Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence, if any.

Apologies had been received from Cllrs S Butikofer, C Heinink, S Penfold, E Spagnola, M Taylor and E Vardy.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th February.

The  minutes of the meeting held on 19^th February were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.  

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 (see attached guidance and flowchart)

Cllr J Punchard declared an interest in Agenda items 12 and 13 –Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation, as an employee of a public body.

The Monitoring Officer said that she had written to all members advising them that if they were a member of another local authority or were employed by a public body, there was a general dispensation regarding items 12 and 13.

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.

To receive the Chairman’s communications, if any.

The Chairman updated members on recent civic events that she had attended:

03 March 2025 – Visit to HMP Bure

04 March 2025 – Celebrating International Women’s Day at NNDC

The Vice-Chair said that he had attended ‘Inspire North Norfolk’ at Trimingham Leisure Centre.

The Leader began by saying that a lot of time had been taken up in recent weeks on discussions regarding devolution and local government reorganisation. He thanked officers and Cabinet members on continuing to make good progress despite considerable challenges ahead.

He said that this meeting would be one of the most historically important in the 50 years of the Council.

To consider any questions or statements received from members of the public.

None received.

To approve any appointments to committees, sub-committees, working parties and outside bodies, as proposed by the Group Leaders.

None.

To receive reports from Cabinet Members on their portfolios.

Cllr T Adams - Executive Support & Legal Services

Cllr H Blathwayt – Coast

Cllr A Brown – Planning & Enforcement

Cllr W Fredericks – Housing and People Services

Cllr C Ringer – IT, Environmental & Waste Services

Cllr L Shires – Finance, Estates & Assets

Cllr J Toye – Sustainable Growth

Cllr A Varley – Climate Change & Net Zero

Cllr L Withington – Community, Leisure & Outreach (Including Health & Wellbeing)

Members are reminded that they may ask questions of the Cabinet Member on their reports and portfolio areas but should note that it is not a debate.

No member may ask more than one question plus a supplementary question, unless the time taken by members’ questions does not exceed 30 minutes in total, in which case, second questions will be taken in the order that they are received (Constitution, Chapter 2, part 2, section 12.2)

The Chair invited Cllr C Ringer, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and IT to provide an update.

Cllr Ringer said that in addition to his written report he wanted to provide an update on the presence of ‘nurdles’ or plastic pellets on the beaches which had been washed up following the collision of a cargo ship with an oil tanker off the coast of East Yorkshire on 10^th March. He said that a small amount had been reported and the public had been advised not to touch them whilst they were being dealt with by a multi-agency team. Any sightings of nurdles should be reported as soon as possible. Currently sightings had been limited to the Holkham and Wells area. HM Coastguard was monitoring the situation and keeping it under review.

The Chair then invited members to ask questions:

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked Cllr L Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance, about the issuing of electronic council tax bills. He said that there was a reminder at the bottom of the email prompting recipients to think before printing any documents. He then also received a paper bill in the post and queried why residents were not being encouraged to opt into electronic bills. Cllr Shires said that this was a good question and she would provide a written response.

Cllr K Bayes asked Cllr C Ringer, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, for an update on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme. Cllr Ringer replied that the scheme was introduced by the previous Government as a simpler recycling programme and it included the introduction of food waste collection. He added that the EPR had not commenced yet but he understood that there would be a financial benefit to the Council and was happy to update Cllr Bayes on any specific issues.

Cllr J Boyle asked Cllr A Varley, Portfolio Holder for Climate Change, about the implications of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) for the Council’s Net Zero targets. Cllr Varley replied that the pressing need to address the climate emergency continued, regardless of LGR and the Council would still strive to reach its Net Zero targets, as well as supporting communities to live a greener, more sustainable future. He added that the Environmental Charter & Net Zero Strategy and Action Plan document would be reviewed in the coming months to take into account the challenges faced by LGR.

Cllr C Cushing asked Cllr J Toye, Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth, how many planned registered businesses were started in 2023/2024 and what was the survival rate. He also asked if similar figures were available for 2024/2025. Cllr Toye replied that he did not have the figures to hand but would provide a written response.

Cllr J Punchard asked the Leader, Cllr T Adams, for a response to his question at the previous Full Council meeting regarding an update on 9 Norwich Street, Fakenham. Cllr Adams replied that he was unable to provide an update publicly at the current time but discussions were ongoing.

Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

The following recommendation was made to Full Council at the Cabinet meeting held on 3^rd March:

Cabinet Agenda Item 9: Budget Monitoring P10 2024-2025

That full Council approves the changes to the Capital Programme as laid out in paragraph 5.5 of the report

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Cllr L Shires, said that the latest budget monitoring report showed that the budget deficit had been considerably reduced and she thanked officers for their hard work in closing the gap.

The changes proposed to the Capital Programme, were mainly due to grant income, with the exception of section 5.5.7 which was the removal of a budget line due to project completion.

Cllr N Housden referred to page 72, section 4.3 and the reference to a delay in receipt of a grant from the Environment Agency (EA). He asked whether this indicated that the EA grant added to the capital programme would also be susceptible to delays.  Cllr Shires replied that in 4.3 it referred to the scheme being put on hold and this was the case with other projects where funding was delayed.

