Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence, if any.

Apologies were received from Cllrs P Bailey, W Fredericks, N Housden, G Mancini-Boyle, S Penfold and L Vickers.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 17 December 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17^th December 2025 were approved as a correct record.

The Chair presented the Assistant Director of Finance & Assets with his certificate for completion of the Institute of Leadership & Management (ILM) Level 7 award for Strategic Leadership.

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)

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.

There was one item of urgent business:

The Leader, Cllr T Adams, began by saying that he welcomed the decision to proceed with County Council elections in May and he assured members that the Council had the capacity to carry out elections. He then referred to the statement made by the Leader of Norfolk County Council on 17^th February, announcing that NCC was pulling out of the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process and devolution. Cllr Adams said that this was symptomatic of the Government’s approach so far. He clarified that NCC could not cancel LGR, however, the Government needed the County Council’s consent for devolution. Without NCC’s money and input, it would be extremely difficult to make progress with LGR. He went onto say that the landscape could change again with the upcoming elections.

Cllr Adams said that NNDC had always been sceptical of the benefits of LGR and had raised concerns about the costs, believing that the money would be better spent on public services. In addition, it was not felt that the envisaged savings had not been achieved in areas where LGR had already taken place. There were also considerable concerns about having a much larger authority which would be more remote from residents and businesses and the impact on the management of assets such as Cromer pier and the country parks. That said, NNDC had continued to engage with the process to ensure that benefits would be maximised for the district.

He said that he was concerned that by May 2028, the devolution package could look very different from that which was promised. He referred members to the budgetary allocation for LGR, which would need to be agreed by Full Council tonight. If it was not called upon for any reason, then it would be brought back to Council for debate and reallocated to other projects. He went onto say that discussions with counterparts would take place over the coming days, following agreement of the budget for 2026/2027. An agreed response was required to the Government’s questions regarding the statutory changes order and lastly how strategic partner procurement would be dealt with. In conclusion, he said that NNDC was now largely in the hands of others and he was concerned that the Government could change the narrative quite considerably, particularly the monetary value of devolution. Investment in key areas such as public transport was needed and there was a will to increase the scale of business activities across the County.

The Chair invited members to speak:

Cllr C Cushing said that he agreed with Cllr Adams comments and welcomed the decision to proceed with elections. He reminded members that by participating in the fast-track devolution process, millions of pounds of funding was meant to be delivered to Norfolk and this now seemed to have disappeared from the agenda. He added that only the Government now supported LGR and devolution and it seemed increasingly likely that it would therefore be imposed on local authorities against their will.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

To receive the Chairman’s communications, if any.

The Chair spoke about recent civic events that he had attended:

01 January – New Year’s Day Fireworks lighting ceremony

27 January – Holocaust Memorial Day service, St Peter Mancroft Church, Norwich

29 January – Puss in Boots, NNDC Panto, Sheringham Little Theatre

04 February – ceremonial opening of Kings Lynn Mart and Showmen’s lunch

06 February – 150^th Anniversary commemoration service for Henry Blogg, Lifeboat Coxswain.

The Leader, Cllr T Adams, said that the distribution of the second homes premium on the same basis as the current financial year. This presented a significant opportunity to support families through the provision of temporary accommodation.

He then spoke about the Council’s Coastal team and said he was pleased to say that a further share of funding had been secured for the Coastwise initiative. This demonstrated the success of the team and the work they had undertaken so far and provided an opportunity for coastal teams across the country to learn from NNDC’s knowledge and experience.

The Leader concluded by thanking everyone involved with the NNDC staff panto, which he had attended with his family and very much enjoyed.  

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

There were two public speakers – Julia Drury and Alexander Drury. Both wanted to speak in relation to Agenda Item 17 – Notice of Motion ‘Sheringham Sixth Form Provision and Post 16 Educational Inequality’.

The Chair invited Ms J Drury to speak first. She began by saying that she had been head of Sheringham Sixth form from its inception in 1995 until 2001. She explained that it was set up to provide opportunities for post 16 year olds in Sheringham and the surrounding area. In the first year it provided vocational and A level course to 32 students. By the time she left in 2001, there were 150 students and since then it had grown to over 200 students.  Many of those students had gone onto university and post A level training courses. The approach had always been to take any student with basic GCSE qualifications and help them achieve. Tailored support had been provided to every student with an aim to inspire so that they could aspire. By removing the opportunity to do A Levels at Sheringham Sixth Form, the aspirations of young people would be stifled.

