Agenda item

The Chair proposed that standing orders were suspended for agenda items 11 and 12 due to the importance of both topics and she wanted to ensure that there was an opportunity for a full debate. Under the Constitution, Chapter 2, section 18.10, members could only speak once during the debate and for no more than five minutes.

IT was proposed by the Chair, seconded by Cllr T Adams and

RESOLVED to

Suspend the following Standing Order – Chapter 2, section 18.10

‘A Member who has spoken on a motion may not speak again whilst it is the subject of debate’

The Chair then invited Cllr Adams to introduce this item.

Cllr Adams began by saying that this was the first part of significant changes to the landscape of Local Government. He explained that, through conversations with the Leaders of Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils, the Government had advised that it wanted to see proposals developed for a Mayoral Combined County Authority covering the geography of the two counties.  This position had then been agreed, in principle, by the Government which had included Norfolk and Suffolk in its Devolution Priority Programme, where proposals for new combined authorities would be developed and implemented in the coming months, with an election for a Norfolk and Suffolk Mayor to be held in May 2026. Before taking a decision on whether to proceed with the making of the necessary legislation, the Government was seeking views from interested parties, including those who lived and worked in the area.  The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) had therefore recently announced a public consultation with residents, community organisations, businesses and other stakeholders inviting comments on these proposals. 

Seven questions had been set out and the Council was proposing a written response to each of these and members were invited to comment on each. He then outlined the questions in turn and the proposed response from the District Council (as set out in the appendix to the report).

In conclusion, Cllr Adams said that he was increasingly concerned about the benefits of introducing a combined authority and what it could deliver for residents.

The Chair invited members to speak:

Cllr C Cushing said that the Conservative Group would abstain from this voting on this agenda item as it was felt that it was too early in the process to fully understand the details and the implications of the formation of a new mayoral combined authority.

Cllr J Toye referred to question 3 – ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the economy of the area?’ He said that he believed it was a positive proposal that would benefit the local economy. However, he had concerns about representations locally and whether the pot of funding would effectively ‘thin out’.

Cllr L Shires referred to the recent engagement sessions held with town and parish councils. She said that attendance had been high and she was encouraged to see positive engagement on the subject as well as key questions being raised.

Cllr T FitzPatrick commented that England was one of the most centralised parts of the UK and the UK as a whole one of the most centralised countries in the English speaking world. Devolution was a step by step process that could be built on. He referred to Manchester which had managed to leverage huge amounts of funding and opportunity into the area. It was an opportunity to take on powers currently held by Westminster and for an elected official to take decisions currently carried out by the Civil Service. Central Government would consult and work with elected mayors and this was worthwhile. It was coming regardless and it was best to embrace it and work with it.

Cllr L Withington said that overall, there was a positive feeling to this aspect of devolution but it was important to get it right. Regarding tourism, as Portfolio Holder she said that the proposals were beneficial as they would give a strategic approach to tourism across both counties. She said that she did have concerns about the governance within this and she hoped that local areas would have input and representation and they had a role to play in decision-making.

Cllr N Dixon said that the big issue was a lack of relevant information and it was important to keep an open mind as the process evolved. He believed it was too early to form strong views.

Cllr Adams said that he agreed with the comments so far. One of his main concerns was that as more of these combined authorities were rolled out across England that the benefits would reduce. There was only so much funding to be allocated. He also questioned whether the powers went far enough and felt that more could be done in terms of decision making and input into infrastructure projects. He thanked members for having conversations with residents and their parish councils around this subject.

The Chair, Cllr Dr V Holliday, echoed the comments made about there being insufficient detail at the current time to make a decision. She said that she heard a lot of concern about the local voice being lost. Regarding question 6: ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve the local natural environment and overall national environment?’, the Chair said that she did not agree with the proposed response as she had concerns about the benefits of aggregating environmental mitigation and felt it was not advantageous to the district.

Cllr Adams replied that this demonstrated clearly the issues around the lack of detail. He agreed that it was hard to understand how an elected mayor could achieve positive outcomes on an environmental level. He agreed that a local solution was needed in such cases and it was hard to compare issues across a wider area.

Cllr A Varley said that it was a very astute point raised by the Chair and the lack of detail was quite concerning. It would allow for overall strategic analysis but there would be a loss of local plans.

Cllr H Blathwayt reminded members that they could complete the questionnaire as an individual too.

Cllr N Housden said that he agreed with the Chair’s comments on environmental issues. He added that the district was a very rural, agricultural area and the coast was recognised as a Ramsar site and had global significance. This rurality was a fundamental point that needed to be emphasised but it was hard to see how the district could state its case strongly.

The Chief Executive explained that members were being asked whether the Council should respond to the Government consultation and the suggested responses reflected the engagement work with, key stakeholders town and parish councils and the views of officers and lead members. He added that the Council already worked with strategic partners on environmental issues but consideration should be given as to whether enough benefit would be achieved via the proposals for a mayoral combined authority. The response sought to answer this type of question and was limited by the wording and the suggested format for comments.

Cllr L Withington said that she would like to change ‘agree’ to ‘neither agree nor disagree’ for question 6 and that the local aspect was strengthened to ensure the globally unique landscape was highlighted and protected. Cllr J Punchard seconded Cllr Withington’s proposal.

Cllr W Fredericks then spoke as seconder of the substantive motion. She said that it was important that the Council needed to be robust and make a decision to fight for North Norfolk. She asked all members to support the proposed responses so that the government did not impose something on the district. There was not a choice to opt out, it was happening regardless and it was better to be involved and take part.

Cllr M Hankins said that, given the lack of information, the document was very balanced. So much was still unknown.

The Chair asked Cllr Withington for clarification to change the wording for the response to question 6. It was agreed that the final wording would be agreed subsequently to reflect members’ concerns.

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

RESOLVED to

Change the response to question 6 from ‘agree to neither agree nor disagree’.

11 members abstained.

The Chair then asked members to vote on the substantive motion.

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by Cllr W Fredericks and

RESOLVED

To approve the Council’s response to the Government consultation on proposals to establish a Mayoral Combined County Authority for Norfolk and Suffolk as amended at Appendix 1 of this report and agree its submission to Government, such submission to be delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

11 members abstained.