Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillors Penfold and Vickers.

There were no substitutes at the meeting.

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

The Committee heard from Siri Taylor from the "Save Benjamin Court as a Reablement Unit" Group who asked –

NHS Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board has rejected calls to reopen Benjamin Court as a centre for post-hospital reablement, despite this being the overwhelming view of respondents to the Healthwatch survey they themselves commissioned and has handed the building back to NHS Property Services. As NNDC has spoken up publicly and powerfully in support of Benjamin Court reopening, what steps is the Council taking to challenge the ICB's decision? And will the Council make representation to NHS Property Services to ensure that this important location is secured for health and care services?

The Chief Executive (CEX) advised that he and the Leader of the Council had been involved with the Campaign since the start of the year. A public meeting had been held in March 2024 where it was agreed that there would be a formal consultation on the future of the facility. A further public meeting was held in July and Health Watch had undertaken a public engagement exercise that recommended investigation of the reinstatement of the re-enablement service to Benjamin Court as an option for the future of the building.

The Council had submitted strong representation to the formal public consultation in support of a rehabilitation facility at Benjamin Court. The Council’s position was that in taking a system wide approach there would be efficiencies to be realised by lower care costs being provided in the local community rather than at the Acute Hospital.

The Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive wrote a letter to the new Secretary of State and the Health Minister has responded by referring to the process that has been followed by the Integrated Care Board (ICB).

Councillor Holliday suggested that this issue should go to the November full council meeting to allow time to look at data such as the cost of the delayed discharges to assess the financial efficiencies and the numbers of digitally excluded people in the district where the concept of virtual wards would be very difficult to implement. At the full council meeting there could be a debate as to whether to refer to NHS Property Services, the Norfolk Health and Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the possibility of referring the decision to the Secretary of State.

Councillor Heinrich agreed and added that another factor was the availability of ancillary care that was underpaid and undervalued which meant that getting additional support into people’s homes was highly unlikely.

Councillor Housden asked whether there were financial accounts for Benjamin Court. The CEX advised that the ICB had advised that the cost of reoccupying the facility was £350,000 a year before you added on staff costs. The Council had estimated that £6m would be saved from the overall health and social care system if the facility was reopened.

Councillor Adams commented that he would like to write to the Secretary of State on the current position of centralising services  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 20 September 2024.

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2024 and agreed that they should be approved subject to the addition of the comment by Councillor Shires that Norfolk County Council had £1.8m of funding as a Tier 1 authority to assess the need for accommodation for domestic abuse victims in their area and should be asked about how they were using this funding.

Councillor Holliday referred to the written answers given in respect of Minute 191 budget monitoring.

The Director of Resources (DoR) advised that the Council Tax precept had to be paid to the County Council and the Police on the 19th of each month and the Council received its council tax income from the public on the 1^st, 10^th and 20^th of the month which made the council short of cash at times and it needed to borrow for cash flow purposes.

Councillor Cushing asked if either of the options of asking the County Council to move the payment to the 21^st or changing the final public payment to the 18^th had been explored.

The DoR advised that changing the dates of direct debits could be made in April 2025 and there would be some work needed to explore the implications of that change.

The DoR confirmed that the £8m internal borrowing for the Reef and the Refuse Freighters would need to be covered at some time in the future when interest rates were more favourable by external borrowing probably through a 40-year Public Works Loan Board Bond for the Reef and a short-term loan for refuse freighters.

The DoR advised that moving the £150,000 in the capital programme from Public Conveniences Energy Efficiencies to providing for additional new temporary accommodation was possible and would need to go to full council but the savings it would generate would not be anywhere in the region of £150,000, take a long time to accumulate and would not get one property for that cost.

Councillor Holliday commented that the £150,000 was a metaphor and there were larger sums in the capital programme where a similar thought process would be useful to achieve additional savings.

Resolved – that the minutes, as amended, of the meeting held on 20 September 2024 be agreed as a correct record.

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 received.

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None received.

