Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence, if any.

Apologies had been received from Cllrs T Adams, W Fredericks, G Hayman, C Heinink, N Housden, G Perry-Warnes, J Punchard, C Stockton, A Varley and A Yiasimi

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 22 September 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd September were agreed 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)

None received.

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.

Cllr P Grove-Jones, the Vice-Chairman, was chairing the meeting in the absence of the Chairman, who was unwell. She provided a short update to Members on two civic events that she had recently attended. She said that she had been very proud to lead the ceremony for the laying of wreaths at the Council’s poppy memorial and was pleased to see how many members of staff had attended. She said that the Chairman’s civic reception at Fakenham racecourse in early October had been very enjoyable.

The Leader said that as she had been absent following a family bereavement, she was going to hand over to the Deputy Leader, Cllr E Seward.

Cllr Seward began by updating Members on Greenbuild, which had been held remotely this year due to the pandemic. He said that a series of online talks and briefings on the theme of climate change had been run concurrently with COP 26. There had been many excellent speakers and over 600 participants. The sessions were still available to view online so this number would continue to increase. He thanked the Council’s climate change team for being so innovative in their approach.

Cllr Seward then handed over the Cllr V Gay, Portfolio Holder for Leisure, to make an important announcement.

Cllr Gay said that she was delighted to announce that the Council’s new leisure centre in Sheringham, the Reef would be opening on Tuesday 30^th November. A short video of the new centre and its facilities was then played to members.

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

Mr D Russell has requested to speak and pay tribute to two former NNDC councillors who have recently passed away:  Mr Phillip Kemp and Mr Des Hewitt.

The Chairman said that there were two statements from members of the public. She invited Mr D Russell to address members. Mr Russell said that he was a former elected member and former Chairman of the Council and he thanked members for allowing him to speak. He then spoke about two former councillors, Phillip Kemp and Des Hewitt, who had both recently passed away. He asked Members to join him in a minutes silence in their memory.

The Chairman thanked Mr Russell for attending the meeting. She then read out the following statement from Elaine Addison, which was in support of Agenda Item 16, Motion 2:

‘I have been appalled by the reckless and near total disregard for water safety by the privatised water companies in England, and successive government failure to enforce investment in water infrastructure.  Coupled with the disastrous cut to the funding of the Environment Agency by two-thirds since 2010, it seems the electorate are being taken for mugs, whilst water company shareholders are creaming off profits. To note that more than 70% of England’s water industry is owned by foreign ‘investors’ Anglian Water is owned by a consortium of international investment funds. These include Colonial First State Global Asset Management (Australia) IFM Investors (Australia) and 3i (UK). Over 30% of the company is owned by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board, a pension fund owned by the Canadian state.

Of course, we need to protect rivers, the Norfolk Broads and coastal waters for recreational swimming, water sports and to protect the wildlife reliant on the clean environment.  However, I was also interested to read a report in yesterday’s Observer newspaper, and wondered how Anglian Water’s approach is affecting our seafood industry in North Norfolk? It seems that e-coli in our drinking water has increased recently across the South East, which is suspected to be caused by a failure in the water cleaning process. This put simply is untreated sewage flowing into our rivers. We have also seen cases of norovirus increasing during the summer months, quite out of season. Whilst it is difficult to pinpoint the source of norovirus, it should be noted than norovirus can ‘live’ in water for months. This is an extremely unpleasant virus, but it could also be catastrophic for our seafood industry. The Observer includes a report from an oyster company in the South East, stating that norovirus incidents had recently occurred after eating oysters. This resulted in Public Health England closing the company down, until they had put in place testing for norovirus and e-coli.

I certainly support NNDC’s engagement with Anglian Water, but would also support NNDC in urging our government to tighten up restrictions and bring forward tougher legislation.  I’m afraid the fines are cheaper than investment in infrastructure. Government agencies such as the EA, and DEFRA are no match for these companies in their present form, and privatised water companies have no incentive to go further than the absolute minimum required by law.  Investment in infrastructure must  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

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

The Group Leaders did not have any appointments to make at this time.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman of the Employment & Appeals Committee.

Nominations will be received at the meeting.

The Chairman invited nomination for Vice-chairman of the Employment & Appeals Committee.

Cllr E Seward nominated Cllr A Fitch-Tillett. This was seconded by Cllr S Butikofer.

There being no other nominations, it was put to the vote and

RESOLVED that Cllr A Fitch-Tillett be elected as Vice-Chairman of the Employment & Appeals Committee.

Cllr Fitch-Tillett thanked members for their confidence in her.

To receive reports from Cabinet Members on their portfolios.

