Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Borg,Cordiner-Achenbach, P Carpenter, Fairhead, D Hammond, Price & Stenhouse.

His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson declared a personal interest in item 13, as he was Ward Councillor & Parish Councillor for Filby.

Councillor Grant declared a personal interest in item 25 as he was a Director of Norse

Councillor C Walker declared a personal interest in item 25 as she was a Director of Norse.

Councillor Wells declared a personal interest in item 25 as he was a Director of GYBS.

Councillors Grant, C Walker & Wells would leave the meeting during the determination of the item.

(i) His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson welcomed Lily Robinson to the meeting who was a local student studying politics.

(ii) His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson reported that the Christmas Tree Festival in The Minster would be held from 10 to 11 December 2021. However, the Civic Carol Service due to be held on 15 December 2021 had been cancelled.

(iii) His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson, the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive Officer congratulated Jo Shellard, Porter, on the occasion of her retirement and presented her with her Long Service Award and a bouquet of flowers and thanked her for her many years of service to the Council which she had always graciously carried out with a smile on her face and that she would be sorely missed. Members gave Jo a standing ovation to mark her retirement.

His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson reported that the Leader of the Council would give an update on the Omicron variant.

The Leader of the Council gave an update as to the Omicron variant and its effect on the local residents of the Borough and the plans the Borough Council had put in place to tackle it and assured Council that it was business as usual at the moment but a very close eye was being kept on the situation.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 September 2021 were confirmed.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Candon

CARRIED.

His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson called Mr John Cannell of Great Yarmouth District, Trades Union Council to put his question forward to Council.

Mr Cannell asked what the intentions of the GYBC, in relation to the employment conditions that the future employees of the Marina Centre will be subject to. We would like to request that the Local Authorities Agreement is recognised and applied with Full Trades union recognition.

The Leader of the Council responded that all employees who will be working at the Marina Centre will be employed by Freedom Leisure Trust and as such will be subject to their terms and conditions. Freedom Leisure Trust recognise Unison, GMB and Unite, with new and existing staff able to sign up to these unions whenever they wish.

Mr Cannell asked a supplementary question; in regard to the Borough's economy, did the promotion of jobs at the national minimum wage add much to the economy. The previous Marina Centre had lost £30m under the leadership of Mr William Davies, and therefore, should the working population of the Borough have to subsidise the Marina Centre.

The Leader of the Council reported that he would not respond as this was a statement from Mr Cannell and not a question.

Councillor B Walker asked that details of the associated losses attributed to the old Marina Centre during the period which it was open to the public be made available to all Councillors for information.

Council was asked to approve that Councillor Wainwright replace Councillor B Walker on the Neighbourhood Management Board ,MESH (Gorleston).

Proposer:- Councillor B Walker

Seconder:-Councillor C Walker 

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that Policy and Resources Committee received a Leisure Operator Procurement report on the 2nd November 2021 where they approved several recommendations, including the appointment of Freedom Leisure as the Council’s new leisure operator for both the Phoenix Pool and Marina Centre. As part of the recommendations, the Committee was also asked to nominate two Councillors to sit on the Partnership Board with Freedom Leisure which would meet on a quarterly basis to oversee the service delivery of this leisure operator, as part of the new contractual arrangements.

The representatives who were nominated by the Policy and Resources Committee were Councillors Smith and Wainwright, Council was therefore asked to appoint these two Councillors to sit on this newly formed Partnership Board. 

That Council  appoint Councillors Smith and Wainwright as the elected Members to sit on the Partnership Board with Freedom Leisure.

Proposer:- Councillor Plant

Seconder:- Councillor Flaxman-Taylor

CARRIED.

Sandra Cox, Chairman of the IRP reported that this report is to recommend to Council the allowances and expenses to be paid to Members to take effect from December 2021 should recommendations be approved, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003.

Sandra Cox reminded Members that an Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) should take place at least every 4 years. The last IRP was held in 2016 and therefore the 4-year period has lapsed. The Panel was due to meet in March 2020, however due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the meeting of the Panel was postponed, until November 2020 where a limited scope review was undertaken. Following this review, a recommendation from the Panel was to undertake a further review in 12 months’ time to understand the implications that the COVID 19 pandemic would have on Members workloads, and how meetings were to be run post Covid. Following discussion with Group Leaders and the Chief Executive Officer the panel were asked to undertake a full review of allowances in July 2021 in light of COVID 19 restrictions being lifted, and meetings returning to face to face.

