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 the 12^th of November 2025.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12^th November were approved as a correct record barring the following minor amendments.

Pg.2 1^st paragraph to remove ‘and’ or ‘but’ after year end.

Pg 2. Licencing spelled incorrectly in American English.

Pg.7. Add additional ‘T’ to end of Cllr Fitch-Tillett

Pg.7. Small gains rather than small gain

Pg.8.2^nd paragraph it should be decarbonise rather than decarbon

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.

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.

(9.35 – 9.45am)

To Nominate and Recommend to Full Council a representative to sit on the board of the Norfolk Health Overview Select Committee.

RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council:

The Committee discussed nominating a candidate to be the new representative on the Norfolk Health Overview Select Committee (NHOSC). Cllr Cushing nominated Cllr Holliday. Cllr Bailey nominated Cllr Gray.

Cllr Cushing suggested it would be a good idea to hear from each nominee as to why they felt they would be best suited to the role. Cllr Gray believed there was no precedent for this, so the Chair sought advice from the DSGO. The DSGO advised it was prudent to hear from each nominee to give the Committee a balanced understanding of who they wished to vote for as the Committee’s representative.

Cllr Gray wished to withdraw his nomination at this point. The Chair asked for clarification if that was his wish. Cllr Gray confirmed it was.

Action

The Committee voted to nominate Cllr Holliday as the new O&S representative on the Norfolk Health Overview Select Committee with 5 votes for and 2 abstentions.

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

None received.

(9.50 – 10.20am)

Progress report on Anglian Water actions following June Meeting and any updates to be noted.

The Chair introduced Grant Tuffs (Regional Engagement Manager), Joe Thompson (Regional Operations Manager for Norfolk) and Hannah Wilson (Planning Manager) from Anglian Water (AW), who gave an update on their plans and progress since their previous visit in June 2025 (see Appendix to these minutes.).

AW highlighted that all seven bathing waters in North Norfolk were now rated as excellent. The Environment Agency (EA) rated the area as having some of the cleanest waters in the UK. The AW 5-year business plan had outlined a £11 billion investment in the region, including £1 billion to tackle storm overflows, specifically targeting those storm overflows that spill the most and have the greatest environmental impact. AW were also looking to reduce phosphorus, nitrogen and ammonia going through the water system, which has an environmental impact.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Cllr Fletcher asked about the conservation of rivers, and protection of watercourses, with the increased pressures of providing new houses in the area. AW admitted that their business plan did not take into consideration the Government’s aspirations for growth, and accelerated delivery of growth, so they had changed how they were responding to planning applications and were objecting when their water recycling centres (WRC) were at capacity, or in some cases over capacity. This was due to protecting the environment at the receiving watercourse. They were recommending a pre-occupation condition for schemes within their business plan where a local authority applied a condition which would ensure the developer did not connect to the network, increasing the waterflows at that recycling centre, until AW had delivered that growth scheme. AW permits at WRC were unique to each centre and set by the EA with the intention of protecting the environment. AW were also using the planning system to highlight any constraints within the network, looking at overflows, pollution, the potential for increased spills and flood risk. They were working collaboratively with Government, DEFRA and OFWAT to understand how they could meet the demands of growth, whilst protecting their customers and the environment.  

It was noted by Cllr Hankins that it was a good thing that AW had recognised there had been a significant increase in planning and asked if they had seen the Council’s new Local Plan. AW confirmed they had seen it and had asked for specific provisions in the policies to ensure developers engaged with them early so they could confirm if there was capacity to ensure the environment was protected.

Cllr Rouse joined the meeting.

In response to Cllr Hankins’ question querying if the increased number of houses provided a challenge in meeting that demand for supply, AW confirmed it did pose a challenge, although proposed development in North Walsham was less impacted from an environmental capacity as it did not discharge into a watercourse but into the North Sea, meaning less pressure on the WRC. AW explained they had a duty to supply domestic properties and for businesses, their toilets, kitchen and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

(10.20 – 10.40am)

To review the Council’s performance and make any recommendations to Cabinet.

Cllr Shires introduced the report and invited members to ask questions.

