Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence, if any.

Apologies were received from Cllrs K Bayes, D Birch, T FitzPatrick, K Leith, L Paterson and L Vickers.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 23 April 2025 and 23 July 2025.

The minutes of the meetings held on 23^rd April and 23rd July 2025 were approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments:

Cllrs J and K Toye and Cllr A Varley were in attendance at the meeting of 23rd July but were not recorded as such.

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)

The Monitoring Officer (MO) informed members that she had granted dispensations to those members that were also Norfolk County Council councillors (known as ‘Twin Hatters’) to enable them to participate in the debate and vote on Local Government Reorganisation (Agenda item 9)

The following members declared that they had received such a dispensation:

Cllr T Adams, Cllr N Dixon, Cllr S Penfold and Cllr L Shires.

Cllr J Punchard declared that he had been granted a dispensation as an employee of Norfolk County Council.

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 Chair thanked the Vice-Chair, Cllr M Taylor for attending several events in recent weeks. The Chair said that he had attended the following:

10 August - VJ Day 80 Civic Service at Blakeney Parish Church

15 August - VJ 80 Commemoration at North Norfolk District Council

The Vice-Chair had attended the following events:

17 August - Parade & Service of Thanksgiving and Reflection VJ80 Anniversary - South Holland District Council at St Mary’s and St Nicholas Church, Spalding

09 September - Norfolk County Scout Council AGM at Easton College

12 September - Battle of Britain Parade & Commemoration at County Hall

14 September - Mayor of Dereham's Civic Service at St Nicholas Parish Church

15 September - Battle of Britain Service at City Hall

The Leader, Cllr Adams, said that he wished to hand over to Cllr H Blathwayt, as he had an announcement to make. Cllr Blathwayt said that the Cromer and Mundesley coastal management schemes had been awarded the Institute of Civil Engineers Award, which was on display in front of the dias. He thanked the Coastal team for their hard work and diligence.

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

None received.

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

There were no appointments made.

The Chair invited the Leader, Cllr Adams, to introduce this item.

Cllr Adams began by saying that it had taken months of hard work to reach the point of publishing the business case, ready for submission to Central Government. He thanked members, parish councils, statutory bodies and the 5,500 residents who had helped steer the development of the proposals. It was the most responses to any of the consultations on the various proposals that were being put forward.

He said that the engagement at the parish council briefings had led to the galvanisation of the approach on boundaries.

There had been significant commitment from officers and he thanked them too.

There would be further consultation on the most appropriate model with residents over the winter period, subject to an announcement by the national government. He went onto say that the three unitary proposal had been backed by the most councils, councillors and MPs with support from across the political spectrum. This was the only proposal to achieve this level of support and consensus. It was a genuine collaboration that had achieved such a positive outcome.

Cllr Adams then spoke about his concerns regarding LGR, which he had expressed previously. It required significant resources and he was concerned about the ‘fallow’ years following the adoption of the chosen model. He reminded members that LGR was being imposed on councils, it had not been asked for and local authorities were being asked to submit proposals but not opinions. That said, he believed that the three unitary proposal was the best opportunity to keep local government in Norfolk, local. It was the most detailed proposal of the three being put forward. It shared a vision of transformation, development of services, outlined options around council tax and proposals for social care and coastal management.

The proposal was for three unitary authorities for Norfolk which respected the geographical distinctiveness of such a large county which included rural areas a city and a long coastline, whilst keeping businesses and residents at the heart of the proposal. It achieved the strongest achieved the strongest possible identity and representation across all areas of Norfolk with appropriate numbers of councillors. It also achieved the original government ambition of a city unitary council and unlike other proposals removed the inbuilt tension and polarisation of funding distribution across the County. Crucially it met the Government tests for size and scale.

The proposal included an 8-year financial business case that would ensure the three authorities would be financially viable from day one, with a plan to deal with the County Council’s debts and a focus on early intervention and prevention across services to reduce demand. Again, crucially, the proposals would ensure that local decisions were made by local people.

Cllr Adams said that there was no desire to follow in the footsteps of several existing over-sixed councils and Norfolk deserved to learn from such experiences. He went onto say that the record for Norfolk County Council (NCC) securing investment in Norfolk had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The following recommendations have been made by Cabinet to Full Council:

Cabinet 31^st March 2025:

1.     Cabinet Agenda Item 7: Local Authority Housing Fund Round 3 - Funding for Temporary Accommodation

Recommended to Full Council –

To allocate £0.9m of the additional income from the Second Homes Premium (both from the County Council and District Council elements) as match funding for the LAHF grant.

2.     Cabinet Agenda Item 8:  Coastal Management - Budget for reactive coastal works

Recommendation to Full Council:

The establishment of a dedicated cliff works budget (£125k), administered by the Coastal Management Team.

3.     Cabinet Agenda Item 9: Coast Protection Works at Overstrand

Recommended that Full Council

Approves the required works to the Overstrand sea wall (option 4 of this report at paragraph 3.9) and that £1.280m be added to the Capital Programme for 2025/26 for this scheme and that this be funded by £0.245m of capital receipts, £0.386m of grant funding if able to obtain grant funding and the balance from borrowing.

Approves that the scheme be funded by up to a maximum of £1.035m of borrowing. It should be noted that the Council may be able to access grant funding (c. £0.386m) for this scheme and if successful it is proposed that the level of borrowing be reduced to £0.649m.

Cabinet 08 September 2025

The following recommendations were made to Full Council:

4.     Cabinet Agenda Item 8 Budget Monitoring Period 4 2025/26

It was recommended that Full Council:

a) To decrease the 2025/26 capital budget for the Mundesley Coastal Defence scheme to £1,139,806 to reflect the apportionment of £250k from external contributions to the Cromer Scheme.

b) To increase the 2025/26 capital budget for the Cromer Coastal Defences scheme to £1,096,067 to reflect the apportionment of £250k from external contributions from the Mundesley Scheme.

c) To note the contents of the Q1 Treasury Management update report, appendix F.

