Agenda item

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 P Heinrich – Sustainable Growth

Cllr C Ringer – IT, Environmental & Waste Services

Cllr L Shires – Finance, Estates & Assets

Cllr A Varley – Climate Change & Net Zero

Cllr L Withington – Community, Leisure & Outreach

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 Chairman reminded members that this item had a time limit of 30 minutes. She invited members to ask questions.

Cllr L Vickers asked the Leader, Cllr Adams, about recent rumours regarding the introduction of a tourist tax. She said she hoped he would dispel them as it could do great harm to a lucrative revenue stream for the District. The Leader replied that it was still in the early stages of consideration at the moment and no work had been undertaken yet. He added that there was no primary legislation in place to allow the District Council to introduce anything along these lines. If anything was introduced in the future it would be a small levy for bookings on Air BnB’s and holiday lets. A Business Improvement District was the only way to introduce change such as this and time would need to allocated to exploring this. He concluded by saying that many holiday lets were not paying towards local council services – via either council tax or business rates. Cllr Vickers thanked him for his comments and said she hoped the Administration would seek to work closely with opposition members if they decided to progress with this matter.

Cllr N Dixon asked the Leader, Cllr Adams, whether the feedback session by the LGA Peer Review team had prompted a review of some of the opinions and decisions regarding several key strategic points raised during meetings in the chamber seeking to strengthen the policies and work of the Council. Cllr Adams replied that he was very pleased with the work that was undertaken by the Peer Review team. The draft report would be shared with staff and members in the next 3 weeks and published on the website within 3 months. He reiterated that the main challenge was being able to continue to meet the targets in the same way that had been done previously. Cllr Dixon replied that the essence of the question was whether the Leader was considering a review of opinions and decisions. Cllr Adams said that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee would be involved in assessing the recommendations and any subsequent work that was needed to achieve them.

Cllr S Penfold asked Cllr A Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning & Enforcement, whether the failure of the nutrient neutrality amendment to the Levelling Up bill in the House of Lords, would impact on the Council’s ability to unlock development sites in the District. Cllr Brown replied that the Levelling Up Bill was essentially a planning reform act and there was clearly cross-party concern that was reflected in the amendment falling. He said that the initial measures that Natural England introduced to control the impact of nutrients in water courses had been reviewed in May 2023 and Natural England had conceded that they were very clumsy. He explained that in March 2023, the Council had set up a Joint Venture partnership to invest in land to offer up mitigation credits to developers who could not provide the necessary measures on site. He said about 25% of all local authorities nationally were affected by the nutrient neutrality issue – resulting in a 50% increase in the number of properties not being built in this year alone. He concluded by saying that the situation now was an argument over the importance of protecting habitats against meeting housebuilding targets. It would clearly have an impact across the country. He said that the falling of the amendment meant that the ‘baton’ for bearing the costs had now been returned to developers rather than the taxpayer.

Cllr C Cushing asked the Leader about the recent visit by Cabinet and the Corporate Leadership Team to Fakenham. He asked why local members and the town council had not been invited to join them and if there was any outcome from that visit. The Leader replied that he had visited Fakenham with his family since then and very much enjoyed the amenities on offer. He acknowledged that the town faced several challenges, including the recent closure of three banks and a number of empty shop units. He said that the Corporate Plan priorities included the introduction of banking hubs. In addition, there was a new public convenience in Fakenham which included a ‘changing places’ facility. The Council also hoped to undertake some partnership working with the County Council. It had been a very valuable and informative visit and a further visit was planned soon. Cllr Cushing said that lots of people in the town would be delighted to meet with Cabinet and discuss their concerns and help them to understand the issues and challenges that the town faced. The Leader replied that a meeting with Fakenham Town Council was scheduled for the following Monday and he would ensure that local members were included in future discussions.

Cllr J Boyle asked Cllr W Fredericks, Portfolio Holder for Housing, about the reference within her written report to a 48% increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation. Cllr Fredericks replied that domestic abuse cases had risen by 30% in the last year and there was an increased demand for places of safety. There was also a significant rent rise and a lack of private accommodation available to rent in the district. The average rent for a family home had increased by £80 a week and this was in addition to a rise in food and energy bills. The good news was that by Christmas the Council’s stock of temporary accommodation would have increased to 23 – 25 properties.

Cllr N Housden said he wished to follow up on Cllr Cushing’s earlier question about Fakenham. He said that the town was essentially desolate at the moment. On a Saturday afternoon there was no one in the town and he said that any meetings about the future of the town should include the Town Council, local members, representatives from local businesses and also the chairmen of neighbouring parish councils. The town was ‘dying on its feet’ and it needed significant investment. He asked Cllr Adams to arrange a meeting with local representatives from the town to have a proper discussion about its future. The Leader replied that he recognised there was a lot to be done in the town but also that it had a lot of potential. He added that the County Council owned several assets in the town and that working with partners and stakeholders would be beneficial in the long term.

Cllr P Fisher asked Cllr H Blathwayt, Portfolio Holder for Coast, about his recent attendance at the Local Government Association (LGA) Coastal Special Interest Group meeting. He wondered which key issues Cllr Blathwayt felt had a significance for the North Norfolk coast. Cllr Blathwayt replied that there was a strong push for a separate Ministry for the Coast and he was supportive of this. Government needed a significant focus on the challenges of coastal communities and coastal erosion. He added that there was also a presentation on disposable vapes and the long-term damage caused to wildlife by these and said that this could be an issue that the Council wanted to address.

Cllr K Bayes asked the Leader, in the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth, about investment across the District. He asked whether resources and support would be made available to towns such as Stalham to ensure that they could benefit from much needed investment. The Leader replied that the work of the High Street Taskforce in Stalham continued. There were highways issues that needed to be resolved by the County Council. He referred to funding from the Rural Prosperity Fund and said that there were opportunities to secure investment via this. He concluded by saying that the Council hoped to provide a Changing Places facility in Stalham but there were some challenges around this due to the Council’s limited property portfolio in the town. Options were being considered around this. Play equipment was also being looked at and assessed.

Cllr R Macdonald asked Cllr Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement, about the Government consultation on permitted development rights. He asked for information about the categories under review and the implications for planning decisions. Cllr Brown replied that the consultation was in relation to the Permitted Development Order 2015 and related to matters such as change of use for agricultural buildings, temporary market extensions. He said that there were two areas of concern to the Council; Class Q, conversion of barns to dwellings and Class R, buildings used for forestry and equine use. Essentially this meant that the current requirement for the building to be connected to agriculture if it was converted will be removed under the proposals. There would also be extensions up to 4m on barns and dwellings would be allowed to be built in conservation areas, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs) up to 37 square metres.

The Chairman said that there were two questions remaining but advised members that the time limit allocated for this item had been exceeded.