Mr A Drury then spoke. He said that he attended Sheringham Sixth Form from 1998 to 2000. He said that the 6^th form was a springboard for achieving ambitions. For him, it had led to academic achievements and for others it meant that they were able to stay in the local area, working in various professions and in some cases, running their own businesses.  Many of his peer group were now embedded in the local community and contributing to the local economy. This demonstrated how important it was having a college in Sheringham as it helped retain local people in the area. He then went onto speak about people from low-aspiration households who did not have a tradition of educational attainment in the family and said that any barrier to accessing education had a significant impact on such young people achieving their potential.

To approve the recommendation from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to appoint Cllr C Rouse as a substitute to the Norfolk Health Overview Select Committee.

To receive any other nominations from the Group Leaders.

It was RESOLVED

To approve the recommendation from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to appoint Cllr C Rouse as a substitute on the Norfolk Health Overview Select Committee.

The Leader, Cllr Adams, introduced this item. He said that it was a statutory report that came to Full Council on an annual basis.

It was RESOLVED

To adopt the Pay Policy Statement and to publish the statement for 2026/2027 on the Council’s website.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Estates & Property Services, introduced this item. She explained that the proposed increases set out in the order did not affect the standard inland car parks in the market towns, as it was acknowledged that they faced different challenges to the coastal car parks.

Cllr Shires then highlighted some of the responses to the consultation. Regarding the Hornbeam Road car park in North Walsham, she said that it had been designed to support transport from the train station and not to solve displacement parking from nearby residential streets. It was intended to support sustainable transport from the nearby train station and the very well used Norwich Road bus stop. Last year, charges were introduced on the site to see if maintenance costs could be covered. Following discussions with users of the car parks, feedback from occasional users indicated that the daily rates were far too high. It was therefore proposed that a daily flat rate of £3.00 was trialled which was comparable to that of the train station car park. The impact would be monitored carefully. She went onto say that tourism brought pressure to the Council’s coastal car parks and it was reasonable that visitors should contribute towards the maintenance and upkeep of these car parks. Prices would be kept at a competitive price to ensure that visitors were not deterred.

Finally, Cllr Shires sought to quell any concerns regarding eating and cooking within the car parks. She said that it was not intended to prevent anyone from eating fish and chips in their car. The intention was to stop parking spaces being used for cooking or picnic places. It was a standard provision in car park orders across the country and the wording had been clarified to remove any ambiguity.

It was proposed by Cllr L Shires, seconded by Cllr T Adams and

RESOLVED unanimously

1. That the Council introduces the Car Parking Order 2026 on 7 April 2026 as advertised.

2. That the Council considers it appropriate to make the order subject to minor changes to wording within the Car Parking Order 2026.

The following recommendations were made by Cabinet at the meeting held on 2^nd February:

1.    Cabinet Agenda item 8: Capital Strategy 2026 -2027

RESOLVED

To recommend to Full Council that the Capital Strategy 2026/27 is approved

2.    Cabinet Agenda item 9: Treasury Management Strategy 2-26 – 2027

RESOLVED

To recommend to Full Council that the Treasury Management Strategy 2026/27 is approved

3.    Cabinet Agenda item 10: Non-Domestic Rates Policy 2026 - 2027

RESOLVED to recommend to Full Council:

a)    That the Revenues Manager continues to have delegated authority to make decisions up to the NNDC cost value of £4k as indicated in Appendix A.

b)    That the Revenues Manager continues to have delegated authority to make Hardship Relief decisions up to the NNDC cost value of £4k as indicated in Appendix C.

c)    That the Rate Relief Policy is revised as indicated in Appendix A, B and C.

4.    Cabinet Agenda item 12: Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026/27 – 2029/30

RESOLVED

To recommend that Full Council approves the Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2026/27 – 2029/30

Cllr L Shires introduced this item. She said that the reports had all been to Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee, where the recommendations had been supported. The Treasury management Strategy had been reviewed by the Governance, Risk & Audit Committee (GRAC). She did not intend to present them in detail but  said that she wanted to provide an update on the Non-Domestic Rates Policy 2026 – 2027, as the Government had recently introduced some changes.

Cllr Shires explained that if an organisation occupied a property on which it paid National Non-Domestic (Business) Rates (NDR) it may be eligible for up to 100% Discretionary Rate Relief if it was operated within some or all of the guidelines shown in the policy. She added that the guidelines for determining relief were not intended to be a rigid set of rules and neither were all the guidelines applicable to every organisation. Each case would be judged on its merits taking into account the contribution which each organisation/business made to the district’s amenities and its resident’s lifestyles and wellbeing.

The government had announced a new ten-year 100% relief for eligible electronic vehicle charging points and electric vehicle only forecourts to start from 1 April 2026/27. These properties would be identified by the VOA and would be fully funded by Section 13 grants.

