Agenda and draft minutes

None.

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 16^th July 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16^th July were approved as a correct record, subject the following amendment:

The additional recommendation (n) be reworded to align with the minutes from Full Council and to take out the reference to Pg.41.5.6(a)

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 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

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

Petition against the closure of the footpath, known as ‘God’s Path’, in Pretty Corner Woods, Sheringham

On the 13^th of August 2025 a paper petition with 738 signatures from residents stating addresses or post codes from within the North Norfolk District was submitted to the North Norfolk District Council. A further 27 signatories were provided but may not fall within the criteria to be accepted within the petition scheme due to insufficient information to support the signatory living, working or studying within the North Norfolk District Council area. The petition has been accepted as a valid petition.

The following aims of the petition were stated:

To restore public access to the footpath known as ‘God’s Path’ in Pretty Corner Woods, Sheringham.

The Committee heard from, Amanda Swann, speaker for the petition group looking to restore access to the path known locally as ‘God’s Path’ in Pretty Corner Woods, Sheringham.

Cllr Rouse asked the Countryside team how much it would cost to re-open the path. The LLSM said he would not be able to put a cost on that at that time. The ADELS wished to point out that the path, a ‘desire line’, was not a waymarked trail and nor would the Countryside Team recognise it as a path within Pretty Corner. They explained the path cut the corner off one of the waymarked trails. If they were to open that path it would mean a change to how they managed that block of woodland trees and there was an existing path already around it.

Cllr Heinrich felt aerial photos, from the Ordnance Survey, clearly showed the official paths but the path known locally as God’s Path was less visible and whilst acknowledging that the path was clearly well used the Committee would need more detail as to why it could not be re-opened. LLSM explained that the standard approach to managing sites was to use the waymarked trails as they were known to be safe and accessible. Woodland blocks were reserved for nature and regeneration. The Pretty Corner site was a County Wildlife Site, meaning it had been identified as rich in wildlife and sought to support locally threatened wildlife species and habitats. The Council was obligated to protect that and develop the wildlife habitats that existed there. As part of the County Council Nature Recovery Strategy, Pretty Corner had been identified as being of particular importance for Biodiversity. The block was due to be thinned, under a Felling License issued by Forestry England, to allow for natural regeneration which wouldn’t occur if people or dogs were walking through it. This approach was supported by partners, and the site had been awarded Green Flag status receiving the highest possible score. Local ecologists and the Wildlife Trust also supported the management of the site, highlighting that when desire lines go through blocks of trees it caused detrimental damage, including soil compaction and damage to tree root systems. The Countryside team firmly believed what they were doing was the right thing. There were approximately 8km of waymarked trails at Pretty Corner where people could walk and enjoy nature.

Cllr Boyle asked how much further someone would have to walk if they were to take the waymarked path. The LLSM did not have an exact distance to hand but said not much. He admitted as you went around the corner of the waymarked trail it went downhill and could be a little more challenging and as with all woodland sites it was undulating and could be difficult to access by its very nature. Cllr Boyle wished to confirm her understanding that some of those trees where the ‘God’s Path’ cut through were very mature and that is why they were being felled. CSTL  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

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 for consideration referred to the Committee by a member.

The PCC to provide an overview of the Police & Crime Plan and respond to questions

The Chair invited the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Sarah Taylor, to speak about the Police and Crime Plan for Norfolk and answer any questions.

The PCC responded to questions the Committee had sent in advance (attached as Minutes Appendix A). In response to a query from Cllr Boyle, the PCC outlined the priorities as set out in the Police and Crime Plan and said District priorities were set in the District priority meeting, held every quarter. The last meeting focussed on ways to target Anti-Social Behaviour across market towns in North Norfolk. The PCC explained that many of the questions posed to her were operational which was not her area of expertise.

In a follow up question by Cllr Boyle in relation to funding and redundancies the PCC said the Police had been experiencing cuts year on year for the past 14 years, so to some extent it was business as usual. The Police, the PCC believed, had responded extremely well to those cuts, maintaining that public safety would not be compromised which the PCC took as being very reassuring. That meant in terms of high risk, high harm crimes the Police were actively keeping us safe. However the Police simply didn’t have the capacity or resource to deal with the low harm, low risk crime that people see on a day-to-day basis. Norfolk and Suffolk had a shared space for funding that had been set up over 10 years ago to achieve cash savings and efficiencies. Norfolk had already realised a lot of efficiencies that other areas were only looking to achieve now, so going forward, the targets set by Government were not possible as they had already been reached. A new Policing Minister was now in post and the PCC would look to take that point forward with them.