The IRP ask Council to consider its recommendations and adopt a scheme of allowances and amend the constitution accordingly, as noted in paragraphs a) to t) of the report.

Councillor Myers reported that he was never in favour of a separate broadband allowance for Members and asked why it had taken 7 years to come to light as Members should fund this out of their basic allowance. However, he was minded to approve the proposal with the amendment that the broadband allowance of £180 be removed from the basic allowance. Councillor Talbot seconded the amendment proposed by Councillor Myers.

Councillor P Hammond asked for clarification as to the multiplier used to determine the remuneration for the Vice-Chair of Development Control Committee as on page 26 of the agenda report it started 0.25% when it should be 0.33%.

Councillor Wainwright reported that the Labour Group would not support this proposal due to the current uncertain economic climate due to the pandemic and suggested that this review be put on hold until the Council moved to a Cabinet system in 2023. However, the Labour Group would support the recommendation at paragraph 3.4 on page 11 of the agenda report which related to carer's allowances. Councillor Wainwright thanked Mrs Cox and her team for the work undertaken during the review.

Councillor C Walker reported that a similar review had taken place at the County Council 18 months ago resulting in a 17.5% increase in allowances. The system was broken and those Councillors who were twin-hatters would now benefit twice from these increases.

Councillor Robinson-Payne reported that she did not support the increase in allowances following the last IRP in 2016 and she would not support this one either as she felt that it was morally wrong and would once again donate the increment to her local Foodbank as she represented one of the most deprived wards in the Country. Councillors Jeal, Martin, and Smith-Clare reported that they agreed with Councillor Robinson-Payne. 

His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson, reported that he would not support this proposal at a cost of £42k to the Council as we were experiencing tough times and Members should be seen to support residents and not reward themselves and he would be voting against recommendations, as at the last meeting Council had voted not to support the retention of the £20 a week uplift to Universal Credit which had been awarded during the pandemic.

The Leader of the Council reported that there was never a good time to review Members Allowances especially when the outcome was an increase and he thanked Mrs Cox and her team for their hard work. The Leader of the Council proposed to move recommendations a) to t) on pages 19 to 21 of the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Candon.

Council voted on the amendment proposed by Councillor Myers and seconded by Councillor Talbot. Following a vote, this motion was lost. A Member asked for a recorded vote to be undertaken but the Monitoring Officer reported that this request had been made too late in the proceedings to be able to be considered and put to the vote. Council then voted on the motion proposed by the Leader of the Council to move recommendations a) to t) on pages 19 to 21 of the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Candon.

PROPOSER: Councillor Smith

SECONDER: Councillor Candon

That Council agree to :-

a) The Basic Allowance for Members be increased to £5750 pa. This figure includes an
increase of £701 to reflect increased workload which the IRP considered would continue post pandemic and merge the old Basic Allowance figure of £4,869 with the Broadband Allowance of £180. Members are asked to note that currently there is both a Basic Allowance and a Broadband Allowance paid. This is contrary to the Regulations as there is no permissible Broadband Allowance, it is a mandatory requirement that the Basic Allowance and Broadband Allowance amounts are merged.
This increase consists of: £4,869 (the BA now) + £180 (the Broadband Allowance) + £701 (BA increase) = £5,750.Cost to Council Budget of £27,339.

b) The Basic Allowance Scheme should be indexed linked to officers’ pay awards

c) Council should be aware that the following Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs)
will all increase as they are based on a multiplier of the Basic Allowances which has been raised. Some have had their multiplier increased above this as it was thought that their work load had increased considerably too;

(d) The SRA for the Leader of the Council should be calculated by way of a multiplier of
x2.25 of the Basic Allowance;

e) The SRA for the four Service Committee Chairs (Policy & Resources; Economic
Development; Environment; and Housing & Neighbourhoods) should be calculated by way of a multiplier of x1 of the Basic Allowance;

f) The SRA for the four Service Vice-Committee Chairs (Policy & Resources; Economic
Development; Environment; and Housing & Neighbourhoods) should be calculated by way of a multiplier of x0.25 of the Basic Allowance;

g) The SRA for the Chair of the Development Control Committee should be increased to
reflect the demands of the role and frequency of meetings calculated by way of a multiplier of x1.25 of the Basic Allowance;

h) The SRA for the Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee should be increased to reflect the demands of the role and frequency of meetings and calculated by way of a multiplier of x0.33 of the Basic Allowance;