It was felt by Cllr Hankins that the RAG (Red Amber Green) classification was too broad and suggested going forward it could be made clearer by including, as a percentage, the progress towards any action being completed, as he believed that would give more information. Cllr Shires felt they had tried various methods in showing progress in her time as a Member and had tried to work with the Committee in getting the best format. This was a 12-month plan, so the green meant they were on track at this point, to reach their outcome within that planned period.

The DSD said he could see the benefits of the suggestions but an obvious challenge around that would be that not all projects were linear so it could get to this stage and only be 10% complete which would raise concerns for the Committee. However, they could still be rated green as that was all it intended to deliver by that point in time as they were due to complete later in the 12 month cycle. Currently, an Officer would be asked if on track to complete on schedule and if they were it would be green, which would seem a fairer representation of where it was when being reported to the Committee.

Cllr Hankins believed all the elements must have a plan in place that clearly laid out the objectives, and the milestones to achieve those outcomes, and he asked that a subjective assessment be provided of those categories.

Cllr Shires said they had previously been criticised for being subjective, and not measurable, so the Committee needed to come to an agreement on what they wanted. The Chair felt she would like more explanation as to why something was amber but asked the Committee if they had any comments.

Cllr Hankins felt the categories were not specific enough and asked for some consideration to add more focus. Cllr Cushing agreed that there was no sign of anything being delivered within the plan and he’d expect to see more reds and ambers, as he believed any plan should have demanding objectives. Cllr Cushing suggested that was where the Committee could add value by asking, why is this action amber or red, and consider what they could then do to get it back on track.

Cllr Shires said the public do care about what was delivered off the back of the action plan. If the Committee wanted a detailed report on every specific thing that would be a lot of information and reports already came through various Committees, including Overview & Scrutiny. They would have to find the best way to direct the Committee to those existing reports.

Cllr Leith wondered if it was worthwhile adding, at CLT’s discretion and barring any confidentiality that needed to be respected, an additional column summarising what remained to be done and providing a timeframe for each stage. It was suggested by Cllr Gray  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

(10.40 – 10.50am)

To review the Council Tax Discount Determinations and make recommendations to Full Council.

Cllr Shires introduced the item and wished to make the Committee aware that it was not legislated that they had to publicise in the newspaper, but it was best practice. Cllr Shires highlighted the report on second homes as the Council had to make that position known prior to February but discussions were ongoing with Norfolk County Council (NCC). Cllr Shires reminded the Committee that money generated from the second homes premium went to meet the cost of temporary accommodation.

The Chair wished to clarify if Appendix A was a full list of properties as it did not seem very extensive. The DFR agreed to investigate and confirm with the Committee after the meeting.

Cllr Cushing asked if the Committee should be worried about the risk of a legal challenge in regards the Council Tax Premium charge. Cllr Shires felt that any part of Council Tax could pose a potential risk as people looked to challenge and suggested maybe the Governance, Risk and Audit Committee (GRAC) might like to consider in more detail. The DSGO noted and would discuss with the GRAC Chair.

ACTION:

• The DFR to confirm if the Proposed Pre 1948 2^nd Home Schedule is correct, and complete, in Appendix A.

The Committee RESOLVED unanimously to recommend to Full Council: that under Section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and other enabling powers that:

1)     The discounts for the year 2026-27 and beyond are set at the levels indicated in the table at paragraph 3.1.

2)     To continue to award a local discount of 100% in 2026-27 for eligible cases of hardship under Section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) and that the Revenues Manager has delegated authority to make Discretionary Reductions under the Hardship Policy up to the value of £4k as indicated in the associated policy in Appendix B.

3)     That an exception to the empty property levy charges may continue to be made by the Revenues Manager in the circumstances laid out in section 4.2 of this report.

4)     The long-term empty-property premiums for the year 2026-27 (subject to the empty premium exceptions shown in Appendix C) are set at the levels indicated in the table at paragraph 4.2

5)     To continue to award a local discount of 100% in 2026-27 for eligible cases of care leavers under Section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).

6)     Those dwellings that are specifically identified under regulation 6 of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 will retain the 50% discount as set out in paragraph 2.1 of this report.

