Agenda and minutes

 Apologies had been received from Cllr S Penfold and Cllr N Housden.

There were no substitutes.

To receive questions / statements from the public, if any.

There were no public questions or statements

To approve the revised minutes from 28 January 2026

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 11^th February 2026.

Cllr Cushing proposed and Cllr C Rouse seconded that the revised minutes of the 28th January 2026, and separately that the minutes of 11th February 2026, be approved as a true and correct record.

Resolved unanimously to approve these minutes.

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

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 review the Budget Monitoring report and make any recommendations to Full Council.

 9.40-10.10am

Cllr Gray joined the meeting.

Cllr L Shires presented the report noting that the significant change from period 6 related to the extended responsibility producer grant which had previously been held in reserves. This had now been released to cover service costs with the balance being available to offset the anticipated cost of food waste recycling. In response to a question from Cllr Hankins, the Director for Resources provided further detail noting that during the earlier budgeting process there had been a lack of clarity available as to how the grant could be spent and therefore a prudent approach had been taken. This clarity was now available and therefore this reserve could be released.

Cllr Cushing asked for clarification of the impact of the anticipated savings of £420k noted on page 39 section 4.2, and whether those savings where embedded into future activities. Cllr Shires referred to the budget monitoring savings and income paper on page 71 of the report which outlined the differences and confirmed she had no concerns, save for the impact of unknown matters. Cllr Fletcher queried the variance on page 57, paragraph 3, relating to the kennelling costs that were associated with an enforcement case. Cllr Shires confirmed she would ask the relevant portfolio holder to respond.

Cllr Fletcher also asked for further information regarding efficiencies and savings during staff recruitment and investment in apprenticeships within the organisation. Cllr Shires confirmed that vacancies could be held open if it was believed there was capacity but otherwise the delays were often out of the Council’s control but had a beneficial financial impact. Cllr Shires noted she was proud of the investment in apprenticeships which allowed individuals into different jobs and a route into local government. Following a question from Cllr K Bayes, Cllr Shires indicated she would respond separately with the number of apprentices and whether the Council maximised its levy in this regard.

Cllr Cushing asked for clarification, following a response Cllr Vickers had received from the Chief Executive, regarding the removal of the staff from the Connect building in Fakenham, he clarified he was not questioning the operational decision, but whether the item was identified within the budget setting process. Cllr Shires confirmed that this service change was not specifically highlighted within budget setting process and she was not aware of the change until after the conclusion of that process. Cllr L Withington informed the Committee that this was something that had been proposed as a potential cost saving and would not have been a specific item in the budget.

Cllr Cushing asked for clarification as to whether it would be possible to have year on year likely spend in terms of the capital programme, particularly, for example, the FLASH project, as well as an indication of whether the spend was funded by central government grant or NNDC funds. Cllr Shires referred to the line by split of funding at the base of the capital programme in the report. The Director for Resources explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

10.10-10.40am

Cllr Adams provided a summary of the information in the report. In respect of LGR, he stated that it wasn’t clear when we could expect the minded to decision.

Cllr Cushing asked regarding household waste recycling and noted the legislative requirement for this to be in place by the end of March and given that it would not be achievable – why was this RAG rating amber and not red? Cllr Adams agreed that the requirement would not be met in the way originally intended but that it would still be met. Cllr Adams believed that amber was currently correctly reflected.

Cllr Bayes noted the lack of smart targets in the action plan and believed that the green ratings gave a false sense of security and suggested that some red ratings would be appropriate where there were unknowns. Cllr Adams stated he was satisfied this document was useful and the Corporate Plan was the foundation of actions. Cllr Hankins informed the Committee he had a meeting with the head of project management team and was impressed with the detail backing up information and believed that the Committee would benefit from seeing that detail.

Cllr Bailey asked for consideration on a cash hub for Sheringham given that Nationwide didn’t service business customers. Cllr Rouse was encouraged that a second cash point might being considered for Holt, Cllr Adams confirmed that those discussions had not yet started but recognised the existing facility may not meet the needs of the town.

Cllr P Heinrich commented on health and care facilities given the significant proposed development in market towns including North Walsham and that facilities were currently inadequate and there was no visibility over what improvements were being planned. Cllr Adams agreed there were lots of discussions but was increasingly confident that beneficial announcements would be made although it would still take some time. Cllr Withington stated there appeared to be an aim of moving discussions, such as Benjamin Court, forward.

The Chair asked about the rural position statement and whether an amber rating was correct. Cllr Adams confirmed there has been a lack of data availability and a delay but was confident that the target would be met.

The Committee noted the report

10.55-11.15am

Cllr Adams introduced the Plan which reflects the current context, noting the conflict between business as usual and government led LGR.

Cllr Adams left the meeting.

The Chair asked whether it was possible to include any more quantifiable targets. Cllr Shires noted this action plan was an additional layer added to show how manifesto promises were being delivered. Cllr Shires suggested a shared

understanding of how the RAG rating works would be beneficial. Cllr Cushing expressed the importance of SMART objectives and believed that these were not utilised well at NNDC. Cllr Shires referred to the report given to the Committee by Cllr Hankins and suggested it was unfair to suggest Officers were not working to strict targets.

The Chair wondered whether further action could be included, on for example, apprenticeships or temporary accommodation and whether there would be any additional capacity within the organisation for this. Cllr Shires stated that with LGR it was important that the Council carefully considered its capacity.

The Committee noted the report.

The meeting adjourned at 11.05 and reconvened at 11.20

To Consider the effectiveness of the Committee’s investigation on Mobile Connectivity matched the objectives, any improvements that could have been made and if any recommendations are required.

11.15-11.30am

The Chair introduced the item and the Committee had a discussion surrounding the work undertaken in this area.

Cllr Hankins left the meeting

The Committee agreed that the actions following this work were (in addition to the items currently identified on the action list), when the update to the NPPF was published, for the Committee to consider the impact on planning for masts, the methodology used by the Committee in this area to be utilised for future work by the Committee, for the other MNO’s (and potentially VMNO’s and delivery partners) to be followed up with regard to their appearing before the Committee.

Update from recent HOSC meeting.

11.30-11.40am

The Chair brought the following specific issues contained within the report to the attention of the Committee, the removal of weekend pathology testing without a full equality assessment and for cost reasons, the review of palliative care, the medicines support service and the change of supplier of vulnerable person support in Norwich.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

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 Scrutiny Officer updated the Committee on potential items for the April meeting including an updated on the FLASH project, the work setting item, together with an update from the new Assistant Director of People services.

The Scrutiny Officer asked for ideas and suggestions for the work programme setting.

The Committee agreed that given the closeness to the elections the meeting in May would be cancelled.

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.”