Agenda item

The Chairman invited the Deputy Leader, Cllr W Fredericks, to present this item.

She began by thanking officers for their hard work and invited members to speak.

Cllr S Penfold thanked officers for adding the previous RAG status for comparison. He referred to action 27 (page 17) – Fakenham Banking Hub. He said that the action related to Fakenham but the comments included in the report related to North Walsham. He asked for an update on progress with this project in Fakenham. Cllr Fredericks replied that success had been achieved in North Walsham and Holt and comments were included to provide context. She said that negotiations were still ongoing regarding a banking hub in Fakenham and confirmed that it was being actively pursued. She added support from local members would be welcomed.

Cllr C Cushing, local member for Fakenham, said that he had previously raised this in Cabinet meetings. He added that he had discussed the issue with Jerome Mayhew MP and he explained that a banking hub could not currently be set up in the town as there was a Building Society that would accept cash deposits from residents. One option would be ‘Cash Access UK’ as the Nationwide Building Society did not accept deposits from businesses. One plan that was being pursued by Mr Mayhew, was to push for a permanent post office in the town and for this to have a Cash Access UK facility. He questioned whether this action should be included in report as it was not within the remit of NNDC to set up a banking hub. Cllr Fredericks thanked Cllr Cushing for his update and agreed that the Council’s role was mainly lobbying but said that it was important to support the business community, even if this meant indirectly.

Cllr L Vickers, local member for Fakenham said that she had recently attended a meeting with Jerome Mayhew MP and there was an upcoming meeting with the Mayor of Fakenham and the Council’s Business Development Team to discuss other funding to improve Fakenham town centre.

The Chairman asked if there was any other work underway, in addition to lobbying. Cllr Fredericks replied that the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth would be able to provide more information on this. The Director for Communities (DFC) added that he would provide further information in writing. He added that a lot of businesses had moved online in recent years and the scope of the original objective had been broadened to reflect this and the changing environment and needs of businesses and residents.

Cllr Penfold suggested that it could be worth changing the language used from banking ‘hub’ to ‘facility’. He then referred to action 40 (page 19) ‘Review the Council’s approach to asset commercialisation’ and asked what was planned for the physical assets linked to the Deep History Coast project, now that the Tourist Information Centre in Cromer had been sold. The Chief Executive replied that there had been discussions with Norfolk Museums Service (NMS) but they were unable to accommodate the audio-visual materials at any of their sites so they had been donated to Sheringham Museum. The display cabinets had gone to the Tourist Information Centre in Holt.

Cllr N Housden referred to action 30 ‘Develop energy infrastructure and water resources plans’. He queried the amber status and said he felt it should be red, especially given the plans for devolution in the county, adding that this action related to crucial infrastructure and the reference to ‘continued dialogue’ seemed vague.

Cllr Fredericks replied that the Council met with representatives from Anglian Water (AW) on a quarterly basis to discuss their forthcoming business plan. She assured members that it was an ongoing process and that was why there was no date included in the action. Cllr Housden felt that more detail on this topic was needed.

The DFC added that the RAG status was reflective of the progress status of the action and discussions were ongoing on this matter.

Cllr P Heinrich said that access to banking services included ATMs – many residents still wanted to use cash. He then referred to action 11 ‘continue the Council’s commitment to improving the quality and accessibility of our public conveniences’. He asked for an update on the maintenance programme. Cllr Fredericks said that there was a maintenance programme in place and a written update could be provided. She urged members to report any issues or concerns to the Property Services team.

The Chairman agreed with the comment regarding access to ATMs and this impacted on residents and tourists too. He said that it was important to ensure that there was an ATM available before banks closed in a town. Cllr Fredericks replied that this would be an ideal outcome but it was very challenging to achieve this when multi-national companies were involved.

Cllr V Holliday commented that she would like the actions in the report to be more focussed on outcomes and not just process. She then asked when the Action Plan for 2025/2026 would be published, requesting that when it was complied that the action was not too narrow compared to the corporate plan objective. She used Action 5 as an example where the action of stopping the use of weedkiller was very focussed compared to the overall objective ‘protecting and enhancing the special landscape and ecological value of North Norfolk’, which was extremely broad.