Cllr Boyle asked how Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) would affect the role of the Police. The PCC believed it wouldn’t significantly impact the Police. The Police would still be there and operate independently, and their role would not change. The effectiveness of partnership working with such things as victim support and community safety had the potential to be significantly disrupted by Devolution and LGR. The PCC warned the Committee that they needed to be aware of the scope of that disruption. The PCC function would be incorporated into the Mayoral function from April 2027. No additional funding or resourcing to facilitate that transition had been provided by the Home Office or central Government. The PCC office had to absorb an extra £200k of work additional to the business-as-usual function. As a result, the PCC office did not have any intentions they could consider beyond the short-term. The PCC asked local Members to engage with the problem as those partners with whom the Police worked, would disappear (the District Council, the County Council, the Integrated Care Board (ICB) etc), and to work with community groups to bridge that gap and increase community resilience.

In response to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

To receive an update from the Director of Resources on the progress being made in implementing the Corporate Plan 2023-27 against the Action Plan 2024-25 and Action Plan 2025-26 – to end of Quarter 1 – 30 June 2025.

Cllr Fredericks, Portfolio Holder for Housing and People’s Services, introduced the report to the Committee.

Cllr Fletcher asked why household waste collection was rated green and not amber when there appeared to be issues in financing the strategy. The Chief Executive (CE) explained legislation required the Council to introduce green domestic food waste collections from April 2026. The Council had ordered the refuse freighters that would fulfil those collections and were moving forward, notwithstanding the uncertainty of the true and actual cost, for the introduction of domestic collections.

The CE assured the Committee the issue would be reported through Cabinet moving forward. Cllr Ringer, the Portfolio Holder for Waste Services, was working with Officers and explained that Cllr Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance, and the DR and S151 Officer would be monitoring for any shortfalls in funding the scheme that the Council needed to make up beyond the ‘New Burdens’ funding that the Government had awarded to the Council. 

Cllr Fletcher asked for assurances the scheme would be introduced on schedule. The CE said that approximately 160 Councils were having to introduce food waste collections at the same time so there was pressure on the supply chain of food caddies and the refuse freighters but orders for those had been made. The scheduling of those domestic collections and when they would start would depend on when the Council had been given notice those orders were to be delivered.

Cllr Housden asked about energy infrastructure as his local parish had been experiencing frequent power cuts and wondered if the Council was addressing the issue. The CE was not aware of the incidents but the Council did work with partners to continue to highlight the deficiencies within the UK Power Networks infrastructure within the District. The Council and partners did have an energy plan for the District, and with Anglian Water with regards to water resilience, moving forward. Cllr Fredericks asked Cllr Housden if he could email her the details as she was meeting with some of the energy companies that week.

The CE responded to a question from Cllr Cushing in relation to an Organisational Development Plan that was due in June 2024, but the Committee was no closer to seeing that and he wondered what success would look like and when would that plan be available to view. The CE explained work was undertaken in terms of recommendations from the Corporate Peer Review, LGR then came into effect so amended the draft document and he believed this would be presented to the Committee in November as the People Strategy and Learning Development (Workforce) Strategy.

Cllr Cushing also asked about the Rural Position Statement which should have been completed by August 2025 and wondered had this been done and why it was rated amber. The CE said following the English Devolution White Paper being published in December 2024 that outlined LGR the Council had to look at Organisational Capacity, both at an Officer and Member level, therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

To receive an update from the Director of Resources on the Council’s financial performance and projected outturn for 2025/26 for the revenue account, capital programme and reserves statement as at the end of July 2025.

Cllr Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Estates and Property Services introduced the report. She explained this was Period 4 and the first monitoring since the budget was set in February. Last year the Finance Team had made a change in the way they monitored the budget, so it now included a projection to year end. Outturn this time last year forecast a deficit of £1.3m. Because of the subsequent focus in the organisation, as reported in July the Council had £600k to put in general reserves. The Budget in February 2025 created a new reserve of £515K to support with the Council’s Homelessness budget. Cllr Shires explained they were projecting a small surplus of £138k at year end.

Cllr Cushing questioned what confidence the Committee could have that the forecast was accurate given past estimates and the variance of 22% last year. Cllr Shires was currently very confident. With food waste collections coming in, it was inevitable that would bring some changes along the way but if everything remained stable then she was as confident as she could be on the figures provided. Cllr Shires reiterated the Council could only control what was within its powers in house and external pressures and influences could have an impact that was not anticipated. Cllr Cushing agreed some variance was natural but would not expect a variance running into millions as per the previous year. Cllr Shires said when the budget was set in 2024/25, the Finance Team had changed how they monitored that budget process and that had always been openly communicated. There had been a collective push from Officers to save money and as the year progressed they could see that improvement due to having an early warning system in place. This was also about considering where the Council would be in the future financially and not just about setting the budget for the current year. Cllr Shires was already meeting with the ADFA and had been for some time in looking at the budget for 2026/27.

