate finalisation debts Excluding current month debt Excluding current month, secured and estate finalisation debts In accordance with Financial Regulation and Financial Procedures, Cabinet is required to approve the write-off of debts over 10,000. The Head of Finance approves the write off of all debts up to 10,000. This value is reviewed regularly and adjusted in line with inflation, as appropriate. 7. Before writing off any debt all appropriate credit control procedures are followed. Where economically practical the County Council s legal position is protected by court proceedings being issued and judgment being entered. For a variety of reasons, such as being unable to locate the debtor, it is sometimes not appropriate to commence legal action. 8. For the period 1 November 2013 to 30 November 2013, 43 debts less than 10,000 were written off following approval from the Head of Finance. These debts totalled 20, For the period since 1 April 2013, 661 debts less than 10,000 have been written off following approval from the Head of Finance. These debts totalled 211, Three debts over 10,000 have been written off following Cabinet approval. These debts totalled 34, Given the above factors the level of outstanding debt is considered reasonable. 63

64 Reserves and provisions Appendix 9 Balances at Forecast Balances at Reported Forecast Balances at Reserves m m m Adult Education Income Reserve Adult Social Services Residential Review Adult Social Care Legal Liabilities Archive Centre Sinking Fund Building Maintenance Car Lease Scheme surplus Community Construction Fund Strategic Partnership Economic Development Fire Operational Equipment Reserve Fire Pensions Reserve Fire Operational Reserve Highways Maintenance Historic Buildings Icelandic Banks Reserve Industrial Estate Dilapidations Information Technology Reserve Insurance Modern Reward Strategy Reserve Museums Income Reserve NDR Reserve Norfolk Infrastructure Fund nplaw Operational Reserve Organisational Change and Redundancy Reserve P & T Bus De-registration P & T Demand Responsive Transport P & T Park & Ride P & T Road Safety Reserve P & T Street Lighting Sinking Fund ETD Reprocurement Strategic Partnership Prevention Fund Public Transport Commuted Sums Repairs and Renewals Fund Residual Insurance and Lottery Bids Strategic Ambitions Reserve Unspent Grants and Contributions Usable Capital Receipts Waste Management Partnership Fund Non Schools Total Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve

65 Schools Reserves Building Maintenance Non-Partnership Pool Building Maintenance Partnership Pool Children s Services Equalisation LMS Balances Norwich Schools PFI Sinking Fund Schools Contingency Schools non-teaching activities Schools Playing Field Surface Sinking Fund Schools Sickness Insurance Reserve Schools Total The main changes between 31 March 2013 and the estimated position at 31 March 2014 are: Following approval of a recommendation at 2 December Cabinet an earmarked Residual Waste Treatment Contract Reserve has been created Reduction in Adult Social Services Residential Review reserve to meet costs associated with the Building Better Futures transformation project Reduction in Adult Social Care Legal Liabilities to fund aftercare under section 116 of the Mental Health Act Reduction in Economic Development reserve due mainly to expected release of apprenticeship scheme funds Amounts released from Highways Repairs and Renewals reserve and the Highways Maintenance reserve to fund general Highways expenditure Use of 4.250m from the Icelandic Banks reserve and the the Car Lease Scheme Surplus reserve approved by County Council 18 February 2013 Reduction in the Information Technology Reserve to support the investment in Digital Norfolk Ambition. Use of 1.851m Modern Reward Strategy Reserve for the purchase of equipment and vehicles at 19 Main Household Waste Recycling Centres approved by Cabinet 4 November 2013 Reduction in Organisational Change and Redundancy Reserve due to change initiatives including WorkStyle and other projects resulting from the Norfolk Big Conversation in 2011 Net 1.094m released from Street Lighting sinking fund to fund planned expenditure Reduction in Prevention Fund reserve to meet expected expenditure on Living Well in the Community and other schemes Reduction in Unspent Grants and Contributions Reserve, reflecting the expected use of grants and contributions in Reduction in LMS balances due primarily to anticipated academy conversions plus NCC schools' forecast use of balances in-year Reduction of 2m in Schools Contingency to fund provision of Special Education Needs 65

66 The Council s provisions are as follows: Provisions Balances at Forecast Balances at Reported Forecast Balances at m m m Adult Social Services Doubtful Debts Closed landfill long term impairment provision (see note below) ETD Doubtful Debts Insurance Potential pension liability arising from the transfer of staff to the Norfolk & Waveney Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Redundancy Retained Firefighters and Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations Schools Provisions Children s Services Provision for Holiday Pay Closed landfill long term impairment provision: Following discussions with the Council s external auditors, and in accordance with recognised accounting practices, a closed landfill long term impairment provision has been recognised in the Councils Statement of Accounts as at 31 March The provision represents the discounted cost of making adequate provision for the monitoring and maintenance of closed landfill sites. Prior to 31 March 2013, all aftercare expenses were treated as annual revenue costs. From 1 April 2013, a proportion of these costs will be funded through the provision. The provision is balanced by an increase in value of the landfill sites, and has not resulted in a charge to the general fund. 66

67 Report to Cabinet 6 January 2014 Item No: 9 Norfolk County Council Capital Monitoring Report Month 8 Report by the Interim Head of Finance Executive Summary This report presents the progress to date against the Council s Capital Programme at the end of November on a service by service basis. At the end of November: The revised Capital programme for the Council is m for The forecast unsupported borrowing requirement for the Council to support the programme is m. The Council is expected to generate capital receipts of 6.982m (including County Farms capital receipts). Cabinet is recommended to: 1. agree the re-profiling between 2013/14 and 2014/15 and other adjustments to the programme totalling m as summarised in Table 2 and detailed in Appendix note the reduction in schemes shown as red in Table 3, demonstrating the improved profiling of existing schemes between years 3. agree the associated changes to funding in the programme summarised in Table note the details of savings and benefits to be generated from spend-to-save schemes as set out in Appendix 2 and the alternative ways of funding these projects 1 67

68 1 Revised Capital Programme 1.1 The Capital Programme was approved by the County Council on 18 February 2013 and is published in the Council s Financial Strategy and Medium Term Financial Plan. 1.2 The latest revised programme totals m, made up of: Table 1: Revised capital programme m m New schemes approved February Previously approved schemes Totals in Medium Term Financial Plan Re-profiling at financial year end Additional DfE grant allocations Better Broadband - DCMS Grant Re-profiling previously reported Other items previously reported Totals previous period Re-profiling this period Other movements to be approved Revised capital programme Total This table highlights a reduction of m in the capital programme as a result of reprofiling schemes to later years, and a further 2.337m reduction in the forecast availability of capital funding giving a total reduction in the programme of m. 1.4 The following chart identifies the cumulative effect of the changes to date on the capital programme. Chart 1: Capital Programme changes to date at Period Programme ( M) Capital Programme Current Year ( M) Month 2 68

69 1.5 The arrow at month 8 shows the reduction described in paragraph The table below summarises the revised capital programme by service and sets out changes awaiting approval Table 2: Revised capital programme by service Service Original Programme Cumulative Changes To Date Re-profiling to later years to be approved Other movements to be approved Revised Capital Programme Revised Future Years Capital Programme m m m m m m Children's Services Adult Social Care Cultural Services ETD Highways ETD Other Fire & Rescue Service Resources Total A full analysis of schemes which have resulted in the changes to be approved can be found in Appendix A summary of the changes to the capital programme s financing as a result of the above changes can be found in section

70 2 Actual Spend on Capital Programme 2.1 Progress on the overall capital programme is as follows: Chart 2: Capital programme and cumulative actual expenditure 250 Capital Expenditure ( m) Period Actuals To Date Capital Programme Line of Best Fit 2.2 Capital projects by their nature do not lend themselves to evenly profiled expenditure. A number of reasons may result in higher expenditure during certain parts of the year. In particular, major construction and infrastructure projects would expect to incur greater expenditure during the summer and autumn. There may be other reasons for delays in projects such as difficulties in obtaining planning permission. 2.3 If expenditure were evenly profiled throughout the year, progress against the programme to Period 8 would be 66.7%. The graph above suggests that a small amount of future slippage and re-profiling of expenditure into future year s programmes will still occur unless there is an increase in the rate of expenditure. 4 70

71 2.4 Progress towards the completion of the capital programme by each service is as follows: Table 3: Comparison of capital programme, by service, and expenditure to date % Capital RAG Service Capital Programme Expenditure To Date Expenditure Incurred m m Children's Services % G Adult Social Care % A Cultural Services % A Highways % G ETD Other % A Fire & Rescue Service % A Resources % A Total % A 2.5 Capital expenditure of 7.689m was incurred in November Items flagged as amber or red bring a moderate or high chance that projects will be re-profiled into future year s capital programmes. The capital programmes within services are continually reviewed and any future re-profiling reported to Cabinet. 2.7 Reasons for expenditure being below an evenly distributed budget profile are as follows: Adult Social Care (ASC) 0.435m of expenditure currently in revenue but will be capitalised prior to end of m of programme relates to new funding which will be undertaken prior to April. A further 0.485m is contingent on the authority signing a variation to its contract with Norsecare this is expected to happen prior to the end of the financial year. Cultural Services delays in procurement of new museum stock system and tendering for Gressenhall eco-buildings work. The tender on the stock system is now underway and awaiting a decision on the preferred supplier; system to go live at start of next financial year. Gressenhall works have now commenced following tenders. The libraries programme includes a number of projects only recently approved and therefore no expenditure has been incurred on these currently. ETD Other delays relate primarily to the completion of loan agreements with the Authority s controlled companies. Loan agreements will be completed by NPLaw following the confirmation of a repayment schedule for the loaned funds. This schedule is under consideration to minimise the short term revenue impacts of the underlying borrowing on the authority. Norfolk Fire & Rescue Service - 1m of vehicles to be procured prior to the end of These are expected to be purchased during March

72 Resources Early expenditure on County Hall maintenance programme did not accelerate as rapidly as anticipated with only 2.382m of expenditure incurred to the end of November against a budget of m for However, the project is now fully underway and it is anticipated that costs will be in line with the November CROSP report. There has been no expenditure to date against the 5.854m Better Broadband budget due to the staged nature of the grant payments. 3 Financing The Programme 3.1 The Council uses a number of sources of funding to support its capital programme. 3.2 Funding comes primarily from grants and contributions provided by central government. These are augmented by capital receipts, developer contributions, prudential borrowing, and contributions from revenue budgets and reserves. 3.3 The below table identifies the planned funding of the revised capital programme: Table 4: Comparison of capital programme, by service, and expenditure to date Funding Stream Prudential Borrowing Approved Previously Changes To Revised Revised Capital Approved Be Future Programme Changes Approved Capital Years Programme Capital Programme m m m m m Capital Receipts Revenue & Reserves Grants and Contributions DoE DfT DoH DCLG DCMS GNDP/CIF Developer Contributions Other TOTAL The table above shows forecast unsupported borrowing requirement for the Council to support the programme of m. The revenue consequences of borrowing are shown in Appendix 1. The key issues continue to be: 6 72

73 To evidence that spend-to-save schemes generate savings to fund their costs; and That unsupported borrowing schemes are reviewed to identify alternative revenue funding. Further details of spend-to-save schemes and other schemes largely funded through borrowing are shown in Appendices 1 and 2. 4 Capital Receipts 4.1 The Council works closely with NPS Property Consultants to ensure that properties are prepared and marketed to maximise the benefits of their disposal. This may be through the generation of a capital receipt or by otherwise contributing to a strategic goal. 4.2 At 1 April 2013 the Council owned surplus assets with a gross book value of 7.546m on its balance sheet. Since 1 April, 10 properties valued at 6.415m have been categorised as surplus. The Council is currently expecting to generate 5.616m of capital receipts from sales of non-county Farms properties in , before leasing adjustments. Chart 3: Forecast Capital Receipts from property sales Gross Value ( m) Period Seeking Planning Permission Awaiting Instructions To Market On Market Legal in Progress Contracts Exchanged Receipts 4.3 There has been a reduction of 0.639m in the expected capital receipts to be generated in This is due to the marketing of seven properties being delayed whilst resolving planning and legal issues. These properties are now scheduled to be disposed of in Where capital receipts are generated the Council uses these to support its general capital programme. Any unused capital receipts are retained in the capital receipts reserve to fund future projects. The below table identifies expected movements on the capital receipts reserve: 7 73

74 Table 5: Capital receipts reserve forecast General Financial Packages County Farms Total m m m m Opening Balance Forecast receipts from sales of properties Receipts from sales of assets to leasing companies Other capital receipts Forecast receipts generated in year Sales expenses Receipts repayable to third parties Forecast net receipts available for funding Forecast use to fund programme and reduce borrowing Forecast Closing Balance The opening balance on the general reserve relates to deposits for disposals to be undertaken in These are only available for use once the sale is completed. 4.6 Financial packages exist where the Council has agreed to link receipts from the sale of an asset with the funding of a specific project. Balances on financial packages exist where these projects remain incomplete. 5 New capital scheme proposals requiring borrowing 5.1 No new capital schemes have been identified since the last meeting which: a) require decision prior to the capital programme and b) for which an alternative source of funding cannot be identified. 5.2 Two schemes were approved at last Cabinet subject to funding for the on-going revenue costs. A funding source has since been identified in respect of Works to mortuary, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King s Lynn and is now included within the capital programme. 5.3 For small corporate schemes where there is an immediate health and safety or Equality Act implication, the Council has an approved Corporate Minor Works programme. This scheme is within the total of unsupported borrowing in Table 4 above. The scheme s objectives and detailed procedures are under review to limit its impact on future revenue budgets. 8 74

75 6 Spend to Save schemes 6.1 On 2 December 2013, Cabinet agreed to receive a report on the savings from spend-to-save schemes. An analysis of spend-to-save schemes, Economic Development schemes, and schemes funded through the Norfolk Infrastructure Fund is set out in Appendix 2. 7 Resource Implications 7.1 Other than those identified above, there are no finance, staff, property or IT implications arising from this report. 8 Other Implications 8.1 There are no legal, human rights, and communication implications arising from this report. The contents of this report do not directly impact on equality, in that it is not making proposals that will have an impact on equality of access or outcomes for diverse groups. 9 Risks 9.1 This capital finance monitoring report is being developed and will increasingly highlight activity and risks associated with the capital programme, and links with the Asset Management Plan and Property Client functions which are designed to mitigate those risks. 10 Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 10.1 There are no direct implications of this report for the Crime and Disorder Act. 11 Alternative options 11.1 Cabinet may wish to review and amend the capital programme. 12 Reasons For Decisions 12.1 Having set a capital budget and programme at the start of the financial year, the Council needs to ensure its delivery within allocated and available resources. Consequently there is a requirement to regularly monitor the status of the programme including re-profiling, amendments and additions, and the on-going funding of the programme. 13 Conclusions 13.1 Overall progress on the programme remains broadly in line with expectations. 9 75

