This is an important area of work and I suggested much more could be done to make information accessible and more widely seen. I also asked what the Council is doing to focus on those caught in the criminal justice system who have ADHD or similar conditions.

The County Council hosts the Norfolk Youth Justice Board, bringing together a range of different organisations to develop and deliver a strategy that aims to reduce offending and re-offending. I suspect very few people know about its work.

A number of councillors on the Scrutiny Committee made the point that the plan we were reviewing was thick with detail and not particularly easy to follow if you are not a specialist. It turns out that the format of the report – and the information reported on – is set centrally and the County Council has asked a number of times for this to be changed.

That’s true, but I also made the point that the County Council could do more itself to promote the work and increase engagement. In my contribution to the discussion I pointed out that there was nothing to tell me why I should care about the work – what the costs are of failure and the gains from getting it right. Most of Norfolk County Council’s website looks like it was designed in the 1980s but the Youth Justice Board webpages are particularly thin.

I also asked what was being done to focus on neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. From the few details we know, there appears to be a very high proportion of young people in the criminal justice system who live with conditions like ADHD. There is a need to collect more data. There is also a need to increase understanding of neurodiversity within the system itself. The real, pressing need though, is for there to be a wholesale change in the way society and institutions like schools view neurodiversity so that young people are not marginalised and placed at risk of exploitation because of a condition they live with.

You can read the report on the Scrutiny Committee papers here (page 20 onwards).

You can also watch the Scrutiny Committee here. The discussion of the Youth Justice report starts 15 minutes 26 second in. My contribution is at 33 minutes 13 seconds.

There is an excellent review of evidence into neurodiversity in the criminal justice system from the Criminal Justice Inspectorate available online if you are interested to learn more.

The Council’s ‘cabinet’ (senior Conservative councillors who make the key decisions) will discuss plans to increase spending on the Local First Inclusion programme by £5 million on 2nd September. Local First Inclusion is the county’s new plan to reduce demand for ‘SEND’ support. It gives Norfolk access to the government’s Safety Valve funding and the aim is to reduce the cost of SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) support in the long-run.

At the same time, the County Council is begging the government to write off the growing deficit in the schools budget which is fuelled by long-term over spending on SEND. The deficit is forecast to be £115 million by March 2025 and is part of a nationwide deficit in SEND budgets of over £3 billion.

Local First Inclusion was supposed to cut spending on SEND by increasing support for children and families at an early stage. But the programme has not delivered the savings hoped for, threatening the withdrawal of government Safety Valve support.

The Cabinet report effectively blames parents for continuing to ask for the support their children are entitled to through Education and Healthcare Plans, and blames the Tribunal system for supporting parents in securing their legal rights. Rather than accepting the realities of increasing need.

There is much that is good in the Local First Inclusion programme but council bosses need to be realistic in their ambitions to reduce demand for specialist support, prioritise outcomes for children over spending cuts and work with families to build faith in the new approach over the long term.

You can read the Cabinet papers here.

And the County Council’s press release here.

The Local Government Association report into SEND spending and attainment, referred to in the County Council press release, is here.

I asked what the Council is doing to ensure the diagnosis pathway for children with Autism and similar conditions is up to the job. Here’s my question at the full council meeting:

North Norfolk MP Duncan Baker is supporting a Bill that will increase training and awareness among teachers of issues relating to Autism and I welcome that. I welcome, too, the County Council’s investment in early support for families of children with Autism and other conditions. But the likelihood is that until the system fully adapts to Neurodiversity, pressure on the Diagnosis Pathway will increase. Can you tell me what the County Council is doing to support the NHS-led service so that the diagnosis pathway works effectively for children?

Penny Carpenter, the councillor in charge (Cabinet Member) of services for children in Norfolk replied that they are working with the NHS to ensure waiting times are brought under control and families are given appropriate support.

Councillor Emma Corlett asked an excellent question about ‘Safety Valve’ funding that is supposed to help the County Council eliminate its large financial deficit in Special Educational Needs (SEND) funding. A recent Schools Week report said Norfolk was already falling behind with its plan and the Department for Education was planning ‘enhanced monitoring’ to force it back on track.

It is worrying that a programme hailed as a major transformation of SEND support in Norfolk has been blown off track already and Emma, rightly, raised concerns that this may result in further reductions in support for families. The Council has to submit a revised plan to the DfE by 31st March so there will no doubt be more news about this very soon.

Emma is County Councillor for Town Close in Norwich. She, and fellow councillor Maxine Webb, recently left the Labour group at County Hall and now sit as ‘non-aligned’ members. They are both long-term campaigners on SEND issues.