The Chair had a query on the use of £500k in reserves that Environmental Health anticipated using and wondered what that spend was on. Cllr Shires explained that was a cost they had decided would be funded by the budget so not a new change but something they were expecting to spend from reserves. Cllr Shires agreed to provide an exact reason in writing. The Chair also wondered with regards to dog waste and litter bins if that was the total savings listed on Pg.87 and Cllr Shires explained that with the small increase in the charge for emptying those bins that was the income the Council was predicting to make from that. 

In relation to general funds and how much council tax came from 2^nd homes, Cllr Bayes asked if there was a breakdown of those figures. Cllr Shires referred the Committee to Pg.86 and the Second Home Premium reserve which was where the share NNDC took from the premium  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Cllr Boyle summarised the July meeting where the Norfolk Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (NHOSC) had looked at changes that were going on around the abolition of NHS England over the course of the next 2 years and the 50% cut in the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and the subsequent reorganisation process. The NHOSC did write to the Secretary of State for Health over the disbanding of HealthWatch; they had been given a year’s grace to Cllr Boyle’s understanding, but the NHOSC Committee had felt very compelled to write due to all the excellent work of HealthWatch.

The Chair asked how big ICB Norfolk was compared to other partner organisations. Cllr Boyle suspected it could be that if Norfolk and Suffolk were joined together, it would be very big indeed. Despite the uncertainty ICB Norfolk were determined to make as many plans as they could to hand the service on in a good way.

The Chair asked the Committee to consider sending their own letter to the Secretary of State for Health over the abolition of HealthWatch and to say it would be very detrimental to the health care system of Norfolk. The Chair also asked the Committee if they had a view that the proposed joining of the Norfolk and Suffolk ICB would also be detrimental given that the standard of the healthcare system in Norfolk was under strain.

Cllr Fletcher noted a real concern in the reduction of staff by 50% and the effect on staff wellbeing. Cllr Boyle said they were keen to express that cuts were on the admin side of the ICBs and not what the ICB do, so what they would be producing would remain the same but half the number of people organising it. Cllr Fletcher felt there was a question there in regards the organisation’s efficiency if they were experiencing cuts that deeply.

Cllr Boyle was happy to compose a letter to the ICB outlining the Committee’s concerns. Cllr Bayes was in agreement that as a Committee they should be asking the ICB to reconsider their decision over HealthWatch as it was important as a Council we recognised the good work they did and the impact it would have.

1.     The Committee noted the report and AGREED to write, as a Committee to the Secretary of State for Health to express the detrimental effect the closure of HealthWatch would be for Norfolk and to ask them to reconsider their decision, liaising with NHOSC in doing so.

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

Noted

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

No comments

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.

The Committee looked at the scoping document in reference to the Mobile Connectivity issue and the Chair asked for suggestions on how they would like to look into this subject further. The DSGM explained the scoping document was a way of staying focused on what the Committee wished to look at in more detail.

Cllr Hankins welcomed the fact mobile connectivity was brought to the fore and felt there was a need to prioritise, when talking to providers, on two principal requirements, in terms of health and business. For example, where defibrillators were unable to connect online or where some business have very poor mobile broadband.

Cllr Cushing questioned how to identify if those so called not-spots existed and how this could be demonstrated. Cllr Housden felt that was tricky, as online you could get maps from the providers of their coverage areas and where there were not-spots. If you talked to those providers, you would find that many joined together to improve the network. Also, some of those 3G masts had been taken down so it was difficult to know where to start. Cllr Housden suggested undertaking a scoping document just for the Committee to look at to really define what it is the committee wanted from the providers.

The Chair said Cllr Toye had done some work in collating data on the issue but questioned whether that would be enough for the Committee to focus on. Therefore, the Chair suggested that the Committee could wait to see what the data showed before scoping out the full review. Cllr Housden agreed as a base was needed as a starting point. He agreed that the Committee should call in some of those providers to respond to questions, as the signal in North Norfolk was appalling.

Cllr Gray felt that without proper data the Committee was in danger of asking providers to attend a meeting with no proper questions to ask, adding that it needed to be the right request to get the providers to commit. Cllr Gray believed Norfolk County Council ran a similar data gathering exercise and suggested that it would be worth checking what they had discovered, to then be considered alongside the report from Cllr Toye before the Committee pushed forward.

Cllr Hankins felt the Committee needed to ask providers the hard question, which was identifying where the signal was bad and asking them what they were going to do about it. Cllr Heinrich said much of this would depend on what network you were on, he felt a range of data was needed to identify which providers were guilty of the biggest not-spots and not just a broad map of where signals were weak. Also, greater clarity was needed on when 5G would be rolled out.

Cllr Shires noted how the Committee’s work programme was extremely busy and asked if it would be useful if she and the ADFA sent the Committee some information on what they were doing as a written report rather  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

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.”