Agenda and minutes

Venue: Assembly Room, Town Hall, Saturday Market Place, King's Lynn PE30 5DQ. View directions

Contact: Sam Winter, Democratic Services Manager 616327 

No. Item




Prayers were led by Rev Canon Ling



To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 5 September  2019.    (previously circulated).



Councillor Nash called into question the content of the minutes and that the specific ruling of the Monitoring Officer to his query was not included in them.


RESOLVED:   The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2019 were approved as a correct record.



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.







To receive Mayor’s communications and announcements.






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






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


Under standing order 9 the Mayor invited the following public questioners to pose their questions. 

1)         Question from Brenda Kent

"In the light of recent flood warnings, a tide higher than predicted and rising sea levels, what  plans do you have in place to protect residents, land and dwellings in those local areas that are perilously close to sea level given that your 2008 strategy document will now be, at the very least, in the most urgent need of updating?"

Councillor Devereux gave the following response:


I understand the thrust of your point, but, I must first correct your second proposition.  The basic magnitude and timing of our ‘tides’ are a matter of predictable scientific expression: this is what enables the publication of nationally available tide tables. However, individual local tidal water levels are subject to the additional variable effects of wind direction and magnitude as well as local air pressure and other weather trends over short timescales.  It is these factors that are analysed, tracked and assessed by the Environment Agency in real time, with data from the Met Office, to provide overarching estimates of increased risk of higher water levels that might over-top the flood defences; these risks inform multi-agency decision making on specific flood alerts, warnings and exceptionally, precautionary evacuation notices, as recently experienced at Hunstanton. On this latest occasion, the combined additional effect of the weather was less than originally forecast for the time of the highest tide, because the wind dropped.  As a consequence, the forecast flood levels did not occur: but, the warning actions were prudent in the light of the weather forecasts at the time.


As to the other points, I presume that your reference to a 2008 document is the high level, Environment Agency “Shoreline Management Plan” for our part of the Wash.  This document informed the basic decision making for the Wash East Coast Management Strategy.  This led initially to the Shingle Bank Flood Defence recycling process plan at Snettisham and then, more recently drafting of the Hunstanton Coastal Management Plan.  This latest detailed local plan takes a 75+ year view of coastal change, including the estimates of sea level rise and their effect on tidal flood levels, to identify the engineering works needed to defend Hunstanton, including increased height of ‘sea-walls’.  This was subject to extensive consultation with the community and national agencies over recent years.


All Shoreline Management Plans across England are currently going through their 10 year review cycle by the Environment Agency.  As it happens, our Borough Council Team is scheduled to be reviewing ours with the EA during November.


By way of supplementary Mrs Kent asked to what degree the council had a sense of urgency about the impending climate chaos and what steps would be taken to prevent damage.


Councillor Devereux confirmed that the council was committed to doing an assessment of the carbon footprint and its work was underway.  An officer working group had been established and additional staff recruited to undertake the additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:40




RESOLVED: That proportionality be amended by the change of  seats as follows:


Conservatives gain 2 seats on: 1 on Licensing and Appeals Board and 1 on Licensing Committee.


Independent lose 2 seats on: 1 on Licensing and Appeals Board and 1 on Licensing Committee.




In accordance with Standing Order 11.1 to receive reports from Cabinet Members in the following order and under Standing Order 11.2 (a) Members of the Council may ask questions of the Cabinet Member on their reports and Portfolio areas:


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




Business Development - Councillor G Middleton pdf icon PDF 59 KB


Councillor Middleton presented his report. There were no questions.


Commercial Services - Councillor P Kunes pdf icon PDF 54 KB


Councillor Kunes presented his report.  There were no questions.


Development - Councillor R Blunt pdf icon PDF 368 KB


Councillor Blunt was not present at the meeting, members were invited to email any questions.


Environment - Councillor I Devereux pdf icon PDF 59 KB


Councillor Devereux presented his report. There were no questions.


Housing - Councillor A Lawrence pdf icon PDF 104 KB


Councillor Lawrence was not present at the meeting, members were invited to email any questions.



Project Delivery - Councillor P Gidney pdf icon PDF 55 KB


Councillor Gidney presented his report.  There were no questions.


Deputy Leader and Culture, Heritage and Health - Councillor Mrs E Nockolds pdf icon PDF 65 KB


Councillor Mrs Nockolds presented her report. There were no questions.



Leader and Resources - Councillor B Long pdf icon PDF 60 KB


Councillor Long presented his report.  There were no questions.




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


There were no questions.




To consider the following Notices of Motion:


(3/19), submitted by Councillor J Moriarty:


In 2018 this Council introduced a new system for sifting planning applications. Said scheme was subsequently reviewed in early 2019.


On both occasions the council breached its own Scheme of Community Involvement (SCI) by failing to consult key partners in the planning process, namely Parish Councils.


It is agreed there will now be a consultation exercise with Parish Councils, said exercise to be overseen by an appropriate panel or body of elected councillors.


(4/19), submitted by Councillor A Kemp:


Lynn Transport Plan and Hardings Way Bus Lane


A large number of Constituents across the Borough, including South Lynn and the Friars, and from the Walpoles to North Runcton and Setchey, are now aware of the harm, distress and adverse impact on disabled residents, people in mobility scooters, families with children and prams, retired residents, those less able to walk and children walking to school, in the South Lynn community, the Friars and other parts of the Borough, for whom Hardings Way is the only safe route into town, if Council goes ahead with its plan to run a road through the Buggy Pavement & Safe Route to School, and allow traffic, HGV’s and two other roads across the Wisbech Road part of Hardings Way Bus Lane; and want to avoid the detrimental impacts.


