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 28^th of January 2026.

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28^th January 2026 were discussed. Cllr Shires did not feel that some sections were a fair reflection of what was said at the meeting. She queried the reason stated for the draft budget coming to pre-scrutiny, as this did not align with her memory of the discussions that were referenced. 

Cllr Shires also felt that the points at the bottom of that item, where in the minutes it claimed, it was noted by the Committee, were incorrect. She said that the Chair had in fact summed up that they had raised the need for the narrative to be strengthened and the possibility of a business rates support pack but suggested that wasn’t for Cabinet, then stated there did not appear to be much enthusiasm, from the Committee for this approach, so Cllr Shires felt this was not a fair reflection of that part of the meeting.

The Chair asked the DSGO if they could review those paragraphs and bring them back to the next meeting.

The DSGO pointed out that only Committee members can make suggested amendments to the minutes, but they could review if the Committee were minded to. Cllr Gray proposed they should be reviewed.

The Committee Agreed the minutes should be reviewed and brought back to the March meeting before being agreed.

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.

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:

None received.

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

Cllr Rouse proposed himself to be the substitute for the Health Overview and Select Committee (HOSC) to which Cllr Heinrich seconded. The Committee voted unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council: To nominate Cllr C Rouse as substitute for the HOSC

Cllr Shires introduced the item making the committee aware that it is a statutory requirement to report on the decisions made.

The Chair invited questions and queried if it was decided, at a previous meeting, that the values associated with these decisions should all be shown within the report, such as the contract with the consulting firm for the Overstand Coast Protection Scheme. Cllr Shires explained that decision was a public decision made at Full Council in September 2025 and other values, associated with decisions, were attached to the report.

Cllr Cushing felt that going forward, a monetary sum, associated with the respective delegated decision, in a separate column could be useful to make the value explicit but conscious that may cause a lot of extra work. Cllr Shires outlined that the delegated decision in the case highlighted was to enter into the contract and not one of monetary value as the budget had already been agreed upon.

The Committee Agreed: To receive and note the report and the register of decisions taken under delegated powers.

To review the Capital Strategy for 2026-2027 and make any recommendations to Full Council.

Cllr Shires introduced the report and explained they do the report annually and it outlined the capital projects they were undertaking and the ones they would look to undertake in the future.

The chair invited questions.

Cllr Heinrich queried the works being outlined for the Cedars given the amount spent on the building during the North Walsham Heritage Action Zone scheme (HAZ). Cllr Shires was mindful they may not spend all that was put aside for the scheme, as they always tried to come in under budget, but they had not completed everything they had set out to achieve, during the HAZ project, which was to bring about the restoration of a Georgian, grade II listed building that had previously been empty for some time. It was now fully occupied across public and private sector enterprises but there was office space, with commercial value, Cllr Shires believed, as well as damp and roof issues that needed to be resolved, and the money put aside would look to complete those works and ensure the asset for the future.

In response to a query from Cllr Fletcher around the abrupt change in capital expenditure from 25/26 to 26/27, where it had reduced by nearly £25m, Cllr Shires explained that in 25/26 they were lucky enough to be a part of the Coastwise funding from Government and had been undertaking necessary coastal works.

Cllr Fletcher also queried why the substructure works to Cromer pier were seemingly being strung out over several years. It was explained by Cllr Shires that after a full structural examination of the pier was undertaken before Christmas it was discovered some urgent works needed to be carried out within 12 months. Work that could wait more than 12 months was staggered to cause minimal disruption and to ensure they reached that next stage of the works when it was absolutely necessary to do it.

It was calculated by Cllr Cushing there were 59 items in the Capital Programme, some of which had been there a long time. He wondered if any checks had been done to determine if they were still valid. Cllr Shires confirmed she had discussed, with the Property Services Manager, where they were with scheduling of works. Cllr Shires assured the Committee that was something they monitored continuously, and they would never put on projects they had no intention of completing. Cllr Shires admitted it was an ambitious programme, and they needed to do some work on such things as their football facilities, in terms of contract negotiations and leases with the respective clubs.

