Agenda item

To review the Capital Strategy for 2026-2027 and make any recommendations to Full Council.

Cllr Shires introduced the report and explained they do the report annually and it outlined the capital projects they were undertaking and the ones they would look to undertake in the future.

The chair invited questions.

Cllr Heinrich queried the works being outlined for the Cedars given the amount spent on the building during the North Walsham Heritage Action Zone scheme (HAZ). Cllr Shires was mindful they may not spend all that was put aside for the scheme, as they always tried to come in under budget, but they had not completed everything they had set out to achieve, during the HAZ project, which was to bring about the restoration of a Georgian, grade II listed building that had previously been empty for some time. It was now fully occupied across public and private sector enterprises but there was office space, with commercial value, Cllr Shires believed, as well as damp and roof issues that needed to be resolved, and the money put aside would look to complete those works and ensure the asset for the future.

In response to a query from Cllr Fletcher around the abrupt change in capital expenditure from 25/26 to 26/27, where it had reduced by nearly £25m, Cllr Shires explained that in 25/26 they were lucky enough to be a part of the Coastwise funding from Government and had been undertaking necessary coastal works.

Cllr Fletcher also queried why the substructure works to Cromer pier were seemingly being strung out over several years. It was explained by Cllr Shires that after a full structural examination of the pier was undertaken before Christmas it was discovered some urgent works needed to be carried out within 12 months. Work that could wait more than 12 months was staggered to cause minimal disruption and to ensure they reached that next stage of the works when it was absolutely necessary to do it.

It was calculated by Cllr Cushing there were 59 items in the Capital Programme, some of which had been there a long time. He wondered if any checks had been done to determine if they were still valid. Cllr Shires confirmed she had discussed, with the Property Services Manager, where they were with scheduling of works. Cllr Shires assured the Committee that was something they monitored continuously, and they would never put on projects they had no intention of completing. Cllr Shires admitted it was an ambitious programme, and they needed to do some work on such things as their football facilities, in terms of contract negotiations and leases with the respective clubs.

There was a query from Cllr Hankins as to what the Loans to Housing Providers was referring. It was explained by Cllr Shires that they supported many housing schemes, one of which was Homes for Wells, a loan scheme, where the Council supported a local group in purchasing properties, to ensure frontline staff had somewhere to live locally, in a market where it was difficult to privately rent. Cllr Hankins queried if this included self-build propositions, Cllr Shires believed that Homes for Wells had nothing like that but any such proposition by a social housing provider, when it came to self-builds, were funded by other means. Cllr Shires was happy to clarify but she didn’t believe that they had loaned any housing provider money to fund builds.

Cllr Cushing asked how they viewed the Capital Programme when comparing central Government Grants versus what the Council spent. Cllr Cushing questioned if it was fair, that the capital after grant funding had been taken away, that investment in Cromer compared to other areas of North Norfolk appeared more. Cllr Shires felt it was unfair that many assets that the Council owned were in Cromer. She felt there had been a large investment in coastal due to climate change. Cllr Shires felt the proposed Members Fund would potentially address the issue for those areas where the Council did not own many assets and investment appeared less. Cllr Shires highlighted that the investment in the play equipment, like other investment, was across the district. She agreed they could better articulate when investment is for the benefit of all. It was also noted by Cllr Shires that Cromer, followed by Sheringham, were areas that tourists wished to visit and generated the greatest proportion of revenue from car parks, business rates and beach huts and that allowed them to invest in other areas. They needed to invest a certain amount to keep those tourist areas attractive for visitors in a very competitive market, so the investment was in tourism more than it was investment in a particular town.

Cllr Cushing didn’t challenge those statutory obligations, such as the pier, that the Council had a duty to invest in but queried that when the Council had the option to invest in other areas, besides Cromer, that was seemingly not being done. Taxpayers from across North Norfolk contributed to the purse, those residents in areas such as Stalham, would see very little benefit of investment into tourism. Cllr Shires took that onboard but assured Members that if investment was needed urgently in any of those other areas they would have acted as they were very sensitive to the perception that Cromer was invested in above other areas. Cllr Shires felt that there needed to be some fairness and balance when judging investment in Cromer as without it the tourists would not visit and the income generated from the town would not be available to then invest into other areas. If they weren’t going to invest into the tourist economy, then they would have to consider where they were going to employ local people and where they were going to get their income from.

In response to a query from Cllr Rouse, regarding what the £75k was for under other contributions in the Capital Programme Financing, Cllr Shires said that was where they had taken Section 106 money and topped it up for play areas.

The Chair queried the Internal/External borrowing on temporary accommodation as she felt that this was financed by second home premium council tax revenue. Cllr Shires said that at the time the report was produced they were in negotiations for the second home tax, but that temporary accommodation money should be funded through that same source as the previous year.

The Chair also asked if they could be assured that the other ongoing grant, the Disabled Facilities Grant, would continue. Cllr Shires had not heard, at that time, that the Government were planning to reduce the funding for that scheme.

The Committee Agreed: To recommend to Full Council that the Capital Strategy 2026/27 is approved.