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)

Cabinet members:

Cllr S Butikofer (Leader)

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett – Coast

Cllr W Fredericks – Housing & Benefits

Cllr V Gay – Leisure, Culture & Wellbeing

Cllr R Kershaw – Sustainable Growth

Cllr N Lloyd – Environment

Cllr E Seward – Finance & Assets

Cllr L Shires – Organisational Resources

Cllr J Toye – Planning & Enforcement

The Chairman said that as full written reports were included in the agenda, Cabinet members were only expected to provide a short oral update on any matters that had occurred since the agenda was published. There being none, she invited members to ask questions.

1.     Cllr C Cushing asked the Deputy Leader, Cllr Seward, for an update on the motion on social care which had been supported  at the meeting of Full Council on 16^th December 2020. He said that he had not heard about it since and wondered if any of the agreed actions had been implemented. Cllr Seward asked Cllr Gay, as Portfolio Holder for Wellbeing to respond. Cllr Gay said that she had provided updates on this matter in previous portfolio holder reports. She had also provided a reply to Cllr Dixon on this. She said that it was a County Council led project and it was difficult for the District Council to make a contribution. That said, there had been some actions, including the introduction of the ‘ carers’ employment scheme’. Regarding designated positions, she conformed that she was the lead member and that the Early Help & Prevention Manager was the lead officer. Cllr Cushing asked if a further update could be provided at the next meeting of Council. Cllr Gay agreed and said that she would also share the previous written updates with Cllr Cushing. 

2.     Cllr E Spagnola asked Cllr Fitch-Tillett, Portfolio Holder for Coast, if she could confirm when work would commence on the sea defences at Cromer. Cllr Fitch-Tillett replied that the Coastal team had been out to local liaison groups and the contract was now being finalised ahead of going out to tender in the new year. She said the intention was to start the work after the summer holiday season in 2022. She concluded by saying that as the materials were being brought in by barge, it was hoped that it would be a tourist attraction.

3.     Cllr J Rest said he wished to put a question to Cllr Fredericks, Portfolio Holder for Housing. As she was not in attendance, he said that he would accept a written response. He referred to page 19 of the agenda and the section on affordable homes, commenting that the first two figures (71 and 92)  and the second two (73 and 91) added up to 164. He asked for clarification on where the additional number came from as it was not clear.

4.     Cllr S Penfold asked Cllr Seward (in the Portfolio Holder’s absence) for clarification on the Council’s position regarding shared ownership schemes. Cllr Seward replied that the Council welcomed and encouraged such schemes as a source of affordable housing and which was an effective means of enabling lower income households to purchase a home. He went onto say that the housing market was currently broken. Recently there had been a number of household situations where they had not been able to access affordable housing and they had not been eligible  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The following recommendations to Council were made at the meeting held on 4^th October:

Agenda Item 8 – Determination of Council Tax Discounts 2022/23

Overview & Scrutiny Committee supported the recommendations at the meeting held on 13^th October 2021.

There were no recommendations to Council from the Cabinet meeting held on 1^st November 2021.

1.     Determination of Council Tax Discounts 2022/23

It was proposed by Cllr E Seward, seconded by Cllr R Kershaw and

RESOLVED

That under section 11A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 2012 and other enabling powers one of the following applies:

Recommendation 1

(a)           The discounts for the year 2022/23 and beyond are set at the levels indicated in the table at paragraph2.1.

(b)            The premium for long term empty properties (those that have been empty for a consecutive period longer than 24 months) is set at 100% of the Council Tax charge for thatdwelling

(c)            The premium for long term empty properties (those that havebeen

empty for a consecutive period longer than 60 months) is set at 200% of the Council Tax charge for thatdwelling

(d)            The premium for long term empty properties (those that have been empty for a consecutive period longer than 120 months) is set at 300% of the Council Tax charge for thatdwelling

(e)            To award a Council Tax Hardship Discount of 100% as per the policy attached at Appendix B, under the provisions section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended)

(f)             To continue to award a local discount of 100% for eligible cases of care leavers under section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended).

(g)            That an exception to the levy charges may be made by the Section 151 Officer in conjunction with the Portfolio holder for Finance, on advice of the Revenues Manager in the circumstances laid out in section 3.6 of this report.

Recommendation 2

(a)            those dwellings that are specifically identified under regulation 6 of the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings)(England) Regulations 2003 will retain the 50% discountand;

(b)            those dwellings described or geographically defined at Appendix A which in the reasonable opinion of the Head of Finance and AssetManagement are judged not to be structurally capable of occupation all year round and were built before the restrictions of seasonal usage were introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, will be entitled to a 35% discount.

In accordance with the relevant legislation

these determinations shall be published in at least one newspaper circulating in North Norfolk before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the date of the determinations.

To consider any recommendations from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee  meetings held on 13^th October and 10^th November.

There were no further recommendations to Council from 13^th October meeting.

