Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr N Housden and Cllr L Withington.

Cllr T Adams.

To receive questions / statements from the public, if any.

None received.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 8^th December 2021.

Minutes of the meeting held on 8^th December 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

None received.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

None declared.

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None received.

To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to the Monitoring Officer with seven clear working days’ notice, to include an item on the agenda of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

None received.

To consider any responses of the Council or the Cabinet to the Committee’s reports or recommendations:

None to report.

To receive and note the report.

The ADSG introduced the report and informed Members that the placemaking scheme consultation had concluded in the autumn, with responses now published on the Council’s website. The PMNW reported that technical surveys had been undertaken parallel to the consultation, with designs amended and ready to move into the construction stage of the project. She added that restoration of the Cedars had progressed to the procurement stage, and that architects had been appointed for the building improvement scheme.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr S Penfold noted that he had been working with officers and schools to develop the town as an open classroom and learning resource. He added that for this to work, it was necessary to establish a learning base, and asked whether this to be incorporated into the Cedars renovation project. The PMNW replied that the proposals for the Cedars project did include the development of an indoor activity space, and it was suggested that this would be ideally placed to support the proposals.

RESOLVED

To receive and note the update.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer:

annie.sommazzi@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Cllr N Lloyd – Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, Climate Change and Environment introduced the report and informed Members that addressing climate change was crucially important. He added that failure to limit carbon emissions now, would result in higher costs at a later date, and it was therefore key to help reduce carbon emissions now and lead by example. It was stated that reducing the Council’s carbon emissions would require an organisation-wide approach to meet the objective of net zero by 2030. Cllr N Lloyd informed Members that the Strategy and Action Plan outlined the process by which this would be achieved, using an evidence based approach. The CEPM referred to the declaration of a climate emergency in April 2019, from which the Net Zero Strategy had arisen, and informed Members that the Council had worked with external consultants to determine the Council’s carbon baseline and develop the Strategy. She added that the Strategy would remain an agile document that could be updated as and when necessary to allow a flexible approach. It was noted that actions outlined in the Plan were yet to be costed, and funding would need to be agreed on a case by case basis, with some projects expected to generate modest savings. The CEPM stated that whilst the Strategy would feed into the Government’s 2050 target, it was not a legally binding document. She added that the Strategy would be promoted once approved, and any failure to adhere to the Strategy could result in reputational risk to the Council.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that the Strategy was a crucial element of the Corporate Plan and suggested that it was important that it was given adequate time and attention for Members to fully understand and be able to promote it. He added that it would be prudent to recommend that Members be provided with an additional briefing on the Strategy in advance approval by Council.

      ii.          Cllr S Penfold reiterated the Chairman’s comments and asked whether there was any opportunity to better establish Member’s role in the development and promotion of the Strategy. The Chairman asked whether this could be considered in advance of the Strategy being reviewed by Council. Cllr N Lloyd agreed that it should be given consideration, and noted that videos documenting the development of the Strategy were still available on YouTube, and further training could be provided, if requested.

     iii.          Cllr J Toye stated that he was cautious of the Strategy being too prescriptive with regards to Member involvement, and suggested that training should focus on what Members could do, rather than what they should. The Chairman agreed and noted that flexibility would be crucial for Member involvement as each ward had different requirements.

    iv.          Cllr P Heinrich sought assurances that the Strategy would be measured against recognised standards, and that monitoring would take place on at least an annual basis. Cllr N Lloyd replied that whilst carbon reduction strategies were an emerging area, the Council was using internationally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Matt Stembrowicz, 01263 516047, matthew.stembrowicz@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Rob Young, 01263 516162, Robert.young@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The DSGOS introduced the report and informed Members that whilst most projects were complete, the MTI Project had run for much longer than originally anticipated, primarily as a result of delays caused by Covid-19. He added that several notable projects had been picked up by local press, such as public events that had brought hundreds of visitors into town centres, re-occupied empty high street shops and a project that had led to further grant funding success. In terms of process, it was noted that the available resource for the project was limited, which had placed constraints on the time available to monitor projects. The DSGOS noted that the project also sought to allow applicants the freedom to manage and develop their own projects, which had worked well in most cases, though issues were outlined in the report. He added that projects were still active in Stalham and Holt, with monitoring in place and support offered to help bring the projects to completion.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr S Penfold noted thanks to officers for delivering the project and suggested that if a similar scheme were run again in the future, assurances must be sought that dedicated resource is available to fully resource the project. He added that any future projects could also utilise phased grant payments to ensure that projects were delivered on a more timely basis, though this would require additional resource.

      ii.          Cllr A Brown thanked officers for their work and praised funding of the Holt Chamber of Commerce rebranding, which had allowed Love Holt to work with commercial landlords to offer vacant units to start-up businesses. He then asked whether this initiative had been shared with other towns and whether it had been replicated. The DSGOS replied that he had informed other towns of the initiative, but was yet to see any replication of the scheme.

     iii.          Cllr E Seward referred to the North Walsham Project where funding had been used to reinvigorate the precinct area, and noted that whilst it took time to see the benefits of the project, there were signs of increased footfall and trade in the area.

    iv.          Cllr L Shires thanked officers for their work and noted that as Chair of the MTI Working Group, allowing applicants flexibility during Covid-19 had been crucial. She added that the Stalham archway was a standout success and asked whether it would be helpful to seek feedback from applicants. The DSGOS agreed that it would be helpful to seek feedback and stated that it was unfortunate that so many projects completed during the Pandemic were unable to be promoted and celebrated in the way they deserved. He added that it could be useful for the Communications Team to prepare a summary news item to cover the successes achieved by the project. The Chairman agreed that this would be worthwhile, especially for residents that were unaware of how the projects had been funded.