76 14 Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to: 1. agree the re-profiling between 2013/14 and 2014/15 and other adjustments to the programme totalling m as summarised in Table 2 and detailed in Appendix note the reduction in schemes shown as red in Table 3, demonstrating the improved profiling of existing schemes between years 3. agree the associated changes to funding in the programme summarised in Table note the details of savings and benefits to be generated from spend-to-save schemes as set out in Appendix 2 and the alternative ways of funding these projects. : Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number address Peter Timmins peter.timmins@norfolk.gov.uk Howard Jones howard.jones@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this statement in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Sam Jarrett on or textphone and we will do our best to help

77 Appendix 1 Appendix 1: Revenue Consequences of Borrowing i. As at 1 April 2013, the Council had borrowed 511m to support its previous capital expenditure. In accordance with its Investment Strategy, the Council continues to delay new borrowing for capital purposes, using cash balances on a temporary basis to avoid the cost of carrying debt in the short term and reducing exposure to investment counterparty risk. At 1 April 2013 the Council s overall borrowing requirement was approximately 104m. Cash balances and interest rates are monitored to determine the most advantageous time to borrow for capital purposes. ii. iii. iv. The Council is required to consider the impact of its borrowing and to ensure that it acts prudently. Part of this is to consider the revenue impacts of its borrowing through the monitoring of prudential indicators. The Council is also required to set aside an amount of money annually to service its debt and ensure that its actions do not impair the ability of the Council to borrow to support its capital requirements in the future. This is known as the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP). Additional borrowing results in an increase in the amount of interest the Council must pay each year and an increase in the MRP it must make. The table below shows the incremental effect of the current programme of unsupported borrowing on future revenue budgets: Table A1a: Analysis of unsupported borrowing required to support the capital programme Forecast additional borrowing required in year Cumulative additional borrowing m m m m Interest MRP Total annual revenue impact of borrowing (cumulative) v. The figures are based on interest rates for borrowing of 4.75%, 5.00% and 5.50% for , and respectively. MRP is calculated on the basis of accounting for 1/25 of capital expenditure per year, which is consistent with expenditure on buildings; where expenditure is incurred on other types of asset, MRP figures will vary from those shown above. vi. Unsupported borrowing, as shown in the above table, can be divided into that which results in an identifiable revenue saving or income stream in the future ( spend to save ) and that which will result in an increase in the Council s overall revenue costs

78 vii. Table A1b: Analysis of unsupported borrowing m m m Spend to save (Appendix 2) Economic Development & NIF Funded Schemes (Appendix 2) Unsupported schemes Deferred borrowing Capital receipts available to reduce unsupported and deferred borrowing Total Deferred borrowing represents capital schemes that are nominally funded from revenue and reserves, but which are now being funded from borrowing as reserves were used in previous years to minimise the revenue costs of borrowing. viii. ix. During , the Council will be repaying loans of 8.525m, resulting in a reduction of 0.418m in interest costs. As a result, there will be a reduction of 0.898m in minimum revenue payments due to a reduction in the capital financing requirement for supported borrowing. The following table identifies the breakdown of those schemes which are identified as being unsupported in the current programme: Table A1c: Analysis of Unsupported Schemes Scheme m m m m Corporate Minor Works (CMW) Alterations to Offices to Comply with Disability Discrimination Act (where not funded through CMW) Asbestos Survey & Removal Programme Total Unsupported Borrowing Cumulative Borrowing Total annual revenue impact of borrowing x. The schemes identified in Table A1c represent corporate programmes intended to maintain Norfolk County Council assets and ensure that the Council complies with legislation xi. To fund or reduce the Council s unsupported borrowing detailed above, there are three options: a. Amend the future capital programme to reduce the funding available to support these schemes, including an ongoing review of the Corporate Minor Works programme b. Identify revenue budget to fund the capital expenditure directly. c. Identify a suitable reserve from which to draw down the funding for the schemes

79 Appendix 2 Appendix 2: Analysis of Spend to Save and Economic Development & NIF Funded Schemes i. On 2 December 2013, Cabinet agreed to receive a report on the savings from spend-to-save schemes. ii. The total for spend to save schemes in Appendix 1 Table A1b in can be analysed as follows, with details of the benefits to be realised for each project. Table A2a: Analysis of spend to save capital schemes Scheme Financing Details m m m Carbon Energy Reduction Fund Energy cost savings (CERF) County Hall Carbon Energy Reduction Fund CERF projects are selected to deliver a reduction in carbon footprint and/or energy usage. Borrowing costs are funded from revenue. Annual energy cost savings of 1.472m are forecast for completed schemes with a further 0.147m achievable from planned projects. A large number of the earlier projects were for schools and therefore the savings have remained with the schools. County Hall Better Ways of Working County Hall Strategic Maintenance Total Spend To Save Schemes Office closures rent saving Additionally, 2.756m has been allocated to works at County Hall with a projected annual energy saving of 0.272m. Borrowing costs of approximately 2.5m per annum relating to the County Hall strategic maintenance and Better Ways of Working project will be funded from the revenue budget. A revenue saving of 1.572m per annum from 2019/20 onwards has been identified from the closure of office accommodation in Norwich (reported to CROSP 12 November 2013). The accommodation cost savings will be achieved on a phased basis starting in 2015/

80 iii. The following table analyses Economic Development & NIF Funded schemes funded through borrowing and /or supported by the Norfolk Infrastructure Fund. The Norfolk Infrastucture Fund (NIF) is a fund using second homes council tax income. Table A2b: Analysis of Economic Development and Norfolk Infrastructure funded capital Schemes Scheme Financing Details m m m Better Broadband Contract savings and NIF support The Council committed to borrow 15m to provide match funding for a DCMS grant. The project is currently being delivered. Revenue costs of 1.5m per annum will be funded from a 1m annual saving on telecommunications contracts which have been achieved, and the balance funded from second homes council tax through the Northern Distributor Road Loan to Norfolk Energy Futures Loan to Hethel Innovation GNDP/ NIF Loan repayments Loan repayments Norfolk Infrastructure Fund Borrowing of 60.34m as reported to 4 November 2013 Cabinet. Borrowing costs to be funded from revenue with an understanding that 40m will be provided by the GNDP through CIL funding Investment Panel approves renewable energy projects. Projects funded by borrowing with the expectation that the company will generate a gross profit sufficient to repay the loan, resulting in no net impact on the revenue budget Borrowing committed to match European funding for a new Advanced Manufacturing Centre at Hethel. The contract has been let and the building is being erected. Borrowing is due to be repaid by the 100% County Council owned company from the rent generated by letting the building space. There should be no net impact on the revenue budget. The Centre is on target to open in February Interest in the development suggests that initial occupancy of 50% can be achieved against 38% in the business plan, with targeted full occupancy by

81 Loan to Great Yarmouth Development Company Total Economic Development and NIF funded projects Loan repayments Borrowing to build 19 houses at former Beach Coach station in Great Yarmouth through a company jointly owned by the County Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Contract signed to build the houses in phases; some are finished and for sale. Property sale proceeds were expected to fully repay the loan. Borrowing is being funded from second homes council tax through the Norfolk Infrastructure Fund

82 Appendix 3 Appendix 3: Analysis of Movements in the Capital Programme to be Approved i. Movements on the capital programme to be agreed total m, constituted of m of reprofiling to future years and 2.337m of reductions in the current year programme. ii. The movements for are detailed in the following table: Table A3a: Changes to the capital programme since last Cabinet, requiring approval Service REPROFILING: Children's Services Project Children s Centres and Extended Schools Funding Type Various Change m Reason Reprofiled to based on project progress ICT External Reprofiled to based on project progress Basic Need External Reprofiled to based on project progress Modernisation Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Specialised Diplomas External Reprofiled to based on project progress School Based Projects Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Social Care Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Other schemes Funding External External Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Adult Social Care Unallocated Capital Grant Social Care Capital Grant Strong and Well Partnership Housing development Capital projects. Adult Social Care IT Infrastructure Failure of kitchen appliances External External Revenue and Reserves External External Borrowing and Capital Receipts Ring-fenced awaiting decision around Bowthorpe development To be used for investment in further housing development schemes Plans not finalised Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress 16 82

83 LPSA Reward Grant Improvement East Grant External External Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Cultural Services Wymondham Library Library Refurbishment Programme 12/13 Various Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress ETD Highways Major schemes Other Schemes External External Northern Distributor Road funding brought forward to agree to Cabinet report 4 November Reprofiling of Grapes Hill bus lane, Norwich Research Park junction and other schemes due to legal issues and land negotiation ETD Other Economic Development Norfolk Energy Futures Ltd. Borrowing Reprofiled per annual report to Cabinet 2 December 2013 Fire and Rescue Compact Fire Appliances Electric Vehicle Charging Sockets Other station improvements and capital projects Kings Lynn Satellite Station External External Various Borrowing and Capital Receipts Reprofiled to based on project progress On hold until project plans are agreed and new grant terms are provided Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Resources Offices capital projects Borrowing and Capital Receipts Reprofiled to based on project progress TOTAL REPROFILED OTHER MOVEMENTS TO BE APPROVED: Children s Services City Academy Build External School Based Various Projects Adjustment to available funding Adjustment to available funding

84 Resources North Walsham Corporate Office ICT Members Refresh Coroners Tables Queen Elizabeth Hospital Borrowing and Capital Receipts Reserve Reserve Project cancelled - new premises sought Members ICT refresh programme capitalised following expenditure through revenue New capital project approved in P07-14 monitoring report Other small changes TOTAL OTHER MOVEMENTS TOTAL iii. Cabinet are asked to approve changes of m in the future years capital programme as detailed in Table A3b: Table A3b: Changes to the future years capital programme since last Cabinet, requiring approval Service Project Funding Type Change m Reason REPROFILING: Children's Services Children s Centres and Extended Schools Various Reprofiled to based on project progress ICT External Reprofiled to based on project progress Basic Need External Reprofiled to based on project progress Modernisation Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Specialised Diplomas External Reprofiled to based on project progress School Based Projects Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Social Care Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Other schemes External Reprofiled to based on project progress Funding External Reprofiled to based on project progress Adult Social Care Unallocated Capital Grant Social Care Capital Grant External External Ring-fenced awaiting decision around Bowthorpe development To be used for investment in further housing development 18 84

85 Strong and Well Partnership Housing development Capital projects. Adult Social Care IT Infrastructure Failure of kitchen appliances LPSA Reward Grant Improvement East Grant Revenue and Reserves External External Borrowing and Capital Receipts External External schemes Plans not finalised Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress Cultural Services Wymondham Library Library Refurbishment Programme 12/13 Various Various Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress ETD Highways Major schemes Other Schemes External External Northern Distributor Road funding brought forward to agree to Cabinet report 4 November Reprofiling of Grapes Hill bus lane, Norwich Research Park junction and other schemes due to legal issues and land negotiation ETD Other Economic Development Norfolk Energy Futures Ltd. Borrowing Reprofiled per annual report to Cabinet 2 December 2013 Fire Compact Fire Appliances Electric Vehicle Charging Sockets Other station improvements and capital projects Kings Lynn Satellite Station External External Various Borrowing and Capital Receipts Reprofiled to based on project progress On hold until project plans are agreed and new grant terms are provided Reprofiled to based on project progress Reprofiled to based on project progress 19 85

86 Resources Offices capital projects Borrowing and Capital Receipts Reprofiled to based on project progress TOTAL REPROFILED OTHER MOVEMENTS TO BE APPROVED: Children s Services ICT External Additional contributions to ICT schemes. Schools Various Adjustment to available funding. Based Projects Social Care External Additional developer contributions. Adult Social Care Resources Strong and Well Partnership Coroners Tables Queen Elizabeth Hospital Borrowing and Capital Receipts Reserve Reduction of budget per report to Community Services Overview & Scrutiny panel New capital project approved in P07-14 monitoring report TOTAL OTHER MOVEMENTS Total

87 Appendix 4 : NCC Capital Programme Analysis of Schemes Appendix 4 Service Capital Project 2013/14 Budget m Children's Services Children s Centres and Extended Schools Children s Centres Early Years Capacity Development West Earlham Infant Earlham Nursery Valley Primary Cavell Woodside One Pre-school Bignold 2 year olds Swaffham Children s Centre Moorlands Children s Centre Surestart Extended Schools onwards ICT ICT Harnessing Technology ICT Mobile Technology for Children s Social Workers ICT Refresh ICT Refresh Home Access For Targeted Groups Primary Capital Programme Primary Capital Programme Phase 2 Norfolk Schools Project Woodside Community Hub Bowthorpe Community Hub Woodside Car Park Basic Need Wymondham High Cringleford High Growth Little Plumstead Extension Angel Road Infant Basic Need Queens Hills Catton Grove Norwich Basic Need Temporary Classroom Movements Temporary Classroom Movements Avenue Junior Drake Infant Coltishall Sprowston Sparhawk

88 Bignold Growth Mulbarton Junior Remodel Ashwicken Compliance with DDA Schools Access Initiative Post SEN Review Eaton Hall SEN Strategy Fred Nicholson SRB Sidestrand Hall SRB Compass Centre Central Modernisation Broadland High Condition Funding Planned Capital Maintenance Capital Maintenance Reactive Condition Thermostatic Mixer Valves South Lynn Remedial Kings Lynn Academy PFS Build Kings Lynn Academy Project Management City Academy City Academy Build Thetford PFS Costs Chapel Road Site Toftwood Junior Year Junior Rackheath Primary Specialised Diplomas Specialised Diplomas School Based Projects School Based Projects Capital Expenditure Scheme Eaton Hall School Based VA Projects Diss High Diploma School Dining & Kitchens Developer Contributions Sustainability Capital Furniture and Equipment Devolved Formula Capital Specialist Schools School Travel Plans Minor Works Minor Works - Holt Hall Fire Safety

