Agenda and 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 15^th October 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15^th October were approved 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

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None received.

The following request has been submitted by Cllr P Bailey for inclusion on the agenda:

Following the recent submission of a petition regarding access within Pretty Corner woods, the local member, Cllr Bailey, suggests that it would enhance relations between the Council and local communities, if arrangements for future engagement were formally agreed. He therefore proposes the following:

‘For the Countryside Team to proactively communicate with the public, in a timely fashion, regarding the way in which NNDC sites are managed, why they are managed in certain ways and what plans are in place when upcoming works on those sites are likely to cause disruption or a significant change going forward.’

Local members for both Sheringham North and South have indicated their support for the above.

The Committee considered a request submitted by Cllr Bailey, following the petition submitted regarding access to Pretty Corner Woods in Sheringham. He felt that the matter had highlighted some issues regarding engagement between the local community and the Countryside Team and proposed that arrangements for future engagement were put into place. He added that the proposal had been agreed with the Countryside team and the Portfolio Holder for Community, Leisure and Outreach. Local Members for Sheringham also supported this approach.

RESOLVED to support the following:

• For the Countryside Team to proactively communicate with the public, in a timely fashion, regarding the way in which NNDC sites are managed, why they are managed in certain ways and what plans are in place when upcoming works on those sites are likely to cause disruption or a significant change going forward.

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

None received.

Using the construction of Happisburgh car park as an example, Cllr Cushing queried through which Committees the delegated decisions passed, both for transparency purposes, and as decisions he felt should be accompanied by a substantial business case. The DSGM explained that some of the delegated decisions had been to Cabinet but she would review the table layout and cross reference to ensure it was clear if those decisions had been made by Cabinet or a particular officer. The DSGM said she would also provide confirmation in writing that the construction of the Happisburgh Road car park decision was made by Cabinet.

The Committee agreed to receive and note the report and the register of decisions taken under delegated powers.

Cllr Shires explained that NNDC was looking at a surplus at year end but warned the Committee to be mindful of the ‘unknowns’ that lay ahead, such as what was the Government funding settlement.

Cllr Penfold asked if the Council had an idea of the impact food waste collections would have on the budget and was the Council trying to mitigate any additional costs by looking to phase in the scheme. Cllr Shires explained that Central Government had vastly underestimated what it would cost to implement food waste collections. The Council was investigating the exact costs involved and seeking ways that would have the minimal impact on budget, but it would be an additional revenue cost.

Cllr Cushing asked what capital funded projects was the Council borrowing. Cllr Shires explained, when setting out the Capital Programme, they always indicated the intention to borrow but they were not currently borrowing. Cllr Shires said that to fund any project the Council would always look for best value for money so if they had the fluid funds available and didn’t have to pay the interest on borrowing, then the choice would always be not to externally borrow. Cllr Shires confirmed Cllr Cushing’s thinking was correct in that the figure £6.175m was just what could be borrowed but wasn’t currently being borrowed. The DFR explained in terms of funding capital expenditure there were three sources that could be used, capital receipts, grants or other forms of external income, or borrowing. Borrowing could be internal or external. The Council hadn’t needed to use external borrowing yet as it had used its own working capital, classing it as internal borrowing until such time the Council needed to borrow externally.

Cllr Cushing then queried the Council’s Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) and how that fitted in with borrowing. The DFR explained that was the element of internal and external borrowing that the Council hadn’t yet funded.

Cllr Hankins commended the finance team on the savings made but queried why the savings in business growth staffing had not been met. Cllr Shires explained the saving of £55k was put forward but at that stage they were not sure if they were going to get the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) money or any other grants. However, the Council received those grants but provided the Council didn’t get them next year the efficiency would be made. If it did receive the grant money the Council would retain the staff members necessary to enable those schemes to run properly.

The Chair had a query about restructuring and how much was coming out of revenue and how much out of reserve. The DFR did not have a precise split but advised that where restructuring savings were made by deleting temporary posts there was very little in terms of restructuring costs; where those posts were from the establishment or where compensation was due to individuals it was then that the Council would seek to use reserves, if it had them. Some areas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Cllr Shires explained that this was an annual process to ensure the Council was charging correctly and appropriately. Some of the fees were set by Government, some the Council was only allowed to recover costs, and there were others where it had more discretion. Cllr Shires explained that the Licensing charges had changed quite significantly. The ADELS confirmed this was thanks to an extensive piece of work by the ELBSM to review the fees and charges to ensure it was now based on a cost recovery basis. In answer to a question from Cllr Bayes the ADELS explained the change to a true cost recovery basis sat within guidance as to how the Council should be setting their fees and charges, but this meant that some would go down. What that also meant was there would be an annual fluctuation of those fees as they considered the cost it took to issue each licence from the previous year. For example, some caravan licences had increased but animal licences had been spilt across two parts so appeared lower to the previous year’s charges.

Cllr Shires noted that beach huts and chalets had been included incorrectly in the paper. The decision had been made to stop short term leases. Those figures would be removed.

The ADELS responded to a query from the Chair stating that other Environmental Health fees had been benchmarked where possible against neighbouring Councils. The ADELS explained to the Committee, after a question from Cllr Housden, that there was case law that the Council could not make a profit on licensing fees so there was no surplus to the fees charged.

Cllr Gray felt the cost for HCP parking seemed very cheap, and it was not performing as it should based on the investment the HCP had received. He wondered if any comparison had been done against similar country parks. The ADELS advised they had compared with other parks and found the cost comparable to similar sites. The ADELS acknowledged there had been investment but that was in staff and welfare and not something for which visitors would see the benefit.

Cllrs Shires said making HCP accessible for the public was important, as was making that asset sustainable beyond the life of the Council, so she would look to ensure the Council was getting best value and to investigate ways to possibly generate more income. Cllr Gray welcomed maintaining HCP as it was a valuable asset.

