Agenda item

To receive reports from Cabinet Members on their portfolios.

Members are reminded that they may ask questions of the Cabinet Member on their reports and portfolio areas but should note that it is not a debate.

No member may ask more than one question plus a supplementary question, unless the time taken by members’ questions does not exceed 30 minutes in total, in which case, second questions will be taken in the order that they are received (Constitution, Chapter 2, part 2, section 12.2)

Cabinet members (listed alphabetically):

Cllr T Adams (Leader / Executive Support)

Cllr H Blathwayt (Coast)

Cllr A Brown –  Planning & Enforcement

Cllr W Fredericks – Housing & Benefits

Cllr V Gay – Leisure, Culture & Wellbeing

Cllr R Kershaw – Sustainable Growth

Cllr N Lloyd – Environment & Climate Change

Cllr E Seward - Finance, Assets & Legal

Cllr L Shires – Organisational Resources

The Chairman introduced the item and stated that Members had 30 minutes for questions, taking the reports as read.

Questions and Discussion

       i.          Cllr G Hayman referred to comments made regarding the sewage incident in Mundesley and asked whether the Council would be able to pursue any legal action against AW for the damage done to the tourism industry, wildlife and water users. He added that if legal action were possible, he would strongly encourage this approach, as there was very little incentive to deter similar events from reoccurring in the future. Cllr T Adams replied that he was aware that similar issues were occurring elsewhere throughout the Country, resulting in a general deterioration in the quality of bathing water, which needed to be better understood. He added that in respect of damage to the environment and the tourism industry, there would be a review regarding AW’s ability to respond, and the speed of the response. As a result, Cllr T Adams suggested that efforts must be taken to ensure that reoccurrences could not happen in the future. It was noted that whilst Gimingham Pumping Station was known to have leaked sewage into the sea, it was yet to be proven whether this was the cause for the loss of blue flag beaches. Cllr T Adams stated that following the election the issue would continue to be taken seriously, and if legal action was advised then it would not be ruled out, though it was not being considered at present.

      ii.          Cllr A Fitch-Tillett stated that she was pleased to join the recent Coastal Forum meeting, but asked why only five of fifteen coastal Members had attended the meeting. Cllr H Blathwayt replied that he was unsure why individuals had chosen not to attend, as the same invitation had been shared with all relevant Members, though there was reportedly a scheduling clash with an NCC meeting. He added that the meeting was recorded and available to view on YouTube for anyone that was unable to attend.

     iii.          Cllr P Heinrich asked whether there had been any indication from AW that the facility at Gimingham would be upgraded to resolve any existing pollution issues and prepare for the expected increase in effluent, in-line with the District’s expected housing growth. Cllr T Adams replied that the Council were not yet satisfied with AW’s response to the incident and had subsequently met with both the EA and NCC Highways, which had ruled out any likelihood of issues being caused by highways drainage. He added that AW had accepted that Gimingham did require modernisation and upgrade to cope with increased demand, but had provided no indication as to when this would be completed. Cllr T Adams noted that he had concerns that North Norfolk would be given low priority for upgrades, which was a mistake given the coastal location and potential for harm to the environment and tourism industry. It was noted that Members and officers would continue to meet with AW following the election to seek an adequate resolution to issues, though upgrading all facilities would take considerable time.

    iv.          Cllr L Withington asked whether the Environmental Portfolio Holder shared her concerns regarding the cavalier attitude that AW had taken towards the recent sewage leak on Mundesley beach caused by failures of their infrastructure, and whether he would also condemn the recent Government decision to permit water companies to pollute waterways. Cllr N Lloyd replied that AW and all water companies had been privatised approximately thirty years ago, and since then bills had risen by 40%, whilst promised investment had not materialised, there remained no competition, and only very weak regulation. He added that leakage rates amounted to approximately twenty million homes per day nationwide, with daily discharges into watercourses and the sea, which had almost become routine. As a result, he did share Cllr Withington’s concerns, and was encouraged that the CE had written to the AW Chief Executive to seek a response. Cllr W Fredericks stated as the local Member for Mundesley that she had been contacted regarding multiple sewage incidents in recent weeks, and when attending sewage events, AW had been notably unprepared to deal with the incidents. She added that the EA had taken six hours of persuasion to attend the incident in Mundesley to aid the clean-up operation which was unacceptable, and as a result she had arranged a meeting with the two authorities to review the incident and implement appropriate mitigation measures.