Cllr Fredericks said that it might be beneficial to hold a workshop for members on the Action Plan to ensure that it included the information the committee wanted to see.

The Chairman said that the essence of Cllr Holliday’s feedback was that actions would be more beneficial if they were more outcome focused rather than process driven. Cllr Fredericks said that more clarity was needed as to the balance between outcomes and the process that was driving the achievement of these.

The DFC said that he would take the request on board and look at how future reports could be presented. Cllr Holliday added that it was more about ensuring the action was right rather than just reporting on it. For Action 5, for example, there were high level actions that could be assessed against.

The Chairman asked for clarification as to when the new action plan would be coming forward. Cllr Fredericks replied that due to the pressures of LGR, the current AP would carry over for the time being.

The Chief Executive said that he understood members’ frustrations. The Council had agreed a corporate plan for  2023 – 2027 and this included high level objectives and an annual plan was then produced to support this which could flex and adapt to changes. There had been an AP agreed for this year, reflecting LGR and Devolution which came through the committee cycle in March 2025. He accepted that there was a degree of choice and the actions reflected priorities of the Administration and there were some areas such as water and energy which had no fixed outcome and for which the council continued to play a lobbying role. They did impact on residents in the district and that’s why they were included. He concluded by reminding members that they could request any issue to come forward for the committee to consider.

Cllr N Housden referred again to action 30, and said that he would like to see more specificity in the comments to show that the outcomes are moving forward.

Cllr Cushing referred to action 4 ‘Increase the percentage of household waste collected which is recycled’ and said that a more specific outcome could be ‘ aim to recycle 45% of household waste by the end of March 2026’. It was important that the objectives were measurable and specific and that members could assess progress against them. Cllr Fredericks thanked him and reminded members that Portfolio Holder reports to Full Council meetings also contained a lot of information about ongoing work across the Council’s service areas.

Cllr J Boyle asked for an update on action 1 ‘complete the work on the production and examination of the North Norfolk Local Plan’. The Chairman said that progress had been made recently and that the Local Plan was now drawing to a close, with the recommendations of the Planning Inspector now available.

Cllr M Hankins asked about action 18 (page 15) ‘promote greater take up of Neighbourhood Plans (NPs)’. How many NPs had been approved across the district. He also wondered whether the determination of small growth villages had led to an increase in submitting NPs and of so, which villages were they. Cllr Fredericks said that the Portfolio Holder, Cllr A Brown, would provide a response to Cllr Hankins. One option would be a member briefing on the Local Plan, including an update on NPs.

The DFC confirmed that there were currently 15 NPs in place. The Chairman added that this was a good example of where the AP comment could be metric-based.

Cllr M Hankins then asked about action 31 ‘understanding the constraints of existing mobile and digital infrastructure in North Norfolk’. He said that this was a real issue of concern in his ward and many other rural parishes and it would be helpful to know when the collection of data would conclude and the results shared. Cllr Fredericks said that the information had been collected and the Portfolio Holder, Cllr Toye, would provide an update.

Cllr Holliday said that Cllr Toye had indicated it would be another month before the information was collated.

The Chief Executive said that this was similar to the banking hubs. NNDC could lobby and influence but could not directly deliver an outcome. Planning applications for masts were not always supported by local residents and this was an area that could be explored more. Cllr Holliday said that she believed the impact on residents was not being voiced strongly enough and that more could be done to highlight this.  Cllr Hankins added that prioritising areas for investment was in the Council’s gift, although he did accept that it was down to the providers to install masts.

Cllr M Batey said that contacting providers was very challenging and made dealing with this issue almost impossible.

Cllr Holliday queried why the Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party meeting had been cancelled as the queries regarding NPs and small growth villages could be picked up via this. The Chief Executive said that the upcoming meeting of the working party had been cancelled because the Planning Inspector’s letter had not been received at the time of agenda publication. It had since come through and the Planning Policy team would update members soon, once officers had time to reflect on the letter and respond accordingly.

Cllr Holliday asked for a report to be prepared on mobile connectivity so that members could consider the data that had been collated. The Chairman suggested that this could be addressed when the work programme was considered (agenda item 13).

It was proposed by Cllr S Penfold, seconded by Cllr P Heinrich and

RESOLVED to note the report.