89 Minor Works - Haven Bridge Solar Panel Minor Works - Compass Centre Social Care Children's Homes Pathfinder Looked After Children Paddick's Extension St Michaels Bowthorpe High Growth St Michaels Hospital Browick Rd Toilets, Wymondham Poringland Pulham Market Ashleigh Canopies Carbon Reduction CERF Carbon Reduction Shared Savings Scheme Sites Henderson Green Playing Field Sites Condition Other schemes Feasibility studies Harts Farm Sale North Walsham Co-Location Fund Programme Management Supervised Contact Move Lingwood and 3 Year Permanent Underspends Funding Basic Need Unallocated Queens Hill phase Hethersett Woodside Infant Phase Heartsease Primary Phase Mulbarton Phase Dussindale Extension North Walsham Junior Westfield Infants Expansion Bignold Phase Sparhawk Phase West Lynn Primary Edward Worlledge Capital Maintenance Unallocated Developer Contributions unallocated Robert Kett, Wymondham Children's Services Total Capital Programme:

90 Adult Social Care LPSA Domestic Violence Failure of kitchen appliances Homes for Elderly People - Essential Improvements Supported Living for People with Learning Difficulties Department of Health - Extra Care Housing Fund LPSA Reward Grant Adult Social Care IT Infrastructure Modern Social Care - Phase Improvement East Grant Social Care grant Department Of Health Unallocated under consideration for HWC Prospect Housing - formerly Honey Pot Farm St Michael's Housing With Care Furniture Astley Cooper Place Alarm Monitors Young Peoples Scheme - East Great Yarmouth Dementia Day Care Peterhouse Scheme Redevelopment of Attleborough Enterprise Centre Dementia Friendly Pilot - Wells Dementia Friendly Pilot - Norse Care Dementia Friendly Pilot - Manor Court Rashes Green ASC Housing Development Fund Great Yarmouth Com Hub - Various Regulatory Work Thetford Laburnum Grove Day Centre - Hoist a Lynn Road Downham Market Church Green Lodge Aslake Close Norfolk Industries Mezzanine Floor Ipswich Rd Day Services Hub Installation of Fire Detector Sounders Alarm Pull Ipswich Road Vantage House acoustics Pine Lodge Oil Tank Adult Social Care Total Capital Programme: Cultural Services CERF - Adult Education Centre Fairstead Kings Lynn Cuthbert's Malting, Diss Clenchwarton Road West Lynn, Kings Lynn S106 Wootton Road Gaywood Water Lane, Hemsby Bell Meadow, Hingham Parklands, Harleston North of the Tud - COS

91 Lodge Farm, New Costessey Roundhouse,Cringleford Bennett Street Downham Market Phase East of Chapel Street Cawston Land adjacent to Elmside, White Street Mendham Lane Harleston The Street Poringland (Area C) S106 Lynn Road Swaffham Castle Acre Road, Swaffham Dowson School, Valpy Avenue, Norwich S106 Lime Tree Avenue, Long Stratton S106 Brandon Road, Thetford S106 Littlewood House, Drayton S106 ROUNDWELL PH, COS S106 ALSTON'S MEADOW S106 Phase 2 - Former RAF Watton Technical Site S106 CAWSTON ROAD, REEPHAM S106 TOWN STREET, UPWELL S106 Approval - Victoria Road (Bartrums), Diss S106 Bennett Street / Grimshoe Road S106 Right Up Lane, Wymondham S106 approval - Queens Road, Attleborough S106 approval - The Lammas Munford S106 approval - Old Hunstanton Holiday Park S106 St Peters Road [West] S106 Edinburgh Road, Holt S106 Hall Farm Yard, Gayton S106 Station Road, Great Massingham S106 Long Meadow, Roydon Road S106 Bridge Farm, Norwich Road S106 Mendham Lane, Harleston S Yarmouth Road, Thorpe S106 Cremorne Lane Norwich S106 Railway Road Phase 1 Downham Market S106 Teasel Road, Attleborough S106 Dowding Road S106 Former Civil Service Sports Ground S106 Carvers Lane / Bryony Way S106 Sweyn Close Thetford S106 Post Office Road Lingwood Brundall S106 Frenze Hall Lane Diss S106 Hospital Road Little Plumstead S106 Mill Street Necton S106 Norwich Road Watton S106 Holt Road, Fakenham S106 Beech House Downham Market

92 S106 Norwich Road, Cromer S106 Pinewoods Horsford Mobile Vehicle Wash System Library Refurbishment Programme CERF Dersingham Windows CERF - RV683 Caister CMW Downham Lift Works CMW Great Yarmouth Guardrail CMW Gorleston Guardrail Bridewell Redevelopment Gressenhall Farm - Eco-buildings Seahenge Biomass Boiler CERF Replacement Lighting Strangers Replacement Lighting Gressenhall Back Hall Light Gressenhall Conservation Lab Gressenhall E COLI PREVENT Colman Gallery Doors Gressenhall Wind & Solar Gressenhall CCTV Museum Stock System Castle Keep Improvements Biomass RHI Scheme Cultural Services Total Capital Programme: ETD - Highways Bridge Strengthening Bus Infrastructure Schemes Bus Priority Schemes Cycling Local Road Schemes Local Safety Other Schemes Park & Ride Public Transport Schemes Road Crossings Safer & Healthier Journeys to School Structural Maintenance Traffic Management & Calming Walking Schemes Major Schemes Great Yarmouth Third River Crossing Northern Distributor Road Norwich - A47 Postwick Hub Development of Civil Parking Provision

93 IT - EXOR upgrade ETD Highways Total Capital Programme: ETD - Other Closed Landfill Sites - Capping & Restoration Drainage Improvements Sparham Footpath Number Saddlebow Caravan Park CCTV CMW New Thetford Recycling Centre RAF Coltishall Hardley Flood Bridge Improvements HWRC invest to Save CERF Ketteringham NORA Hethel Engineering Centre - Phase Beach Coach Station ETD Other Total Capital Programme: Fire and Rescue Kings Lynn fire risk upgrade CMW East Harling fire safety improvements CMW Fixed Installation Generators Diss Fire Safety works CMW Earlham Fixed Generator Great Yarmouth Fixed Generator Terrington Fire Safety works Other station improvements Carrow Fire Station Training Buildings USAR Training Extension CLG Capital Grant pre New Fire Station - Boat Store & Enhanced Kings Lynn Satellite Station DEFRA East Coast Flood Rescue 3 counties Gorleston Fire Station Fire Safety Works CMW Kings Lynn Workshop alterations CMW North Walsham Fire safety works CMW Acle Fire safety works CMW Aylsham Fire safety works CMW Cromer Fire Station Fire safety works CMW CERF Kings Lynn Fire Station PV solar panels Hethersett Fire Safety Phase 2 CMW CERF Sprowston Lighting Improvements Fire Behaviour Training Unit Bowthorpe TC temp logging system CMW Kings Lynn Fire Station temp logging system CMW Fire Appliances (Type B pumps)

94 Fire and Rescue - Total Capital programme Resources Carrow House -adj Fire Safety Requirements Asbestos Survey & Removal Programme Archive Centre Lift CMW County Hall Wheelchair access CMW County Hall Wheelchair Stair Climber CMW Arctic Blast County Hall Refurbishment Police Roads Norwich Bus Station Site Corporate Asset Management Development CMW Pot Budget Carbon Management Programme Pot CERF ICT Members Refresh Organisational Review Accommodations Workstyle North Wing Access Dairy Farm, Lingwood: Replace dwelling Newport Farm, Burlingham: Yard improvements Hall Farm, Mautby Lowlands Farm, Bacton King's Close, North Burlingham Hill Farm, Stow Green Marsh Farm, Terrington Various Land Drainage Schemes Trunk Farm, Burlingham Grange Farm, West Dereham Better Broadband Community Construction Fund Coroners Tables Queen Elizabeth Hospital Resources Total Capital Programme: NCC Total Capital Programme:

95 Cabinet 6 th January 2014 Item No 10. Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement Report by the Head of Finance Summary The Council s budget plans to date have included estimates of government funding based on high level government announcements and exemplifications of funding as part of the Government s consultation on the annual Local Government Finance Settlement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his Autumn Statement on 5 th December and the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for was published on 18 th December Consultation closes on 15 th January This paper sets out the key announcements and changes to the Council s funding forecasts based on the provisional finance settlement. In relation to our plans, the funding settlement is 0.295m higher than expected in and 0.464m less in This does not take into account the settlement adjustment grant to compensate for loss of business rates of 1.466m, which is additional to our planned forecast in Recommendation: Cabinet is asked to consider the changes to funding announced within the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, note that these will be reported to Overview and Scrutiny Panels as part of the service and budget planning process, and that the Council will respond to the consultation. 1. Background 1.1 The Council s budget plans to date have included estimates of government funding based on high level government announcements and exemplifications of funding as part of the Government s consultation on the annual Local Government Finance Settlement. 1.2 The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his Autumn Statement on 5 th December and the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for was published on 18 th December This paper sets out the key announcements and changes to the Council s funding forecasts based on the provisional finance settlement. 2. Autumn Statement The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his Autumn Statement on 5 th December. Following the Statement our planning assumptions remained broadly the same. The Chancellor confirmed that key announcements of an additional 3bn cuts to public sector funding, would not affect local government, but there may be some reductions due to cuts in the Department of Education funding ( 167m and 156m ). We await further details. 95

96 2.2 Following earlier consultation on the use of the New Homes Bonus Grant to fund the Single Local Growth Fund from , it was announced that New Homes Bonus funding will not be transferred to the local growth fund except 70m for the London Local Enterprise Partnership. This equates to a reduction in pressures of 1.3m in 2015/16 for NCC as the assumed reduction based on the earlier proposed transfer will not now take place. 2.3 There were a number of announcements affecting business rates. As part of changes to local government funding and the introduction of the Business Rates Retention Scheme in , Council s funding is now linked to collection and growth in business rates. The 2013/14 business rate multiplier was due to increase by 3.2% reflecting the September 2013 RPI figure, which has been confirmed by ONS. However, the RPI increase in business rates will be capped at 2% for 1 year from 1 April Fully funded business rate policy changes such as: Small Business Rates Relief will be extended to April 2015; it was due to end April 2013 A 50% business rates relief for 18 months up to the state aid limits will be available for businesses that move into retail premises that have been empty for a year or more. 2.4 Subsequently a letter has been received from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles confirming that local authorities will be fully refunded for these changes. 2.5 Earlier in the year the Government consulted on plans to give local authorities some flexibility to use capital receipts to support revenue costs of service reform. This was confirmed within the Autumn Statement and nationally, total spending of 200m will be permitted across and Local authorities will have to bid for a share of this flexibility. 3. Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement and Indicative Local Government Finance Settlement Department of Communities and Local Government announced the detailed finance settlement for local government on 18 th December This provided provisional details for and the indicative position for including: The Business Rates Retention Scheme including o Uplifts to the business rates baseline and top-ups o Revenue Support Grant o Pooled figures for the Norfolk Business Rates Pool Council Tax Freeze Grant Specific grants Some capital grants 3.2 The publication marks the beginning of the consultation on the Draft Local Government Finance Report. The deadline for submissions to the consultation is 15 th January

97 3.3 The Council receives most of its funding through the Business Rates Retention Scheme and Revenue Support Grant, plus various specific grants. A council funding share is published as its Settlement Funding Assessment and this funding is received by councils through Revenue Support Grant and the Business Rates Retention Scheme (both local share of retained rate and a top-up). The local share of business rates has been fixed until 2020 to provide councils with an incentive to promote growth, therefore changes to Settlement Funding Assessment, i.e. to manage reduction in the overall Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limits, is addressed through change to the Revenue Support Grant amount. 3.4 The business rates retention scheme incorporates previous funding through the local government funding formula, council tax support grant introduced in and some funding previous received via specific grants. The table below shows the breakdown of the Settlement Funding Assessment compared to the current year and how we will receive this as income. Settlement Funding Assessment Upper-tier Funding 219,357, ,986, ,144,243 Fire and Rescue 15,379,724 14,061,152 Funding (now shown separately) Learning Disability and 41,706,675 41,692,906 Health Reform 41,313,572 Council Tax Support (now within Upper Tier Funding) 45,654,834 Council Tax Freeze 8,515,023 8,512,172 Grant 8,553,261 Early Intervention 23,902,612 22,049,109 20,166,585 Lead Local Flood 195, ,563 Authorities 198,600 Efficiency Support for 466, ,963 Services in Sparse Areas Council Tax 3,490,892 3,490,892 Freeze Compensation Returned Funding 364,020 Total 338,979, ,154, ,730,475 Which will be received by: m m m Settlement Funding Assessment Received through: Revenue Support Grant Business Rates Baseline via Top-up Retained rates

98 3.5 The above Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA), although significantly reduced varies from previous forecasts for a number of reasons: The SFA is lower than expected, reflecting the Chancellor s announcement in the Autumn Statement capping the increase to business rates to 2%, which affects the business rates baseline. This is compensated for by a new Section 31 grant of 1.466m, which is shown in the table below. The SFA has increased to reflect that the Government has reduced the holdback of money and returned the balance to authorities. Roll in of the council tax freeze funding into the settlement. 3.6 In relation to our plans, the settlement funding assessment is 0.295m higher than expected in and 0.464m less in This does not take into account the settlement adjustment grant to compensate for loss of business rates of 1.466m, which is additional to our planned funding forecast in The County Council budget planning has included estimates of government funding based on the latest information available. The detail of the settlement has resulted in changes to the budget plans and these are shown in Appendix A. 3.8 Capital Grants The Department for Education has announced Basic Needs allocations of 8.520m for and 8.946m for and a universal infant free school meals capital grant of 1.939m for Further capital grant announcements are expected shortly. Spending Powers 3.9 The Government has also issued its calculation of council s spending powers. This measure includes all available funding for the council and includes the government s assumptions of council tax, settlement funding assessment and other specific grants outside of schools. Significantly, it also includes the additional funding for health. The table below shows the spending power figures for Norfolk these are adjusted each year for comparison purposes. The Government has published heat maps by billing authorities for and These are shown in Appendix B. Spending powers per % change dwelling (adjusted) 1, , % (adjusted) 1, , % 3.10 Local Welfare Assistance The Local Welfare Assistance funding has been confirmed for at 2.275m, which is the level expected. Presently, there has been no announcement around this funding for and further information will be sought to support future decisions for this service NHS Funding The settlement includes health and social care funding of m. This is an increase of 4.2m and higher than the 3m that had been included in the budget plans for the Better Care Fund. Further analysis of this funding is being undertaken, for we have to check with Partners on their spending assumptions. 98