The Chair felt a little more explanation over the origin of the greater variance of fees, or why that was, as part of the report would have been helpful. Cllr Shires said that she was always happy to help the Committee and welcomed their feedback.

The Committee RESOLVED to recommend to Cabinet and Full Council:

• The fees and charges from 1^st April 2026 as included in Appendix A.

That delegated authority be given to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Finance and relevant Directors/Assistant Director to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Cllr Shires reminded the Committee that last year the Council had increased the car parking charges quite substantially and she was mindful that the Committee would have been more comfortable with no increase to the standard town car park charge this year. Therefore, the proposed 3.8% increase would only affect the Coastal and Resort tariffs. The Chair asked why it stated no increase to standard car park fees within the Fees and Charges papers when it wasn’t mentioned within the Car Park Fees and Charges recommendation. Cllr Shires was happy that the recommendation within Option 1 be re-worded to reflect that the standard town car parks would not be included in the 3.8% increase.

Cllr Shires explained that officers had initially looked at reviewing charges for season tickets every 2 years, but the Committee had previously felt that it would be better if they were reviewed annually to make a smaller stepped increase.   The current view was that, to minimise costs to local residents, the second part of the stepped increase was no longer required, so instead suggested an inflationary increase in Option 6. 

Cllr Shires also confirmed, on the back of a query from Cllr Penfold, that the 7-day tickets were increasing by 3.8% across all car parks, as it was previously found that a reduced rate was available when purchasing a 7-day ticket inland. These tickets could still be used across all NNDC car parks.

Cllr Hankins believed residents who did not own a car were subsidising those who did through any proposed increase in Council Tax. He also asked what car parks across the district cost to maintain and which of those car park facilities were not recovering their costs. Cllr Shires signposted the Committee to Pg.39 of the Budget Monitoring report and the business cost it took to keep each car park running. She felt the benefit of parking fees was that they were not restricted as with licensing fees and the revenue generated helped support discretional services, for example, public toilets and leisure assets. The standard inland car parks were there to support the market towns but were never going to be huge generators of income. Cllr Shires was not aware of any car park making a significant loss but was happy to bring back to the Committee another car parking review. Cllr Penfold believed the Committee was satisfied with the review and it did not have the appetite to look at it again so soon. However, Cllr Cushing thought this would be helpful as the Council headed towards LGR and questions were asked about what parts of the estate would go to any new unitary authority.

It was felt by the Committee that if it was to support the local economy it was essential to maintain the same prices for standard inland car parks and was not a case of rounding up because it was too difficult but a decision to protect those market towns. Cllr Heinrich welcomed this decision, but he queried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Net Zero, Cllr A Varley, introduced the report, highlighting the key points.

The Chair invited members to speak:

Cllr Penfold wished to know what control the Council had over contractors, when delivering projects, in terms of their emissions, and was there a process in place that ensured they weren’t just giving a contract to the cheapest option but were considering the environmental impact. Cllr Varley said the Council could exert some influence as it went out to tender for projects and it was keen to work with contractors with good eco credentials. The CEPM said that thanks to new procurement rules they could consider contractors on more than just price, such as the sustainability offer. The CEPM noted that the Climate Literacy training that staff undertook was very important as everyone across the organisation understood the importance of taking that into due consideration when awarding a contract.  

An example was raised by Cllr Fitch-Tillett of coastal works being undertaken in the Cromer area where the contractors had been taking the environmental impact of works into consideration and were looking to do all they could to offset carbon emissions.

Cllr Cushing wished to express that he supported reducing emissions but raised concerns that, when looking at the report, the emissions had barely reduced since a climate emergency was announced in 2019 and felt that any reductions the Council made were of minimal impact when considering the emissions on a global scale.

In response Cllr Varley agreed that in context the Council’s carbon emissions only amounted to 1% of emissions across North Norfolk but he felt strongly that it was important to influence and showcase what the Council did as a way forward in reducing emissions. Highlighting the benefit of working in a particular way that could save money for homes or businesses was very important. Cllr Varley felt the Council could facilitate change by supporting households and businesses and pushing the Net Zero agenda.

Cllr Varley said that many of the Council’s schemes were externally funded and did not cost the taxpayer any money. Cllr Cushing disagreed as the external funding came from central Government out of the taxes that everyone paid.

Cllr Heinrich felt that the Council might only be making small gains but lots of small gains added up, and everyone had a responsibility to tackle climate change. He felt it was important to encourage solar panels on more of the districts business and industrial buildings.

The CEPM answered a query from Cllr Heinrich in relation to properly vetting homes when insulating them to ensure no future problems, such as mould, and she assured him that the Council administered most of their grants through the Norfolk Warm Homes scheme which was very experienced. They had concentrated on floor and loft insulation and solar panels. They only worked with two long-established contractors who were very trusted, and they carried out inspections after each installation and had case studies going back several years that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

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.

Please note that this item will be followed by a short session for Committee members only to agree the scope of the session on mobile connectivity (scheduled for 28^th January)

The Committee agreed to see a review on the spend by Housing on temporary accommodation to ensure the Council was getting best value for money.

Cllr Penfold proposed the Committee invite the portfolio holder for Transport and Highways, at Norfolk County Council (NCC), to come and discuss public transport with the difficulties highlighted. The Committee also agreed to Cllr Housden’s proposal they could combine this alongside a discussion over speed limits in the district. Cllr Gray noted it was vital to focus on what the Committee wanted to ask and have evidence to support that focus beforehand if they were going to call in NCC.

The Chair and Cllr Heinrich proposed the Committee revisit health, with ambulance response times, closure of community facilities and to review access to local dentists a focus, of which the Committee agreed to adding to the 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.”