i) The SRA for the Chairs of the Licensing and Audit & Risk Committees should be calculated by way of a multiplier of x1 of the Basic Allowance;

j) The SRA for the Vice-Chairs of the Licensing and Audit & Risk Committees should be
calculated by way of a multiplier of x0.25 of the Basic Allowance;

k) The SRA for the Chairs of the Standards and Appeals Committee should be calculated
by way of a multiplier of x0.25 of the Basic Allowance;

l) The SRA for the Mayor (Chair of the Council) should be calculated by way of a multiplier of x0.5 of the Basic Allowance;

m) The SRA for the Deputy Mayor should be calculated by way of a multiplier of x0.2 of the Basic Allowance;

n) The SRA for the Shadow Leader should be calculated by way of a multiplier of x1 of the Basic Allowance;

o) The SRA for Group Leaders to be calculated by a formula of ‘Basic Allowance ÷ number
of Councillors X number of members in a Party’. Example, if there were 10 members in a Party the Group Leader would receive: £5,750 ÷ 39 Councillors = £147.44 X 10 = £1474.40.

p) The existing travelling expensesscheme should remain at 45p per mile for cars; 26p per
mile for motorbikes; 15 p per mile for bicycles and 5p per mile for car share rate per Member.

q) The Carer’s Allowance be;
(i) Set at £10 per hour for professional childcare and £20 per hour wage for specialist care, and it should also include the new entitlement to employ people known to and trusted by a Councillor.
(ii)Amended to include childcare and care inside of the home whilst attending virtual meetings childcare and dependents care when attending meetings.

r) Existing Councillors who are co-opted should continue to receive no allowance. Non-Council members who are co-opted could receive an allowance to be agreed by a resolution of the committee at the time of appointment of co-opted members to the committee;

s) Regular and frequent training be given to all Councillors in respect of claiming expenses and allowances;

t) The changes should be implemented from the date when and if the Council agrees to
the recommendations from the panel and not backdated.

CARRIED.

Members received, considered and noted the Service Committee Decision List for the Period 28 July 2021 to 2 November 2021.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Candon

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that the report outlined the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant and the commitments which Great Yarmouth Borough Council would undertake in supporting it. The focus of the new Covenant Duty was on local and regional, as appropriate, service provision covering those aspects of public housing, education and healthcare that were amongst the most likely to affect serving and former members of the Armed Forces and their families.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Plant.

That Council agree to :-

(i) Support the principles of this paper and the Armed Forces Covenant,
(ii) Agree to allow officer time to support the Armed Forces Covenant,
(iii) Agree to implement the Guaranteed interview Scheme for service leavers,
(iv) Sign the Armed Forced Covenant Declaration; and
(v) Agree that a Council Member be nominated to champion the council’s commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant.

CARRIED.

Councillor G Carpenter proposed that Section 349 of the Gambling Act, 2005 required licensing authorities to publish a ‘Statement of the Principles’ that they proposed to apply in exercising their functions under the Act, applicable to a 3 year period. Great Yarmouth’s existing Statement of Principles (Gambling Policy) expired on 30 January 2022 and a reviewed policy must be published by 3 January 2022. A draft policy had been subject to consultation over a 9 week period during July and September 2021 whereby no comments had been received during this consultation.

That Council approve the policy as the new Gambling Statement of Principles.

Proposer: Councillor G Carpenter

Seconder: Councillor Hanton.

CARRIED.

Councillor Annison reported that this was the first of  three Neighbourhood Plans to be considered this evening by Council. The same plan preparation and examination process applied to each of the three plans. Neighbourhood Plans were plans prepared by the community, this plan had been led by Filby Parish Council. Once adopted Neighbourhood Plans sat alongside the Council’s Local Plan and would be used to help determine planning applications for development. 

The Filby Neighbourhood Plan contained planning policies in relation to housing, the environment, the built and historic environment, and access and transport. An independent examiner had examined the plan finding that subject to recommended modifications, the plan met the basic conditions upon which the plan was tested. The Examiner recommended that the plan should proceed to a Neighbourhood Referendum (for the community to vote), with no extension to the referendum area so that it would remain as the parish area. 

