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 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)

Cllr T FitzPatrick asked the Leader, Cllr T Adams, about the ongoing problem of the long-term scaffolding in Norwich Street, Fakenham. He said he was receiving complaints from residents on a continual basis. He said that it was dangerous as people had to step onto the road to get past and it also looked a mess. People on mobility scooters found it particularly dangerous. He concluded by asking why this listed building was still being left neglected after 5 years. He referenced the publication ‘Stopping the Rot’ by Historic England, which provided guidance for local authorities on managing buildings that were falling into disrepair and questioned whether there was an intention to compulsory purchase the property before it collapsed.

Cllr Adams replied that he appreciated the concerns that had been raised regarding this property but reminded members that it did not belong to the Council and options to address the issues were limited. However, there had been an agreement regarding the scaffolding and the access would be improved soon. Regarding a compulsory purchase, he said that he wished it was a straightforward process and despite a brief reference to it in the King’s Speech, it was not yet clear whether it would be simplified and made less costly for local authorities. As it currently stood, the process was lengthy and complex. He concluded by saying that discussions were ongoing with the owner of the property and all options would be considered in the future.  Cllr FitzPatrick asked whether a dangerous building notice had been served and whether the Leader could confirm that all the required processes had been followed to date. Cllr Adams replied that any immediate danger posed by the property had been addressed several years ago. Adding that dialogue continued with the owner of the property and local members were welcome to participate in this if they wished.

Cllr L Vickers said that she also wanted to comment on this issue. She said that there was no reason why the matter should proceed at a glacial pace. Several months ago she had requested that officers take independent advice regarding the rights and responsibilities of the owners and the options for the Council. However, when Cllr Vickers had asked to see this advice, none had been received. She asked if Cllr Adams would commit to officers receiving independent legal advice so they could proceed with addressing the issues as a matter of urgency. Cllr Adams said that the Council had pushed back firmly regarding the rights and obligations of the leaseholders and the Chamber wasn’t an appropriate setting to discuss this matter. There was no decision to be made immediately, however, where any resources were needed to deal with the issue, then Cabinet would consider them favourably. He said that the Council was doing everything it could to address the problems but it was not straightforward. Regarding legal advice, Cllr Adams said that when it was needed it would be sought. The Council had an in-house legal team and they had provided advice on other similar properties. He concluded by saying that members could request an update from officers on any matter in their ward at any time.

Cllr K Toye asked Cllr W Fredericks, Portfolio Holder for Housing, about the increase in early interventions. She sought clarification as to whether this was linked to the improvement in the temporary accommodation figure/reduction and if so, would there be further funding to extend this work, particularly external funding. Cllr Fredericks replied that early intervention was increasing and a prevention team was working with local hostels and shelters to encourage people to contact them as soon as possible if they were facing homelessness so that all of the options available could be discussed. She added that officers also worked with domestic abuse victims and survivors to ensure that their homes were safe so they could stay in their residence if they wanted to. In addition, the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy was being reviewed and officers were working with partners, including registered housing providers to ensure that that the needs of vulnerable residents were being met. Regarding funding, this came from outside agencies and the Government and the Council had no control over this, which meant that officers had to work from year to year with the allocated funding. She concluded by thanking all of the officers, including the Benefits Team, who worked so hard to support residents.

Cllr E Vardy asked Cllr L Shires, Portfolio Holder for Finance, about the setting of the Budget for 2024/25. He said it was only balanced because it included savings of £1.25m, of which £250k was still to be found. He asked Cllr Shires to confirm whether these savings had been identified and if she could provide more information. Cllr Shires replied that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had worked with her to monitor the savings and an update would be provided as part of the next Budget Monitoring report, which would be presented to Members in September. She said that she would take any further questions following that update.

Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked Cllr A Varley, Portfolio Holder for Climate Change & Net Zero for an update on costings and timelines for the Council’s net zero targets. Cllr Varley said that he did not understand the question. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle said that he had not seen any costings for the Council building or any other council-owned properties such as Cromer pier. Cllr Varley replied that it was a complex question. He said that there was an ongoing consultation regarding the Council offices and he hoped to be able to share costings relating to this project soon. Once this information was available, a decision could be taken as to whether to use the £500k funding which had been allocated towards achieving carbon neutrality. There was also the possibility of accessing external funding too. Cllr Mancini-Boyle asked for clarification as to whether the work to assess Council-owned properties had already been undertaken. Cllr Varley replied that the assessment of the Council Offices was currently in progress and the report would be shared with members in due course. Regarding the wider estate, he said he some of this had been completed and he was happy to share this with members.

Cllr P Heinrich asked Cllr A Brown, Portfolio Holder for Planning & Enforcement, about the recent letter received from the Planning Inspector. He asked if Cllr Brown was able to share any key issues that had been identified. Cllr Brown replied that the letter from the Planning Inspector regarding the Local Plan had been received earlier that week. It had been delayed due to the General Election. The Planning Policy team were working through the details set out in the 14 page letter and an update would be provided to the next meeting of the Development Committee and the letter would be made available on the Council’s website. He then outlined the key points – more work was needed before the local plan could be adopted but overall it was positive in that there were clear options suggested by the Planning Inspector to address the issues. The Inspector was happy with the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ arrangements and the technical and legal support that was in place. In summary there were four main areas –

1. Housing need – it was likely that the housing target would need to be increased, and in so doing the methodology to achieve this would need to be clarified.
2. The strategy – the Inspector was concerned that the Council needed to deliver more housing, particularly in the next 5 years.
3. Questions around the ‘Growth to Small Villages’ policy. The Inspector came up with some helpful suggestions for this.
4. The housing assessment process for gypsies and travellers needs to be improved.

Cllr Brown said that specialist advice would be needed regarding the latter. He would work with the Planning Policy team regarding the wider feedback and provide a further update to members outlining the findings and options as soon as possible. He added that some processes were already fixed so it could take some time, however, he remained fully committed to getting the Local Plan adopted on schedule and he would not allow changes to Government policy to derail it.

Cllr C Cushing asked Cllr Brown about the Fakenham urban extension and if he could outline what progress was being made to mitigate the impact of nutrient neutrality so that the housing development could commence. He asked for details of the proposed schemes and the cost implications. Cllr Brown replied that it was not yet known how successful the work that had been done with Norfolk County Council, Natural England and Anglian Water to ensure that funding was obtained from the right quarters to unlock the roundabout cost had been. The roundabout issues had contributed to the delay of the wider project. He said that the new Government had indicated that the previous Government’s approach to resolving nutrient neutrality issues before planning permission was granted had not worked and it looked as though a different approach would be taken going forward. He concluded by offering to provide any more information if required. Cllr Cushing asked when it was likely that there would be more clarity around this issue. Cllr Brown said that this would only be possible if he received an update from the Government.

Cllr J Boyle asked Cllr H Blathwayt, Portfolio Holder for Coast, if he intended to give the Happisburgh petition due consideration, even though it didn’t meet the criteria for consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Blathwayt said that he intended to consider the petition, even though it didn’t meet the threshold. He said that Coastwise and Coastal Partnership East (CPE) had been made aware and were considering the matters raised. He added that the petition conflated the protection of the Norfolk Broads with sedimentary transfer from Happisburgh which wasn’t entirely accurate.