22/09/2026
Today I attended the September meeting of Norfolk County Council’s Full Council.
The Council debated the new Standing Up for Norfolk strategy, setting out priorities through to 2030.
I think having a clear direction is a good thing and there are certainly ambitions within the strategy that I can support. My concern is that, at the moment, it feels more like a brochure telling us what the Council wants to achieve rather than a plan showing how it will actually be delivered.
We need measurable outcomes and timescales so that councillors and residents can judge whether these ambitions are being achieved. A more detailed delivery plan is due in November, and that will be where much of this detail needs to appear.
The future of Norfolk’s NorseCare homes was also raised. I remain concerned about the possibility of selling these homes into the private sector and losing the safety net that comes from retaining residential care provision within the Council’s direct control.
It was encouraging to hear that a range of options are still being considered. There is clearly more work to be done, but I hope this provides an opportunity to reconsider the future of the homes before any final decision is made.
Council also agreed to introduce a new Gateway Assurance process for contracts and projects.
Stronger controls that can identify problems earlier, improve contract management and reduce the risk of public money being wasted are welcome, which is why I supported the motion.
I was less persuaded by the suggestion within the motion that overspends more often result from inadequate scoping, weak risk management or poor contract oversight than genuinely unavoidable circumstances.
Cllr Antony Little challenged this rather colourfully during the debate, referring to being able to “hold back changes of scope”, “hold back unforeseen circumstances” and, “most impressively”, “hold back inflation”.
Better controls and scrutiny are sensible, but there will always be factors outside the Council’s control. The real test will be whether the new process helps identify and manage risks earlier and improves how major contracts are managed.
We also debated a Liberal Democrat motion about young people aged 16–24 who are not in education, employment or training (NEET).
The original motion sought a more joined-up approach between the different organisations and services supporting young people. This is important because one of the risks identified is fragmentation, with young people potentially falling through the gaps between services without anyone seeing the whole picture.
I did not support the Reform amendment, which removed much of that approach and placed greater reliance on existing structures.
If silo working and fragmentation are part of the problem, continuing to rely on the same structures risks leaving those gaps in place. There was some irony after hearing earlier in the meeting that “if you keep doing things the same way, you get the same outcomes”, only to then amend this proposal in a way that risks doing exactly that.
The amended motion ultimately passed. I hope the work that follows succeeds, but I would have preferred us to take the opportunity to be more ambitious about joining services together and making sure no young person falls through the gaps.
Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) also returned to the agenda.
A Conservative motion asked for the full cost of LGR to Norfolk County Council to be established and called on the Government to reimburse the Council for costs incurred through the process.
We had already heard during the meeting that around £1.2 million had been spent by Norfolk County Council on LGR. I supported the motion and was disappointed that it did not receive enough support to pass.
Finally, I also supported a motion from Cllr Ben Weston calling for greater transparency over utility companies carrying out works on Norfolk’s roads.
The proposal asked for an annual report showing how the major utility companies are performing, including works overrunning their permits, breaches, defects left following reinstatement and enforcement action taken by the Council. It also asked for persistent poor performance to be more clearly escalated.
Unfortunately, that motion was also unsuccessful. Given the disruption poorly managed roadworks can cause to residents and businesses, I thought greater transparency over how individual utility companies are performing would have been useful.
Meeting recording:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kENkn-2O-R4
Agenda and papers:
https://norfolkcc.cmis.uk.com/norfolkcc/CalendarofMeetings/tabid/128/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/496/Meeting/2464/Committee/2/Default.aspx