More information:

You can watch the Council meeting online here. Emma’s question is 39 minutes in. Mine is 1 hour, 27 minutes, 24 seconds in.

The EDP article featuring Duncan Baker’s support for an Autism training Bill is here.

This is the Schools Week article about the government’s demand for a re-write of the Council’s SEND strategy.

And here is the School Forum report that gives more details (page 19 onwards). The Schools Forum is a committee of education leaders that is consulted by the County Council over funding issues. Norfolk County Council calls its version of the ‘Safety Valve’ SEND funding package, ‘Local First Inclusion’.

Pressures facing the council include:

• Price inflation (including wages) of £12.5 million, including £7 million in adult social care and £3.2 million in children’s services
• Demographic pressures (increasing demand), including £5.5 million in adult social care and £9.5 million in children’s services

So far, £26.5 million of savings have been proposed and the remainder will be developed over the next few months:

• Adult social services, £14.2 million
• Children’s services, £4.8 million
• Community and environmental services, £5.5 million
• Strategy, transformation and finance £1.9 million

There will be a public consultation on the budget over the autumn. The current proposals include a Council Tax increase of 4.99 per cent, including the adult social care precept of two per cent.

As always, we wait to hear whether more funding will be provided in the autumn statement in November, or the provisional local government funding settlement in December.

The council makes a final decision on the budget in February.

Each year the Department for Education announces schools funding allocations for Local Authority areas in the summer. Most of the money is allocated to schools based on a national formula but part is allocated locally based on priorities agreed with the education sector. The County Council is in the middle of its normal consultation process now.

In October, the DfE issued new (lower) figures after it spotted an error in its own calculations. The DfE has apologised for the error which affects all local authority areas. This error affects the schools block funding only and does not affect the High Needs Block which funds support for children with additional needs.

Schools have not received any removal of current funding, but school budgets are already tight and many will have begun to plan for next year based on the original July figures and will now need to adjust what they plan to spend on staffing and activities.

The County Council has written to the DfE demanding that they stick to the original allocation.

‘What I would RADICALLY change about the ‘BROKEN’ SEND system in NORFOLK, why I left the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS after many ELECTION WINS, and how I DISCOVERED who I really am in POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE.’

Politics and fixing the Special Education system, two of my great passions, so my guest this week is perfect to dive into both of those areas.

Ed Maxfield is a Norfolk County Councillor, representing villages along the beautiful North Norfolk coast.

He left the Liberal Democrats in 2020 because he wasn’t happy with the direction they were taking and was re-elected as an Independent at the elections in 2021.

Throughout that time, he has focused on issues relating to services for children and for those with disabilities and additional needs having recently held the post of Head of Children and Family Services at NANSA, regular listeners will know this is also a big focus of mine.

We had a wide ranging conversation, discussing Ed’s time running Sir Norman Lamb’s election campaigns, and then also as part of the National Campaign team for the Liberal Democrats.

We also delved into the issues in the SEND system, particularly within Norfolk, and Ed shares his ideas on how the system could be radically improved.

As always, we asked Ed to recommend future guests of KNOW YOUR SHIFT, Ed recommended his daughter Hannah who is about to embark on a major change.

P.S. As always, please LIKE, FOLLOW & SHARE the podcast, it really helps, and have a listen on the links below
Spotify – https://lnkd.in/embgAxBu
Apple – https://lnkd.in/e3paagKi 

Gareth Duffin

Co-Founder

 gareth@methodavenue.com

07305 080498

Do you want to learn about Change?

Listen to Know Your Shift, the Method Avenue Podcast

]]> https://edmaxfield.org.uk/2023/08/21/know-your-shift-podcast-with-gareth-duffin/feed/ 0 https://edmaxfield.org.uk/2023/08/20/road-safety-in-north-norfolk-my-letter-to-duncan-baker-mp/ https://edmaxfield.org.uk/2023/08/20/road-safety-in-north-norfolk-my-letter-to-duncan-baker-mp/#respond Sun, 20 Aug 2023 19:54:49 +0000 We have all been affected by the tragic death of a young teenager in Swafield. The hit-and-run incident once again shows the need for action to improve road safety on the roads between North Walsham and the coast.

I have worked with Swafield Parish Council on road safety for a number of years. I have written to them again asking what they think should be the priority for improving safety through the village. I have also contacted the police and the County Council to ask what steps they will be taking.

I know North Norfolk MP Duncan Baker is pushing for action across the district so I wrote to him a few days ago setting out my frustrations at how hard it is to get meaningful action.

From: Edward Maxfield
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:18 PM
To: Duncan Baker MP
Subject: Speeding on rural roads in North Norfolk

Hello Duncan

Following on from our conversation last weekend, I promised you some background on speeding and road safety issues more broadly that have been brought to my attention. There’s quite a lot to it, so apologies in advance but it all goes to building up the picture.