The modifications are relatively minor; the report and its appendices contain all of the detailed changes. Local Plan Working Party (on 23rd November) reviewed the suggested modifications to the submitted plan and reasoning behind these, they supported the officers recommendation to accept the Examiner’s findings. The decision on whether to proceed to referendum is also made by the Broads Authority as the neighbourhood area extends into part of the Broads Area. The Broads Authority accepted the Examiner’s recommendations to proceed to Referendum.

Proposer: Councillor Annison

Seconder: Councillor Freeman.

That Council:-

CARRIED.

Councillor Annison reported that this plan had been led by Rollesby Parish Council.  Once adopted, Neighbourhood Plans sat alongside the Council’s Local Plan and would be used to help determine planning applications for development. Unlike the other two plans, the Rollesby Neighbourhood Plan contained housing allocations to accommodate up to 95 houses to join- up the village along the main road. Other planning policies related to housing, the environment, community assets, and traffic and transport. 

An independent examiner had examined the plan finding that subject to recommended modifications, the plan met the basic conditions upon which the plan was tested. The Examiner recommended that the plan should proceed to a Neighbourhood Referendum for the community to vote, with no extension to the referendum area so that it would remain as the parish area. 

The modifications were relatively minor; the report and its appendices contained all of the detailed changes. The Local Plan Working Party of 23rd November 2021, reviewed the suggested modifications to the submitted plan and reasoning behind those, and supported the officers recommendation to accept the Examiner’s findings. The decision on whether to proceed to referendum was also made by the Broads Authority as the neighbourhood area extended into part of the Broads Area. The Broads Authority accepted the Examiner’s recommendations to proceed to Referendum.

The Leader of the Council asked for clarification regarding the date of the referendum. The Strategic Planning Manager reported that the date was not 3 December 2021 s per the report and would be amended to the 24 February 2022 in all three cases.

Proposer: Councillor Annison

Seconder: Councillor Freeman.

That Council:-

(i) Approves the recommended modifications to the Neighbourhood Plan as set out in the Examiner’s Report,
(ii) Approves the referendum area as the neighbourhood plan area as recommended in the Examiner’s Report,
(iii) Agree the Neighbourhood Plan (as modified) proceeds to referendum; and
(iv) Approves the publication of a Decision Statement setting out the Council’s and the Broads Authority’s response to the Examiner’s recommendations and announcing the intention for the Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to a referendum.

CARRIED.

Councillor Annison reported that this neighbourhood plan had been led by the Winterton-on-Sea Parish Council.   Once adopted Neighbourhood Plans sat alongside the Council’s Local Plan and would be used to help determine planning applications for development. The Winterton-on-Sea Neighbourhood Plan contained planning policies in relation to housing, the environment, community assets, and traffic and transport.

An independent examiner has examined the plan finding that subject to recommended modifications, the plan met the basic conditions upon which the plan was tested. The Examiner recommended that the plan should proceed to a Neighbourhood Referendum for the community to vote with no extension to the referendum area so that it would remain as the parish area. 

The modifications were relatively minor; the report and its appendices contained all of the detailed changes. The Local Plan Working Party of 23rd November 2021 reviewed the suggested modifications to the submitted plan and reasoning behind these and supported the officers recommendation to accept the Examiner’s findings. The decision on whether to proceed to referendum was also made by the Broads Authority as the neighbourhood area extended into part of the Broads Area. The Broads Authority accepted the Examiner’s recommendations to proceed to Referendum.

Proposer: Councillor Annison

Seconder: Councillor Freeman.

That Council:-

(i) Approves the recommended modifications to the Neighbourhood Plan as set out in the Examiner’s Report,
(ii) Approves the referendum area as the neighbourhood plan area as recommended in the Examiner’s Report,
(iii) Agree the Neighbourhood Plan (as modified) proceeds to referendum; and
(iv)   Approves the publication of a Decision Statement setting out the Council’s and the Broads Authority’s response to the Examiner’s recommendations and announcing the intention for the Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to a referendum.

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that this report recommended the adoption of Local Plan Part 2 following the conclusion of the examination in public and the publication of the Inspector’s Report. Attached to the report was the final version of the Local Plan Part 2 with the modifications required by the Inspector following the examination.

The Leader of the Council thanked the Strategic Planning Manager and his team for producing such a robust document. Councillor Annison, Chairman of Development Control Committee and the Local Plan Working Party added his congratulations and thanks.

Councillor Myers welcomed the LPP2 as it would assist Members who sat on the Development Control Committee.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Annison.