Please note that the 10^th November meeting was held after the Full Council agenda was issued. The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee will provide an oral update to Full Council.

Cllr N Dixon, Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee confirmed that there were no recommendations from the committee to Full Council.

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Tracy Howard 01263 591613 tracy.howard@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Lara Clare 01263 516252 lara.clare@north-norfolk.gov.uk

The Licensing & Appeals Committee meeting of 27^th September 2021 resolved to recommend the approval of the policies to Full Council.

Cllr N Lloyd, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services, introduced this item. He explained that both policies were due for review in order to comply with statutory requirements. The revised documents took into account any recent legislative changes and case law. A six week period of consultation had been undertaken with statutory consultees, with only one response being received. The revised policies had been considered by the Licensing & Appeals Committee in September and the committee recommended adoption to Full Council.

It was proposed by Cllr N Lloyd, seconded by Cllr P Butikofer and

RESOLVED

To approve the Statement of Licensing Policy 2021-2026 and the Statement of Principles under the Gambling Act Policy 2022-2025

None Received.

None received.

Please note that the total time allotted for this item is 30 minutes – as set out in the Constitution, Chapter 2, paragraph 3.7(d)

The following item of Opposition Business has been proposed by Cllr N Dixon, seconded by Cllr C Cushing:

There’s mounting concern that this Council isn’t doing enough in terms of supporting the growth of sustainable economic development across the District to retain and grow jobs within existing businesses and to attract inward investment, either for infrastructure or from the arrival of new businesses to areas with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation. Although at least two strands of its Corporate Plan should be capable of delivering new better paid and higher skill career opportunities at scale this Administration is failing to deliver.

In particular, the District, isn’t achieving the creation of new sustainable, high skill career jobs within existing, or new businesses, in proportion with housing growth nor is it attracting infrastructure investment to help support internal growth or to attract new businesses. There’s very little evidence of multi-agency work with adjoining Districts, the County Council, the New Anglia LEP or direct with central government; over the past two years there’s nothing significant to show it has the determination to strive and drive to deliver on these commitments.

In fact, there are good reasons to suggest the socioeconomic deprivation gap across the District is widening mostly because those at the bottom end are becoming more deprived and disadvantaged. When is this Administration going to recognise that situation and what is it going to do, other than drawing up plans devoid of effective action and tangible outcomes, to actually deliver beneficial change to local economies, improve social mobility and community wellbeing?

This motion calls on this Administration to redouble current efforts to:

1. Speak up for North Norfolk to win inward investment and create high skill career jobs on a scale comparable with our neighbouring Districts.

2. Work with partners and others agencies creatively so that North Norfolk isn’t left out of the funding support streams that our neighbouring Councils seem to tap into.

3. Get alongside local businesses keen to grow and expand and cultivate the tentative enquiries from businesses seeking to migrate into North Norfolk.

The following item of Opposition Business had been proposed by Cllr N Dixon and seconded by Cllr C Cushing:

‘There’s mounting concern that this Council isn’t doing enough in terms of supporting the growth of sustainable economic development across the District to retain and grow jobs within existing businesses and to attract inward investment, either for infrastructure or from the arrival of new businesses to areas with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation. Although at least two strands of its Corporate Plan should be capable of delivering new better paid and higher skill career opportunities at scale this Administration is failing to deliver.

In particular, the District, isn’t achieving the creation of new sustainable, high skill career jobs within existing, or new businesses, in proportion with housing growth nor is it attracting infrastructure investment to help support internal growth or to attract new businesses. There’s very little evidence of multi-agency work with adjoining Districts, the County Council, the New Anglia LEP or direct with central government; over the past two years there’s nothing significant to show it has the determination to strive and drive to deliver on these commitments.

In fact, there are good reasons to suggest the socioeconomic deprivation gap across the District is widening mostly because those at the bottom end are becoming more deprived and disadvantaged. When is this Administration going to recognise that situation and what is it going to do, other than drawing up plans devoid of effective action and tangible outcomes, to actually deliver beneficial change to local economies, improve social mobility and community wellbeing?

This motion calls on this Administration to redouble current efforts to:

1. Speak up for North Norfolk to win inward investment and create high skill career jobs on a scale comparable with our neighbouring Districts.

2. Work with partners and others agencies creatively so that North Norfolk isn’t left out of the funding support streams that our neighbouring Councils seem to tap into.

3. Get alongside local businesses keen to grow and expand and cultivate the tentative enquiries from businesses seeking to migrate into North Norfolk.’