      v.          Cllr J Rest referred to a commitment within the report to top-up Discretionary Housing Payments funding from the DWP by £30k, and asked how and when this had been agreed. Cllr W Fredericks replied that it was unfortunate that the limit on this funding had been reached, with no uplift on housing allowance since 2016, which meant that many were left homeless or living in poverty. She added that the funding had come from the Household Support fund and other small grants that had been underspent, which were therefore already agreed.

    vi.          Cllr S Penfold asked for an update on the financial position of the Council and how it stood moving forward. Cllr E Seward stated that the overall economic climate in which the Council operated was uncertain, and it was difficult to predict how this would evolve, though there was an expectation that inflation would eventually begin to fall in the months ahead. He added that going forward, the Council would not be able to maintain a capital programme with the same level of construction and materials cost inflation as had been seen in 2022. It was noted that Government support for local Councils also remained uncertain, and it was therefore difficult to correctly forecast how this would impact future budgets. Cllr E Seward noted that deficits were forecast in the years ahead, however this had been the case in previous years which had been successfully mitigated, therefore planning would begin early on the appropriate level of mitigation measures.

   vii.          Cllr V FitzPatrick referred to comments in the report that suggested that the Council would help to fund two new pool covers at Everyone active facilities, and asked what percentage of these purchases the Council would be liable for. Cllr V Gay replied that she did not have the figures to hand, but the pool covers would help save money on energy bills at both facilities, and she would seek to provide figures as soon as possible. Cllr V FitzPatrick stated that he was puzzled why NNDC was sharing the costs, given that Everyone Active were responsible for running the facilities, and therefore asked why the Council appeared to be offering financial assistance to their commercial ventures. Cllr V Gay replied that throughout the nation there were leisure facilities that were closing due to rising energy costs, and significant efforts had been made to ensure that this did not happen in North Norfolk. She added that the Council met with Everyone Active on a regular basis to discuss matters such as running costs, and the agreement would help ensure that the Council continued to guarantee access to leisure centres for residents of North Norfolk.

  viii.          Cllr G Mancini-Boyle referred to minutes from the previous meeting and noted that his question on achieving net zero by 2030 had not been answered, and that he had not been allowed a supplementary question at the time. He added that he had asked the original question during the budget discussion as he had seen no clear strategy or funding set aside to achieve the objective. Cllr N Lloyd replied that on the contrary, money had been allocated for a range of related activities over the past two years and whilst these might not have been clearly labelled as net zero funding, they had contributed to achieving the overall goal. He added that as he had replied previously, it was difficult to cost a longer-term plan such as the Net Zero Action Plan, as costs would fluctuate considerably throughout its delivery. It was noted that whilst the NZAP was now due for review two years after its introduction, the Council had done well to reduce its carbon footprint by approximately fifty percent in that time, via actions such as changing the Council’s waste collection vehicles. Cllr N Lloyd stated that many actions included in the NZAP, such as changing to LED lighting and installing more solar panels would also create savings, but would be included in the budget as property maintenance or investment. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated that it was a shame that changes had taken so long to implement, and he hoped that further actions would be taken such as collecting textiles and using HVO fuel. Cllr N Lloyd replied that textiles were collected and an HVO fuel tank had been installed, but concerns remained around the supply, costs and source of the fuel, to ensure it was sustainable.

    ix.          Cllr D Birch asked for an update on improvements to North Walsham Market Place, to which Cllr R Kershaw replied that he had visited the site on Sunday and was pleased to report that all planters and street furniture was installed with roadways open. He added that the first market had been held in the area since work began, and that it was great to see the area back in use with members of the public enjoying the new amenities and giving good feedback on the changes. It was noted that overall the project had been delivered a week earlier than expected.

      x.          Cllr N Housden stated that there was nothing listed for forthcoming actions and developments under the Housing and Benefits Portfolio, and asked whether there was anything further to report, to which Cllr W Fredericks confirmed that she would provide a written reply.

    xi.          Cllr V Gay stated that in addition to the information included in her written report, she had attended an Integrated Care Partnership meeting where the Health Director had shared a report including information on North Norfolk that could be shared with wider Members for consideration.