There was a query from Cllr Hankins as to what the Loans to Housing Providers was referring. It was explained by Cllr Shires that they supported many housing schemes, one of which was Homes for Wells, a loan scheme, where the Council supported a local group in purchasing properties, to ensure frontline staff had somewhere to live locally, in a market where it was difficult to privately rent. Cllr Hankins queried if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To review the draft Budget proposals for 2026-2027 and make any recommendations to Full Council

The DFR introduced the item and thanked the Committee for their suggestions during pre-scrutiny to which they had tried to incorporate those changes suggested. Cllr Shires warned the Committee that Government may make further changes but, barring that, these would be the papers that would go to Full Council. If there were any changes Cllr Shires would verbally update Members at that meeting.

Cllr Hankins asked if, and if so where, the fair funding review had been reflected within the budget in relation to the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement for 2026/27. Cllr Shires believed Government did not understand how services in rural councils worked. A minimum guarantee of 95% core spending power was significantly less than urban, metropolitan, councils. She felt shire districts had been penalised and they believed that it was the intention of the Government to reduce their funding by a further £700k next year. That would be reflected when they did the Budget Monitoring in period 4 and that would have a grave impact on the 27/28 budget where they expected to see a deficit in the region of £1.6m. Cllr Shires felt that the fair funding review was only fair if you were not a shire district.

It was queried by Cllr Heinrich as to what point they would have clarity on the Community Reserve. Although he was aware a working group would make recommendations on purpose and governance, he queried how Members would know how to apply for that funding and when that would happen. Cllr Shires explained that they couldn’t form the working group until the decision was agreed at Full Council but envisaged, within 8 weeks that cross-party, working group to have agreed purpose and governance. The working group, made up of two officer and two members would determine if the applications met the criteria that they set out. No money would be spent until they had the governance in place. Cllr Shires also reiterated that no money would be going directly to Members but to the schemes that were agreed. Cllr Shires would like the decisions being turned around in approximately 6 weeks from when an application was made to ensure local communities were benefiting as quickly as possible, most likely spilt between people and place and for investing in assets.

Cllr Rouse asked if any money not spent would roll-over into the following year, but Cllr Shires felt that the steering group may need to consider that nearer the time as the recent fair funding review by Government meant they were, potentially, unable to continue the scheme beyond that current year. 

The initiative was welcomed by Cllr Bayes who believed it would greatly help many rural communities but asked for guidance for Members on what type of schemes they could apply for. Cllr Shires was eager to run an all-member briefing so she could offer some collective ideas to what type of projects could benefit. Cllr Shires wished the groups they supported would become self-sustainable as that was their member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Scrutiny of the MTFS – To review and to recommend to Full Council.

Cllr Shires introduced the report and thanked the ADFA for producing the paper. Cllr Shires explained this was where the Council saw itself now and over the course of the next 3 years and beyond. Any subsequent changes would be reported in budget monitoring period 4 for the 27/28 year.

In response to a question from Cllr Cushing concerning the impact on their investment returns if interest rates were to go down, Cllr Shires explained borrowing would also become cheaper. If a project was to cost more in interest than they would make in interest, then they would choose to use cash. If it were cheaper to borrow and it would cost them less on borrowing making them more in investments, they would borrow. Cllr Shires said they had a reserve that would cover any changes should interest rates drop. The ADFA also said their investments were not all so sensitive to base rate changes.

The Chair asked why the settlement funding jumped in 26/27 and Cllr Shires explained the Government had done a business rates review where they had taken a substantial amount of the Council’s business rates but they were being given it back, so next year, where they had anticipated they were going to see a reduction in their grants it was a repositioning of putting all the grants together.

The ADFA said that in Governments funding assumptions they assumed authorities would increase the council tax by the maximum allowed and it had to be considered in the context of all the funding. The DFR said they had included what they could when asked by the Chair, if they had sufficiently reflected the changes in second homes council tax in mitigating the budget gap.

