Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bird, P Carpenter and Murray-Smith.

Councillor Plant declared an interest in item 4 in his capacity as a County Councillor Cabinet Member.

Councillor Bensly declared an interest in item 4 in his capacity as a County Councillor Cabinet Member.

In accordance with the Constitution both were allowed to speak and vote on the item.

Members received and considered the Chief Executive Officer's report.

The Leader presented the item to Council and advised that In December 2024, the Government published the English Devolution White Paper, which outlined plans to transfer more power to local communities across England. In two tier local authority areas, the Government proposes to establish Mayoral Combined County Authorities, which will then become Mayoral Combined Authorities once reorganisation has taken place.

The Leader advised that before taking a decision on whether to proceed with the making of the necessary legislation, the Government is seeking views from interested parties. It launched an open consultation exercise on 17 February to collate feedback on various aspects of the proposal for Norfolk and Suffolk, including the proposed geography and how the new body will make decisions, together with questions on the effects of working across this geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority. That consultation exercise consultation remains open until 13 April 2025 at 23:59. 

This report set out a proposed response to the devolution consultation issued by Government on 17 February 2025 on the proposal to form a Mayoral Combined County Authority for the Local Government areas of Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council.

Proposer :  Councillor Smith

Seconder : Councillor Wainwright 

That Council :

1. reviews and endorses the appended draft response to the Norfolk and Suffolk devolution consultation exercise.

2. delegates to the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Leader, the submission of the consultation response to Government.

CARRIED

Council received and considered the Chief Executive Officer's report.

The Leader presented the item to Council and advised  that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) wrote to all Norfolk Leaders on 5 February 2025 inviting them to work with other council leaders in the area to develop a proposal for Local Government Reorganisation. The letter sets out the criteria and what is expected to be received in the “interim plan” to be submitted by 21st March 2025. This report sets out the interim plan which is attached at Appendix B and is the work of independent consultants Deloitte LLP.

As Norfolk is on the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) the timelines for LGR are as follows:

• 21 March 2025 – the interim plan contained within this report is to be submitted to MHCLG

   

• 26 September 2025 - final proposals need to be submitted in the form of a full business case for the preferred solution(s)

   

• January to April 2026 – during this period government will make a decision on the proposal(s) and confirm what this means for Norfolk

   

• May to August 2026 – LGR legislation is prepared and laid before Parliament

   

• May 2027 to Shadow Unitary Elections

   

• May to December 2027 – any transitional legislation is prepared and laid before Parliament

   

• April 2028 – Expected vesting of new unitaries in Norfolk

The letter received from MHCLG on 5 February 2025 (see Appendix A) set out the assessment criteria that need to be considered for the full business case, which the interim plan needs to be mindful of. The letter also sets out what needs to be included / considered in the interim plan.

The interim plan to be submitted to government should set out the progress to date on developing proposals in line with the criteria and guidance. The government recognises that that the level of detail that is possible at this stage may vary from place to place but the expectation is that an interim plan is submitted jointly by all councils in the area. However it is also recognised that the interim plan describes more than one potential proposal for the area, if there is more than one option under consideration.

The appended interim plan is being considered by all District, City and Borough Councils in Norfolk at Full Council meetings this week. Each Council is being requested to confirm its preferences for LGR in Norfolk, so that these can form part of the Norfolk submission to Government. Thus meeting the ambition of Government to receive joint submissions from the Norfolk area.

There is an option to not proceed with a submission of an interim plan in March. This is not the preferred route as it does not enable the Council to use its voice and ensure that views of Norfolk residents, communities and businesses are represented.

The conclusions and recommendations with this report are drawn direct from the Deloitte LLP report, which methodically applied the Government’s assessment criteria to score and rank potential options for LGR – which are set out in Section 3.2 (Page 16) of the Agenda Pack.

As set out in Deloitte’s report and summarised on Pages 32-33 of the Agenda Pack, the single county unitary option scored significantly lower than the other two options. It was the best option against only one of the six criteria – the financial and demographic assessment in Criterion No.2 and notes that despite potential trade offs, the clear conclusion that emerges from this assessment that the single county unitary option should be rejected.

Second, it noted that for several of the criteria, there were only small differences between the two-unitary and three-unitary models.

Thirdly, it noted the “three unitary model” scored the best overall against the Government’s criteria and should be selected as the “preferred option”.

The Leader advised Council that he was completely against Local Government reorganisation, and that he felt that the pace and speed that this was being pushed onto Council's was unacceptable.

The Leader further advised that there was a need to think of the impact of LGR on the residents of the Borough.

