Apologies were received from Cllr T Adams and Cllr E Spagnola.

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 11^th March 2020.

Minutes of the meeting held on 13^th March 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.

Two items of urgent business had been approved by the Chairman which included the Covid-19 Recovery Report and the Covid-19 Town Centre Social Distancing Report. It was agreed that these items would be taken subsequent to item 10, in order to first provide context of the Council’s initial response to the crisis.

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 declared.

To consider any petitions received from members of the public.

None received.

To consider any requests made by non-executive Members of the Council, and notified to the Monitoring Officer 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.

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that it outlined the position of the authority in responding to the Covid-19 Pandemic, both as an employer and service provider. It was reported that a range of support had been made available to communities, such as the Local Coordination Centres (LCCs) that had been  established throughout the district, or the Governments small business grant fund, for which  payments were in excess of £50m. The CE stated that the Council also continued to operate as part of the wider Norfolk Resilience Forum.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr J Toye sought clarification on why financial support had been given to the contractor responsible for running the Council’s leisure centres, but not to other contractors. The CE replied that that the issue could be discussed in more detail during the delegated decisions item, but added that the leisure contractor was a designated partner of the authority, that had been appointed to manage the Council’s leisure centres on its behalf. He added that the financial support was in respect to retained payments, and the Council had helped to meet some of these costs.

At the request of the Chairman the CE responded to written questions submitted by Members, the first of which requested data on the number of businesses that had received business grants, and those eligible that had not. The CE reported that to date the Council had paid out grants to 4575 businesses with a total payment of £50.4m, against an estimated 5037 eligible businesses. He added that the remaining eligible businesses were being contacted in a number of ways to promote the availability of the fund. On the Council Tax Hardship Fund, it was stated 3680 households had received assistance, and it was expected that this figure would increase in the coming months as financial circumstances changed. The CE reported that the Council did not have a definitive list of those who were self-employed that might require assistance, though details of the Government’s scheme to support this group were available on the Council’s website. He added that the discretionary business grant scheme was still in the process of being established, but would be launched in early June. Cllr S Bütikofer wished to place on record her thanks to officers for delivering of the business grants scheme and the aid given to individuals by the LCCs.

The CE responded to the second written question, on actions that would be taken to reopen businesses related to the leisure and tourism industry as soon as possible,  given the district’s reliance on these industries. A supplementary question sought clarification on whether a risk management strategy was in place for this process. The CE stated that he expected the two urgent items agreed for discussion would cover these issues in detail, but noted that a Central Government fund had been established to aid the reopening of high streets, from which NNDC had been allocated £93,332. He added that proposals for the reopening of non-essential retail businesses would go  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The CE introduced the report and stated that circumstances had continued to evolve rapidly since the lockdown began in March. It was noted that the report covered all issues that were being considered by officers for reopening, and the CE added that officers had also established a task and finish group to consider how services could return to normal, including when the eighty percent staff remote working could return to the office. It was expected that the task and finish group would report on their initial findings shortly, which would include changes to policy and operations to allow some return to normality.

Questions and Discussion

The CE stated that the Council’s contractors were being given consideration, such as those managing the pier facilities, and the leisure contractor that had been previously mentioned. It was noted that a full waste collection service had been maintained throughout the lockdown, which was commendable given the fact that the contract had begun on the 6^th April. Work at the new Sheringham Leisure Centre was noted to have recommenced with social distancing precautions in place.

The CE informed Members that a supplementary item that had been added to the report covered the reduction in available lifeguards. It was noted that the RNLI had outlined their position as being able to provide a reduced service at Sea Palling from 30^th May, as one of only sixteen locations around the country. There were also plans to restore further services from 20^th June in Cromer, and 4^th July in Wells. The CE noted that the RNLI had historically provided services for the summer season at 240 locations nationally, though this year it would only be 70 locations under the current circumstances.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated that the Council was suffering financially, losing up to forty percent of its income, and suggested that the Council should be actively lobbying local MPs and the Government for greater financial support through the crisis. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that the Council was actively lobbying local MPs and the Government on these issues, which included weekly calls with the two MPs covering the district. In addition, it was noted that the Council continued with all efforts to lobby for additional funding, in order to meet the shortfall caused by the crisis.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that it was focused on how to safely reopen the district’s high streets, resorts and market town’s for business, whilst creating safe spaces which residents and tourists would be confident to visit. The CE stated that as a result of a Government announcement, non-essential retail businesses would be permitted to open from 15^th June, and planning had already begun in that regard. The CE reported that on the 9^th May, the Secretary of State for Transport announced a travel fund of £250m to support social distancing, increased walking and cycling within town and city centres, to account for reduced use of public transport. He added that consideration had already been given to how this could be achieved in North Norfolk, and that Parish and Town Council’s had been contacted for input, as well as local businesses.

The CE informed Members that the report included initial proposals such as the potential widening of narrow pavement areas by removing on street parking and consideration of one-way systems in town centres amongst others. It was reported that once the broad proposals outlined in the report had been refined, it was hoped that implementation could take place from the week commencing 15^th June.