RESOLVED

1.     To note the overall success of the MTI Grant Fund, review the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

The DFR introduced the report an informed Members that it was yet to be discussed by Cabinet, and the Committee were asked to consider the options to make recommendations on a key income source for the Council. It was noted that forecasted budget deficits created pressure to increase funding streams where possible, to strengthen the Council financial position. The DFR stated that there were significant costs required to fund the discretionary services that supported tourism in excess of £2m, whilst parking charges had not been increased since 2016. He added that it was therefore appropriate to consider whether charges could be increased to help address the Council’s financial sustainability. It was noted that the Council’s inflation also stood at approximately £1m per year, which placed further pressure on the budget. The DFR stated that at present, car parking income amounted to approximately £1.6m, with charges payable from 8.00am to 6.00pm across three tariffs including coastal, resort and standard. He added that the majority of parking income was generated by coastal car parks on a seasonal basis, with limited free parking available in some inland market towns to support businesses. The DFR summarised existing ticket and payment options, and noted that any changes would require a statutory parking order to ratify the changes.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr P Heinrich noted that it was regrettably clear that prices had to rise to account for the impact of inflation, however he felt that the increases should not exceed the CPI inflation rate, as residents were already suffering from cost of living increases. He added that tourists must contribute to the cost of services, and noted that North Norfolk charges were lower than many neighbouring areas, and it was therefore reasonable to consider increases of 25-30% during peak season. Cllr P Heinrich suggested that he would also like to see parking charges remain low in market towns to help businesses, whilst he was supportive of season tickets increases in-line with CPI inflation, so long as they were only available to residents. He added that evening parking should remain free in market towns, alongside consideration of free Sunday parking to better support hospitality businesses.

      ii.          Cllr T Adams stated that he was in favour of reasonable price increases tied to CPI inflation, and suggested that these should be focused on high tourism areas. He added that there had been a notable increase in the use of Council services during the Pandemic, and it was clear that this had created additional cost pressures that had to be covered. Cllr T Adams stated that he was encouraged to see strong usage of free short stay parking in Stalham and North Walsham, with hopes that this would be retained. He added that overall the strategy needed to focus on the customer experience, with technology such as ANPR and app payments to address long wait times for ticket purchases. It was noted that Cllr T Adams was also supportive of residential season tickets, retaining free night-time parking, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Lucy Hume, Chief Technical Accountant, 01263 516246

Cllr E Seward – Portfolio Holder for Finance and Assets introduced the report and informed Members that efforts to produce the draft budget were constrained by restrictive timescales, as the provisional financial settlement had only been received on 16^th December. He added that with the report required by 4^th January, preparation time was particularly restricted by the Christmas period, which meant that many aspects of the budget were based on predictions at this stage. Cllr E Seward referred to the general fund summary and noted that whilst net operating expenditure was not expected to change, many funding streams could be lost that would result in significant deficits. It was noted that funding reviews could be delayed for several years, in which case, forecasted deficits would not be applicable in the immediate future. Cllr E Seward stated that the administration would have been supportive of increased commercialisation, however changes in legislation meant that this was no longer possible.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman sought clarification on whether Council’s could use their existing funds to support commercialisation projects, if they didn't need to borrow money to fund them. Cllr E Seward replied that this was correct, however it was noted that borrowing of any kind would be difficult if the Council had self-funded a commercial venture. The CTA confirmed that the Public Works Load Board (PWLB) would effectively ban any Council from borrowing that had recently undertaken a commercial project, even if self-funded. She added that this would present an issue as the PWLB were the Council’s key source for borrowing.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing referred to the Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB) exercise and asked whether this had revealed anything significant. Cllr E Seward replied that it had given Cabinet and officers a better understanding of the financial pressures and demands faced by all departments of the Council. He added that it had also highlighted other issues, such as capitalising the coastal scheme to provide additional security, and ensuring that growth related to the key objectives of the Corporate Plan. The CTA noted that as this was the first time the Council had undertaken ZBB, the key aim was determine the costs required to deliver the Corporate Plan, which had now been included with the draft budget.

     iii.          Cllr A Brown asked when officers would receive final confirmation of income, in advance of Council agreeing the budget in February. The CTA replied that there were different areas of uncertainty around income generation, though this primarily related to grants from Central Government, that were expected in the first week of February. She added that business rates projections were also expected to be complete by the end of January, alongside Council Tax projections, with an assumed increase to be confirmed by Council in February.

RESOLVED

To note the report.  

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DSGOS informed Members that recommendations on car parking charges would go to the January 31^st Cabinet meeting, and a key decision on renewal of the leisure contract was also expected in the months ahead.

RESOLVED

To note the Cabinet Work Programme.

To receive an update from the Scrutiny Officer on progress made with topics on its agreed work programme, training updates and to receive any further information which Members may have requested at a previous meeting.

       i.          The DSGOS informed Members that February was expected to be a busy meeting, though the Reef Project Review would be delayed until either March or April to allow more operational time prior to preparing the report. He added that arrangements had also been made for the Police and Crime Commissioner to attend the March meeting, to provide a briefing on the Police, Crime and Community Safety Plan, alongside an update on the Safer Norfolk Plan reviewed previously.

      ii.          Members were informed that no response had been received from EEAST on the RRV letter.

RESOLVED

To note the Overview & Scrutiny Work Programme.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:

“That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph _ of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”