Whilst the Leader disagreed with Local Government reorganisation he commented that on the need to ensure the Council has a voice and that therefore in his opinion if LGR was to take place in his opinion a 3 unitary model would be the preferred model for the organisation.

The Leader here proposed the recommendations within the report but moved an amendment to remove numbers 2 and 3 within the second recommendation.

Councillor Wainwright here seconded the amendment.

Following a vote this amendment was CARRIED.

Councillor Wainwright here advised that he seconded the substantive motion and commented that he was glad to see the removal of numbers 2 and 3 within the second recommendation. Councillor Wainwright advised that this would be the first local Government Reorganisation for 50 years. He advised that he supported a 3 unitary model with Great Yarmouth at the heart of the East.

Councillor Wainwright referred to proposals that had been heard back in 2020 relating to LGR, so advised that these reorganisations were not a new thing, all Governments have wanted this it is just the existing Government are now wanting to push this matter forward to have this completed before the next General Election.

Councillor Wainwright advised that in his opinion unitary Council's can lead to better outcomes for Council's and potentially better services for residents. 

Councillor Candon raised his concern with regard to Local Government reorganisation and commented that he felt the Government were selling this as reform but what he really felt this was about was control and centralisation. Councillor Candon commented that in his opinion decisions should be made by the residents of the Borough and not Government politicians who do not live in the Borough. He felt that democracy was at risk with further power being taken away from Local Council's. Finally he advised that although he would like to fight Local Government reorganisation, he understood the need to put residents first and put forward the best proposal for them.

Councillor Wells commented that he felt there was an element of groundhog day with the proposals for Local Government reorganisation as he had been involved on previous implementation Boards where this matter had been discussed, with proposed Unitary Council's being considered but that had never been agreed.

Councillor Wells felt that this reorganisation was particularly political and felt very much like the Government were trying to push for Norwich, Ipswich, Rural Norfolk and Rural Suffolk boundaries and that he felt that this was simply reorganising local Government for Norwich and Ipswich. Councillor Wells commented that he felt saddened that if proposals were to go ahead that Great Yarmouth Council as it was known now and had been for a significant period of time would be wiped away in the face of efficiency savings by the Government.

Councillor Wells commented that whilst there was a need to accept reality, he found it frustrating that the Devolution deal had been built on a Norfolk / Suffolk border for the Mayoral position, but yet restrictions of borders had been put in place for LGR. Councillor Wells in his opinion felt that the Council should be looking at Great Yarmouth and the South in order to become a coastal and broads Council.

Councillor Jeal commented that he first became a Councillor in 1974 and that when these proposals came into force he would loose his Councillor post. He hoped that whoever succeeded him in the new Council, they would do the same sterling job as Members did now for the residents of the Borough. Councillor Jeal commented on the need to not make these proposals political, but to make it the best outcome for the residents of the Borough.

Councillor Cordiner-Achenbach commented on the proposals and how if a 3 unitary model was to be approved, this would see Great Yarmouth at the heart of the East. She advised that having grown up in North Norfolk with a postal address that remained within the Great Yarmouth area, indicated how the boundaries could align. Councillor Cordiner-Achenbach further commented that with many current decisions being made at County Council level, those of which impacted the residents of the Borough, she felt that LGR would allow for decisions to be made more locally and would provide for better clarity and understanding for local residents.

Councillor Plant advised that there had been many options on the table for local Government reorganisation, he advised that a 3 unitary model across Norfolk and Suffolk would see no extra money being allocated. He advised that the year on year spend that is seen at the County Council would not disappear with LGR, this would still remain and would bring the same issues already faced. Councillor Plant commented that he agreed with Devolution and the creation of a Mayoral post to cover both Norfolk and Suffolk, but he questioned the financial viability of LGR and if there was to be no change to the way funding was made available, then how was the money going to be made available for services. Councillor Plant raised some further concern regarding Adult Social Services and felt that this matter needed more details to be looked into.

Councillor Plant commented that he believed in the Borough and wants it to be looked after as part of any proposals.

Councillor Williamson provided Members with a brief background around previous boundaries that had been in place prior to 1974 when expansion of boundaries had taken place, he advised that boundaries changed then as expansion was needed and now the Council finds itself in a situation where change is necessary once again. He commented that in his opinion the Council proposing a 3 unitary model would be the best option for the authority and allows for Yarmouth to be at the centre.

Councillor Williamson advised that in his opinion, Yarmouth had always faired badly under the current County structure for health and therefore with the suggested proposals this matter would be addressed and Yarmouth could be seen as a viable centre.

