Agenda item

Decision

RESOLVED

To confirm the revised Delivery Plan priorities as detailed in Section 3.0 of the report.

Reasons for the decision:

To reflect the changed circumstances in which the Council has operated over the period since March 2020 in seeking to balance its Corporate Plan priorities against the ongoing COVID situation.

In the absence of the Leader, Cllr E Seward introduced this item. He outlined the background to the report, explaining that due to the pandemic, there had been less capacity to progress some aspects of the Council’s Corporate Plan Delivery Plan as originally proposed in February 2020. Cabinet had therefore reviewed the Delivery Plan objectives and actions in October 2020 at which time it agreed eighteen priority objectives for delivery over the 12 months from October 2020 – October 2021. the report outlined the progress made in delivering against the revised priorities given the prolonged COVID situation and against some other Corporate Plan objectives where capacity has existed and proposes new priority objectives for the next year.

Cllr J Toye said that he wished to highlight a couple of issues, following the recommendation from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee earlier in the agenda. Referring to page 73, section 2.2, he drew members’ attention to the possible acquisition of older housing trust properties which would be upgraded and made available for market rent. He then referred to page 87 (6.4) which proposed the reduction of staff travel and explore alternative options. Finally, he spoke about electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs) and said that the Council was ahead of other local authorities in installing these. Overall, he said that he was supportive of the proposals and said that good progress had been made.

Cllr V Holliday referred to the Corporate Plan and said that this had measuring impacts and performance metrics which were not reflected in the Delivery Plan and this made it difficult to judge the grading used. She referred to the numbers on the housing list which had a green RAG rating but said that it was hard to tell if this was a true reflection of the figures. Cllr Holliday then referred to the sports strategy and a health and wellbeing strategy which now seemed to have dropped off. She said that these were still important issues and requested an update. Cllr V Gay, Portfolio Holder for Culture, Leisure & Wellbeing, said that the intention was to bring forward a Quality of Life Strategy which would cover health and wellbeing. In addition, the County Council was also now preparing a countywide Health and Wellbeing strategy which would come back to the District Council for input and comment.

In responding to the first point regarding performance metrics, the Director of Communities, replied that the Chief Executive would be better placed to respond. The Delivery Plan set things out in a more linear form. A lot had been delivered but not in the order intended. He accepted the query regarding the grading criteria but said that it had been subject to robust discussion but overall it was a fair reflection of the Council’s progress.

Cllr Cushing commented on the lack of progress regarding income generation and cost saving ideas. Looking at page 91, objective 2, which was amber and he queried as nothing had been done on this, why it was not red. He then asked what was being done to boost local tourism as he could not see anything set out in the report.

Cllr Seward said that in terms of income generation, the Government had made it clear that they did not expect to see local authorities investing in projects for income growth – for example purchasing industrial units. In addition, it was no longer possible to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board for items in the capital programme. This had presented a real challenge. This meant that options to generate income growth were now limited. In terms of savings, he said that the aim of the zero based budgeting exercise that was currently being undertaken was to give a clear view of the cost of the operations of the Council, whether they were geared towards the Council’s corporate priorities and if not, whether they should continue.

Cllr R Kershaw, Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth, replied to the comment regarding local tourism. He said that the Council had been supporting a large number of businesses during the last 18 months and continued to do so during the recovery phase of the pandemic. He said that the Council was working with Visit North Norfolk (VNN) and they had produced videos aimed at lengthening the tourist season. He acknowledged the challenges faced by the hospitality sector in recruiting staff and said that the Business Resilience and Recovery Grant scheme (BRRG) was focussing on supporting these businesses in advance of the next season. He concluded by saying that the number of businesses failing in the District remained low.

Cllr Seward said that when he had inherited the estates and assets portfolio, it was apparent that several projects had not been progressing, including the Melbourne Slope toilet building and the Art Deco building on Cromer seafront. He confirmed that they were now moving forwards.

Cllr Cushing asked Cllr Seward to clarify which projects aimed at generating income had been impeded by Government legislation. Cllr Seward replied that the establishment of a property company was no longer possible following the legislative changes.

Cllr Toye referred to the increasing support and development of eco-tourism businesses which were coming forward and which would boost the local tourist offer in a new, innovative way. He added that the recent zero based budgeting exercise and the closing of tax-loopholes both addressed the issue of cost savings.

Cllr V Gay said that members should not underestimate the work that had carried on throughout the pandemic to maintain the District’s tourism offer – including the retention of both blue and green flags and work on Council owned woodlands. In addition, the Council had continued its support for Sheringham Little Theatre and there were ongoing talks regarding the Pier.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett, seconded the proposal and said that she wished to comment on the emphasis placed on protecting and enhancing the environment, which had led to North Norfolk becoming one of the top tourist destinations in the country. She referred to page 84 and the objective of taking the lead role nationally in coastal management as well as being a frontline authority in tackling the impact of climate change on the coast.

RESOLVED

To confirm the revised Delivery Plan priorities as detailed in Section 3.0 of the report.

Reasons for the decision:

To reflect the changed circumstances in which the Council has operated over the period since March 2020 in seeking to balance its Corporate Plan priorities against the ongoing COVID situation.