Agenda and minutes

To be notified at the meeting of any substitutions.

Apologies were received from Cllrs P Bailey, J Boyle, A Fletcher, M Hankins, P Heinrich and L Vickers. Cllr P Neatherway substituted for Cllr L Vickers.

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 12^th March 2025

The minutes of the meeting held on 12^th March were agreed 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.

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.

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.

There were no matters to consider.

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

An extract from the Cabinet minutes of 3^rd March is attached setting out Cabinet’s response to recommendations from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

The Chairman advised members that there were no responses from Cabinet or Council to report at this time.

Recommendation: that the Committee considers the evaluation report and makes any observations on the delivery of the programme and its outputs/outcomes to Cabinet.

Cllr J Toye, Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth, introduced this item. He explained that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was a three-year Government funding programme 2022 – 2025 with an allocation to NNDC of £1.2 million for North Norfolk and that the Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) was a two-year Government programme 2023 – 2025 of capital grant funding of £1.4 million awarded to NNDC.

Both programmes aimed to support local economic priorities. Collectively the grant and support schemes delivered locally had leveraged an additional £2,858,782 of public, private and community sector investment across the District. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was a three-year Government funding programme 2022 – 2025 with an allocation to NNDC of £1.2 million for North Norfolk.

The Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF) was a two-year Government programme 2023 – 2025 of capital grant funding of £1.4 million awarded to NNDC.

Both programmes aim to support local economic priorities. Collectively the grant and support schemes delivered locally have leveraged an additional £2,858,782 of public, private and community sector investment across the District.

Both programmes were on track to complete and be fully defrayed by 31 March 2025. The total value of programmes that were delivering support to communities and businesses in the District equated to £5,554,899.

In mid-December 2024 the Government announced an additional year of UKSPF transition funding for 2025-2026. NNDC was awarded £405,095 comprising £330,302 revenue and £74,793 capital. On 4 March the government announced that the REPF will be extended for a further year with up to £33 million available nationally to support economic growth. He added that the scheme outline and the expected award to NNDC were yet to be confirmed.

Cllr Toye presented a series of slides, outlining the key areas of delivery for the two funds.

The Chairman thanked Cllr Toye and invited members to speak:

The Chaiman, Cllr N Dixon, commented that most of the funding came from central government via the Levelling Up programme and NNDC was effectively the administrator for the two schemes. He sought clarification that the report and supporting documents presented to members was the outcome of assessments, in accordance with the criteria of the schemes, undertaken by officers, with input from the portfolio holder. Cllr Toye replied that the Council had contributed money and leveraged additional funding too, considerably boosting the amount of funding available.

The Chairman thanked him for the clarification and said that the impression had been that the Council had provided most of the funding. Cllr Toye replied that the initial funding had come from central government and NNDC had been able to ‘grow’ this considerably.

Cllr S Penfold said that it was important to acknowledge the value added by officer’s expertise and input to delivery of the scheme. He referred to page 64 onwards ‘Supported Businesses’ and asked for more information on how those businesses which were based out of the district were supported. Cllr Toye replied that some of these businesses may be based elsewhere but operate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 287.

Recommendation: The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is invited to discuss and comment on the proposals outlined in the Norfolk and Waveney ICB public consultation documents, with the Committee’s views forming the Council’s corporate response to the consultation.

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to introduce this item.

The Chief Executive began by explaining that the Norfolk and Waveney Integrated Care Board was undertaking a public consultation on possible changes to the Out of Hours GP Service (which at present has bases in Fakenham and North Walsham); the Norwich Walk-In Centre and Vulnerable Adults Service. The consultation would run until 27th April and members were invited to comment and officers would prepare a response for submission.

The Chairman invited members to speak:

Cllr C Cushing spoke as Local member for Fakenham. He said that the data showed a significant drop in the number of patients using the out of hours GP service at Fakenham but there was no explanation as to why this was happening. He said that demand was there and queried whether it was not being promoted sufficiently and people were not aware of it. He said he would be very reluctant to see it removed.

Cllr V Holliday said that she had worked for the out of hours service at Fakenham for 15 years and she questioned the data and wondered where people were going for treatment. She wondered whether there was a GP available at Fakenham to see patients at weekends and queried the data. She added that it was likely to drive people to A&E to see a doctor. It was important to enhance the service rather than withdraw it.

Cllr S Penfold said that he supported the previous speakers and the questions around data and this was also relevant to the North Walsham service. He added that the town was earmarked in the Local Plan for substantial housing development and this should be taken into account.

The Chairman added that there was already considerable pressure on the ambulance service in rural areas and the out of hours service was more relevant in this context.

Cllr N Housden agreed with Cllr Cushing’s comments and said that the out of hours service should be invested in rather than removed.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett said that the data could be skewed due to the Covid pandemic, with many people avoiding using medical services to ease pressure.

Cllr M Batey agreed with all of the comments so far. Local services were needed as A&E could not cope with the current numbers using it.

Cllr Holliday said that a theme was emerging of centralising services and the demographic of the district showed that demand for local services was increasing not reducing. She added that GPs were highly skilled and the pathway to treatment would be quicker if a patient was assessed by a GP.

Cllr Penfold agreed that the report was quite broad in its approach and did not make it clear that out of hours appointments related to emergencies rather than routine appointments. He agreed with Cllr Fitch-Tillett’s observation about the impact of the pandemic on the data.

The Chief Executive said that he had noted the comments and would prepare a response to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 288.

Cllr Holliday commented on the proposed changes to the Norwich Walk in Centre. She said that residents could use the walk-in centre if they couldn’t access A&E. It was proposed that any money saved from closing the walk-in centre would be spent on urban based GP practices. Local residents would lose access to the walk-in centre and not gain from the increased spending on GP practices. She felt that this was not an acceptable option. It was agreed that these concerns would be added to the response to the Norfolk & Waveney ICB consultation. Members felt that the preferred option, if the centre was closed, was that the savings were spent across Norfolk and Waveney and not focussed on urban areas. Cllr Penfold said that he did not support proposals to close the walk-in centre. It was a valuable resource and should be maintained.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

Please note that the work programme is subject to change and the latest version can be viewed here: Home | Cabinet work programme

Members noted the Cabinet Work Programme.

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

To consider feedback from the Self-Assessment Question Set.

The Scrutiny Officer updated members on the Action Tracker.

Cllr Holliday asked for clarification on when an update on the additional work on the Economic Strategy would come back to the committee for consideration.

Cllr Cushing said that some of the actions had been outstanding for over a year and he requested an update on when these would be dealt with. He added that it would be helpful to have a column on the matrix listing who was responsible for the action.

The Chairman requested that the tracker was included in future agendas.

Cllr Housden asked whether Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) could be included in the programme. The Chairman agreed and said that it could be added as a future item.

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.”