Agenda item

To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B (4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The following item of urgent business has been submitted by the Section 151 Officer:

 

Fees & Charges and Capital Programme Amendments for 2023/2024

 

Summary:	This report seeks approval for minor amendments to the Fees and Charges approved for 2023/24 and some amendments and additions to the Capital Programme for 2023/24. The Fees and Charges and the Capital Programme were both agreed at full Council on 22 February however there are some amendments that were not included in the reports presented for approval. Approval is required at the earliest opportunity to enable officers to proceed with the work required to implement the fees and charges for the beginning of the new financial year and then to move forward with capital schemes that are ready to proceed subject to approval.
Options Considered:	To bring these amendments before Members at the earliest opportunity so that the required work to implement the new level of fees and charges can begin and then to secure approval for capital schemes that are ready to begin. To not seek approval now which would mean fees and charges would have to remain at the 2022/23 level and that for the capital schemes that are ready to begin they would have to be put on hold until approval is given which may result in the loss of grant funding.
Conclusions:	The Council is required to approve changes to fees and charges unless they have specifically been delegated to officers. The fees and charges discussed in the report require full Council approval. If they are not approved, then there will be a loss of income for the Council. There are 2 schemes which can begin immediately if they are approved and then there are some schemes which just need reclassifying and one scheme that has been included twice in error which needs removing.
Recommendations:	That Full Council approve the amendments for 2023/24.
Reasons for Recommendation:	Approval by Council allows the new level of fees and charges to be implemented for 2023/24 and amends the Capital Programme to include 2 schemes, remove one scheme that has been included twice and then place some schemes under the correct heading.

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information, and which are not published elsewhere)

 

Fees and Charges Report, 22 February 2023 and Budget Report, 22 February 2023

 

               

Cabinet Member(s)	Ward(s) affected: All
Contact Officer and email:	Tina Stankley              tina.stankley@north-norfolk.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

The Chairman informed members that there were three items of urgent business:

 

·       Fees & Charges and Capital programme Amendments for 2023/2024

·       Update on response to the County Deal consultation

·       Update on Cabinet appointments

 

She invited the Leader to introduce the Fees & Charges and Capital Programme Amendments for 2023/2024.

 

The Leader began by saying the agreement of the revised Estates Fees and Charges (which had been circulated prior to the meeting of Full Council on 22 February 2023) needed to be formalised. He proposed that the amendments were approved. Cllr P Heinrich seconded the proposal.

 

The Chairman invited members to speak:

 

Cllr C Cushing said that it was extraordinary that a detailed paper setting out amendments to the Budget was being brought forward a week after the Budget was debated and agreed. He said that this was the first time it had happened since he had been elected and he queried why it had taken so long to bring this to members and commented that there was more than just ‘tweaking’. He referred to the Capital Budget and said that there had been a discussion at the previous meeting about including funding for a 3G pitch in Fakenham utilising money allocated to North Walsham. He noted that this had not been reflected in the updated report but that additional funding of £1m for a 3G football pitch at Cromer was included. He added that he understood £300k of this funding would come from reserves, which he found astonishing, given that only a week before the Administration had agreed to increase Council Tax to generate an additional £200k of income. Cllr Cushing queried why Cromer was receiving yet more money. He asked the Leader if the Fakenham bid would be coming forward in the next financial year and also to explain why such a large amount of funding was suddenly allocated to Cromer for a 3G pitch.

 

The Leader replied that he had addressed the Cromer sports provisions during his opening remarks at the Budget meeting of Full Council the previous week. He said that it was a repair and refurbishment project. The Fakenham project would need to be scoped out and considered. Cllr Cushing replied that there was no reason why the Fakenham bid could not proceed. The proposal for a 3G pitch in the town was included as part of the Levelling Up bid, so a lot of the initial work had already been done. The Football Association had also indicated that they were supportive of a bid at Fakenham and he could see no reason why it could not come forward now, rather than languishing in a reserve.

 

The S151 Officer said that in the updated appendix, the funding had been changed under the ‘Quality of Life’ heading to state Artificial Football Pitch North Walsham / Fakenham.  Cllr Cushing replied that last week when the Budget was discussed, there was no reference within the Capital Bids for Cromer and now there was a £1m allocated to Cromer and just a single line splitting the funding across Fakenham and North Walsham, which indicated that there was no real desire to push the Fakenham bid forward, reinforcing the view that it was the poor relation of the market towns. The Leader replied that Cllr Cushing seemed to be suggesting that the Cromer pitch was not repaired. Cllr Cushing said that he was supportive of all three bids but wanted a commitment to Fakenham.

 

Cllr J Rest said that he could not understand why this information was not included with the original budget papers. He said that the Budget meeting was the most important Full Council meeting of the year and it was important to ensure that the information provided to that meeting was complete and correct. He added that the updated appendix did not make it clear which information was additional or updated. He said it was an appalling way to present papers for members to make a decision. In conclusion, Cllr Rest said that the report referred to members having agreed the Budget last week. He said that if he had known that there would be several amendments just a week later, he would not have supported the Budget. This was not the way to run a Council. He asked what would have happened if there had not been an extraordinary meeting already scheduled. Without these changes being approved, the projects could not be progressed.  He said that it was vital that the Budget meeting was conducted properly. This had never happened before, the Council had always been able to discuss and agree the Budget previously.

 

The Section 151 Officer said that she had requested the item to come forward to this meeting as it was an opportunity to correct an error. She agreed that the charges could not have been made if it was not approved. She referenced the charges for the waste bins and said that this was the first time they had been included in the Fees & Charges schedule, they had previously been dealt with under delegation. The non- discounted price wasn’t included originally. It was also an officer error that the fees for Estates management had not been updated.