99 3.12 Council Tax The Government has announced that council tax freeze funding will continue and that council tax freeze funding, equivalent to a 1% increase, for and will be built into the spending review baselines for subsequent years. In addition, the Government plans to calculate the 1% increase on the higher taxbase (i.e. the taxbase in not reduced for the element of the taxbase receiving council tax support), this increases funding above our forecast by 0.526m The Government has not made any announcement on Council Tax referenda limits and this is expected in January Business Rates Pools Norfolk County Council currently is part of a business rates pool with Broadland District Council. Cabinet, jointly with other Norfolk councils, agreed to seek Secretary of State approval for the creation of a wider business rates pool from April A letter has been received from the Department of Communities and Local Government stating that in accordance with paragraph 34 of Schedule 7B to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 ( the 1988 Act ), the Secretary of State designates the following authorities as a pool of authorities for the purposes of the scheme for local retention of non-domestic rates under Schedule 7B to the 1988 Act. Breckland District Council Broadland District Council Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk District Council Norfolk County Council South Norfolk District Council 3.15 The settlement provides information for both individual councils and pools. The settlement therefore shows pools as a single authority for top-up/tariffs and levy and safety net purposes. This will enable authorities to see both their pooled and individual position relative the pool figures and will allow them to establish if they still wish to pool Local authorities in the pool have 28 days to consider if they wish to continue to be designated as a pool. Provided that no authority within the pool requests the Secretary of State to make a revocation during that period, the pool will come in to effect on 1st April 14, meaning that all local authorities covered by the designation will remain in the pool for the full financial year. However, if a member of the pool decides it no longer wishes to be designated as part of a pool for 2014/15 it must notify DCLG by 14 January If any council in the pool requests a revocation of the designation before this date the rest of the pool cannot continue. The Secretary of State will then revoke this designation and all local authorities identified as part of this pool will revert to their individual settlement figures The following settlement information is provided in relation to the Norfolk business rates pool. 99

100 Provisional settlement information for Local authorities within pool Breckland Broadland Kings Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk South Norfolk Norfolk Total for pool Baseline funding level ( ) 3,526,261 2,560,970 4,890,496 2,872,392 2,779, ,059, ,689,907 Of which- Council Tax Freeze ( ) 29,913 52,520 64,122 58,296 61,860 3,483,573 3,750,284 Early Intervention Funding ( ) ,735,059 9,735,059 GLA General Funding ( ) GLA Transport Funding ( ) London Bus Service Operators Funding ( ) Homelessness Prevention ( ) 57,293 45,953 51,623 48,788 79, ,629 Lead Local Flood Authority Funding ( ) ,886 80,886 Learning Disability and Health Reform Funding ( ) ,826,198 16,826,198 Tariffs and Top-Ups ( ) -7,753,727-8,754,166-11,502,359-6,622,271-8,017, ,578,214 69,928,606 Levy Rate 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% Safety Net Threshold ( ) 3,261,792 2,368,897 4,523,709 2,656,963 2,571, ,705, ,088,

101 Illustrative settlement information for Local authorities within pool Breckland Broadland Kings Lynn and West Norfolk North Norfolk South Norfolk Norfolk Total for pool Baseline funding level ( ) 3,623,589 2,631,654 5,025,478 2,951,673 2,856, ,870, ,959,480 Of which- Council Tax Freeze ( ) 30,739 53,970 65,892 59,905 63,568 3,579,723 3,853,795 Early Intervention Funding ( ) ,003,755 10,003,755 GLA General Funding ( ) GLA Transport Funding ( ) London Bus Service Operators Funding ( ) Homelessness Prevention ( ) 58,874 47,222 53,048 50,135 82, ,458 Lead Local Flood Authority Funding ( ) ,118 83,118 Learning Disability and Health Reform Funding ( ) ,290,615 17,290,615 Tariffs and Top-Ups ( ) -7,967,737-8,995,788-11,819,834-6,805,051-8,238, ,685,468 71,858,695 Levy Rate 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% Safety Net Threshold ( ) 3,351,820 2,434,280 4,648,567 2,730,297 2,642, ,230, ,037,

102 4. Resource Implications 4.1 Finance: The details announced within the Local Government Finance Settlement will be incorporated within the ongoing budget and service planning and reported to Overview and Scrutiny Panels throughout January to help inform budget planning. 5. Other Implications 5.1 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) There are no direct impacts requiring equality impact assessment, however, the financial implications will impact on budget and service planning. Budget proposals have been subject to EqIA and will be reported to January Overview and Scrutiny Panels. 5.2 Environmental Implications: None 5.3 Any Other implications Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 6. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 6.1 There are no direct implications arising within this report. 7. Risk Implications 7.1 The funding position of the Council forms part of the financial risk assessment of the Council s finances. The risks implications within the County Council s budget planning will be set out within the reports to Cabinet on 27 th January. 8. Recommendation 8.1 Cabinet is asked to consider the changes to funding announced within the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, note that these will be reported to Overview and Scrutiny Panels as part of the service and budget planning process, and that the Council will respond to the consultation. Background Papers Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Susanne Baldwin Tel No: susanne.baldwin@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this Agenda in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Susanne Baldwin or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 102

103 Details of Provisional Settlement Appendix A Planning forecast Planning forecast Final Provisional Indicative Settlement Funding Assessment 338,979, ,368, ,154, ,912, ,730,475 CT Freeze Grant ,477,901 3,491,000 in SFA 0 in SFA Efficiency Support for services in SPARCE areas 412,401 0 in SFA 0 in SFA 342,870, ,859, ,154, ,912, ,730,475 Year on Year reduction -28,715,862-39,423,961 Other Grants/funding Section 31 grants for Government business rates initiatives 1,465,603 1,465,603 New Homes Bonus 2,310,077 3,010,077 3,214,077 3,710,077 4,118,695 NHB Adjustment 1,147, , ,213,583 Education Services Grant 12,132,000 11,035,828 10,756,660 10,615,455 10,340,138 Public Health Grant 29,798,000 30,633,000 30,633,000 30,633,000 30,632,680 No Social Fund AME 1,905,516 1,905,516 2,275,000 1,905,516 information No Social Fund DEL 402, , ,072 information Community right to challenge 8,547 8,547 8,547 8,547 0 NHS Funding 14,956,000 17,956,000 19,152,000 32,956,000 56,324,000 (further detail required) Adult Social Care new Burdens ,962,180 Fire Revenue Grant - Firelink 125, ,000 included below 142,000 included below Fire Revenue Grant - New Dimension 966, ,000 1,106, ,000 1,110,215 Inshore Fisheries 151, , , , ,999 Lead Local Flood (LSSG) 311, , , , ,095 Local reform and Community Voices (DH Revenue Grant) 731, , , , ,702 Total additional grants 73,503,162 67,245,741 70,305,881 82,525, ,280,890 The above figure includes additional burdens which are not yet clarified And if council tax is frozen: Council Tax Freeze Grant ,000,000 3,525,719 3,000,000 3,525,719 Council Tax Freeze Grant ,000,000 3,559,

104 The following grants will be received, but details are awaited. No significant variation is expected. PFI Revenue: LG 141, ,345 no details yet 141,345 no details yet PFI Revenue: Transport 3,065,926 3,065,926 no details yet 3,065,926 no details yet PFI Revenue: Education 4,839,005 4,839,005 no details yet 4,839,005 no details yet 104

105 Spending Powers Appendix B 105

106 106

107 Discretionary Bus Passes and Available Walking Routes Report by the Interim Director of Environment, Transport and Development and the interim Director of Children s Services Report to Cabinet 6 January 2014 Item No.11 Summary This report follows a motion put to full Council on 16 September 2013, asking for Cabinet to consider withdrawing the changes to be made across Norfolk which removed free bus provisions for children living less than three miles from their school. Cabinet considered this at their meeting on 7 October 2013 and agreed for a review to be carried out of the financial implications and merits of changing the school transport policy. The motion specifically related to the application of our policy to review walking routes to school where children receive free school transport, even though they live within the statutory qualifying walking distances of 2 or 3 miles, because the route has been assessed as unavailable to walk along in reasonable safety. The Council has an on-going programme of route reviews as part of our business as usual activity, to re-assess routes where there has been some capital investment and therefore an improvement. Planned reviews in 2014/15 could save approximately 250,000 if free school transport is subsequently withdrawn as more routes became available for walking or cycling. This report outlines the financial and non-financial implications of any change to this part of the policy. Recommendation / Action Required Cabinet are asked to: 1. Consider the financial impacts of changing the school transport policy and method of implementation. 2. Reaffirm that the current school transport policy is fit for purpose and that NCC continue the on-going programme of route reviews and capital investment so that more children can walk or cycle to school. 1. Background 1.1. The Local Authority has a legal duty to provide free school transport to children attending their catchment or nearest appropriate school if they live over the qualifying walking distance of 2 miles (for children aged under 8) or 3 miles (for children aged 8 or over). 1.2 The Local Authority also has a duty to provide free transport if the child lives under the qualifying walking distance but the walking route is assessed as being unavailable to walk in reasonable safety. In Norfolk we provide free transport on this basis for 2,240 children at a cost of 2m per year. We also support 17,000 pupils into school or college who live over the qualifying 107

108 distance and are therefore entitled to statutory travel support. 1.3 The criteria for the assessment of walking routes is based on Road Safety GB national guidelines and has been in place as part of Norfolk County Council s School and College Transport Policy for at least 15 years. The criteria is attached at Appendix A for information. 1.4 The Council have always had an on-going programme of re-assessing walking routes to determine if there have been any changes to the route These reassessments are often carried out when we know there has been some capital investment along all or part of the route. For example in 2012/13 we re-assessed the route from Cawston to Reepham High when it was identified that Marriot s Way was available as an alternative to the road and saved approximately 15,000 per year through the withdrawal of free school transport from about 15 students. 1.5 Funding for improvements usually comes from either the council s own capital investment e.g. Integrated Transport Block funding or from contributions made by developers where the council has a role in determining mitigating actions for local development. 2. Implications of changing policy and ceasing this review programme 2.1 Planned route assessments, improvements to routes and subsequent withdrawal of free school transport is a fundamental part of implementing school transport policy. We did consult on investing additional funds to increase the number of available walking and cycling routes to schools, with anticipated savings of 250,000 in 2014/15 as part of Putting People First. The responses suggest that people are in favour of this approach, by a ratio of 2: Any policy change would mean ceasing this review programme and continuing to provide all the transport which we currently do for those children living on an unavailable route, which would mean an on-going revenue commitment of 2m per year. 2.3 We would also need to consider the application of fair and equitable criteria to assess walking routes. There are many families who currently pay for transport who are under distance but might consider the route to school should be re-assessed after a policy change. There is a risk this could lead to more routes becoming unavailable walking routes under new criteria leading to more free transport and increased revenue costs. 2.4 A change in policy would also lead to appeals from families where we have withdrawn free school transport due to a route to school becoming available. A good example of this is the route between Griston and Wayland High in Watton where a new direct cycleway was built and in September 2013 free transport was withdrawn from students living in Griston, saving 30k every year in school transport costs. 3. Benefits of the current policy and review programme 3.1. The current school transport policy relating to the availability of walking routes and the criteria for assessment has been in place for a number of years. All routes to 108

109 school which are less than the automatic qualifying distances of 2 or 3 miles have been assessed according to this criteria, therefore ensuring fairness and consistency across all families in Norfolk. This includes routes which have been assessed as both available and unavailable Aside from the financial benefits of saving money on the home to school transport budget, walking and cycling to school also promotes healthy lifestyles for children and their families, particularly if a parent accompanies the child to school. Any investment in walking and cycling facilities also benefits the local community, often opening up previously unavailable connections between settlements unless you own a car (e.g. Griston to Watton). 3.3 In some instances where routes have been declared available and free school transport has been withdrawn, bus operators have stepped in to offer a local bus service for children. This in turn allows other members of the public to travel, supporting a more sustainable local bus service, particularly in rural areas (e.g. Stoke Holy Cross to Framingham Earl). 4. Putting People First consultation 4.1 One of the budget proposals in the Putting People First consultation is to accelerate the programme of reviewing unavailable routes and to consider investing more in walking and cycling routes, to save money. Therefore a decision to change this approach would need to identify other forms of saving. 5. Resource Implications 5.1. Finance : If policy is changed and no further routes to school are re-assessed, or improved for walking or cycling, the Council faces an on-going revenue burden of 2m each year Staff : There are no staff implications Property : There are no property implications IT : The are no IT implications. 6. Other Implications 6.1. Legal Implications : The Council needs to ensure that it continues to provide free school transport as per its statutory duty. If policy is changed there could be appeals against previous decisions where free school transport has not been provided or has been withdrawn Human Rights : There are no Human Rights issues Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) : No particular sector of the community is disproportionately affected. An EqIA has been completed for the proposal in the Putting People First consultation Communications : None required Health and Safety Implications : There are health benefits to children and their families if they walk or cycle to school. There are no other health and safety 109

110 implications Environmental Implications : There would be a positive effect on the environment if more children walk and cycle to school and there are therefore fewer school transport vehicles Any other implications : Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 7. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 7.1. There are no identified issues under the Crime and Disorder Act. 8. Risk Implications/Assessment 8.1. No specific risks have been identified. 9. Overview and Scrutiny Panel Comments 9.1. N/A 10. Alternative Options N/A 11. Reason for Decision The Council has a funding gap of 189m over the next 3 years and a continuation of the policy of reviewing unavailable walking routes, improving routes where necessary and withdrawing free school transport will contribute towards the Council s savings target. Recommendation / Action Required (i) Cabinet are asked to: 1. Consider the financial impacts of changing the school transport policy and method of implementation. 2. Reaffirm that the current school transport policy is fit for purpose and that NCC continue the on-going programme of route reviews and capital investment so that more children can walk or cycle to school. Background Papers 110