It was noted by the DFR that he wished to congratulate revenues staff for achieving a much higher collection rate on the second homes premium than anybody had assumed was possible and more than what other councils were collecting. The Chair wished to reflect that the second home council tax had been an incredibly valuable resource for the Council in helping to purchase temporary accommodation for homeless residents.

The Committee reviewed the MTFS and RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council

To review the Policy and make recommendations to Full Council.

Cllr Shires introduced the item and thanked the revenues team for their hard work in overachieving in their collection rate on the second home premium. Cllr Shires touched upon the Discretionary Rates Relief (DRR) outlining that if an organisation occupied a property where business rates were paid it could be eligible for up to 100% DRR, if some of the operation is within the guidelines shown within the policy. Each case would be judged on its merits.

It was outlined, by Cllr Shires, that the Government announced a new 10-year 100% relief for eligible electronic vehicle charging points and electric vehicle only forecourts which was due to start in April 2026. There was also a new addition of the Pubs and Live Music Venue Relief who would benefit from 15% rates relief on top of the supported announced budget in 2025.

Cllr Shires congratulated the revenues team on collecting £80.41m, or 72.75%, of Council Tax and £23.63m, or 75.58%, of Non-Domestic Rates as of 30 Nov 2025. She thanked them for ensuring they had the finances to run and that businesses were supported, and the Council Tax Support team, who ensured people were getting the benefit they needed to meet their council tax legal requirement.

Cllr Bayes said he’d met a lot of local hospitality businesses, whose rates had gone up considerably, and were very concerned for their future. He asked if the Council could proactively engage with businesses to get the message of what reliefs were available to support them. The RM explained the Government had introduced a transition relief scheme, so that any business that had a rise in their rates from one year to another, because of the revaluation, saw a limited increase, over a 3-year period. The RM admitted that having a cliff edge was worrying for businesses so a scheme was brought in to help those that were coming to the end of the current rate year so they could still get protection rather going straight into the new valuation.

In addition, the RM said that in supporting small businesses, it limited increases up £800 in the year for 3 years. Or the transition relief limit, that could be higher than £800, means there was 2 things they had to compare within their back office, which their systems did for them. The hospitality reliefs were going back to Covid but Government kept extending it and reducing the relief so this year they hadn’t just ended it but brought in 5 multipliers for next year, when previously they had only 2 multipliers since business rates was introduced in 1990. There were now 2 smaller multipliers and a large meaning big businesses pay more.

The RM assured the Committee they had been contacting businesses to let them know of a lower multiplier that they could get. Businesses could still get all the other reliefs as well but the first thing they could get is the lower multiplier. This would benefit the customer, as it meant paying less  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

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 DSGO updated the Committee on the work programme and outlined that the Homelessness Strategy was to be delayed until the summer due to a new Assistant Director for People Services only just being appointed. He suggested a scoping session is run in private, after the main meeting in April, to consider the criteria for items to be focused on for the year ahead.

Cllr Hankins felt that the recent Mobile Connectivity item was very positively received by the public to which Cllr Gray agreed and he said proved it took time to properly scope an item and the importance of having clear objectives.

Cllr Shires was happy to meet with the Committee on outlining deprivation data in Norfolk, which it was felt could better inform members when considering many of their ideas for work items, which focused largely on health and wellbeing of the local communities

The DSGO also outlined that the Ambulance Service were keen to work with the Council in promoting the need for all residents to know CPR and the need for more local first responders.

Cllr Hankins asked if the Council would respond to a request from the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in requesting extra funding for tackling domestic violence. The DSGM confirmed this would most likely be a Cabinet decision. Cllr Shires believed it would be for the leader of North Norfolk District Council, Cllr Adams, to respond to that request but she would check. Cllr Shires was mindful that Cllr Butikofer was the Council’s representative on the Norfolk Police and Crime Panel and both she and the S151 officer and CEO were aware of the request as well. Cllr Shires did note that they had received a FAQ back from the PCC, on the 3^rd of Feb, as to where their spending was going.

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.”

The meeting ended at 11.53 pm.