Agenda and draft minutes

Prayers were led by Rev Canon Ling

Councillor Beales, seconded by Councillor Ring nominated Councillor S Bearshaw as Vice-Chair for the meeting.

RESOLVED:   That Councillor Bearshaw be appointed Vice-Chair for the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 31 October 2024 (previously circulated).

RESOLVED:  The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 October 2024 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

Councillors Bhondi, Blunt, Devulapalli, Dickinson and Lintern declared a pecuniary interest in the item on Second Homes Council Tax, and left the meeting during its consideration.

Councillor Kemp declared a non pecuniary interest as a GMB Equalities Officer.

To receive Mayor’s communications and announcements.

None

To receive any items of business which in the opinion of the Mayor are urgent. 

None

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Beales proposed that the item be withdrawn for consideration by the relevant Panel and Cabinet prior to coming back to the next meeting for consideration.  This was seconded by Councillor Ring.

RESOLVED:           That the matter be withdrawn for consideration by the relevant Panel  and Cabinet prior to coming to the next Council meeting.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Kirk proposed that Councillor T de Winton be nominated to the Conservancy Board.  This was seconded by Councillor Kunes.

RESOLVED:  That Councillor T de Winton be nominated to the Conservancy Board.

To receive petitions and public questions in accordance with Standing Order 9.

The Mayor invited 2 members of the public to ask their questions:

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

1)     Julia Irving

“It is well known that our natural environment is under serious pressure in the whole country and particularly in West Norfolk . Given this dire situation; can you tell me how many prosecutions the council taken forward under the Management of Hedgerows 1997?

Allied to this how many prosecutions has the council pursued under The Town and Country Planning  Act 1990,  of those who have cut down or damaged trees with Tree Preservation Orders?

Please give the total prosecutions since the start of the respective legislation.” 

Councillor Moriarty gave the following response:

“I first want to set the national context. The importance of trees is widely recognised in terms of climate change, carbon reduction etc, but hedgerows are also a vital part of our countryside. They benefit our wildlife, the environment and our landscapes.  

Hedgerows also play an important role in farming. They slow soil erosion and support an integrated pest management approach.   

In June last year, the Government launched a consultation on how hedgerows should be protected in England.

By the time the consultation closed in September, almost 9,000 people shared their views. This substantial response highlighted how much hedgerows are valued by all and there was overwhelming agreement that hedgerows are valuable assets for wildlife and the environment.  

There was consensus that hedges should be protected in law. This is what we were told the government will seek to do, in the context for farms through new regulations. 

So that shows the national picture, but your question was specific about our record on prosecutions.

Firstly hedgerows - our records on such matters go back only to 2005 when a new computer system was brought in. There would appear to have been 32 cases brought to the attention of our enforcement team in the intervening years. There were no prosecutions.

Of the 32 cases two replacement notices were issued. In 2019 the notice was complied with, and in 2023 the replacement of the hedge took place during the compliance period. Of the remaining 30 I can tell you they were all followed up but were a combination of no breach, de minimis, or officers would have approved the work in question. Prosecution in such cases is discretionary and I happen to agree with the view taken by officers at that time that it would not be correct to prosecute for a mistake when the work would have been approved in any case. I suspect the courts would have held a similar view and questioned the use of public money in such a manner.

In terms of trees, in the main these would fall under either a Breach – Tree in a Conservation Area (BTCA) 80 reported possible cases, or Breach of Tree Preservation Order (BTPO) 73 such possible cases.

Action was deemed appropriate in about 10 per cent of alleged cases.  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:68

(Members are reminded this is a debate, not a question and answer session)

To consider the following recommendations to Council:

CAB70:           Gambling Act 2005 – Statement of Principles

CAB71:           Council Tax Support – Final Scheme 2025-26

CAB72:           Bio Diversity Task Group report

CAB74:           Constitution Update

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Moriarty proposed CAB70: Gambling Act 2005 – Statement of Principles, this was seconded by Councillor Beales and on being put to the vote agreed.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Morley proposed CAB71: Council Tax Support – Final Scheme 2025-26, seconded by Councillor Bone.

In debating the item, Councillor Long acknowledged that there needed to be a scheme in place so would not vote against the proposal as he considered it meant others would have to pay more.  Councillors Jones, Bone, Joyce and Kemp supported the recommendation.