Cllr Shires then talked through the rest of the key changes:

The Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Rates Relief scheme provided eligible retail, hospitality, and leisure properties with 40% relief which previously was 50% and 75%. From 1 April 2026 this would be replaced by two lower multipliers.

The new mandatory RHL multipliers were based on occupation of the business not the VOA description and would enable NNDC to provide government updates throughout the 2026/27 year to fully compensate for the loss of income as a result of these changes. In line with the government, NNDC had updated the discretionary rate relief policy to end this relief from 1 April 2026.

Supporting Small Businesses relief was government funded to local authorities so that they could provide relief for businesses that had a Rateable Value (RV) increase from 1 April 2026 caused by the 2026 NDR revaluation and as a consequence lost Small Business Rates Relief, Rural Rate Relief or RHL relief. This relief would be capped at the higher of £800 or the relevant transitional relief caps from 1 April 2026 and would apply for three years. The previous scheme was due to end on 31 March 2026 however has been extended for another year. The relief would be delivered through local authority discretionary discount powers (under section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as amended).

Cllr Shires then explained that the discretionary government scheme for Film Studios relief which started on 1 April 2025 at 40% relief would continue until 2034. There were no such studios in the district currently.

She then spoke about recent changes to pubs and live music venues relief, explaining that the government had announced on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

To consider any further recommendations to Full Council made by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee at the meeting on 11^th February (which have not already been covered by Agenda item 9).

Please note that the Full Council agenda was published before the Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting took place, so recommendations could not be included in the agenda. The Chair will provide a verbal update at the meeting (if required).

The Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Cllr V Holliday, confirmed that there were no further recommendations to Full Council.

The Chair advised members that there would be a series of recorded votes. He then invited the S151 Officer and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to speak on the robustness of the estimates.

The CFO said that when considering the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of reserves a holistic approach was taken, which considered the general reserve, earmarked reserves and the identified risks in relation to the revenue and capital budgets presented for approval.

The CFO confirmed that he was satisfied that the estimates, as presented in the budget were sufficiently robust and that the reserve balances proposed for 2026/27 were adequate.

The Chair then invited Cllr L Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Estates & Property Services to introduce the Budget for 2026/2027.

Cllr Shires began by saying that despite a deeply disappointing funding review, the Council had been able to produce a balanced budget. Funding for the Council was reduced in real terms and included a government funding floor of 95% of Core Spending Power. Additionally, new burdens had been placed on the Council with insufficient funding for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and a domestic food waste collection service. She said this approach reinforced a long-held concern that central government did not understand rural communities. The funding formula may be national but the consequences were intensely local. This was not a new phenomenon. Since 2010, shire districts had experienced some of the deepest cuts in funding whilst facing additional pressures such as the need for temporary accommodation and the implementation of food waste collection. National economic volatility, inflationary pressures, pay award uncertainty and fluctuating interest rates all continued to increase the cost of delivering services. Through prudent financial management, disciplined use of reserves, careful forecasting and a clear medium term financial strategy (MTFS), the Council had been able to maintain essential services. Whilst other councils faced instability, NNDC continued to plan responsibly.

Cllr Shires said that the shortfall in funding for temporary accommodation remained one of the most significant challenges. By the end of the financial year a temporary accommodation funding gap of £400k was anticipated, a position that was likely to continue into the next year. It was due to such pressures that the Council introduced the 100% second homes premium and she confirmed that North Norfolk’s 7.3% share of this premium which resulted in £663K, would be used to mitigate government funding shortfalls and to maintain the second homes premium reserve. That reserve would continue to provide stability in managing temporary accommodation costs. In addition, NNDC had successfully negotiated a share of the County Council’s second homes premium, estimated at £1.7m. This agreement ensured that the capital investment that was committed for temporary accommodation could now be funded without borrowing.

She then spoke about the proposed mandatory introduction of food waste collections, saying that whilst the Council supported the environmental ambitions of the policy, the funding provided by central government underestimated the establishment and ongoing costs of such a scheme. The initial capital allocations have underestimated the real  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

To receive reports from Cabinet Members on their portfolios.

Cllr T Adams - Executive Support & Legal Services

Cllr H Blathwayt – Coast

Cllr J Boyle – Housing and People Services

Cllr A Brown – Planning & Enforcement

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 said that Cllr C Ringer would like to make a statement regarding the collection of food waste. Cllr Ringer reminded members that Full Council had already approved funding to purchase vehicles for food waste collections. The Council had engaged constructively with DEFRA about the challenges anticipated but always with a clear commitment to deliver. One of the concerns raised had been about the rush to market for such vehicles. The original timeframe would have seen NNDC take delivery of vehicles in the late summer with rollout of the service aimed for the Autumn. Unfortunately, the Council had now been informed of delays to the production of vehicles and implementation would now move to early 2027. He would keep members updated as matters progressed.