Cllr Dixon began by setting out the context behind the motion. He said that local economies were the wealth and revenue creators essential to sustaining the people and fabric of the District. He said that his experience was based on the east of the District but that it was likely to be equally true in relation to the west of the District. He said that while agriculture, tourism and the care sector made up a large part of the district’s economy, there was a reliance on specialist businesses to create well paid, highly skilled work with career opportunities. It was these jobs which raised socio-economic standards, reduced deprivation and improved quality of life. He said that much had been done recently to improve education in schools and raise ambitions amongst the district’s young people. However, many left the District to find quality, well paid jobs once their education was completed. If the Council was to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Please note that there is a total time limit of 30 minutes for this item – as set out in the Constitution, Chapter 2, paragraph 14.11.

The following Motions have been submitted:

1.Remote meetings - Allow elected members to attend online

Proposed by Cllr J Rest, seconded by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett

‘We have long called for the ability to be able to attend and vote on line. Whilst we will always want councillors to be able to meet in person, there needs to be the provision for some to be online, for example if they are vulnerable, have caring responsibilities or difficulties with transport. It is also in line with reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2030. Northern Ireland recently agreed in its parliament to allow councils to meet and vote remotely, Wales and Scotland already allow this. England is being left behind.
 
This Council mandates the Leader to write to the new Secretary of State, to call for parity across the UK and enable councillors in England to meet and vote on line as they see fit.
 
This Council re-investigates the feasibility of hosting hybrid meetings in one room, such as the Council Chamber.’

2. Reduction of sewage discharges

Proposed by Cllr N Lloyd, seconded by Cllr E Withington:

(For full background information, please see attached document)

This Council resolves to:

1)    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chief Executive of Anglia Water and seek the following information:

a)    Report to the year-round figures for sewage discharges (including Combined sewage outfall) across the North Norfolk District Council area

b)    Explain how this information shared with the public to help them make informed decisions as to water safety for recreational use

c)     Explain what percentage of reporting of CSOs is live or from modelling?

d)    Complete the process of identifying and classifying the performance (from both daily events and through extreme weather conditions) of CSOs in order to focus remedial action and investment across the district

e)    Confirm which assets have been prioritised for investment and what plans are in place to reduce and prevent CSO events

f)      Report on Anglian Water targets for reducing CSO events in the short term and longer Term

g)    Report much money is being invested in infrastructure improvements in the area covered by North Norfolk District Council and what measures are being taking to ensure this infrastructure is climate resilient?

h)    Explain what additional measures are being taken to reduce sewage discharges or other pollution incidents in those parts of the North Norfolk river systems including its canal and the coastal waters that lie within the area covered by North Norfolk District Council?

2)    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chair, Phillip Dunne MP, of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Select Committee stating :

a)    This Council is in agreement with the Government U turn on supporting the amendment which will place a new legal duty directly on water companies to progressively reduce the adverse impacts of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 115.

Two Notices of Motion had been received. The Chairman said that she would take them in order:

The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Cllr J Rest, seconded by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett:

1.    Remote meetings

‘We have long called for the ability to be able to attend and vote on line. Whilst we will always want councillors to be able to meet in person, there needs to be the provision for some to be online, for example if they are vulnerable, have caring responsibilities or difficulties with transport. It is also in line with reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2030. Northern Ireland recently agreed in its parliament to allow councils to meet and vote remotely, Wales and Scotland already allow this. England is being left behind.
 
This Council mandates the Leader to write to the new Secretary of State, to call for parity across the UK and enable councillors in England to meet and vote on line as they see fit.
 
This Council re-investigates the feasibility of hosting hybrid meetings in one room, such as the Council Chamber.’

Cllr Rest began by saying that during the last six months there had been several occasions when, if hybrid meetings could have been held, members who were unable to attend in person could have taken part in the debate and voted. He referred to the Chairman and at least one other member who were not in attendance at Full Council as they were isolating due to Covid. He went onto say that over the last 18 months, members had all mastered how to participate effectively in remote meetings and Democratic Services had records to show that attendance had increased considerably at such meetings. He said that training courses had also been extremely well attended when held remotely. Cllr Rest said that with the future of local government services at a critical juncture, it was not the time to go back to old ways. Members needed to retain the ability to make quick decisions, which was the trademark of local authorities during the pandemic.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett, seconded the motion. She said that allowing members to attend meetings remotely supported the Council’s ambition of become carbon neutral by 2030. It also reduced claims for travel expenses. Some members had to travel long distances to get to the Council offices and this took time that could be better used by joining meetings remotely from home.

Cllr E Seward said that he supported the motion. More flexibility was needed around the holding of meetings. Hybrid meetings could take place in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales but not in England. He referred to a Cabinet member who was able to participate fully in a pre-Cabinet meeting yesterday but who could not attend the Council meeting to answer question or take part in the debate because she was isolating due to Covid.

Cllr J Toye said he was supportive because it greatly increased the engagement of elected members and the public.

Cllr E  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

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.”