111 Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number address Niki Park Richard Snowden If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact and ask for Insert Officer Name or textphone and we will do our best to help. 111

112 Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk Cabinet 6 January 2014 Item No.12 Report by the Interim Director of Environment, Transport and Development Summary The County Council does not have statutory responsibility for the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (JCS) but has been a partner in its development. Following a legal challenge, part of the JCS relating to aspects of growth in the Broadland part of the Norwich Policy Area was remitted back a stage in the plan making process. The growth proposals have been reconsidered including through the preparation of a new sustainability appraisal and were resubmitted in early In May and July 2013 the part JCS was subject to examination in public by an independent Inspector. The Inspector s report was received in November and recommends the plan is sound subject to modifications. The adoption of the part JCS will provide full strategic plan coverage across the Greater Norwich area providing for sustainable development and bringing welcome certainty for economic development, investment decisions and infrastructure delivery. The three district councils have agreed to adopt the part JCS and in accordance with the partnership approach Cabinet is recommended to endorse this decision. Recommendation Cabinet are recommended to welcome the progress on the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk and endorse the district councils decisions to adopt the part JCS. 1. Background 1.1. Although the County Council is not the responsible body for the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk (JCS), we have a significant interest in the strategic planning of the area. Consequently, we have actively engaged with district council partners in the development of the plan. In the spirit of partnership we have considered and endorsed the decisions to proceed at each stage. While the Greater Norwich Development Partnership and the JCS predate the requirement, they provide a powerful demonstration of the duty to cooperate ; a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation relating to strategic cross boundary matters. 112

113 2. The Joint Core Strategy current position 2.1. The JCS was adopted in March Following its adoption the JCS was subject to legal challenge. One of the grounds for challenge succeeded. This related to how reasonable alternatives for the major growth proposed in the Broadland part of the Norwich Policy Area (NPA) had been reported in the Sustainability Appraisal As a result, parts of the JCS were remitted i.e. not to be treated as adopted. The remitted parts related to the proposals for 7,000 homes (rising to 10,000 after 2026) and 25 hectares of employment land in the Old Catton, Sprowston, Rackheath and Thorpe St. Andrew growth triangle, also known as the North East Growth Triangle (NEGT). The remittal also covered 2,000 further homes which formed a floating allowance in the Broadland part of the NPA. The court order specified a process to be followed as a result of the judgment Following consideration of a new Sustainability Appraisal, the Councils decided that the previously remitted growth proposal remained appropriate and should be published for consultation. This decision was endorsed by Cabinet on 3 September Following consideration of the representations made on both the text proposed for inclusion in the JCS and the Sustainability Appraisal, the plans were submitted for Examination. Examination hearings were held in May and July The Inspector s report was received on 13 th November. He concludes that the plan is sound subject to modifications The Inspector supported the approach taken in the Sustainability Appraisal for identifying three reasonable alternatives for the location of 7, 000 dwellings and 25 hectares of employment land. The report states the Sustainability Appraisal carried out this difficult task rigorously, logically and clearly and provides clear reasons why the north-east was chosen as the most appropriate location for the growth. The Inspector concluded that as the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) is an adopted scheme, it is essential to take account of it in assessing the best location for growth. The Inspector did not consider that other locations proposed by objectors for this growth, such as Acle and the south-west, including Wymondham, were supported by evidence that they could be delivered and thus were not reasonable alternatives. The Inspector supported the view presented in the SA that school capacity (i.e. secondary school capacity in Wymondham), landscape setting and historical character issues constrained additional growth in the south-west. The Inspector concluded that an addendum to the Sustainability Appraisal covering greenhouse gas emissions clearly shows how the three alternative growth locations perform and why the north-east is the best choice. Importantly, the Inspector concluded that the SA rectifies the deficiencies identified in the 2012 Court Judgment and complies with the Court Order During the examination main modifications were suggested to ensure the soundness of the plan and the Inspector s consultation on these took place in September and October. The majority of these modifications are essentially factual updates and clarifications. A new policy has been included by the Inspector to ensure housing supply is maintained. This policy requires that if there is a significant shortfall of housing supply affecting the Broadland part of the NPA shown in monitoring reports produced from two years following adoption, the councils will 113

114 produce a focussed Local Plan for the NPA as a whole that will identify appropriate sites to remedy the shortfall. Clearly, there will be no need to consider this if an adequate supply of housing land is maintained. This will be facilitated by the recent moves to refocus the partnership on delivery and by planned investment in transport infrastructure The three district councils considered the Inspector s report and agreed to adopt the part JCS at meetings in December 2013 with formal adoption to take place on 10 January A copy of the Inspector s report and the JCS incorporating the part to be adopted has been placed in the Members Room and are also available via the GNDP website Adoption of the part JCS resolves the hiatus in the strategic planning of the wider Norwich area and will help provide greater certainty for investment, infrastructure provision and economic development. 3. Resource Implications 3.1. Finance : No direct implications from this decision. However, growth will provide support for infrastructure provision and the partnership is committed to developing mechanisms for managing income streams Staff : There are no immediate staff implications but there will be future issues relating to management of income and delivery of infrastructure which will involve professional staff Property : The County Council has land holdings in the area covered by the part JCS but this should not affect this planning related decision. 4. Other Implications 4.1. Legal Implications : none Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) : has been completed to support the part JCS Environmental Implications : The part JCS has been subject to sustainability appraisal incorporating strategic environmental assessment. It is considered the most favourable option for delivering the required growth. The focus on delivery will help provide investment to support a range of initiatives that have environmental benefits including the provision of public transport, cycle and green infrastructure Any other implications : Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 5. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 5.1. As a high level strategy the part JCS has limited direct impact on crime and disorder. The JCS includes a number of policies that will help to address crime and disorder issues including those relating to design, community development and infrastructure. These will be expanded in subsidiary local development documents. Delivery can support infrastructure needed to address crime and disorder issues. 6. Risk Implications/Assessment 114

115 6.1. Failure to support the JCS would create uncertainty that could delay or undermine delivery of necessary infrastructure. 7. Overview and Scrutiny Panel Comments 7.1. There has not been time to seek Panel s comments in advance of the adoption date. Panels views were sought at earlier stages of the JCS process when the Growth Triangle was originally proposed. 8. Alternative Options 8.1. Members could decide not to support the adoption of the part JCS. This would undermine the partnership approach and create uncertainty for economic growth, infrastructure provision and investment. 9. Reason for Decision 9.1. Positive engagement in partnership working and in the decisions on the JCS demonstrates co-operation across the area, aiding both the planning process and the investment decisions that flow from it. The adoption of the part JCS will provide full strategic plan coverage across the Greater Norwich area providing for sustainable development and bringing welcome certainty for economic development, investment decisions and infrastructure delivery Recommendation (i) Cabinet welcome the progress on the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk and endorse the district councils decisions to adopt the part JCS Background Papers The Inspector s report on the examination into the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk: Broadland part of the Norwich Policy Area Norwich-Report.pdf Appendix to the Inspector s Report: Main Modifications Norwich-Appendix-Mods.pdf Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk: Adopted March 2011, as amended and adopted January

116 Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number address Phil Morris If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact and ask for Phil Morris or textphone and we will do our best to help. 116

117 Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan Report by the Interim Director of Environment, Transport and Development Cabinet Item No.13 Summary This report provides a summary of the process and findings of the Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). This SWMP was jointly funded by Norfolk County Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Anglian Water Services. These organisations formed the leadership of the project Steering Group that was actively supported by the Environment Agency and local Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs). A high level assessment of surface water flood risk has been undertaken across the entire borough to identify areas where surface water flooding is likely to occur during an extreme rainfall event. These priority areas were taken forward into the detailed assessment phase. The predicted consequences of flooding to property, businesses and infrastructure have been analysed and those areas identified to be at more significant risk have been delineated into Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs). Analysis of the number of properties and infrastructure at risk of flooding has been undertaken for the rainfall event with a 1 in 100 and 1 in 200 probability of occurring in any given year. A review of these statistics coupled with site visits and local knowledge of the study area provides the justification behind the selection of eight (8) areas in Great Yarmouth, Gorleston, Bradwell, Caister-on-Sea and Hemsby as CDAs. Detailed surface water modelling has been undertaken in six (6) of these CDAs in order to better understand the mechanisms and consequences of flooding and the affects of potential mitigation measures. An engineering judgement was given for two (2) CDAs where detailed modelling was considered unnecessary. Householders in each CDA were contacted by letter and invited to public meetings attended by officers from Norfolk County Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Anglian Water, the Environment Agency and consultants Capita URS. Follow up meetings took place to update the local communities on the progress of the SWMP and the future actions. It is recognised that surface water flood risk is not limited to these CDAs; in fact, a number of areas are predicted to experience localised flooding and these have been identified for future work and assessment where funding allows. The SWMP Action Plan identified 31 actions that included changes to planning policy, improved maintenance of drainage systems, installation of rain and water flow gauges, providing information on property protection measures and applying for funding to deliver flood risk mitigation measures. Funding bids have been submitted to the Environment Agency Flood Defence Grant in Aid process, but gaining external partnership funding will be required to allow further work in the identified CDAs and move towards delivering flood risk mitigation measures. Action Required Cabinet is asked to adopt the Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan 117

118 1. Background 1.1. The Floods and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA) identified an area of flood risk that was previously poorly understood. This local flood risk comprises flooding caused by surface run off, groundwater and ordinary watercourses (also collectively described as Surface Water Flooding ) The FWMA 2010 imposed substantial new duties on Norfolk County Council in the management of surface water flood risk, among other duties. As part of the new legislation Norfolk County Council is identified as a 'Lead Local Flood Authority' (LLFA). LLFAs will take charge of local flood management issues for their areas A Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) is the first tool available for developing and understanding of this area of local flood risk. A SWMP is a framework to help LLFAs understand the causes of surface water flooding and agree the most cost effective ways of managing surface water flood risk. The main outputs are a co-ordinated Action Plan to prioritise projects to reduce surface water flood risk, engagement and commitment to the public, business and communities in potential flood risk areas and detailed mapping of areas prone to surface water flood risk. These maps will assist local authorities fulfil their flood risk responsibilities and provide evidence for land use and emergency planning A SWMP does not investigate the potential flooding from main rivers and the sea, such as that experienced along the East coast on the night of the 5th of December The Environment Agency, working with coastal district councils, is responsible for this area of flood risk. In an emergency all statutory agencies, including Norfolk County Council, co-ordinate their response. The SWMP does however, consider how tidal and main river flood risk interacts with surface water flooding and provides mapping that can assist emergency planners and responders in any flood event The data, mapping and actions that come from the SWMP will feed into Norfolk s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy as well as providing evidence for flood mitigation and property protection funding bids that will help communities in flood risk areas. 2. The Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan 2.1. The SWMP was undertaken in Great Yarmouth Borough as a result of Norfolk County Councils Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) work. The PFRA identified Great Yarmouth Borough as a priority area. In an extreme rainfall event, approximately 7,000 people could be affected by flooding, along with over 700 non residential properties and more than 30 critical service locations (schools, utilities services (water/power) and hospitals). The level of risk was also validated by significant flooding occurring in 2006 due to prolonged rainfall. More than 90 properties in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft were affected This SWMP was jointly funded by Norfolk County Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Anglian Water Services. These organisations formed the leadership of the project Steering Group that was actively supported by the Environment Agency 118

119 and local Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) An initial strategic assessment of risk completed by the Steering Group identified the following settlements as being vulnerable to surface water flooding: Belton, Bradwell, Caister-on-Sea, Gorleston, Great Yarmouth, Hemsby, Hopton-on-Sea, Martham, Ormesby-St-Margaret and Winterton-on-Sea Priority for detailed assessment was determined using a combination of known historic incidents, a series of site visits, potential for future development, potential environmental impacts and predicted number of buildings flooded using Environment Agency surface water flood risk mapping. The prioritisation process identified the following settlements for further detailed assessment: Great Yarmouth inc. Gorleston (south of River Yare) Detailed Modelling Great Yarmouth (north of River Yare) Detailed Modelling Bradwell Detailed Modelling Caister-on-Sea Engineering Judgement Based Detailed Assessment Hemsby - Engineering Judgement Based Detailed Assessment 2.5. The remaining settlements (Martham, Hopton-on-Sea, Winterton-on-Sea and Belton) have been assessed at the intermediate level only and have flood risk management actions defined for each based on local conditions. They have not been progressed for detailed assessment as the available flood risk information is judged sufficient to be able to make effective risk management decisions Detailed risk assessment using a combination of computer modelling and engineering judgement based methods identified eight (8) Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs). The definition of a CDA in this context is: a discrete geographic area (usually a hydrological catchment) where multiple or interlinked sources of flood risk cause flooding during a severe rainfall event thereby affecting people, property or local infrastructure Approximately 342 properties could be at risk of flooding during a rainfall event with a 1 in 100 probability of occurrence in any given year within the CDAs in the Great Yarmouth urban areas. Approximately 1,042 properties could be at risk of flooding during a rainfall event with a 1 in 200 probability of occurrence in any given year with the CDAs in the Caister and Hemsby areas. It should be noted that two different probabilities have been used for the CDA assessment as each relies on a different flood risk data set. Computer modelling was completed for the Great Yarmouth urban areas while Hemsby / Caister were assessed using a nation wide surface water flood risk map. The nation wide surface water flood risk map was used for Hemsby / Caister as this was judged to be a good representation of local flood risk without the need for computer modelling as part of this study. 119

120 2.8. For each of the CDAs identified within the study area, site-specific measures have been identified that could be considered to help alleviate surface water flooding. These measures were subsequently shortlisted to identify preferred options for each CDA, and feasibility studies will be progressed as part of the Action Plan It is equally important to recognise that flooding within the study area is not confined to just the CDAs, and therefore, throughout the study area there are opportunities for generic measures to be implemented through the establishment of a policy position on issues including the widespread use of water conservation measures such as water butts and rainwater harvesting technology, use of soakaways, permeable paving and green roofs. In addition, there are opportunities to raise community awareness to surface water flood risk across the whole study area Funding bids have been submitted to the Environment Agency Flood Defence Grant in Aid process, but gaining external partnership funding will be required to allow further work in the identified CDAs and move towards delivering flood risk mitigation measures Norfolk County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has the statutory duty to coordinate the management of local flood risk. Under Section 9 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Norfolk County Council must develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management in its area. The Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan forms part of the evidence base for that strategy. 3. Resource Implications 3.1. Finance: 3.2. Staff: No funding for future capital mitigation works has been confirmed or is guaranteed at present. The data from the SWMP is essential for submitting bids to the Environment Agency, Anglian Water and other organisations to gather sufficient partnership funding that will lead to flood mitigation schemes. Potential funding opportunities are being explored by the Steering Group and an initial bid has been made to the EA Flood Defence Grant in Aid process for schemes worth approx 1m. This report does not commit NCC to any additional funding requirements. N/a 3.3. Property: 3.4. IT: Bradwell Library is predicted to be at risk from surface water flooding in a 1 in 100 rainfall event. N/a 120