On being put to the vote, the recommendation was agreed.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor de Whalley proposed CAB72: Bio Diversity Task Group report, this was seconded by Councillor Squire. Council debated the recommendations from the cross party group, with Councillors Long, Dark and Bone supporting it although Councillor Kunes questioned the climate change budget heading for the staffing element.  On being put to the vote it was agreed.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Beales proposed CAB74: Constitution Update and thanked those involved in the cross party work and gave a brief overview of the proposed changes.  This was seconded by Councillor Ring who reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Long expressed support for the proposals having been closely involved in the process. Councillor Kemp did not support the changes to the consideration of Notices of Motion.  Councillors Osborne, Bone, Moriarty and Ring supported the work of the cross party working group. Councillor Joyce made a comment on the budget process and the importance of members attendance under standing order 34 at planning committee.

On being put to the vote, the recommendations were agreed.

 RESOLVED:             That the recommendations from the Cabinet meeting held on 5 November 2024 be approved.

To consider the following Notice of Motion (6 /24 ), submitted by Councillor Kemp

Saving Burman House Care Home 

Norfolk residents rate exceptionally highly, the care, compassion and commitment of all the Norsecare staff, who run Burman House Dementia Care Home. Our residents are pleading with their Borough Councillors, to do all we can, to save Burman House from impending closure by the County Council company Norse.

This Council is committed to supporting its residents and the Local Health and Care Economy in West Norfolk.

The closure of Burman House could see the loss of up to 30 local jobs, and worsen the shortage of Care Home, Respite and Convalescent beds in West Norfolk, placing additional pressure on the QEH.

Burman  House, in Terrington St John,  is rated Good by the Care Quality Commission. The residents benefit from the lovely gardens next to their rooms, which are all on the ground floor, in their unique rural setting. 

Burman House is owned by Norfolk County Council which has contracts with NorseCare.

This Council will therefore write to Norfolk County Council to ask it to intervene and permanently halt the closure of Burman House. 

It is understood  that a reason given for closure, is the dimensions of the rooms. So the addition of modular bathroom extensions  to each room, or other appropriate investment could be made.

It is understood that some residents are being planned to move to other NorseCare Homes, where the rooms are no bigger. This Council is aware a Care Home closure should only be a last resort as it causes such needless distress to residents. Our residents deserve better.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Kemp proposed the following Notice of Motion (6 /24), seconded by Councillor Rose:

Saving Burman House Care Home 

“Norfolk residents rate exceptionally highly, the care, compassion and commitment of all the Norsecare staff, who run Burman House Dementia Care Home. Our residents are pleading with their Borough Councillors, to do all we can, to save Burman House from impending closure by the County Council company Norse.

This Council is committed to supporting its residents and the Local Health and Care Economy in West Norfolk.

The closure of Burman House could see the loss of up to 30 local jobs, and worsen the shortage of Care Home, Respite and Convalescent beds in West Norfolk, placing additional pressure on the QEH.

Burman House, in Terrington St John, is rated Good by the Care Quality Commission. The residents benefit from the lovely gardens next to their rooms, which are all on the ground floor, in their unique rural setting. 

Burman House is owned by Norfolk County Council which has contracts with NorseCare.

This Council will therefore write to Norfolk County Council to ask it to intervene and permanently halt the closure of Burman House. 

It is understood that a reason given for closure, is the dimensions of the rooms. So the addition of modular bathroom extensions to each room, or other appropriate investment could be made.

It is understood that some residents are being planned to move to other NorseCare Homes, where the rooms are no bigger. This Council is aware a Care Home closure should only be a last resort as it causes such needless distress to residents. Our residents deserve better.”

Councillor Heneghan proposed the following amendment, seconded by Councillor Bone. 

“Norfolk residents rate exceptionally highly, the care, compassion and commitment of all the Norsecare staff, who run Burman House Dementia Care Home. Our residents are pleading with their Borough Councillors, to do all we can, to save Burman House from impending closure by the County Council company Norse. 

This Council is committed to supporting its residents and the Local Health and Care Economy in West Norfolk. 

The closure of Burman House could see the loss of up to 30 local jobs, and worsen the shortage of Care Home, Respite and Convalescent beds in West Norfolk, placing additional pressure on the QEH. 