 

Cllr V FitzPatrick said that he agreed with Cllr Rest’s comments. If the Budget papers could not be presented correctly to members, it was not unreasonable to ask what other papers may be incorrect or incomplete. He said that it shocking to have such errors presented to members just a week after the Budget was approved.

 

Cllr N Dixon said he was extremely disappointed to have received these papers at such a late stage. As Chairman of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, he said that the committee had spent some time scrutinising the financial reports ahead of the Budget and it now appeared that it was incomplete business and this undermined the value and the time spent by members at Overview & Scrutiny committee meetings.

 

Cllr N Pearce commented that the Budget was only approved a week ago. The amendments that were being proposed were significant and he had concerns about what would have happened to the services and projects concerned, if the meeting tonight had not already been scheduled to take place.

 

The Chairman invited the S151 Officer to respond. She began by saying that the Budget was not incorrect, it was just that these figures were not included on the fees and charges schedule. The budget was prepared on the basis of the level of fees and charges that were anticipated to be agreed, so it was the schedule that was wrong rather than the overall budget.

 

Cllr V FitzPatrick queried how it would be possible to know if something was wrong, given the statement that the S151 Officer had just provided. Members had to assume that they were being presented with the correct information when they were making decisions. He added that it undermined faith in the process.

 

Cllr J Rest sought confirmation that the figures that were presented at the meeting were correct.

 

The Leader said that the figures that the budget calculations were based on were correct, it was just that the wrong schedule for the fees and charges for 2023/2024 was included originally.

 

Cllr J Stenton said that she echoed Cllr Rest’s concerns that members needed to be certain that the figures presented this evening were now correct. The Leader referred to his previous answer.

 

The Chairman said that she wanted to apologise on behalf of officers for any confusion caused.

 

Cllr S Penfold made a point of order. He sought clarification about how many times a member could speak during a debate and for how long. The Monitoring Officer replied that it was once for 5 minutes, however, it was at the Chairman’s discretion. The Chairman said that she felt it was important, given the nature of the business being discussed, that members should have an opportunity to speak again if they wanted to.

 

Cllr Cushing requested a recorded vote.

 

It was proposed by Cllr T Adams, seconded by P Heinrich and

 

RESOLVED

 

To approve the amendments to Fees & Charges and the Capital Programme for 2023/2024

 

18 members voted in favour and 9 against.

 

2. County Deal Update

 

The Leader advised members that the Norfolk County Council consultation on the new County Deal closed on 20^th March. He said that NNDC would like to see a County Deal but there were concerns over the arrangements and how much financial benefit would be delivered to North Norfolk. He said that because of the tight timescale to respond, the Chief Executive had emailed the Group Leaders seeking support for delegation to reply on behalf of the Council. Cllr Rest had indicated his support for this approach but Cllr Cushing had said that there had not been an opportunity to discuss the matter with his Group. The Leader said that members needed to agree on a way forward, reminding them that they could also respond directly to the consultation, as political groups or as individuals, however, it would also be a good approach for the Council to respond as a whole, if possible.

 

Cllr C Cushing said that he had been extremely surprised to receive an email earlier in the day from the Chief Executive requesting delegation to respond on behalf of the Council. He said that it was surprising that despite holding two Full Council meetings during the consultation period, this matter had not been brought forward for discussion. He referred back to his comments on the previous item and the lack of preparedness for business. He said he was not prepared to take a position on this matter until his group had had an opportunity to discuss it fully.

 

Cllr R Kershaw said it was a shame that when a briefing by the Leader of Norfolk County Council was held recently for members, none of the Opposition attended. He said that members had been briefed and it was now time to make a decision.

 

Cllr N Dixon said it was one thing to be briefed on the facts of the County Deal but the opportunity to discuss it was another. He added that he could not understand why, if senior officers knew it was coming forward, it was not scheduled in for debate. He said it was another example of the Council being chaotic and dysfunctional in the organisation of its business.

 

Cllr V FitzPatrick commented that he had attended the member briefing and he was a member of the opposition. He said that the response submitted by the District Council should reflect the views of the members as a whole and this was best achieved via a debate.

 

Cllr S Penfold said that he was happy for the Chief Executive to respond on behalf of members but acknowledged that it was a shame that there was no opportunity for it to be debated at Full Council. He suggested that the Opposition groups could have a discussion and then feed their comments back to the Chief Executive.  It was important that a range of views were put forward.

 

The Chairman invited the Chief Executive to speak.

 

He said that this issue had been the subject of some debate at County level and there had been briefings for District councils across the region. No member had written had contacted him expressing a strong view as to the position the authority should adopt. The consultation closed the day before the Pre-election Publicity period began for the forthcoming local elections. He said that he had written to the Group Leaders, on the basis that they had not raised it with him, to suggest a way forward. If this wasn’t acceptable, then it was open to members to convene a special meeting of Full Council to debate the matter. He added that the position that he had set out in his email to the group leaders was one that was widely held across District Councils in Norfolk and they had also been expressed at County level. He explained that he had suggested that the response should be delegated to the Chief Executive in conjunction with the Group Leaders and he was not proposing that a response to the consultation should be submitted without their input.

 

The Leader reiterated his earlier comment that this was the right way forward.

 

The Chairman thanked everyone for their comments and suggested that the Group Leaders considered their preferred approach and let the Chief Executive know.

 

3. Cabinet appointment

 

The Leader informed members that Cllr H Blathwayt would replace Cllr A Fitch-Tillett as Portfolio Holder for Coast.

 

Cllr Blathwayt said that he had acted as a substitute for Cllr Fitch-Tillett on several occasions and he was in awe of the work that she had done.

 

The Chairman thanked Cllr Fitch-Tillett for all the work that she had done in this role.