Questions and Discussion

Restaurants and take away food premises were discussed, and it was noted that the Council was considering ways it could utilise open spaces for outside eating, such as the promenades or parks. Cllr P Grove-Jones stated that many open spaces were linked to playgrounds and play areas, which would not be open to the public, hence this would require careful consideration and planning. Cllr G Perry-Warnes asked whether there would be any licensing issues for introducing new outside eating areas for restaurants, and if so, could anything be done to mitigate these issues. The CE replied that these issues would be taken into consideration alongside Government guidance. He added that the LGA had encouraged authorities to look as widely and as flexibly as possible in terms of their regulatory functions, in order to adequately respond to the recovery from Covid-19.

Beach use was discussed and it was reported that in some areas such as Mundesley, access would have to be restricted to a one-way system due to narrow access ramps.

Cllr L Shires raised the issue of the Council’s communications, and stated that since the outbreak of the pandemic, she felt that they had vastly improved in a number of ways. She asked whether the communications plan could be shared amongst Members to help communicate the Council’s messages. The CE thanked the Councillor for her comments, and stated that he would pass on the request to the Communicants Manager.

Cllr J Toye referred to the social distancing considerations, and suggested that he would have liked to have seen more reference to the possibility of road closures, to ensure safety and help to facilitate social distancing measures when walking or cycling. Cllr G Hayman reiterated that Covid-19 would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

The HFAM introduced the report and informed Members that he would provide a brief presentation to explain the current financial implications of Covid-19 for the Council. It was reported that at present, the Council was still facing a £1m deficit, despite having received additional funding of approximately £1.1m from Central Government. As a result, the HFAM stated that it was crucial to continue to lobby Government and MPs for further financial support. It was noted that prior to the Pandemic, a deficit of approximately £1.8m had already been predicted for the 2021/22 financial year, which suggested that budget pressures would continue to increase. The HFAM broke down funding pressures into specific categories and it was reported that cost pressures equated to a loss of £429k, income losses of approximately £1.09m, investment losses of £250k and funding stream losses of £223k. He added that the Council’s reserves were already forecast to reduce by fifty percent over the next four years, and should always be considered a last resort for balancing budgets. It was suggested that priority should be given to reallocating funding within the current year’s budget to address the deficit. The HFAM referred to the MTFS and stated that it had been approved in a very different financial climate, and as a result, there would be a significant impact on the medium term assumptions that would require substantial changes to resolve. He added that a further Committee report would be presented in the coming months that would focus on reprioritizing the budget, opportunities for efficiency savings, and income generation in the current financial year.

Questions and Discussion

The Chairman referred to written questions submitted in advance of the meeting, the first of which asked for clarification of the forecast deficit for the current year, and the years covered by the MTFP. The HFAM replied that whilst the current forecast deficit was approximately £2m, additional funding from Central Government meant that the net deficit had now been reduced to approximately £1m. He added that the forecast included a number of assumptions about when the economy would begin to recover, and this would have a knock-on impact that was difficult to predict. It was noted that Section 31 grants from Central Government had been helpful guaranteeing the Council’s cash flow position in terms of business rates income, though uncertainties still remained that made it very difficult to predict future deficits.

The Chairman referred to his second written question which asked for officer’s advice on the most prudent means for closing the budget gap, and whether the recommended level of the general reserve would change as a result of the crisis. The HFAM replied that in terms of closing the budget gap, the key message was that reserves should always be a last resort, as they could only be used once. He added that focus should be placed on reallocating and reproritising the existing budget, making savings where possible, and trying to generate additional income, though it would be extremely difficult under the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Emma Denny, Democratic Services Manager, 01263 516010, Emma.Denny@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that it was a record of the decisions that had been taken under delegated authority since the start of the crisis.

Questions and Discussion

The Chairman referred to a written question he had submitted on a grant payment made to the Council’s leisure contractor, and asked for the value of the grant, whether it was a one-time payment, and whether the contractor had taken advantage of the Government’s furlough scheme or any other support grants. Cllr V Gay replied that the leisure facilities were at the heart of quality of life in North Norfolk, and were a significant part of the Council’s wok for the community. She added that the grant sum was £36,257.40 and this had been given in April, May and would likely be given in June. It was noted that the grant was not a one-off payment, and it was likely that the contractor would request additional support on an ongoing basis, as a result of contractual arrangements. Cllr V Gay stated that the contractor had furloughed staff, and she understood that only two full-time staff were being paid in North Norfolk. She added that she was not aware of any additional grants that had been received by the contractor, though Sport England had provided approximately £2k funding to the Council, to undertake a review of the impact of the crisis on the sector. The Chairman sought clarification on whether the £36k was a monthly payment, which was confirmed by Cllr V Gay.

RESOLVED

To note the report.

To note the upcoming Cabinet Work Programme.

The DS&GOS informed Members that the Cabinet Work Programme remained relatively clear for the month of June as statutory financial reports had been delayed by the crisis. As a result, it remained unclear at this stage when the next Cabinet meeting would take place, and what business would come forward. He reassured Members that they would be notified immediately once a future meeting date was agreed.

RESOLVED

To note the 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.

As with the Cabinet Work Programme, the DS&GOS noted that the O&S Work Programme remained relatively clear in anticipation of Covid related reports coming forward. Similarly the statutory financial reports were also delayed meaning that at present, it was unclear when the next meeting would take place. Members were reassured that they would be notified as soon as possible once the next meeting date was agreed.

RESOLVED

To note the Overview & Scrutiny 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.”