The Chief Executive confirmed that there were staged payments on receipt of invoices.

It was RESOLVED to

Approve the changes to the Capital Programme as laid out in paragraph 5.5 of the report.

Three members voted against the proposals.

Please note that the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee took place after the publication of the Full Council agenda. The Chairman of the Committee will provide a verbal update on any recommendations at the meeting.

The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Cllr N Dixon, said that there had been one recommendation from the meeting on 12^th March and that related to the Budget Monitoring report, which had been covered at Agenda Item 10.

The Chair proposed that standing orders were suspended for agenda items 11 and 12 due to the importance of both topics and she wanted to ensure that there was an opportunity for a full debate. Under the Constitution, Chapter 2, section 18.10, members could only speak once during the debate and for no more than five minutes.

IT was proposed by the Chair, seconded by Cllr T Adams and

RESOLVED to

Suspend the following Standing Order – Chapter 2, section 18.10

‘A Member who has spoken on a motion may not speak again whilst it is the subject of debate’

The Chair then invited Cllr Adams to introduce this item.

Cllr Adams began by saying that this was the first part of significant changes to the landscape of Local Government. He explained that, through conversations with the Leaders of Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils, the Government had advised that it wanted to see proposals developed for a Mayoral Combined County Authority covering the geography of the two counties.  This position had then been agreed, in principle, by the Government which had included Norfolk and Suffolk in its Devolution Priority Programme, where proposals for new combined authorities would be developed and implemented in the coming months, with an election for a Norfolk and Suffolk Mayor to be held in May 2026. Before taking a decision on whether to proceed with the making of the necessary legislation, the Government was seeking views from interested parties, including those who lived and worked in the area.  The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had therefore recently announced a public consultation with residents, community organisations, businesses and other stakeholders inviting comments on these proposals. 

Seven questions had been set out and the Council was proposing a written response to each of these and members were invited to comment on each. He then outlined the questions in turn and the proposed response from the District Council (as set out in the appendix to the report).

In conclusion, Cllr Adams said that he was increasingly concerned about the benefits of introducing a combined authority and what it could deliver for residents.

The Chair invited members to speak:

Cllr C Cushing said that the Conservative Group would abstain from this voting on this agenda item as it was felt that it was too early in the process to fully understand the details and the implications of the formation of a new mayoral combined authority.

Cllr J Toye referred to question 3 – ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the economy of the area?’ He said that he believed it was a positive proposal that would benefit the local economy. However, he had concerns about representations locally and whether the pot of funding would effectively ‘thin out’.

Cllr L Shires referred to the recent engagement sessions held with town and parish councils. She said that attendance had been high and she  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

The Chair invited the Leader, Cllr Adams, to introduce this item. He set out the background to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) explaining that On 16^th December 2024, the Government published its English Devolution White Paper which stated that in areas of the country with a two-tier local government structure of county and district, borough and city councils there would be a move towards establishing a unitary structure of local government for the future. The Government confirmed that it would facilitate a programme of LGR for the 21 remaining two-tier county areas, creating larger unitary authorities.  The expectation was that all areas should develop locally-led proposals for reorganisation with existing councils working together to identify the best option for their area. These plans should complement devolution, rather than delay it, whilst avoiding scenarios where competing proposals are developed within a given geography.

On 5^th February it was announced that Norfolk and Suffolk were to be included on the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) and an initial deadline of 21^st March was set as the deadline for submission of interim proposals. Consequently, the seven districts had commissioned Deloitte, to prepare an evidence-based report evaluating possible unitary council models for Norfolk which was used to inform the development of the interim plan to be submitted to Government. The Councils had all convened meetings to support an agreed response in time for the deadline.

Cllr Adams said that he had concerns about the LGR agenda. He did support the creation of a greater Norwich Unitary. It would support the housing growth agenda and enable the rest of the County to benefit from that growth and accompanying public transport infrastructure. However, for North Norfolk in particular, he said that he saw more risk than reward in the LGR proposals. North Norfolk and the Broads were attractive to tourists and there was ‘brand recognition’ associated with both – nationally and even globally. NNDC played a significant role in the local economy through an extensive public realm portfolio – including the pier, country parks and public toilets. There was also a lot of additional support for local businesses, leisure facilities and arts and culture. The Government’s position towards such assets was at best vague and potentially ruinous. Consequently, he could not support their agenda as it currently stood. He acknowledged that, in reality, there was not alternative to the unitary route but said that a three unitary model would be preferable to a single one. The geographic area of a single authority would cover an area equivalent to 20 times that of Birmingham and the cost of implementing LGR would be substantial and the ongoing costs would also be significant.

In conclusion, he said that he reluctantly supported the three unitary model as it offered the best possible arrangement.  It would be the solution best able to represent large geographic areas. He referred members to the Deloitte report which had considered a one, two or three unitary council structure for Norfolk against the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

None Received.

None Received.

None Received.

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 item(s) of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph(s) _ of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”