121 4. Other Implications 4.1. Legal Implications: Norfolk County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has the statutory duty to coordinate the management of local flood risk. Under Section 9 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Norfolk County Council must develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management in its area. The Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan forms part of the evidence base for that strategy Human Rights: N/a 4.3. Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA): Not relevant to this report 4.4. Communications: The development of the Surface Water Management Plan has followed an agreed communication and engagement process, including organising stakeholder workshops and public drop in events. Communications are ongoing with stakeholders and residents in the identified Critical Drainage Areas Health and Safety Implications: N/a 4.6. Environmental Implications: N/a 4.7. Any other implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 5. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act 5.1. N/a 6. Risk Implications/Assessment 6.1. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Norfolk County Council, as the Lead Local Flood Authority for the area, has a duty to understand the potential risk from surface water flooding and to seek measures that will mitigate this risk. Surface Water Management Plans form the recommended method for assessing this risk and proposing mitigation measures. The findings of the Surface Water Management Plan need to be communicated to stakeholders, communities and residents in areas of risk and this will include the publication of the surface water flood risk maps. These maps provide a greater level of accuracy than the information currently available and can exclude properties from 121

122 a flood risk area. However, the surface water flood risk maps will provide a new level of understanding of this risk which could be used by the insurance industry. Without the data from Surface Water Management Plan we will be unable to bid for funding to help mitigate the potential flood risk. If implemented, the mitigation measures would move the properties from a higher level of flood risk to a lower level. 7. Overview and Scrutiny Panel Comments 7.1. To follow 8. Alternative Options 8.1. Delay adoption until the completion of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Risks: Evidence from SWMP will not be available to the public, developers or other Risk Management Authorities Evidence from SWMP will not be supported in funding bids for flood risk mitigation measures. Flood events affect the Great Yarmouth area and NCC will be vulnerable to criticism of lack of progress to assist local communities. Loss of momentum and buy in with communities and other partners / Risk management Authorities 9. Reason for Decision 9.1. To support continued engagement with communities involved in the development of the SWMP. To support funding bids for flood mitigation measures and property protection To keep momentum of SWMP with partners and Risk Management Authorities Recommendation / Action Required (i) Cabinet is asked to adopt the Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan Background Papers Appendix A: GYBC SWMP Surface Water Flooding Appendix B: GYBC SWMP Executive Summary Appendix C: GYBC SWMP Critical Drainage Areas Appendix D: GYBC SWMP Leaflet Appendix E: GYBC SWMP Communication and Engagement 122

123 Appendix F: GYBC SWMP Bradwell CDA Appendix G: GYBC SWMP Caister-on-Sea CDA Appendix H: GYBC SWMP Claydon and Southtown CDA Appendix I: GYBC SWMP Gorleston CDA Appendix J: GYBC SWMP Hemsby CDA Appendix K: GYBC SWMP North Yarmouth CDA Appendix L: GYBC SWMP Northgate CDA Appendix M: GYBC SWMP South Yarmouth CDA Appendix N: GYBC SWMP Glossary and Abbreviations Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Name Telephone Number address Mark Ogden Mark Allen If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact and ask for Insert Officer Name or textphone and we will do our best to help. 123

124 Surface Water Flooding Surface water flooding happens when the ground, rivers and drains cannot absorb heavy rainfall. Typically this type of flooding is localised and happens very quickly after the rain has fallen, making it difficult to give any flood warning. It is therefore important to identify areas where measures need to be taken to protect properties and critical infrastructure from surface water flooding. Surface water flooding is a general term which is used to cover flooding from: Run-off of rainwater from impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, roads, driveways, patios, car parks and saturated or baked hard land groundwater in areas where water has percolated into the soil on high ground and then emerges in lower areas, and flooding from small streams, drainage ditches, drains or sewers. Flooding from Local Sources (Making Space for Water HA4a pilot) 124

125 Executive Summary Purpose The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Great Yarmouth Borough investigates the risks of surface water flooding and proposes a surface water management strategy for Great Yarmouth Borough. Surface water flooding describes flooding from sewers, drains, groundwater, run off from land, small watercourses and ditches that occurs as a result of heavy rainfall (as illustrated in Figure ES1 below). Figure ES1: Surface Water Flooding The SWMP was undertaken in Great Yarmouth Borough as a result of Norfolk County Councils Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) work. The PFRA identified Great Yarmouth Borough as a priority area. In an extreme rainfall event, approximately 7,000 people could be affected by flooding, along with over 700 non-residential properties and more than 30 critical service locations (schools, utilities services (water/power) and hospitals). The level of risk was also validated by significant flooding occurring in 2006 due to prolonged rainfall. More than 90 properties in Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft were affected. The aim of a SWMP is to understand and resolve complex, high risk surface water flooding problems in urbanised areas. A SWMP brings together key local partners, with responsibility for surface water and drainage in their areas, to collaborate to investigate the causes of surface water flooding and agree the most cost effective way of managing surface water flood risk. Partnership The project was jointly funded by Norfolk County Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and Anglian Water Services. These organisations form the leadership of the project Steering Group that is actively supported by the Environment Agency, local Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) and representatives from the Broads Authority. In order to provide an integrated approach to surface water management, it is important that key stakeholders with responsibility for different flood mechanisms are able to work together in a holistic manner. Risk Assessment The purpose of the risk assessment phase is to determine the level of probable future risk within Great Yarmouth Borough, prioritise higher risk areas for further investigation and identify quick win flood mitigation actions. Strategic Assessment An initial strategic assessment of risk completed by the Steering Group identified the following settlements as being vulnerable to surface water flooding: Belton Great Yarmouth Ormesby-St-Margaret Bradwell Hemsby Winterton-on-Sea Caister-on-Sea Hopton-on-Sea Gorleston Martham 125

126 Intermediate Assessment This assessment used existing flood risk information combination with a series of site visits to assess probable surface water flood risk to the above ten settlements within Great Yarmouth Borough. The purpose of this assessment was to correlate historic incident information with the national level Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW) and determine the priority for further investigation work. Priority for detailed assessment was determined using a combination of known historic incidents, potential for future development, potential environmental impacts and predicted number of buildings flooded (using the national FMfSW). The prioritisation process identified the following settlements for further detailed assessment: Great Yarmouth inc. Gorleston (south of River Yare) Detailed Modelling Great Yarmouth (north of River Yare) Detailed Modelling Bradwell Detailed Modelling Caister-on-Sea Engineering Judgement Based Detailed Assessment Hemsby - Engineering Judgement Based Detailed Assessment The remaining settlements (Martham, Hopton-on-Sea, Winterton-on-Sea and Belton) have been assessed at the intermediate level only and have flood risk management actions defined for each based on local conditions. They have not been progressed for detailed assessment as the available flood risk information is judged sufficient to be able to make effective risk management decisions. Detailed Assessment Detailed risk assessment using a combination of computer modelling and engineering judgement based methods identified eight (8) Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) as shown in Figure ES2. The risk assessment process identifies the areas of probable flooding (the impacts ) and the surrounding area that contributes runoff (the catchment ) - the combination of these areas is defined for the purposes of this study as a CDA. The definition of a CDA in this context is: a discrete geographic area (usually a hydrological catchment) where multiple or interlinked sources of flood risk cause flooding during a severe rainfall event thereby affecting people, property or local infrastructure. Approximately 342 properties could be at risk of flooding during a rainfall event with a 1 in 100 probability of occurrence in any given year with the CDAs in the Great Yarmouth urban areas. Table ES1 summarises the types of properties predicted to be flooded. Approximately 1,042 properties could be at risk of flooding during a rainfall event with a 1 in 200 probability of occurrence in any given year with the CDAs in the Caister and Hemsby areas. It should be noted that two different probabilities have been used for the CDA assessment as each relies on a different flood risk data set. Computer modelling was completed for the Great Yarmouth urban areas while Hemsby / Caister were assessed using a nation wide surface water flood risk map. The nation wide surface water flood risk map was used for Hemsby / Caister as this was judged to be a good representation of local flood risk without the need for computer modelling as part of this study. 126

127 Table ES1: Predicted Flooded Properties Summary 1 in 100 Year Flood Event (Great Yarmouth Urban Area CDAs) Property Type Infrastructure Households Commercial / Industrial Others Flood Risk Vulnerability Number of flooded properties above depth threshold Classification >0.1m >0.5m Essential Infrastructure 0 0 Highly Vulnerable 3 1 More Vulnerable 4 0 Non-Deprived 73 0 Deprived Units (All) 40 4 Other Flooded Properties 48 4 Infrastructure Other 1 0 Total Table ES2: Predicted Flooded Properties Summary 1 in 200 Year Flood Event (Caister and Hemsby CDAs) Property Type Infrastructure Households Commercial / Industrial Others Flood Risk Vulnerability Number of flooded properties above depth threshold Classification >0.1m >0.3m Essential Infrastructure 0 0 Highly Vulnerable 2 0 More Vulnerable 4 0 Non-Deprived Deprived 0 0 Units (All) 22 7 Other Flooded Properties Infrastructure Other 9 4 Total Table ES3: Infrastructure Sub-Categories Category Essential Infrastructure Highly Vulnerable More Vulnerable Description Essential transport infrastructure which has to cross the area at risk Essential utility infrastructure which has to be located in a flood risk area for operation reasons Mass evacuation routes Electricity generating power stations and grid and primary substations Water treatment works Police stations, Ambulance stations, Fire stations, Command Centres and telecommunications installations Installations requiring hazardous substances consent Hospitals and health Services Education establishments, nurseries Landfill, waste treatment and waste management facilities for hazardous waste Sewage treatment works Prisons 127

128 Options Assessment The options assessment defines which options are generally available for reducing flood risk within the study area and specific concept level mitigation solutions for each of the CDAs. As well as surface water, consideration is given to other sources of flooding and their interactions with surface water flooding, with particular focus on options which will provide flood alleviation from combined flood sources. Approximate capital cost estimates of the potential CDA options have been determined, but it should be noted that no funding has been confirmed or is guaranteed at present. Potential funding opportunities are still to be explored by the Steering Group. To assist with prioritisation and programming of further work on all CDAs, a basic prioritisation methodology based on the number of properties predicted to be at risk was applied to the CDAs. At this stage of flood risk investigation and mitigation it is important to keep this method simple and transparent to ensure clear interpretation of the decision making process to prioritise one area over another. This will aid in demonstrating that future spending on surface water management is distributed equitably around the study area. The high priority CDAs were identified to be South Yarmouth, Northgate, Caister-on-Sea and Hemsby. For each High Priority CDA, it is recommended that the Steering Group: Undertake a detailed feasibility study Complete further public consultation Review all benefits of proposed schemes and identify links with partner organisation goals Medium and Low Priority CDAs do not justify immediate further investigation, but should have the following actions considered for implementation. Evidence gathered from these actions may increase the level of priority or identify quick win actions in the future. Investigate (confirm) whether flooding incidents have occurred in CDAs and other areas identified as being at risk of flooding Monitor flood risk related problems and manage future development using proposed CDA preferred options to minimise impact on flood risk Work proactively to monitor the condition of ordinary watercourses and associated culverts and review maintenance practices as required. Work proactively with the EA and local IDBs to monitor the condition of Main Rivers, culverts and defences. Engage NCC Highways and the Highways Agency to monitor any future flooding and assess the associated risk on all Major Roads Action Plan The Action Plan outlines a wide range of recommended measures that could be undertaken to manage surface water within the study area more effectively by each of the Steering Group members. The Action Plan identifies: General flood risk management actions to integrate outcomes, recommendations and new information from this study into the practices of all Steering Group organisations Strategic Planning Policy actions to assist NCC and GYBC to manage future developments in the context of local flood risk management Maintenance actions to prompt possible review of current schedules in the context of new information presented in this study High priority CDA actions to be considered to better understand flood risk in specific areas and proactively manage operational risks All CDA actions to be considered across all CDAs identified within this study Transport infrastructure risk assessment actions to investigate at risk major roads and pedestrian underpasses to understand the potential risk associated with each The SWMP Action Plan is a living document and should be reviewed / updated regularly. Triggers could include the occurrence of a surface water flood event, when additional data or modelling becomes available, following the outcome of investment decisions by partners and following any 128

129 additional major development or changes in the catchment which may influence the surface water flood risk within the study area. Implementation Implementation of the Action Plan will require continued work within the Steering Group. NCC should coordinate with relevant internal and external partners in order to ensure a holistic approach to the implementation of outputs and actions from the SWMP. The sections below summarise the implementation actions that should be considered by each of the Steering Group partners: Anglian Water Consider how the outputs from this SWMP could be used to influence investment and funding schedule for drainage improvements and maintenance programmes across the study area Strategic Planning (NCC and GYBC) There are three key avenues by which the findings of this SWMP are recommended to be taken forward through the planning system: 1. The SWMP maps which identify potential areas that are more vulnerable to surface water flooding should be used in addition to information in SFRAs 2. The SWMP maps which identify potential areas that are more vulnerable to surface water flooding should be used to update/prepare policies in the Local Plan 3. The SWMP maps which identify potential areas that are more vulnerable to surface water flooding should be used to inform development decisions for sites or areas by either: Emergency Planning (NCC and GYBC) Resulting in modifications to strategies, guidance, or policies for major development locations (e.g. through Area Action Plans and Supplementary Planning Guidance); or Influencing planning decisions in relation to the principle, layout or design of particular development proposals. The SWMP surface water flood maps can be used to: Identify vulnerable people or groups of vulnerable people who are at risk of flooding Identify critical transport routes that could be subject to flooding Understand how emergency response infrastructure (fire stations, ambulance stations, police stations, hospitals and command centres) and related access routes may be impacted by flooding Estimate the overall cumulative impact of a significant rainfall event (i.e. the combined impact of access route blockage, flooding of significant infrastructure and impact to groups of properties) Identify groups of buildings that are potentially at risk of significant flooding Hazard rating and predicted depth maps show clear differentiation of level of risk that may be encountered within each area of predicted flooding 129