Burman House, in Terrington St John, is rated Good by the Care Quality Commission. The residents benefit from the lovely gardens next to their rooms, which are all on the ground floor, in their unique rural setting. Burman House is owned by Norfolk County Council which has contracts with NorseCare. 

This Council will therefore write to Norfolk County Council to ask it to intervene and permanently halt the closure of Burman House. 

It is understood that a reason given for closure, is the dimensions of the rooms. So the addition of modular bathroom extensions to each room, or other appropriate investment could be made  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:70

In accordance with Standing Order 11, to receive reports from Cabinet Members moved en bloc, under Standing Order 11.2 Members of the Council may ask questions of Cabinet Members on their reports and Portfolio areas. The order of putting questions shall commence with a Member from the largest opposition group, proceeding in descending order to the smallest opposition group, followed by a Member from the ruling group. This order shall repeat until the time for questions has elapsed or there are no more questions to be put. 

The period of time for putting questions and receiving responses shall not exceed 50 minutes for all Cabinet Members, excluding the Leader

The period of time for putting questions and receiving responses to the Leader shall not exceed 15 minutes.

(Councillors are reminded that this is a question and answer session not a debate.)

Climate Change and Biodiversity – Councillor M de Whalley – TO FOLLOW

Planning and Licensing – Councillor J Moriarty

Environment and Coastal - Councillor S Squire

Finance – Councillor C Morley

Events and Open Spaces– Councillor B Anota

People and Communities – Councillor J Rust

Deputy Leader Business and Culture – Cllr S Ring

Leader - Councillor A Beales

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Beales presented the Leader and Cabinet Members reports en bloc. 

Councillor de Whalley gave an update on the second phase of the street light contract tender.  He undertook to provide Councillor Long with information on whether the new equipment was delivering savings.

Councillor Squire, in responding to Councillor Everett’s question on flytipping following the introduction of appointments and collection of data by the County Council to that end, confirmed that so far fly tipping had not increased, and if it did there was no method to re-claim the clean up charges from them if it did.  She suggested the question regarding data collected should be passed to the County Council.

Councillor de Whalley confirmed to Councillor Kemp that the work to the Ferry landing identified in the recent report would be undertaken.

In response to Councillor Parish’s question re if the additional Traveller’s sites being identified would follow the current planning guidance and Development Plan, Councillor Moriarty confirmed that planning policies must reflect the relevant national obligations.

In response to Councillor Heneghan’s question on the water from the Gaywood River in the Walks, Councillor Anota explained that the pump wasn’t working, but it was in the process of being fixed or replaced.

Councillor Anota also gave a response to Councillor Devulapalli that further testing of the herbicide free weed removal system was being further examined for potential use.

Councillor de Whalley confirmed that the 2023/24 carbon audit report was awaited.

Councillor Squires undertook to provide Councillor Ryves with the detail on the Council’s policy on assisting land owners with fly tipping.

Following a question from Councillor Dark, Councillor Ring undertook to look into whether the increase in fees and charges for weddings at the town hall had affected bookings.

Councillor Crofts asked if there was likely to be a change in CIL application arrangements for the next round.  Councillor Moriarty responded that the January 25 round would go ahead as usual and following that a review of the Governance arrangements would come forward to a Panel and Cabinet for consideration.

Councillor Parish asked Councillor Morley what options the council had budget wise in 3 years with the IDB funding formula and second homes council tax not yet agreed except aiming for a unitary authority.  Councillor Morley confirmed that the budget plan still had to be shared with members, the plan was to ensure the fees and charges recovered costs, and restructuring would take place where possible.  He reminded members that the reserves were required to develop Capital in order to invest to develop.  He also highlighted that the long term empty homes issue had just been slipped for now.

Councillor Moriarty in responding to Councillor Coates gave a breakdown of the planning appeals statistics and undertook to provide them in writing.

Following a question from Councillor Sayers on whether the Council would utilise the powers under the Regeneration and Levelling Up Act on auctions on vacant shops, Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:71

In accordance with Standing Order 11.2 (b), Members of the Council may ask any questions of the Chair of any Council Body (except the Cabinet).

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

Councillor Moriarty asked the Chair of the Planning Committee if he could assure the council that any decisions by the Planning Committee would comply with all the local policies.  Councillor Parish Chair of the Planning Committee responded it would be up to the Committee to decide.