That Council:-

(i)Adopt the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2, including Appendix 1 to this report,
(ii)Approve the Policies Map to be updated to reflect the Local Plan Part 2 as shown in  Appendix 2 to this report; and
(iii)Revoke the Interim Housing Land Supply Policy (2014).

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that the Council Tax base was a technical calculation which must be formally set each year. It was the first stage of the Council tax setting process that would be finalised once the budgets had been agreed. For the purpose of the report and calculation of the tax base, this included the council tax support scheme proposed for 2022/23 and a Council Tax non-collection rate of 2.1%.

That Council endorse the calculation of the 2022/23 tax base totalling £29,344 and the estimated tax bases for the Borough and for each parish, as shown in Appendix A.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Candon

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that the purpose of the report was to set out the discounts that would apply for 2022/23. For the financial year 2022/23, it was proposed that there were no changes to the Council Tax Discounts as outlined in Table 2 of the report.

That Council endorse the council tax discounts as shown in Section 2.1 which will apply for 2022/23.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Candon.

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that this report sought Council approval of the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2022/23. Permission to consult in relation to the scheme was granted by Council on the 13th July 2021. The Council consulted on the proposal to continue with the current scheme 2022/23 which was a maximum council tax support award of 91.5% of the Council Tax Liability for Working Age.

That Council agree to continue with the existing scheme for 2022/23 - a maximum award of 91.5% of the Council Tax Liability for Working Age.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Candon.

CARRIED.

The Leader of the Council reported that there was a legal requirement to prepare an annual budget and set the Council tax each year. There were a number of preparatory reports and pieces of work that were prepared in support of setting the annual budget each year. This report presented an update of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy for the period 2022/23 to 2024/25. The attached strategy document (MTFS) provided the framework for establishing and maintaining a stable and prudent financial position. The MTFS was one of a suite of key strategies and plans that sets out the current priorities that are aligned to the Corporate Plan for the delivery of services within the Borough. The MTFS sets out the latest financial projections for the three years that are covered by the strategy which identifies an estimated budget gap of £900k for 2022/23, this is ahead of the provisional settlement announcement and the detailed work on the service budgets for 2022/23.

Due to the uncertainties around the 2021/22 budget and the impact of Covid, a one year budget was set for 2021/22 only. The updated financial strategy provided indicative financial forecasts for the three-year period 2022/23 to 2024/25. Once the provisional finance settlement was published and updates to the planned changes to the funding for local government were announced, the projections would be revised and the strategy updated accordingly. The current forecasts are projecting a budget gap of £903,000 in 2022/23, increasing to £1.39m in 2023/24 and to £1.6m in 2024/25. This is before the detail on the budget is finalised for 2022/23 and these forecasts will be updated as part of this work and also once the provisional settlement is announced in December.

The continued uncertainty around the future of local government funding made the
medium to long term financial planning somewhat challenging. The Council remained
committed to the ambitious plans for regeneration of the Borough including the Future High  Street and Towns Fund and the capital programmes have been updated as part of this report. These and the current approved capital programme of works including the re-provision of the Marina Centre which would be completed in the summer of 2022 were essential to support the wider economic growth and regeneration of the Borough.

Proposer: Councillor Smith

Seconder: Councillor Candon

That Council:-

(i) Approve the updated Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and the key themes of the
business strategy as outlined at Section 7,
(ii) Approve the revised reserves statement as included at Appendix A to the MTFS,
(iii) Approve the updated capital programme as included at Appendix B to the MTFS,
(iv) Approve the allocation of £50,000 within the capital programme for the implementation of
the Agile Working Policy; and
(v) Approve the Capital Strategy and Investment Strategy 2021/22 as included at Appendix C and D.

CARRIED.

(i) Motion received from Councillors Wainwright, T Wright, Williamson, Waters-Bunn, B Wright and Fairhead.

Councillor Wainwright requested that this Council writes to The Rt Hon Theresa Coffey MP Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and request that they honour the Conservatives 2019 Manifesto Pledge, and lift the suspension of the State Pension Triple Lock, which was first announced in September 2021, and confirmed in the October 2021 Budget. The ending of the State Pension Triple Lock would be a betrayal of current and future pensioners, and an attack on the poorest elderly in the Country. The suspension of the triple lock brakes a conservative manifesto pledge, and will cost pensioners an average of £2600 each over five years. It's a saving of £30.5billion for the treasury but a big loss for pensioners. In the Borough of Great Yarmouth 2020, the total population was 99,200. Residents under 64 years of age were 57,000 leaving 42,200 residents who could be eligible for a state pension and who will now lose approx £10 per week. The triple lock stipulates that the state pensions must rise by the greater of average earnings growth. The excuse for breaking it is that earnings have gone up by 8%, making it unaffordable. Whilst it is true that the earnings figure is distorted by Covid and does not reflect a genuine rise in living standards amongst people of working age, it is bogus to argue that it justifies breaking the earnings connection, even temporary. Retired households tend to be harder hit than younger ones when prices and utility prices start to rise. And this is just another significant decline in state pensions relative to working age incomes and will lead to a further spike in poverty among the retired. I urge all Members to support this resolution and protect the elderly.