130 Review Timeframe It is recommended that the Action Plan is regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any necessary amendments. In order to capture the works undertaken by Steering Group members, it is recommended that the Action Plan review should be on an annual basis. Monitoring The SWMP Action Plan should be reviewed and updated annually as a minimum, but there may be circumstances which might trigger a review and/or an update of the SWMP and/or the Action Plan in the interim. Examples of events which would likely trigger a review include: Occurrence of a surface water flood event Additional data or modelling becoming available, which may alter the understanding of risk within the study area Outcome of investment decisions by partners is different to the preferred option, which may require a revision to the action plan Additional (major) development or other changes in the study area which may affect the surface water flood risk Table ES4: Household Sub-Categories Category Description Households All residential dwellings Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use Student halls of residence, residential care homes, children s homes, social services homes and hostels Deprived Those households falling into the lowest 20% of ranks by the Office of Households National Statistics Indices of Multiple Deprivation. 130

131 THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED Legend NORTH Administrative Boundary Main River Ordinary Watercourse!!!!!!!! Culverted Watercourse! Critical Drainage Areas Hemsby!!!!!!!! Caisteron-Sea North Yarmouth! Great Yarmouth Borough Northgate Claydon, Southtown and Cobholm Bradwell Surface Water Management Plan South Yarmouth Crown Copyright. All rights reserved Norfolk County Council. Licence No (2013). Covers all data that has been supplied and distributed under license for the Great Yarmouth SWMP project. Scale at A3 Gorleston 1:95,000 Date July 2013 Drawn by G.ATHANASIA Approved by M.ARTHUR Critical Drainage Areas Overview DRAFT! Filepath: G:\environment\ZWET\CS058209_GrtYarmouthSWMP\GIS\Arc\Mxds\Fig12_SWMP_Grt_Yarmouth_CDA_Overview.mxd Notes Consultant Kilometres Capita Symonds Level Seven, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, Belgravia, London SW1W 0AU FIGURE

132 What is surface water flooding? Great Yarmouth Borough Surface Water Management Plan Information leaflet Norfolk County Council Surface water flooding happens when the ground, rivers and drains cannot absorb heavy rainfall. Typically this type of flooding is localised and happens very quickly after the rain starts falling, making it difficult to give any flood warning. It is therefore important to identify areas where measures need to be taken to protect properties and critical services Surface water flooding is a general term which is used to cover flooding from: runoff of rainwater from impermeable surfaces, such as roofs, roads, driveways, patios, car parks and saturated or baked hard land groundwater in areas where water has soaked into the soil on high ground and then emerges in lower areas, and flooding from small streams, drainage ditches, drains or sewers. What is a Surface Water Management Plan? A Surface Water Management Plan (or SWMP) takes a comprehensive look at the causes of surface water flooding and its consequences, using historical flood records and detailed models of potential future floods. The SWMP will be used to help identify areas that are most at risk from surface water flooding during heavy rainfall events; these areas will be prioritised for further detailed study and work. This work can involve a range of solutions, from engineering schemes to reduce the risk of flooding to advising residents and businesses how to protect their properties from flooding. If you need this information in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact us on and we will do our best to help. 132

133 Further information... What can I do to help reduce flood risk? Norfolk County Council is working closely with partners, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Anglian Water, the Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards and with support from our flood risk consultants Capita Symonds URS, to better understand local flood risk across the Borough of Great Yarmouth. If you would like further information, please refer to the contact details below: Norfolk County Council for advice on highways and local flood risk management Telephone: Great Yarmouth Borough Council for advice on planning, public health and community resilience Telephone: Anglian Water for advice on sewers and drains Telephone: Environment Agency for flood warnings and home protection Telephone: The National Flood Forum for support and advice to communities that have been flooded or are at risk of flooding Telephone: Water butts: Can provide small scale water storage. Permeable surfaces: Where possible, keep or restore permeable surfaces such as grass and gravel in your garden as these allow water to soak evenly into the ground. This reduces the runoff from hard surfaces such as tarmac that increases flood risk. Permitted development: If you are building an extension or conservatory, patio or driveway, ensure that all surface water drainage will not add to the flood risk in your area. Options include keeping the foul and surface water drains separate, using permeable materials and using sustainable drainage systems. Seek advice from: Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Measures that you can install to protect your property: Flood resistant doors Air brick covers Sewer brakes to prevent backflow through the sewer system Waterproofing floors and lower courses of walls. Always use a qualified assessor and installer for all flood prevention and protection products and ensure that the products have the BSI Kitemark. For more detailed information, see: The Environment Agency Flood Products leaflet homeandleisure/floods The CIRIA advice sheets Other sources of advice include: The Flood Protection Association The British Damage Management Association CB 6/13 133

134 Public Communication and Engagement Priority Settlement Site Visits (August 2012) The ten settlements that were identified at being more vulnerable to surface water flooding at the start of the SWMP process were visited by officers from the Steering Group and consultants from URS. These site visits were publicised through local papers, Councillors and Resilience Forums. Representatives from every settlement met with the officers and consultants to give first hand evidence of the flooding history and locations. This evidence was important in the process to decide which areas to take forward to the detailed assessment stage and to raise the profile of the SWMP. Elected Members Workshop (February 2013) Elected members from Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Parish Councils within identified higher risk areas, Local Resilience Forum Members and representatives from the local emergency services attended a workshop that covered: A summary of the project to date Details of the risk assessment approach Draft surface water modelling results Potential impacts of infrastructure, critical assets and vulnerable people Discussion of potential flood mitigation solutions Public Drop In Sessions (June 2013) The general public was invited to a series of drop in sessions held at Caister Council Hall, Gorleston Library, The Pavillion (Hemsby) and Great Yarmouth Town Hall. The events were publicised through the local papers, radio, Parish Councillors, Local Resilience Forums and a direct mail out to those properties identified as possibly at risk within the study area. Attendees were able to view surface water flood maps of the local area, proposed mitigation solutions and have informal discussions with members of the Steering Group. The Steering Group was able to obtain valuable input on local flooding issues and gauge the general opinion of the possible flood mitigation solutions proposed. 134

135 Elected Member and Stakeholder Presentation (September 2013) Elected members Parish Councils, Local Resilience Forum Members and other stakeholders from within identified Critical Drainage Areas attended a presentation that covered: A summary of the project to date Intermediate Level Risk Assessment Results Detailed Level Risk Assessment Results Proposed Mitigation Options Action Plan and Next Steps There is a commitment from all the members of the SWMP Steering Group to continue the project work and to seek to implement measures that will reduce the potential flood risk. Communication with residents and stakeholders in the CDAs and other areas vulnerable to surface water flooding is ongoing and shows our long term commitment to reducing the flood risk. 135

136 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: This CDA is located in the Bradwell area of Great Yarmouth. The pluvial modelling indicates surface water flooding across the central portion of the CDA as a result of the natural valley topography. This flooding may be a result of a historic ordinary water course (OWC) being lost due to urban expansion. It is noted that there are more than 15 properties on the AWS DG5 register along Beech Road, Lords Lane, Yew Tree Close and Green Lane. NCC Highways have recently installed a separated surface water pipe system including two storage areas - however, these are designed to accomodate a 1 in 10yr probability event and are unlikley to deliver substantial benefits for events exceeding this return period. Current pluvial flood models for the 1% AEP event with an allowance for climate change indicates areas to the south of Jews Lane flooding to depths up to 400mm. Fluvial Flood Zones 2 in is located near the north west boundary of the CDA along a small portion of open land. The region is classified as being at low risk of groundwater flooding. The area to the south Jews Lane has been identified for possible development and presents an opportunity for 3rd party funding of a mitigation solution. The preferred flood mitigation solution for this CDA includes a combination of storage / runoff reduction SUDS at Jews Lane, designation of overland flow paths, embankments and property level resilience. LEGEND Critical Drainage Area Bradwell Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P y Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P y Sewer Yes SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P y Fluvial Yes Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P Tidal No De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P y Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P y Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure O Other or Combination of Above P y 136

137 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: Caister-on-Sea CDA is located north of Great Yarmouth. Surface water flows generally from west to east towards the coastline. The FMfSW indicates surface water flooding across localised pockets within the CDA as a result of the natural valley topography. This flooding may be a result of a historic ordinary water course being lost due to urban expansion. The CDA neighbours low lying land and the Norfolk Broads. Local reports suggest that existing land drains are unable to convey flood water away from built up areas (Winfred Way). Increasing overland flow conveyance capacity and embankments to prevent water collecting around properties may mitigate the surface water flood risk in specific vulnerable locations. The central inland area is predominately occupied by residential properties. Property level flood mitigation measures are proposed where there is limited scope to attenuate surface water or where increasing the conveyance capacity is not viable. (Price of Wales Road and St Nicholas Drive). Pockets of flooding closer to the sea are exacerbated by the dune system adjacent to the beach. Caister-on-Sea CDA is classified as being at low risk of ground water flooding, however areas to the north of the CDA have been identified as potentially vulnerable to groundwater flooding. LEGEND Critical Drainage Area Caister-on-Sea Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P y Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P Y Ordinary Watercourse No SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P Fluvial No Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P Tidal Yes De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P y Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P y Other or Combination of Above P y 137

138 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: This CDA is located in the Claydon, Cobholm and Southtown area of Great Yarmouth. The pluvial modelling indicates surface water flooding across the central portion of the CDA as a result of the topography and surface water being trapped behind raised road embankments. The CDA contains several IDB managed land drains that assist in mananging surface water flows from urbanised areas, but periodic routine maintenance is required to allow the drainage system to adequately collect and remove surface water and mitigate flood risk. The preferred solution for this area is a combination of improved maintenance, development control in undeveloped areas, large scale SUDS in both commecial (Southtown) / residential (east end of Burgh Road) areas and small scale embankments around the ditches in high risk locations. Despite numerous known surface water flooding issues in the Southtown area, the modelling did not predict any substantial surface water flooding. It is noted that Anglian Water is currently updating their sewer models in this area and additional information will be available in the near future. Further investigation is proposed as the interim 'solution' in this area. Critical Drainage Area Claydon, Southtown and Cobham LEGEND Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P y Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P y Groundwater Yes SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P y Ordinary Watercourse Yes SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P y Fluvial No Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P Tidal No De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P y Other or Combination of Above P y 138

139 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: This CDA is located in the Gorleston-on-Sea area of Great Yarmouth. It is in close proximity to the River Yare. Flooding is shown to collect around buildings and pond on roads in built up areas. To the east flooding is shown to affect commercial premises (Bell Marsh Road and Blackwall Reach) and residential properties (Beach and Springfield Road). To the west, the modelling shows surface water collecting on the A12 Road at underpasses and cuttings - no historic incidents have been noted in these locations, so it is proposed that further consultaiton is undertaken with the Highways Agency / NCC Highways to confirm drainage arrangements in these locations. The proposed mitigation option aims to direct overland flow and ponding into preferential areas for temporary storage. Property level protection is proposed where localised topography prevents overland flows from directing surface water away from the area. A small area of partial sewer separation is also proposed. Partial separation includes disconnection of existing catch pits from the combined sewer system, installation of small scale SUDS pre-treatment (gully filters or rain gardens), then connection to a new separated sewer. It is noted that two properties are on the AWS DG5 register in this area and the combined system would substantially benefit from partial separation. An existing series of outfalls exist to the north east adjacent to Pier Walk that could be utilised for the outfall. Critical Drainage Area Gorleston-on-Sea LEGEND Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P y Sewer Yes SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P y Fluvial Yes Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P y Tidal Yes De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P y Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P y Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P Other or Combination of Above P y 139

140 PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary Critical Drainage Area This CDA is located in the Hemsby area of Great Yarmouth. Surface water flows generally from west to south away from Hemsby and the coast, towards the Norfolk Broads south west of Hemsby. The Flood Map for Surface Water indicates surface water flooding in a 1 in 200 year event on the western edge of Hemsby between Martham Road, Summerfield Road and Common Road; to the South of Hemsby in the Bermuda Holiday Park area and in a number of smaller areas across the central and eastern portions of the CDA. Fluvial Flood Zones 2 and 3 enters a small portion in the west of the CDA and along the coast. Potential developments exist at Hemsby Holiday centre and west of Pit Road. The Flood Map for Surface Water shows small areas of flooding within the site at Hemsby Holiday centre. The site to the west of Pit Road is not currently susceptible to surface water flooding. Under the National Planning Policy Framework, the increased runoff generated by any new development must be managed on site and the discharge restricted to greenfield rates. It is therefore anticipated that the new developments will not increase the existing surface water flooding. Hemsby LEGEND Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P y Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P y Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P Y Ordinary Watercourse No SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P y Fluvial Yes Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P Tidal No De-culvert / Increase Conveyance P Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P y Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P y Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P Other or Combination of Above P y 140

141 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: This CDA is located in the northern part area of Great Yarmouth. There is a general movement of surface water from the south west to north east as a result of the natural topography. The model also indicates a build up of floodwater along the A419 Caister Road. Due to its close proximity to the River Bure it could be possible to mitigate potential surface water flooding by increasing the conveyance capacity and discharging surface water into the river mitigating the risk of properties flooding. Existing infrastructure could be improved by targeted maintenance. Localised SUDS solutions could mitigate flood risk to individual homes where adapting existing infrastructure is not possible. Critical Drainage Area North Yarmouth LEGEND Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P y Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P Y Ordinary Watercourse No SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P y Fluvial Yes Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P y Tidal Yes De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P Other or Combination of Above P y 141

142 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: Critical Drainage Area This CDA is located in the Northgate area of Great Yarmouth. Surface water flows generally from high ground in the centre of the CDA to lower ground adjacent to the river and coastline. Northgate CDA and the region are in general classified as being at low risk of groundwater flooding. Flood zone 3 extends from the north west portion of the CDA and occupies 25% of the total CDA area. Surface water options to mitigate flood risk are represented below, the area is constrained by urban expansion and infrastructure. Northgate LEGEND Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P y Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P y Ordinary Watercourse No SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P Fluvial Yes Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P y Tidal Yes De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P y Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience P y Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P Other or Combination of Above P y 142

