Agenda and draft minutes

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 August 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider any business, which by reason of special circumstances, the Chairman proposes to accept as urgent under Section 100(b)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972.

None

RESOLVED:   That Councillor C Kittow be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the Meeting.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

These declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

None

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chairman of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before the meeting commences.  Any Member attending the meeting under Standing Order 34 will only be permitted to speak on those items which have been previously notified to the Chairman.

Councillor G McGuinness attended under Standing Order 34 for consideration of the Cabinet Agenda items 9 a, b and c.

None

To receive comments, and recommendations from other Council bodies, and any responses subsequent to recommendations, which this Committee has previously made.  Some of the relevant Council bodies may meet after dispatch of the agenda.

None

None

The Chairman, Councillor Gourlay, had requested that this item should feature on the Agenda.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor G McGuinness referred to the fact that when the Scheme had come through Cabinet the previous year he had referred to a number of questions asked about the financial impact of the scheme in relation to the “bedroom tax”.  He asked if there was enough data to carry out an impact analysis to see if there were any particularly hard hit groups. 

The Benefits Manager explained that there was not specific data on types of groups and the effects on those groups because each case was looked at on its merits, and  if someone was affected by multiple hits on their benefits for example those who weren’t pensioners or with small children they would often be the recipient of the discretionary scheme.  An applicant was only refused once all of someone’s income and outgoings had been looked at in detail and deemed ineligible for the scheme.

Councillor McGuinness asked if there was an opportunity to carry out an impact analysis on this.  The Benefits Manager responded that a form of analysis could be carried out but it would be inconclusive because of the variety of different levels of claims and awards.

Councillor Gourlay referred to the newspaper report on the level of bailiff use by the Borough Council at 3,800 incidents, he asked if the level was this high due to the non payment of Council Tax following the changes to the scheme.  The Benefits Manager responded that the high usage of the enforcement was for a number of reasons, and would not be reflective of the actual usage for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk only because the Borough carried out the car parking and its enforcement for a number of other Councils so their figures would appear less and ours higher.

Councillor Gourlay asked what was being done in the consultation process to get the level of participation in the consultation up on previous years.   The Benefits Manager explained that she had carried out considerable consultation the previous year including roadshows to different sites, mail shots etc with a very limited response.

Councillor Daubney responded that the response reflected the national picture, but he felt that the most effective thing that could be done was to keep the level of Council Tax low as the Council had been doing.

Councillor Gourlay referred to the assumption that the self- employed would be assumed to be earning the minimum wage for benefits purposes over the last 2 years which was often not the case.  He asked why that stance had been taken.  The Benefits Manager responded that it had been brought in during the first year of the Scheme to link with the requirements of Universal Credit.  She explained that some self-employed claimed tax credits etc and when they initially started in business were given a start up period of 6 months to enable the income received to build over that time.  ...  view the full minutes text for item CSC:43

This item had been brought to the Committee at the request of the Chairman, Councillor Gourlay.

Councillor Gourlay made reference to the fact that the report and proposal was working with the New Anglia LEP, and commented that he believed the Council was also working with the Greater Cambridge & Greater Peterborough LEP, he asked why they were not included in this proposal.  Councillor Daubney confirmed that the Council was working with both LEPs because of the links with both sides of the Borough, but this request had come from the New Anglia LEP.

Councillor Gourlay asked why when the Council was working in the scientific corridor from Cambridge the proposal was for “heavy industry base”.  Councillor Daubney responded that King’s Lynn and its businesses were growing and the Enterprise Zone was particularly for “advanced engineering”, rather than heavy engineering.  He drew attention to the fact that the advanced engineering element of business inward enquiries for the Borough comprised over 60% of the enquiries made, and made up a large amount of the business in the Borough with companies such as BaE, Williams Refrigeration and Bespak, with the Enterprise Zone forming a small element of it.  He further explained that the biggest challenge for the Borough was to retain that industry in West Norfolk by maintaining and improving on skills levels and training in the Borough.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor McGuinness asked if there was a danger that a company would move from an existing site in the Borough for the attractive business rates in the enterprise zone, leaving a vacuum from where they moved.  Councillor Daubney confirmed this was a potential situation which had been raised as a potential issue, but a judgement had to be made.

Councillor Joyce asked if any investigation had been undertaken with the pharmaceutical industry due to the need for large amounts of sugar in their industry and the proximity of the sugar beet factory. He also asked why the Broadband for the area was limited to 100 megabites.  Councillor Daubney shared frustrations around the digital infrastructure and its limitations, but explained that he had just signed off an initiative with the County Council to help towards this, he acknowledged that there was still more to do.

Councillor McGuinness asked if the level of enquiries set out in the report were distinct enquiries or several from the same companies.  It was confirmed that they were distinct.

Councillor Gourlay asked if the Council had the £3m required to pay for the project, to which Councillor Daubney explained that the Council had a requirement to make the land fir for purpose, and it would access funding available to make it happen.  The Chief Executive further explained that the NORA development had stalled due to the level of funding required to install the infrastructure on the site up front of selling plots to companies, and the Enterprise Status would enable to LEP  to borrow to fund the work against future income.  The situation with  ...  view the full minutes text for item CSC:44

The item had been brought to the Committee at the request of the Chairman Councillor Gourlay. 

Councillor Joyce made reference to the discussion he had held with the LDF Manager and p54 of the report which set out the levels of houses which would be required.  He asked if the minimum level of 3500 was needed or if it was the 7 -7500 target required.

The LDF Manager explained that it was the 7-7500 figure, dependent on the sites which were considered as part of King’s Lynn.  The overall total of 16500 properties would be required for the total period of time, 9000 of which had already been completed.

Councillor Gourlay asked how the targets set out in the Plan had been decided upon, and who would live in the additional properties.  The LDF Manager explained that the figures had been derived from analysis from the Core Strategy, and from population increase forecasts.  There were also changes in family structures, with more homes needed to cope with the current population, with the current demand of 660-690 new units pa.

Under Standing Order 34, Councillor McGuinness asked why housing growth was not being built upwards as in Cambridge, rather than outwards.   The LDF Manager responded that there were different markets operating in the 2 geographical areas, and the properties were developed to match to needs of the population, the land values and the construction costs of the build type.  He undertook to provide Councillor McGuinness with some further information on the issue.

Councillor Joyce made reference to the point he raised at the Cabinet meeting on the consistency of advice received from other agencies when planning consents were sought on flood plains.  He commented on the fact that the Planning Inspector had raised the issue of flood risk but referred to the level of flood risk being shown by the Environment Agency for a site adjacent to the river as opposed to one further inland. He asked how confident the Council was in the advice received from them or the County Council.  The LDF Manager responded that the confidence was that neither bodies had raised strategic objections to the Plan.

The LDF Manager reminded Members that the area was growing and it was important to make use of the land, as being in a flood plain did not preclude development, but required a flood risk assessment  to be undertaken and if those mitigation measures were found to be acceptable by the Environment Agency it was possible to build.

Councillor Gourlay made reference to a presentation received some years before at a Panel meeting that the risk of King’s Lynn flooding was a 1 in 150 year episode.  Councillor Gidney commented that the latest Environment Agency flood breach modelling was awaited, but it was necessary to go with the advice of the experts.

Councillor Joyce made further reference to the point he had made in the Cabinet meeting on some schools being over subscribed,  The LDF Manager responded that there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item CSC:45

The next meeting of the Cabinet Scrutiny Committee is scheduled to take place on Thursday 22^nd October 2015 at 6.00pm in the Committee Suite, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1EX.

The next scheduled meeting was 22 October 2015.