7)     Those dwellings described or geographically defined at Appendix A which in the reasonable opinion of the Revenues Manager are judged not to be structurally capable of occupation all year round and were built before the restrictions of seasonal usage were introduced by the Town and Country  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

(10.50 – 11.20am)

To analyse the effectiveness of the Councils Temporary Accommodation portfolio – making recommendations to Cabinet (if needed)

The HSDM and Cllr Shires introduced the report and explained that one of the main reasons the Council sought to purchase more of its own temporary accommodation (TA) housing stock was to keep people in their local community and close to support networks, in more suitable accommodation, aiding their recovery out of homelessness. Cllr Shires reminded the Committee of the rise in cost of overnight TA and how it influenced some decisions in the budget.

It was highlighted by the HSDM how the Council had gone from having one TA unit of its own in 2017 to having 32 by the end of 2025 and she paid tribute to the team’s effort in managing that effectively. The HSDM also paid tribute to the hard work from the Housing Options and Property Services teams in working together to bring those properties up to a good standard quickly. It was noted by the HSDM that when the Council put families into its own TA the subsidy completely covered the rental income, and it had even started making an annual surplus on the costs that were then reinvested in the homelessness service. Its own TA also made a massive saving compared to the net cost of nightly paid TA: up to £1.2 million was saved over the last 4 years. The HSDM explained that having its own TA was an asset that increased in value over time whilst half of what they used to pay for that TA had come from separate grant money and not mainstream funding.

Cllr Hankins asked if Members’ engagement with local parishes was having a positive impact on intervention in homelessness. The HSDM did say that the Council’s Community Connectors were working with parish councils to identify those in potential need, enabling them to carry out essential early intervention work but it had set criteria of what its TA needed, and in most cases, that was to be sited in towns close to facilities. Cllr Shires reiterated that the key message to local parishes was that new social housing developments were needed in their area to keep people local.

It was suggested by Cllr Bailey that how the Housing Team used the extra revenue generated by the second home premium in purchasing suitable TA for homeless families could be a positive news story. It could publicise, and in turn be a way of engaging second homeowners and make those who paid more tax feel they were contributing to a wider cause rather than feeling penalised. Cllr Shires and the HSDM both agreed.

Cllr Cushing asked what the criteria was for the Council when selecting its own TA as it had very few properties in Fakenham or east of North Walsham. The HSDM explained that they tried to find a balance between specific requirements of size, demand, budget and suitability of the property. The team was looking at a more even geographical spread but many properties to the east were least served by gas, and therefore, were less efficient,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

(11.20 – 11.30am)

Update from recent NHOSC meeting.

Cllr Shires introduced the report and gave an update to the Committee from the most recent Norfolk Health Overview Select Committee (NHOSC) meeting outlining what was discussed around Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT); including reading a letter to the Committee that was sent by NHOSC to the NCC Cabinet on questions they felt had not been answered in that meeting. Cllr Carpenter, the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services at NCC, responded by outlining those accessing the SaLT service, for the period Aug 2025 to Oct 2025, with 5165 children accessing the SaLT at that time with a varied level of intervention required. The NHS target wait time stood at 18 weeks with 81% of children seen within that timescale which was prioritised on need with most urgent cases seen more quickly. There were links to deprivation to be found. A letter had subsequently gone to Government seeking an overarching policy that served children better and made it easier for staff.

The Chair asked about the pathology waiting times and how could they be assured that no significant harm had happened, and were those proposed methodologies to determine harm sufficient as they seemed indirect. Cllr Shires said the Committee had asked the same question but were assured of no significant harm. They did challenge back and the suggestion was that the feedback they’d received indicated that it was not having a detrimental impact, but their teams were in position to support people should it be needed. The Chair also asked if the NHOSC were satisfied for the staffing pattern for speech and language and queried if there was a national benchmark. Cllr Shires felt there was too much pressure on parents to deliver SaLT when they didn’t have a specific framework or measure, but the Committee hadn’t had any more information on outcomes.

The Committee Noted the report.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The Committee Noted the report.

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 DSGO gave an update on the work programme including the possibility of having a private presentation for Members to look at deprivation data that could feed into many items that the Committee wished to consider going forward. The Committee Agreed that a session outlining deprivation and its impact on the local communities takes place at the earliest opportunity.

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.”