143 Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan - Options Appraisal Summary PROBLEM IDENTIFIED: This CDA is located in the South Yarmouth area of Great Yarmouth. The pluvial modelling indicates surface water flooding across the localised areas of the CDA as a result of the topography and water being trapped behind raised building pads. The CDA contains residential and commercial buildings, many of the properties are known to contain basements and are potentially at greater risk of being affected by surface water ponding on roads and around buildings (Camperdown Road). Flood zone 3 extends across the south western portion of the CDA and extends to 25% of the area. Tidal flooding affects land in close proximity to the beach frontages and measures along the coastline frontage are in place to mitigate tidal flooding, but adversely may act to retain surface water landward. The CDA is classified as being at low risk of groundwater flooding. The CDA is low lying and there is limited scope to create effective storage areas in built up areas, some capacity may be available under roads. Critical Drainage Area South Yarmouth LEGEND Great Yarmouth Borough PREFERRED OPTIONS SUMMARY: Options Summary Available Option Preferred Do Nothing P Do Minimum P Flood Risk Source Improved Maintenance P Surface Water Yes Planning Policy P Groundwater No SUDS (Source Control - Small Scale) P Y Ordinary Watercourse No SUDS (Large Scale - Flood Storage) P Fluvial Yes Separate Surface Water and Foul Water Sewer Systems P Tidal Yes De-culvert / Increase Conveyance Validation Preferential / Designated Overland Flow Routes P Historic Events Yes Community Resilience P y Site Inspection Yes Infrastructure Resilience O Other - Improvement to Drainage Infrastructure P Other or Combination of Above P y 143

144 Glossary and Abbreviations Term Definition AEP Annual Exceedance Probability (represented as a %) Anglian Water Services (AWS) Asset Management Plan (AMP) Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding (AStGWF) Areas Susceptible to Surface Water Flooding (AStSWF) Bank Full Critical Drainage Area (CDA) Climate Change Community Resilience Culvert Defra DG5 Register Digital Surface Model (DSM) Digital Terrain Model (DTM) Environment Agency (EA) Flood defence The Water and Sewerage Company for the study area. A plan for managing water and sewerage company (WaSC) infrastructure and other assets in order to deliver an agreed standard of service. This is Anglian Water Services within the study area. A national data set held by the Environment Agency identifying the risk of groundwater emergence within an area. A national data set held by the Environment Agency and based on high level modelling which shows areas potentially at risk of surface water flooding. The flow stage of a watercourse in which the stream completely fills its channel and the elevation of the water surface coincides with the top of the watercourses banks. A discrete geographic area (usually a hydrological catchment) where multiple and interlinked sources of flood risk (surface water, groundwater, sewer, Main River and/or tidal) cause flooding during severe weather thereby affecting people, property or local infrastructure. Long term variations in global temperature and weather patterns caused by natural and human actions. A measure of the sustained ability of a community to utilise available resources to respond to, withstand, and recover from adverse situations A channel or pipe that carries water below the level of the ground. Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs A water-company held register of properties which have experienced sewer flooding due to hydraulic overload, or properties which are at risk of sewer flooding more frequently than once in 20 years. A topographic model of the bare earth/underlying terrain of the earth s surface including objects such as vegetation and buildings. A topographic model of the bare earth/underlying terrain of the earth s surface excluding objects such as vegetation and buildings. DTMs are usually derived from DSMs. Government Agency reporting to Defra charged with protecting the environment and managing flood risk in England. Infrastructure used to protect an area against floods such as floodwalls and embankments; they are designed to a specific standard of protection (design standard). 144

145 Term Flood Risk Area Flood Risk Regulations (FRR) Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) Fluvial Flooding Flood Map for Surface Water (FMfSW) GYBC Internal Drainage Board (IDB) Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) LiDAR Local Planning Authority (LPA) Local Resilience Forum (LRF) Main River Norfolk County Council (NCC) National Receptor Dataset (NRD) Ordinary Watercourse Definition Areas determined by the Environment Agency as potentially having a significant flood risk, based on guidance published by Defra and WAG and the use of certain national datasets. Transposition of the EU Floods Directive into UK law. The EU Floods Directive is a piece of European Community (EC) legislation to specifically address flood risk by prescribing a common framework for its measurement and management. An Act of Parliament which forms part of the UK Government s response to Sir Michael Pitt s Report on the Summer 2007 floods, the aim of which is to clarify the legislative framework for managing surface water flood risk in England. The Act was passed in 2010 and is currently being enacted. Flooding resulting from water levels exceeding the bank level of a watercourse (river or stream). In this report the term Fluvial Flooding generally refers to flooding from Main Rivers (see later definition). A national data set held by the Environment Agency showing areas where surface water would be expected to flow or pond, as a result of two different chances of rainfall event, the 1 in 30yr and 1 in 200yr events. Great Yarmouth Borough Council An independent body with powers and duties for land drainage and flood control within a specific geographical area, usually an area reliant on active pumping of water for its drainage. Local Authority responsible for taking the lead on local flood risk management. The duties of LLFAs are set out in the Flood and Water Management Act. This is Norfolk County Council within the study area. Light Detection and Ranging, a technique to measure ground and building levels remotely from the air, LiDAR data is used to develop DTMs and DEMs (see definitions above). The local authority that is empowered by law to exercise planning functions for a particular area. A multi-agency forum, bringing together all the organisations that have a duty to cooperate under the Civil Contingencies Act, and those involved in responding to emergencies. They prepare emergency plans in a co-ordinated manner and respond in an emergency. Roles and Responsibilities are defined under the Civil Contingencies Act. This is the Norfolk Resilience Forum within the study area. A Main River is defined as a watercourse marked as such on a Main River map, and can include any structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water in, into or out of a Main River. The Environment Agency s powers to carry out flood defence works apply to Main Rivers only. The Lead Local Flood Authority in the area. A collection of risk receptors produced by the Environment Agency. A receptor could include essential infrastructure such as power infrastructure and vulnerable property such as schools and health clinics. All watercourses that are not designated Main River, and which are the responsibility of Local Authorities or, where they exist, IDBs are termed Ordinary Watercourses. 145

146 Term Pitt Review Pluvial Flooding Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) Resilience Measures Resistance Measures Risk Risk Management Authority (RMA) Sewer flooding Stakeholder Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Surface water runoff Definition Comprehensive independent review of the 2007 summer floods by Sir Michael Pitt, which provided recommendations to improve flood risk management in England. Flooding from water flowing over the surface of the ground; often occurs when the soil is saturated and natural drainage channels or artificial drainage systems have insufficient capacity to cope with additional flow. Assessment required by the EU Floods Directive which summarises flood risk in a geographical area. Led by LLFAs. Measures designed to reduce the impact of water that enters property and businesses; could include measures such as raising electrical appliances. Measures designed to keep flood water out of properties and businesses; could include flood guards for example. In flood risk management, risk is defined as a product of the probability or likelihood of a flood occurring, combined with the consequence of the flood. As defined by the Floods and Water Management Act. These are (a) the Environment Agency, (b) a lead local flood authority (NCC), (c) a study area council for an area for which there is no unitary authority (GYBC), (d) an internal drainage board, (e) a water company (AWS), and (f) a highway authority (Norfolk County Highways and the Highways Agency) Flooding caused by a blockage or overflowing in a sewer or urban drainage system. A person or organisation affected by the problem or solution, or interested in the problem or solution. They can be individuals or organisations, includes the public and communities. SFRAs are prepared by local planning authorities (in consultation with the Environment Agency) to help guide local planning. They allow them to understand the local risk of flooding from all sources (including surface water and groundwater). They include analysis and maps of the impact of climate change on the extent of future floods. You can find these documents on the website of your local planning authority. Methods of management practices and control structures that are designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable manner than some conventional techniques. Includes swales, wetlands, bioretention devices and ponds. Rainwater (including snow and other precipitation) which is on the surface of the ground (whether or not it is moving), and has not entered a watercourse, drainage system or public sewer. 146

147 Summary Report to Cabinet 06 January 2013 Item No 14 Exemption to Contract Standing Orders for Compass provision Report by the Interim Director of Children s Services Compass was originally commissioned by the Local Authority on behalf of Norfolk schools as part of the Specialist Resource Base (SRB) programme of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Strategy. It is available to any pupils from maintained schools and academies in the county, where they meet the entry criteria. The contract took the form of a service level agreement for 3 years to 31 st August 2014 and was reviewed as part of the SRB review in Compass has been successful in preventing more expensive non maintained placements. The current provision is oversubscribed and commissioners are seeking to expand the provision to operate out of three bases across the county, in line with original proposals confirmed by cabinet on 4 th November 2013 in the paper titled Proposals for allocating the 10million funding agreed by Cabinet in August 2013 for supporting children with special educational needs. It is was therefore decided by commissioners that decommissioning the Compass provision would be detrimental to efficient use of the High Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant and that this should not be an option. Since the current contract expires in August 2014, commissioners sought to extend this for one year via an exemption to Contract Standing Orders. Cabinet is asked to: Note that an exemption to Contract Standing Orders for extending the Compass contract for a period of 12 months has been granted from the Assistant Head of Procurement and Head of Law. 1. Background 1.1 This paper is to note an exemption to Contract Standing Orders to extend the Compass contract for a period of 12 months has been granted from the Assistant Head of Procurement and Head of Law. The Compass Centres provide full-time educational provision for children and young people at Key Stages 2 and 3 who have severe and challenging behavioural and mental health difficulties. It is led and managed as an additionally commissioned service by the Short Stay School, working in partnership with Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust who provide on-site therapeutic staff. This provision is designed to meet the Tier 3/ 4 Child Adolescent and Mental Health Service (CAMHS) criteria and Tier 4 statutory / acute services for educational need locally. Compass provision provides a creative solution to meet the complex needs of young people who are placed out of county and bring them back into their community and provides another option to prevent further out of county placements. 147

148 Compass is currently commissioned via a Service Level Agreement as part of the Specialist Resource Base programme. The current SRB Service Level Agreement expires on 31st August 2014 and new services must be operational by Sept 1st 2014 to ensure a smooth transition for current pupils, reduce costly tribunals against the local authority, mitigate risks of increased costly placements in the non maintained sector and to ensure compliance with the Education Act 1996 Section 14 - In carrying out their duty to provide sufficient schools for the area local authorities must have particular regard for the need to secure SENs provision for pupils with SEN. 2. Contents of Report 2.1 The rationale for the exemption to Contract Standing Orders is set out in the attached request form, which has been approved by the Assistant Head of Procurement and Head of Law 3. Resource Implications 3.1 Finance: 3.2 Staff: This exemption to Contract Standing Orders relates to the educational revenue funding for Compass Provision. Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the appendix, there are no other implications to take into account. 3.3 Property: 3.4 IT: Compass provision has had previous capital investment at the Norwich and Belton sites and plans have been approved by Cabinet on 4 th November 2013 to extend provision to the west of the county. Such investment needs to be considered as part of any future decommissioning activity / competitive process. Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. There are no other implications to take into account. 4. Other Implications 4.1 Legal Implications: When the new EU Directive on Public Procurement is ratified (due to take place in January 2014) there will no longer be any distinction between Part B and Part A services. Although it is not known at this stage how quickly the Cabinet Office/UK Government will bring the new directive into UK law/regulations, the requirements of the new directive could affect future procurement of these services. Although there is likely to be a higher EU Threshold for services that previously would have been considered as Part B, it is likely that our whole requirement (aggregated cost) for all SRBs would be over that limit, albeit that no individual SRB would exceed the limit. 148

149 4.2 Human Rights: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. There are no other implications to take into account. 4.3 Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. There are no other implications to take into account. 4.4 Communications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. There are no other implications to take into account. 4.5 Impact on Children and Young People in Norfolk The current Compass contract, via a Service Level Agreement, expires on 31st August 2014 and new services must be operational by Sept 1st 2014 to ensure a smooth transition for current pupils, reduce costly tribunals against the local authority, mitigate risks of increased costly placements in the non maintained sector and to ensure compliance with the Education Act 1996 Section 14 - In carrying out their duty to provide sufficient schools for the area local authorities must have particular regard for the need to secure Special Educational Needs provision for pupils with Special Educational Needs. 4.6 Health and Safety Implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 4.7 Environmental Implications: Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 4.8 Any Other implications 5. Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act Officers have considered all the implications which members should be aware of. Apart from those listed in the report (above), there are no other implications to take into account. 6. Risk Implications/Assessment An exemption to Contract Standing Orders has been granted as the Compass SRB Service Level Agreement expires on 31st August 2014 and new services must be operational by Sept 1st 2014 to ensure a smooth transition for current pupils, reduce costly tribunals against the local authority, mitigate risks of increased costly placements in the non maintained sector and to ensure compliance with the Education 149

150 Act 1996 Section 14 - In carrying out their duty to provide sufficient schools for the area local authorities must have particular regard for the need to secure Special Educational Needs provision for pupils with Special Educational Needs. 7. Overview & Scrutiny Panel Comments The exemption to Contract Standing Orders has not been discussed by Overview and Scrutiny however OSP supported the proposals in the SRB paper regarding the future of SRBs and the recommendation was subsequently approved by Cabinet on 4 th November Alternative Options The decision has already been taken by Cabinet on 4 th November 2013 on the direction of travel for recommissioning SRBs. In order to ensure best value for money and a fair access to providers, a competitive process could take place during the academic year to enable a new contract to commence from Sept However, owing to resource capacity issues at the present time, we have applied for an exemption to contract standing orders to extend the current contract for a further year. 9. Reason for Decision There is no decision to make this paper is for Cabinet to note only. 10. Recommendation That Cabinet notes that an exemption to Contract Standing Orders for extending the Compass contract for a period of 12 months has been granted by the Assistant Head of Procurement and Head of Law. Background Papers Outcome of Fair Funding Consultation for schools on the future of Specialist Resource Base provision Officer Contact If you have any questions about matters contained in this paper please get in touch with: Officer Name: Amanda Mawbey Tel No: amanda.mawbey@norfolk.gov.uk If you need this report in large print, audio, Braille, alternative format or in a different language please contact Yvonne Bickers on or (textphone) and we will do our best to help. 150

151 151

152 152