To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, submitted to the Democratic Services Manager 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:

Councillor Holliday asked what progress had been made during the year on the recommendations from the Committee and further asked when the committee would see the outcomes from the Homelessness Task and Finish Group’s recommendations.

Councillor Hankins asked about the progress being made on the recommendations regarding the Ambulance Trust.

The Scrutiny Officer advised that the tracker outcomes did need updating and they would be chased including on the Ambulance Response Times. The Cabinet had agreed with the Task and Finish Group’s recommendations, and they were to be put into the Council’s Housing Strategy apart from the one recommendation that Councillor Brown had dealt with as an urgent matter. At other authorities it was common practise for the Executive to respond to Task and Finish Group’s recommendations in detail and it could be appropriate to ask for an update on their progress at the January Committee meeting.

Resolved – that the progress being made against all the recommendations from the Homelessness Task and Finish group be reported to the January Committee meeting.

To consider a report from the Director of Resources on the Council’s current car park fees and charges and on a number of options for new charges in the 2025/26 Financial Year.

Proposed time 45 minutes

The Committee considered Option 1 outlined in the report on increasing fees across all the Council’s Car Parks.

Councillor Fletcher asked if it would make sense to have a sliding scale of charges where the car parks used by tourists have higher increases than those used primarily by local residents.

Councillor Heinrich commented that a flat rate increase penalised market towns more and the town centres did need car borne shoppers. A small increase of 10p could be made in the market towns which doesn’t generate the bulk of the income and increase by 30p or 40p in the resorts.

Councillor Cushing agreed with these suggestions as Fakenham shops needed all the encouragement they could get to support the trade, and it was largely the residents who used the car parks in Fakenham. An increase on 10p or no increase would be preferable.

Councillor Holliday asked what could be done to reduce the costs of running the car parks as they looked quite high and questioned how they compared with other areas. Reducing these would help with increasing the net income and improving the Council’s financial position.

Councillor Shires advised that premises was the highest cost and that includes Business Rates of £377,000 annually but was happy to have a look at the costs in detail.

Councillor Hankins supported the idea that the charges for tourists should be higher than for local residents as the Council should look at ways to increase the footfall in the market towns. In terms of the season tickets for the car parks asked if they were largely taken up by residents.

Councillor Shires advised that is predominately local residents but does include people who commute from outside the district to work or study in the district.

Councillor Heinrich suggested that a charge of 40p for the Coastal and Resorts Car parks should be explored. Councillor Cushing added that it was not clear what the financial income would be for a 30p increase on coastal and resort car parks and if sufficient income was being raised it could be possible not to raise the charges for the standard car parks. 

Councillor Shires advised that the Council was not covering the cost of inflation of running the car parks if there was no increase in the charge at the standard car park.

The Committee agreed to recommend that fees for the Council’s Standard Car Parks be increased by 10p per hour, for the Coastal and Resort Car Parks be increased by 30p per hour, and that the question of whether there could be no increase in fees at the standard car parks and a charge of 40p at the Coastal and Resort car parks be explored.

Councillor Housden raised the question of bedroom tax which was being introduced in other coastal areas and should be considered by the council. Councillor Shires advised that the Cabinet had discussed it, and it would need to be part of a Business Improvement Bid.

Councillor Adams advised that there wasn’t  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

To consider an annual review of the Beach Huts and Chalets service, for a 12-month period between 2023/24 and 2024/25. 

Proposed time 45 minutes

Councillor Bailey commented that there was a proposed increase in charges for leased beach huts and chalets that averaged 5% and there was an increasing number of people on the waiting list. In a commercial business the response to that level of demand would be to increase the leased charges, to get a better throughput of people on the list and to test the market to understand what people would be prepared to pay.

Councillor Bailey added that it would be good to have people not waiting so long on the waiting list and it might encourage people to hand back unused huts rather than hanging on to them.

Councillor Bailey stated that the average booking for the weekly lets was 46% but that was skewered by the winter bookings and that meant only about 25% bookings during the summer.