Councillor T Wright commented that in reality no one liked change, but there was a need to accept that it happens and this would be the first reorganisation since 1974. He commented that Local Council's had for a number of years been under funded and with the county council close to being bankrupt there was need for this to addressed. Councillor Wright referred to previous proposals that had been discussed regarding LGR where there had been several attempts to reorganise local Council's, and commented that he felt these new proposals being considered for a 3 unitary model would give Great Yarmouth an identity and could see job opportunities for local people.  

Councillor Thompson, commented that he was not against change, but felt these proposals were being rushed through without any form of public consultation. Councillor Thompson advised that he had written to the Leader of Norfolk County Council, to ask them not to cancel the elections that were planned for May 2025, as he felt the election should take place and should be used as a referendum to gauge interest for the residents on the matters of LGR. He commented that he felt Council's were being forced into making a decision and not being given the time to complete the preliminary work properly. 

Councillor Thompson commented that whilst he felt this matter was being pushed onto Local Council's, he agreed there was a need to put the best case proposal forward for the Council, and he agreed that the 3 unitary model would be the best solution for the Borough.

The Leader thanked Members for all their comments and advised that he was glad to see that Members agreed that the 3 unitary model would be the best option for the Council. The Leader advised that he would continue to have regular meetings to ensure proposals were right for the residents of the Borough.

Proposer : Councillor Smith

Seconder : Councillor Wainwright 

That Council:-

(i) agree the Deloitte report as an Interim Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Norfolk and for the Leader to submit this to the Government by the 21 March 2025 deadline.

(ii) as part of agreeing the Interim Plan to confirm support for :

• The three unitary model is the preferred model for Norfolk and should be developed further for final submission in September.

(iii) endorse further collaborative development of the preferred option, including public and stakeholder consultation, and the preparation of a full business case for submission to  the Government by 26 September 2025.

(iv) establish a working group of 3 Conservatives, 2 Labour and I Independent Member to include the Group Leaders.

CARRIED

Council received and considered the Head of Environment and Sustainability's report.

Councillor Wells, Portfolio Holder for Environment, Sustainability, Licensing and Waste, presented the report and advised that the Anti-Social Behaviour (Crime and Policing) Act 2014 provided local authorities with a range of powers to assist in tackling anti- social behaviour (ASB) within the community. The Council currently have three effective Public Space Protection Orders across the Borough covering Dog Fouling and Dog Control, Alcohol ASB and Vehicle Related ASB.

These PSPO’s either cover certain areas or encompass the entire Borough. These require renewing with full public consultation every three years. The areas covered on the PSPO’s are enforced by Council Officers and the Police with further action determined by Council officers around levels of enforcement appropriate to the offence.

The Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) No 1 Alcohol for Great Yarmouth expires in 2025, and officers are proposing to widen the powers available to reflect the ongoing ASB issues that the Council is tackling across the Borough.

This proposed PSPO is designed to tackle ASB in a fair and proportionate manner, working in collaboration with its’ partner agencies to produce a robust approach to ASB, ensuring we have all the tools available to address the issues raised by the residents, visitors and businesses of the Borough.

The consultation for this PSPO ran from the 8^th November 2024 to the 8^th December 2024 and 116 public responses were received, most comments received were supportive of the proposed PSPO and the issues that it tackles. A summary of the answers to the questions and the specific comments made can be found in Appendix 6 and 7. As part of the consultation the Council have a duty to consult with Norfolk Police who have emailed stating their support for the proposed PSPO and have shared a set of data slides that support the need for this PSPO in the Borough. 

It is proposed that the new PSPO would come into effect from 1st April 2025 from one area to another. It is further proposed that the existing PSPO 1 Alcohol will cease to be valid as of 1st April 2025.

The key issues covered in the proposed PSPO are:

• public intoxication,

• public urination and defecation,

• begging,

• the abandoning of belongings,

• spitting; and

• cycling and the use of electronic scooters and other conveyances within pedestrianised areas

Councillor Bensly hereby seconded the recommendations.

Councillor Plant commented on the need for the public space protection order to continue to avoid any unnecessary distress within the town centre and he advised that the report had his full support. Councillor Plant thanked Officers for the work that had gone into the making of the PSPO.

Councillor Flaxman-Taylor advised that she was pleased to see the establishment of the new order from a health and wellbeing point of view.

Councillor Candon commented on some negative and false narrative that had been being circulated in relation to the streets of the town being unsafe which he felt was an incorrect narrative. He advised that he felt the past PSPO's that had been in place had been effective in tackling the issues and that it was pleasing to see this new order which would continue to tackle unacceptable behaviour.