You will recall that we met with Parish Councillors in Trimingham some years ago to discuss their concerns about safety on the coast road through the village. No concrete action has followed.

In Northrepps we had two more accidents at the weekend and I know the Parish Council has written to you about their concerns regarding the Norwich Road.

There are concerns in Paston about the coast road, Edingthorpe about the road through the community between North Walsham and Bacton, in Bacton itself about the coast road at the Walcott end of the village, Trunch about the Norwich Road, Sidestrand about the coast road near the church and Mundesley about the Cromer Road and the road to Knapton. Together with the issues Pete has led on in Knapton that adds up to virtually every village in my division.

And of course we have now had the fatality in Swafield a few days ago.

There have been some isolated successes when it comes to getting improvements: a number of villages now have SAM2 reactive signs and village gates paid for in part through the Local Member Highways Fund. Some measures will be put in place in Knapton and the road up to Mundesley. Antingham is getting some bollards put in at the junction of Southrepps Road and the A149. It’s not in my division but I am aware that a 20mph limit is being put in at Southrepps.

The inconsistency of approach is a major problem. There’s a good deal of frustration among Parish Councillors that communities further west along the coast seem to have had a better deal when it comes to speed reduction measures being put in place. And it drives me nuts as an elected member that the answer to every proposal is ‘no, there’s no funding’ until extra political pressure is applied which might then lead to something being done. That undermines the council’s approach (as well as making me look an idiot if I explain their policy which then gets by-passed but that’s of no particular consequence) and leads to people saying ‘why have x got it when we are being told we can’t have it?’

The three top line elements to the Council’s approach as I understand it are:

1. There is no money in the budget for ‘road improvements’ (with some small exceptions which I will come back to)
2. The council’s approach to road safety measure (speed limits) is set out in its new ‘speed management strategy’ agreed by the council cabinet and available to view here: Speed limits – Norfolk County Council
3. The council’s accident reduction team monitors blackspots and has funds available to install measures where reported (to the police) accidents reach a certain threshold

There are three ways that measures like speed limits, signage etc can be put in place: Parish Partnership funding where Parish Councils can bid for match funding for schemes; The Local Member Highways Fund; The Community Road Safety Fund.

All the Parish Clerks in my patch are experienced in bidding for things through the PP scheme but the weakness of the scheme is that it favours larger, wealthier parishes that can co-fund schemes (in other words, the work that gets done does not necessarily reflect the level of need with smaller parishes like Swafield and Trimingham never likely to be able to fund schemes for example).

The Local Member Highways Fund is useful for funding smaller projects but £10,000 with 12 Parishes to cover, it funds no more than two or three small schemes each year.

The Community Road Safety Fund was a huge disappointment. Trailed as a £1m fund to pay for schemes, the £10,000 per scheme cap meant most projects that would have included an engineering element were excluded. There was no scope for including schemes that fell outside the existing policy framework (so it ended up funding schemes that could have been funded from existing sources). There was no transparency around the selection criteria – except that officers seemed to want to spread the schemes around which actively punished communities with councillors who worked hard at promoting the scheme in their patches – so there was no consideration of strategic objectives.

There is one other element to the funding environment: the County Council’s Strategic Infrastructure Plan. I have criticised the plan as lacking, until recently, any investment in North Norfolk. A couple of schemes have now been added including some work on the Weaver’s Way which is welcome. That scheme being added led me to try to find out how projects are added to the scheme. Given that I have been a councillor for more than six years I was amazed how much investigation work I had to do. A few years ago I suggested to the local highways team that a suitable project would be to make the Paston Way accessible between North Walsham and Knapton and to build out the route from Knapton to Mundesley. This would have involved restoring a couple of demolisher railway bridges and work to improve the crossing of the Dilham Canal plus a new path being installed between Knapton and Mundesley. Its main benefit would have been to increase Active Travel for work, leisure, shopping and the school run. It might have given the cyclist who was killed in Swafield an alternative route. It was rejected then but I am trying to get it reconsidered now.

