Agenda item

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that it outlined the position of the authority in responding to the Covid-19 Pandemic, both as an employer and service provider. It was reported that a range of support had been made available to communities, such as the Local Coordination Centres (LCCs) that had been  established throughout the district, or the Governments small business grant fund, for which  payments were in excess of £50m. The CE stated that the Council also continued to operate as part of the wider Norfolk Resilience Forum.

Questions and Discussion

Cllr J Toye sought clarification on why financial support had been given to the contractor responsible for running the Council’s leisure centres, but not to other contractors. The CE replied that that the issue could be discussed in more detail during the delegated decisions item, but added that the leisure contractor was a designated partner of the authority, that had been appointed to manage the Council’s leisure centres on its behalf. He added that the financial support was in respect to retained payments, and the Council had helped to meet some of these costs.

At the request of the Chairman the CE responded to written questions submitted by Members, the first of which requested data on the number of businesses that had received business grants, and those eligible that had not. The CE reported that to date the Council had paid out grants to 4575 businesses with a total payment of £50.4m, against an estimated 5037 eligible businesses. He added that the remaining eligible businesses were being contacted in a number of ways to promote the availability of the fund. On the Council Tax Hardship Fund, it was stated 3680 households had received assistance, and it was expected that this figure would increase in the coming months as financial circumstances changed. The CE reported that the Council did not have a definitive list of those who were self-employed that might require assistance, though details of the Government’s scheme to support this group were available on the Council’s website. He added that the discretionary business grant scheme was still in the process of being established, but would be launched in early June. Cllr S Bütikofer wished to place on record her thanks to officers for delivering of the business grants scheme and the aid given to individuals by the LCCs.

The CE responded to the second written question, on actions that would be taken to reopen businesses related to the leisure and tourism industry as soon as possible,  given the district’s reliance on these industries. A supplementary question sought clarification on whether a risk management strategy was in place for this process. The CE stated that he expected the two urgent items agreed for discussion would cover these issues in detail, but noted that a Central Government fund had been established to aid the reopening of high streets, from which NNDC had been allocated £93,332. He added that proposals for the reopening of non-essential retail businesses would go to Cabinet within the coming weeks, to allow for a safe reopening from the 15^th June.

The next written question sought clarification from Cabinet on whether they had been able to offer local leadership or strategic direction to officers, in the development of policy in response to the Covid-19. Cllr S Bütikofer stated that she had worked closely with officers throughout the crisis, and had attended Gold Command meetings from the beginning, to work with officers on the decisions being made. She added that she had also attended meetings with Norfolk Leaders twice weekly to coordinate the response across the county, and also regularly attended ministerial briefings. The Chairman asked if there were any instances in which the need to exercise influence was required, to which Cllr S Bütikofer replied that this had been the case on issues such as the closure and re-opening of car parks and the pier, or when agreeing  financial support packages. She added that involving the leadership in these decisions had been beneficial for a number of Councils, and should be taken into consideration in the future. Cabinet Portfolio Holders added comments on their relevant portfolios and praised officers for working effectively and cooperatively.

The next written question sought clarification of the Leader’s and Cabinet’s views on progressing the recovery phase of the Council’s response to the crisis. Cllr S Bütikofer stated that due to the district’s significant reliance on tourism, work on the recovery plan had started in March, to ensure that everything possible could be done to support businesses’ and individuals’ return to normality as soon as possible. This had included working with Visit North Norfolk and a range of businesses to listen to their concerns and needs. At a county level, Cllr S Bütikofer informed Members that she had been working with the LEP to look at additional measures that could be put in place to help businesses though the challenging times ahead.  

The Chairman asked how conflicting priorities were being balanced, such as those between the tourism sector and vulnerable residents. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that this was a very difficult issue, and that careful consideration was being used to balance the needs of different groups. She added that at this stage, the key was to make very gradual changes and continue to closely monitor the situation. Cllr P Heinrich stated that it was important to remember that the tourism economy was crucial to North Norfolk, and the Council had to listen carefully to all sides to get it moving again as safely and as quickly as possible. Cllr P Grove-Jones stated that the Council would have to be prepared for a second spike, and that lifeguard cover for the district’s beaches had to be given careful consideration. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that beach patrols were being considered in lieu of reduced lifeguards, but the Council had to be clear that lifeguard numbers would be limited.

Cllr H Blathwayt asked if any contingency plans were in place, should a local spike arise. The CE replied that mitigation measures for a potential second spike had been given significant consideration in partnership with other members of the Norfolk Resilience Forum, and added that Norfolk had been selected as one of eleven pilot areas in England for local outbreak control, which would include local lockdown arrangements.

Cllr G Perry-Warnes asked whether any consideration had been given to allowing additional outside space to businesses, to allow them to operate with safer social distancing measures in place. The CE replied that this was being considered and would be addressed as part of the urgent items.

Cllr Housden raised concerns that he felt a second spike was imminent, and public convenience closures had caused issues at popular destinations. Cllr W Fredericks asked how the Council could ensure people’s safety when using its public conveniences. Cllr S Bütikofer replied that there were a number of issues that required careful considered before Council’s public conveniences could be fully reopened. She referred to the need for an increased cleaning regime, checks for legionella, and checks to ensure that the toilets were safe and ready to be used. Cllr S Bütikofer added that decisions on opening the Council’s public conveniences were reviewed at every Gold Command meeting. Cllr H Blathwayt asked if consideration could be given to roping off urinals at the Sea Palling public conveniences, in order to promote safer use of enclosed stall toilets. The CE agreed that this could be taken into consideration and  added that the closure of restaurants, cafes and public houses had placed greater pressure on the Council’s public conveniences, which had influenced the decision to allow a limited number of facilities to be reopened.  

The final written question focused on activity levels at the 10 LCCs that had been established as part of the Council’s response to the Pandemic. The CE replied that during the first seven weeks of operations there were 1288 requests for assistance, and from Monday 18^th May when the number of LCCs had been reduced to four, there had been a further 86 requests for assistance. The CE referred to points raised by Cllr T Adams regarding the difficulties that shielded residents had faced in getting essential supplies, and stated that throughout the past 10 weeks the LCCs had helped to alleviate these issues, though online shopping capacity had now increased significantly. It was noted that the LCCs had worked well with voluntary community groups, and local businesses had been helpful in allowing residents to place telephone orders and in some cases provide a delivery service. The CE stated that one of the biggest challenges had been addressing the difficulties residents faced with paying for food, in which case the Council had arranged food parcels that were supplementary to those supplied by Central Government. He added that the Council had also supported the Norfolk Foodbank, by means of a financial contribution. In terms of ongoing support, the CE stated that NNDC staff were currently delivering between 700-900 prescriptions on a weekly basis to vulnerable and shielding households, and consideration was needed as to how this responsibility would revert back to the dispensaries as the Council moved into the recovery phase. 

RESOLVED

To note the report.