Councillor T Wright asked under abandoned cars within the order, whether this included caravans. Councillor Plant advised that the caravans, which he believed Councillor Wright was referring to, were on public highway and therefore the responsibility of the County Council. Councillor Plant advised that as soon as these were reported, Officers would commence work for their removal and he advised that around 20 caravans had been removed from being parked on the public highway this year. He advised that work was ongoing with this matter as it required a change in legislation.

Her Worship the Mayor asked if this was the same principle for Boats and Trailers, however, it was advised that as these have no road tax disc these were exempt so were not illegally parked if on the highway.

Councillor Dwyer-McCluskey commented that he agreed and supported the PSPO, but commented that there was a need to find a balance when it came to graffiti as there are artists within the town who work with local groups producing art/graffiti installations.

Councillor Wainwright agreed with the comments made by Councillor Candon in relation to the narrative of the streets being unsafe in Great Yarmouth and it felt that this was a perception of Great Yarmouth rather than the truth. He commented that he felt the PSPO was really positive for the town and thanked Officers for their work.

Councillor Jeal commented that he hoped that action would be taken if people had been found guilt of an offence, he thanked Officers for the work that had gone into the order.

Councillor Grant advised that he strongly supported this order and commented on the myths around homeless people and these people not being spoken to by the Council, he advised that most people had been spoken to but some had refused help offered, so he was pleased to see that this order allowed for action to be taken in order to help people. He further commented that he felt the order provided a stronger Council image and the actions we would take to tackle behaviours.

The Leader also commented on the perception relating to Great Yarmouth being unsafe and advised that he had met with the Superintendent of Yarmouth police to ensure that we are working with the local police alongside the introduction of the new PSPO to really focus on the behaviours within the town. He advised that there was lots of regeneration in the town and therefore there was a need to ensure people could come to Great Yarmouth and enjoy what was on offer. The Leader thanked the Officers for all the work that had gone into the report.

Councillor McMullen advised that she fully supported the report and commented that she had seen the local police in action within the town so had every faith that they would be able to deal with any issues effectively.

Councillor Wells welcomed the cross party support that the report had received and agreed with Councillor McCluskey's comments regarding artists within the town and how this would be monitored. Councillor Wells advised that this new PSPO and the enforcement actions that can be taken was needed within the town to tackle the unacceptable behaviours that had been shown. He thanked the Officers for their hard work in producing the new order.

Proposer : Councillor Wells

Seconder : Councillor Bensly 

That Council :

(1) Note the information contained within this report and consider the feedback from the public consultation.

(2) Agree to adopt the proposed Anti- Social Behaviour Public Space Protection Order for the next 3 years from 1st April 2025.

(3) Agree that PSPO1 would be superseded by the new order and would no longer be valid as of 1st April 2025.

Council received and considered the Head of Customer Services report.

Councillor Plant, Portfolio Holder for Operational Property and Assets, presented the report and advised that the Borough Council of Great Yarmouth proposes to make an Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This Order aims to consolidate and update the existing parking regulations, including the addition of new Electric Vehicle Parking Bays, the introduction of seasonal fees, and the implementation of staff parking at council offices. The Order also seeks to update legislative references, revise procedures for suspension and relocation, and clarify the Council's liability and responsibilities regarding the use of parking places.

As part of the process for making the Order, the proposals were advertised on 21st February 2025 to allow for any objections and representations relating to the Order.

Through this process, a number of objections were received in relation to the proposal to introduce seasonal pay & display charges on Brush Quay Car Park.

The main objections received are from residents who utilise the car park as off-street parking is limited in this residential area. There is a concern that if the proposal went ahead, it would negatively impact the surrounding residents and businesses in the area. A further objection was received in relation to the charging times at Caister Beach Road Car Park which is to be corrected to the exiting times.

Councillor B Wright advised that she was extremely pleased to see the removal of the seasonal charging at Brush Quay Car Park but expressed her disappointment that the introduction of this charge had previously been approved. Councillor B Wright asked what had changed in order for this to be reconsidered and it was advised that this had been reconsidered following the public consultation exercise.

Councillor Upton advised that he knew how pleased the residents at Brush Quay would be to hear that this charge was to be removed, he also expressed his disappointment with these charges being introduced following last years budget and that both he and Councillor B Wright had consistently been raising concerns from residents at Brush Quay, so he was extremely pleased to see the charges being reconsidered and removed.

Proposer : Councillor Plant 

Seconder : Councillor Candon 

That Council :

(1)  Agree to the removal of seasonal pay & display charging on Brush Quay Car Park.

(2) Agree to the making of the Borough of Great Yarmouth (Off-Street Parking Places) (Lorry and Coach Parking Places) and (Residential Parking Places) Consolidation and Variation Order 2025 as amended.