So far, so negative. Here’s what I think needs to be done to address the problems:

1. There is a complete lack of a proactive strategy in relation to Highways management in the north of the county: everything is piecemeal and reactive. This needs to change. No consideration is given to the interplay of housebuilding plans in the NNDC Local Plan, the Broadland Local Plan and, crucially, the Greater Norwich Growth Plan: arguably the biggest impact on road safety between North Walsham and the coast will be 10,000 new houses being built around the NDR which will lead to far more day trippers heading to the coast. I have talked to Parish Councillors in Coltishall about this and they are very concerned about the ever-growing level of traffic going through their village.
2. Coastal communities need a joined up scheme to reduce traffic speed to reduce the dangers faced by increased numbers of visitors including walkers. Andrew Jamieson (County Councillor for Hunstanton area) and I have talked about this in the past and he was keen to do something for villages falling within the AONB that would have made walkers and cyclists the priority.
3. There needs to be greater transparency and consistency around decision making and costs (at the moment I have no idea how accurate cost estimates are that I and Parish Councils are given in relation to schemes particularly when large parts of the costs relate to internal legal charges.) This would help to encourage a strategic approach and would reduce resentment in communities at the lack of action.
4. There should be greater devolution of the Highways budget. This was proposed and sadly rejected at a recent council meeting. Creating local highways committees consisting of County, District and Parish Councillors in each of the seven District areas would greatly help with transparency and strategic coherence.
5. The Speed Management Strategy is a dismal cop-out and needs to be replaced. Other parts of the country have gone much further in enabling speed limit reductions but Norfolk County Council has rejected this approach. No doubt because of cost considerations. In my view, the strategy needs to be rewritten with 30mph through villages being the norm, with 20mph limits encouraged through village centres that lack adequate pavements or high levels of traffic.

Anything you can do to tackle any of these issues will be appreciated by many across North Norfolk. I’ll copy this to Parish Councils in my division: it doesn’t say anything I’ve not said to them in the past and I know they will be encouraged that you are taking an active interest in the issue.

Thanks and best wishes

Ed Maxfield
County Councillor for Mundesley Division
Tel. 07449 706215
www.edmaxfield.org.uk
Twitter: @MaxfieldEd
Facebook: CouncillorEdMaxfield

From: Joel Hull
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 2:41 PM
Subject: Recycling Centres – DIY Waste

Hello Terry – I hope this email proves useful in relation to your questions about DIY waste and the recent Government proposal on this in relation to recycling centres.

Basically, further clarity from Government is awaited on the implementation, detail and timing of its proposal, which is not a ban on charging but a limit on what should be accepted for free from householders.

If it goes ahead as planned then in short it would be a non-funded new requirement for councils across the country, which could cost the County Council around £0.5m to £1m a year – depending on the detail of the new requirements and how customers respond to any required change.

Furthermore it is not a policy change that I would expect to have a notably significant effect on fly-tipping incident numbers, that’s a view informed by the findings of a national investigation by waste charity Wrap on charging and fly-tipping, which established ‘no evidence of an association between fly-tipping and charging at HWRCs’: The relationship between fly-tipping rates and HWRC charging | WRAP

And to help here is more detail and context for reference:

1. On Sunday 18 June Government set out its plans on how DIY waste at recycling centres is going to be addressed via ‘changes that will be brought in to force this year’ (details here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/council-diy-waste-charges-abolished and here Summary of responses and government response – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
2. The changes are expected to specify that, in relation to small-scale projects undertaken by householders, there would be:
3. 1. ‘free disposal of DIY waste up to two 50L rubble bags (or one bulky or fitted item no larger than 2,000mm by 750mm by 700mm, the approximate size of a bathtub or shower screen)’
   2. ‘at a frequency of 4 visits per household over a 4-week period’

1. The new requirements are expected to be made via changes to existing legislation (the Controlled Waste Regulations 2012).
2. Government clarified that new funding will not be provided to councils to deal with the extra costs of this change to legislation, with DLUHC deciding ‘that local authorities that currently charge householders to dispose of DIY waste will be required to absorb any associated costs’.

Best regards and please let me know if you need or would appreciate more.

Joel Hull, Assistant Director – Waste and Water Management Community and Environmental Services Department

Two years ago after the last council elections, the ruling group blocked the Green Party from having a seat on the Infrastructure and Development committee which was obviously going to be a priority for them with its role in scrutinising road building and transport policy. After the Greens won a by-election in West Depwade last week they finally gained that place on the committee. I asked the council leader to review how committee allocations are made so we can make better use of all the skills available from councillors. Sadly, she refused.

I also spoke in support of a motion from Labour councillor Terry Jermy which asked for local people to have more say on highways spending. As Terry said in his speech, 80% of our ‘postbag’ as a councillor relates to highways issues. I also said we should involve people in putting together the programme of ‘capital infrastructure’ schemes for the County. Once again the ruling group refused to accept the proposal but I said in my speech that I hoped they would take it away and think about it for the future.

There’s a recording of the meeting on YouTube. The link below takes you to my question, and if you scroll forward to 3:01:52 you can watch the debate on Terry Jermy’s proposal.

Information about the support that is provided is also available to read on the County Council’s ‘Local Offer’ webpages.