Cllr J Toye then showed a short film about the ‘High Street Matters’ initiative and the North Norfolk High Streets Matter scheme. He thanked officers for their support and work on this project and County colleagues for use of the video and said it showed the benefits of good collaboration and hoped the same approach would be taken to LGR.

The Chair invited members to ask questions:

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett asked Cllr C Ringer about the reference in his report to 59 cases of bio-crime in January. She wondered why there had been an increase. Cllr Ringer replied that he didn’t believe that it was a long-term increase. It covered the Christmas period.

Cllr V Holliday asked Cllr J Boyle for more detail on the 48 homes proposed for disposal by Flagship Housing Association. Cllr Boyle replied that a meeting had been arranged with Flagship to discuss the homes that had been disposing of. The intention was to sell one property and make two new ones available. Due to difficulties with nutrient neutrality in Norfolk, some of the properties had been built outside of North Norfolk. However, this year, a significant number of new homes would be provided.  She added that NNDC always looked into the possibility of purchasing such properties for temporary accommodation, but this was not always financially viable. She said that she would provide more information when she had been updated by Flagshio. Cllr V Holliday said that there used to be monthly meetings between the Council’s Strategic Housing Team and the Housing providers. She asked whether these had lapsed. She added that she was concerned that villages were losing properties due to the Housing Association’s disposal programmes but that any replacements were often out of the District. Cllr Boyle agreed but said that the Council could only influence the situation as they had no financial stake. She reiterated that there were more new properties in the pipeline.

Cllr K Bayes asked Cllr A Brown about there being no mention of neighbourhood plans in his portfolio report. He said that Stalham had submitted one a while ago and he asked for the current situation. Cllr Brown replied that neighbourhood plans that had been submitted were proceeding but there was no funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

None Received.

None received.

None Received.

None received.

The following Notices of Motion have been received:

1.    Motion against the proposed closure of Corpusty School

Proposed by Cllr A Brown, seconded by Cllr C Ringer

2.    Sheringham Sixth Form Provision and Post-16 Educational Inequality

Proposed by: Cllr Liz Withington, seconded by C Ringer

The Chair advised members that there were two Notices of Motion. As thirty minutes was allocated for this item in total, he suggested that 15 minutes was allowed for each motion.

The Chair then invited Cllr A Brown to introduce the first motion:

Proposed closure of Corpusty School

Cllr Brown began by thanking residents of Corpusty for attending the meeting and showing their support. He said that Corpusty Primary School had been operating since 1881 and had survived economic depressions and two wars and had weathered declining pupil numbers before. It had taken Synergy Trust just 7 years to preside over a period of managed decline. The consultation in January 2026 was circulated to some local residents but not the local member.

He went onto say that Corpusty had the first neighbourhood plan in North Norfolk and the school was central to the community and additional housing had been planned around it. Without any detail from Synergy Trust regarding what they wanted to replace it with, it was hard to gauge future viability. The principal reason provided was falling pupil numbers but Cllr Brown felt that this was disingenuous. Governance appeared to be obscure. If it was accepted that the school was due to close, then the alternative options were Reepham or Gresham rather than Astley school which was much closer and had capacity.

Cllr Brown concluded by saying that although he acknowledged that education was not a responsibility of the District Council, members had a duty to try and understand what was going on at Corpusty school and what was being withheld. The vibrancy of the village depended on having an active school. He therefore proposed the motion.

The Chair invited members to speak:

Cllr L Shires said that as a parent of a child who had attended a small rural school, she was supportive of village primary schools. They were special to the young people who attended them and the communities around them.

Cllr J Boyle said she was concerned that when schools were closed in villages that had been earmarked for expansion, there were significant ramifications. The Council had worked hard to prepare a Local Plan and had allocated new housing in villages such as Corpusty due to the presence of a school. The wider impact of not taking a holistic approach was worrying.

Cllr C Ringer then spoke as seconder of the motion. He said that the primary school had stood at the centre of village life in Corpusty since 1881. The rhythm of daily life changed when schools closed and it should always be a last resort.

If falling numbers were the rationale for closure then more investigation was needed to explore all reasonable alternatives. Modest viability in one setting could relieve pressure in another. Holt Primary School was under significant strain at the moment and a more strategic approach to intake across local schools would be beneficial.

He asked if there had been meaningful engagement with NNDC at any point regarding projected housing growth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

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.”