Councillor Wainwright proposed that a recorded vote be undertaken and this motion was seconded by Councillor Jeal.

Councillor Smith-Clare reported that he fully supported this motion and highlighted the plight of 6,000 local woman, known as Waspies, who had been affected by the change of retirement age for woman.

Councillor Candon reported that he struggled to understand the number and costings which Councillor Wainwright had alluded to during his address to the Committee and reported that there were only 24,452 residents in the Borough, not 42,200, who were of pensionable age. Wages had increased by 2.5% in the last year and the number of job vacancies was on the increase which was positive news for Great Yarmouth. The suspension of the triple-lock would be temporary for a period of 12 months.

Councillor Myers reported that this had been a manifesto pledge and the government should honour it.

Councillor Williamson reported that the UK was the 5th leading world economy country but the UK average weekly pension was 29% of the average weekly wage and, as such, was woefully lagging behind the rest of Europe.

Councillor C Walker fully supported the motion and reported that she was a Waspie herself and had worked three jobs to keep a roof over her head.

Councillor Wells reiterated the factual errors which had been commented upon by Councillor Candon and reported that the motion smacked of pointless posturing.

Councillor Jeal reported that all the Councillors should work together for the good of the local pensioners.

Councillor Wainwright summed up. A vote was taken for a recorded vote, which was lost.

Following a vote, this motion was lost.

(ii) Motion received from Councillors Jeal, Robinson-Payne, T Wright, B Wright. Wainwright and B Walker.

Councillor Jeal proposed that an amendment be made to the motion, that Great Yarmouth Borough Council ask not instruct Norfolk County Council. This motion was seconded by Councillor Robinson-Payne.

Councillor Jeal requested that Great Yarmouth Borough Council instruct Norfolk County Council to revert to issuing hard copies where necessary (i.e., badges for cars) in the A-zone parking area. It is extremely difficult for some elderly, infirm or housebound residents and those with no IT knowledge or even access to the internet to easily navigate the current system. The practicality of updating a permit on line every day for those who have daily carers who may not be the same person each visit is causing significant problems. Due to some residents personal circumstances it appears discriminatory and unfair to have moved to a system they are unable to cope with adding pressure which is not necessary. We would urge all members to support this resolution in order to help the residents mentioned above who live on the A-Zone and are struggling with this. 

Councillor Martin reported that she had fed her views regarding digital poverty, as Ward Councillor, in to the Zone A Task & Finish Group and that she had been assured that in regard to carers having to purchase passes to assist family members and friends in Zone A, that this would be considered on a case by case basis.

Councillor Plant reported that he had spoken to the Head of Customer Services who had assured him that online resident parking permits had worked extremely well over the last 18 months and that there was a dedicated phone line to help residents who did not have access to the internet.

Councillor Robinson-Payne reported that this was an important motion for local residents in the Northgate & Nelson Wards. She was concerned that residents who were unable to give a relative or care a physical parking pass might be in danger of loosing their care. other LA's operated a dual system and so should we.

Councillor Talbot also highlighted digital poverty within the town and residents should be given the option of a virtual or paper permit.

Councillor Waters-Bunn highlighted the necessity of cares to be able to visit residents in Zone A without the hassle of having to apply for a daily parking permit every time they needed to visit and it was up to the local Councillors to look after those residents who were vulnerable and needed us.

Councillor Jeal summed up.

Following a vote, this motion was lost.

His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson reported that there was no other business being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration at the meeting and wished those present a very Happy Christmas.

Councillor Wainwright thanked His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson for the refreshments which were most welcome.

His Worship, The Mayor, Councillor Thompson asked Members to approve the following resolution.

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12(A) of the said Act.

CARRIED.

The meeting was adjourned at 21:00 for a 10 minute comfort break.