Councillor Bailey suggested that the long term lets could be increased by £60, £70 or £80 which would be about 14% which would cover the costs of maintenance in the winter. The Council could move approximately 50% of its weekly huts into long term huts.

Councillor Shires commented on what that might mean for staff costs and maintenance as well as the public expectation for some people as their sense of wellbeing as being by the coast. There could be a reputational damage if the Council went quickly towards a commercial approach.

Councillor Bailey commented that those who would lose out would be the casual users, but the figures suggested that there weren’t many and those people who regularly used the huts could continue to do so. It wasn’t a necessity to have a beach hut and increasing charges could help fund essential Council services. Added to this, the decision to use a management company could be deferred until the council understood the market level price point.

Councillor Cushing commented that the council earned £41,000 from the weekly lets. It was unclear what the net annual figure was although it looked like 50% of that was spent on the costs. That seemed a small figure when there is such a long waiting list. People were also paying to be on the waiting list and getting nothing for it.

Councillor Boyle stated it was likely that a commercial organisation would increase the prices anyhow and that if it was not a commercial success the council would then have to pick up a failed service.

Councillor Heinrich asked about the comparison with other authorities and how they ran the service and how did the charges compare. It did seem that the service needed to be run on more of a commercial basis and it was unclear whether that was better run by the council or by a commercial operator. However, option D within the report did have some attraction which would allow huts to be sublet by companies. It could also be possible to hold back some units for people who needed them for health reasons.

The Estates and Asset Strategy Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

To consider a report from the Director for Place and Climate Change that provides an update on the progress towards the completion of the Council’s Planning Service Improvement Plan.

Proposed time 30 minutes

Councillor Dixon reflected that he was now hearing more positive feedback from the public and that there were more constructive approaches being taken by the council’s planning service.

Councillor Hankins welcomed the improvement and that the pre application guidance is vital and individual applicants had appreciated it as well as the training for Parish Councils. The measure of success will be in six months’ time but so far so good.

Councillor Hankins asked about Section 106 agreements and whether a clearer definition of how, what and why agreements were reached would be useful.

Councillor Cushing further asked about the monies the Council received from Section 106 agreements and that they were being spent in a timely manner.

The Assistant Director Planning (ADP) advised that it could be worth focusing on these agreements with the Parish Councils as there does seem to be some misunderstanding of the processes involved as this was different to the community investment levy that other authorities across the country used.

The ADP added that the money the Council could get had to relate to the development and meet policy objectives. You did not want to get to the point where you had to give money back to the developer, the Council needed to deliver on the projects in a timely manner and be transparent on what was being spent. The Council now has an online system where you can see how the Council is spending this money.

Councillor Boyle welcomed the virtual training course and thanked the officers for turning round a challenging service to one that was receiving national recognition.

Councillor Heinrich stated that the two things that will make the biggest difference are the new validation list and the changes to the pre application process which can result in higher quality applications that can be more quickly assessed. Very few of the Council’s decisions on planning applications get overturned on appeal.

The ADP advised that the Council’s appeal record was astonishingly good, but it wouldn’t take many decisions for those percentages to come down. A perfect record might suggest that the Council is allowing too many of the marginal decisions. Getting the Improvement process completed doesn’t mean that the Council will stop to seek to make improvements to the service each year.

Councillor Holliday commented that there had not been a direct view taken from all the Parish and Town Councils on the service but there was a number of performance indicators being introduced although there was a concern about the total number of indicators involved.

The ADP stated that the Council did really well on the two metrics that the Government are most interested in, but it needed a bigger list of indicators to get a rounded assessment of how well the service was performing. It will be a challenge to stay at the top.

Councillor Dixon asked about the new government housing targets that could mean a lot more planning applications coming forward and to what extent the service has the capacity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 207.

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.

Proposed time 30 minutes

The Democratic Services (Scrutiny) Officer advised that there had been a change to the workplan since the last meeting to ensure that the committee focused on the Council’s budget at its meetings in November and December.

Resolved – that the committee’s work plan be agreed.

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.”

Not needed as there was no exempt information on the agenda.