Please note that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered this item at the meeting on 17^th September which was after the Full Council agenda was published. The Chair will provide a verbal update on any recommendations at the meeting.

The Leader proposed that the following Cabinet recommendations were taken en bloc. The Chair sought members agreement and then proceeded to the vote:

It was RESOLVED unanimously:

1. Local Authority Housing Fund Round 3 - Funding for Temporary Accommodation

To allocate £0.9m of the additional income from the Second Homes Premium (both from the County Council and District Council elements) as match funding for the LAHF grant.

2. Coastal Management - Budget for reactive coastal works

To establish a dedicated cliff works budget (£125k), administered by the Coastal Management Team.

3. Coast Protection Works at Overstrand

To approve the required works to the Overstrand sea wall (option 4 of the report at paragraph 3.9) and that £1.280m be added to the Capital Programme for 2025/26 for this scheme and that this be funded by £0.245m of capital receipts, £0.386m of grant funding if able to obtain grant funding and the balance from borrowing.

To approve that the scheme be funded by up to a maximum of £1.035m of borrowing. It should be noted that the Council may be able to access grant funding (c. £0.386m) for this scheme and if successful it is proposed that the level of borrowing be reduced to £0.649m.

4. Budget Monitoring Period 4 2025/26

a) To decrease the 2025/26 capital budget for the Mundesley Coastal Defence scheme to £1,139,806 to reflect the apportionment of £250k from external contributions to the Cromer Scheme.

b) To increase the 2025/26 capital budget for the Cromer Coastal Defences scheme to £1,096,067 to reflect the apportionment of £250k from external contributions from the Mundesley Scheme.

c) To note the contents of the Q1 Treasury Management update report, appendix F.

To consider any further recommendations from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 17 September.

Please note that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting took place after the Full Council was published, The Chair will provide a verbal update at the meeting.

The Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Holliday, confirmed that the Committee had endorsed the Cabinet recommendation – Budget Monitoring P4, 2025 -2026. There were no other recommendations to Full Council at this time.

The following recommendation was made by the Constitution Working Party to Full Council at the meeting held on 16 September 2025:

-        To approve all the proposed changes to the Council’s constitution.

-        To delegate to the Monitoring Officer to make any further amendments that may arise as a consequence of the proposed changes.

Please note that due to the size of the document, it is not included in the agenda but can be accessed in the Library: Home | Document Draft Constitution Full Council Sep 2025

The Chair invited Cllr A Varley, Chair of the Constitution Working Party to introduce this item. Cllr Varley began by thanking the Monitoring officer and Democratic Services & Governance Manager for all their work in undertaking the review of the Constitution. He then explained that initially a full overhaul of the Constitution had been planned but once the LGR process began, the decision was taken to do a lighter touch review. It had been thorough and would ensure that the Constitution was up to date and fit for purpose for the next few years.

Cllr Varley then outlined the key changes which included an increase in the key decision threshold to £250K, an increase in the number of words for notices of motions and items of opposition business and an additional chapter for Development Committee.

It was proposed by Cllr A Varley, seconded by Cllr L Shires and

RESOLVED unanimously

-        To approve all the proposed changes to the Council’s constitution.

-        To delegate to the Monitoring Officer to make any further amendments that may arise as a consequence of the proposed changes.

The Chair explained to members that 30 minutes was allocated for this item.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked Cllr A Varley, Portfolio Holder for Climate Change & Net Zero, for a breakdown of numbers for people applying for grant funding across the five categories of the Norfolk Warm Homes programme and a list of completed projects in North Norfolk. Cllr Varley said that he did not have the figures to hand and would provide a written response as soon as possible.

Cllr S Penfold asked Cllr A Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning, about the Corporate Plan which stated ‘ that people should feel well informed about local issues and have opportunities to get involved, influence local decision-making and shape their area’. He said these were excellent aspirations but wondered how these tallied with the recent decision of the Development Committee meeting where the Chair used his casting vote to approve the application for a cold storage unit at the Albert Bartlett site in Worstead. Cllr Penfold said that the local community in Worstead felt completely overlooked and ignored by the Council when they expressed their opposition to such a major application and which continued to cause so much distress and anxiety in Worstead.  Cllr Brown thanked him for the question. He said that the Council endeavoured to consult communities on every planning application. Parish council clerks were informed and they were well advertised in the local area. He said that that Corporate Plan was satisfied by any planning consideration because consultation happened as a matter of course. He fully understood the anguish in Worstead. The application was not dealt with by officer delegation but called into the Development Committee for consideration by the Assistant Director for Planning. Objectors and supporters were able to speak at the meeting and a decision was taken in line with agreed meeting procedures. However, he explained the reasons for objecting to a planning application were quite limited. If there had been an error in the process then this could be challenged by Judicial Review. If there was an error of fact then it could be challenged in the courts. He said that the decision was properly arrived at and the only recourse now was for the community to lobby the applicant and see if they were prepared to submit a revised application which could address the concerns raised during the meeting by the objectors. He added that he would also check the early stages of the application process to see if the applicant had approached the Parish Council, he would also see if a pre-application form was submitted to NNDC.

Cllr Penfold thanked Cllr Brown. He said that he believed there were significant flaws in the process from start to finish and Cllr Dixon shared those concerns. Representations were being made to Albert Bartlett and the MP to highlight resident’s concerns. He said that he would welcome engagement with himself and Cllr Dixon to review the whole process from start to finish.

Cllr V Holliday asked Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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.”