In 2009, a bid for £5.3m funding from the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF 2) to implement a package of transportation improvements in King’s Lynn, was approved at the Borough’s Cabinet.


This included a public transport road link across the waterfront area from Wisbech Road to Boal Quay. 


This public transport link was Hardings Way.


The purpose of Hardings Way was to speed up buses through the bus lane and reduce congestion, air pollution and emissions from buses from London Road, from the town centre and from the gyratory.


Members - and the local community - were advised that it was envisaged that the road would never be a through traffic route, with the exception of buses. 


The Transport Statement said that ‘’ the route would initially be used by 13 buses per hour, off peak, in each direction throughout the day, rising to an anticipated 15 per hour from 2016 and 17 per hour from 2021. During peak hours, initial estimates are that 22 services per hour will use the route (0800 to 0900 and 1700 to 1800 Monday to Friday) It is likely that by 2021 the weekday am/pm peak could be up to a maximum of 26 per hour in each direction. There would be significantly less bus movements in all off peak periods”.


The Development Control Board said: 

“The provision of the bus route is expected to reduce bus journey times, equating to a time saving of 4 minutes for AM peak inbound journeys and 3 minutes for PM peak outbound journeys.


In addition to extended scheduled journey times currently experienced at peak periods, extended layover times between journeys  ...  view the full agenda text for item C:44


The following Notices of Motion were considered:


(3/19), submitted by Councillor J Moriarty:


Councillor Moriarty proposed the following motion, seconded by Councillor Parish.


“In 2018 this Council introduced a new system for sifting planning applications. Said scheme was subsequently reviewed in early 2019.


On both occasions the council breached its own Scheme of Community Involvement (SCI) by failing to consult key partners in the planning process, namely Parish Councils.


It is agreed there will now be a consultation exercise with Parish Councils, said exercise to be overseen by an appropriate panel or body of elected councillors.”


In proposing the Motion Councillor Moriarty explained that it was not about whether it was a good idea or if it worked or saved money, but about the fact that key partners were not consulted when it was brought in and the panel was not told the detail of comments from parishes.  He made referent to the SCI which described how the Council would engage with key partners including parishes, he considered that the argument not to consult on the process was difficult to sustain and the Council should show how it wanted to treat parishes.


Councillor Long reminded members that the SCI came into effect for major consultations, whereas the sifting panel was an internal working arrangement and did not affect how the parishes were consulted on planning applications or whether their comments were taken into account in deciding on applications.  He referred to a parish council training session on planning which was recently run where no-one made any comments on the sifting panel.  The parishes still had their 21 days to comment on applications, and those were taken into account. 


Councillor Howman in supporting the Motion proposed an amendment that the Kings Lynn Area Consultative Panel (KLACC) be included in the consultation process as Kings Lynn was unparished.  Councillor Jones seconded the amendment. 


Councillor Holmes commented that he understood it was a trial, so should therefore be reviewed.


Councillor Rust in supporting the motion as amended considered it would go a long way to ensure local people were kept informed.

Councillor Joyce stated that if something was being changed to a great extent it should be consulted on.  He referred to the planning application at Knights Hill which he considered would have had objections. 


Councillor Dark commented that he had a degree of sympathy for the motion, but it was an existing policy.  He suggested that the Corporate Performance Panel was the correct route to review policies.


Councillor Long reminded members that the KLACC members were members of Council and so had the full ability to comment on the process as it came through the panels. KLACC had the opportunity to comment on any planning applications for the unparished area.  He re-iterated that it was an internal process, not one that required and SCI consultation process.


In summing up on the amendment, Councillor Moriarty reminded members that he was talking about consulting on the Sifting Panel process.


On being put to  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:44



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

To consider the following recommendations to Council:



Cabinet: 24 September 2019 pdf icon PDF 63 KB

CAB53: Boal Quay – Gallery Proposal

CAB54: Nar Ouse Enterprise Zone Implementation and Delivery

CAB55: Heritage Action Zone – Chapel Street



As members had indicated a wish to debate the Cabinet recommendations from 24 September 2019, the reports on which were exempt, the Mayor agreed to move consideration of the item to the end of the meeting.  A vote was taken on whether to exclude the press and public.  The vote was carried.


Exclusion of the Press and Public


RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.


At 20.41 Council adjourned for 5 minutes.


Councillor Long, seconded by Councillor Nockolds proposed the following recommendations, the reports for which were exempt.


CAB53: Boal Quay – Gallery Proposal

In debating the recommendations for the above item, Councillor Moriarty considered that the recommendations of the Regeneration and Environment Panel had not been taken into account, particularly the comment regarding the reference to seeking guarantees of the funding and the quality of the displays etc.  Councillor Long confirmed that the sentiments of the Panel had been accepted by cabinet at the time. 


Councillor Joyce commented that there were other things that could be done with Boal Quay to protect Hardings Way.  He called into question the proposed financial and transfer arrangements.

Councillor Ryves drew attention to the loss of revenue from car parking in the area with the proposed development and questioned the projected visitor numbers for the centre.  He considered it would be too good to be true.


Councillor Kemp questioned: whether due diligence had been carried out, the loss of revenue, the high number of staff due to work there and the re-alignment of Hardings Way, and what artefacts would be held in the building.


Councillor Collingham expressed dismay that some councillors did not want the opportunity for the enhancement of that part of the town.


Councillor Rust denied that opposition members did not want to see arts development, but questioned the contents of the proposal and whether it would come to fruition. 


Councillor Dark drew attention to sweeping statements being made, and reminded members of the opportunity going forward.


Councillor Gidney assured members that due diligence would be carried out, and that the proposal was not something that could be ignored particularly when it fitted in with the cultural direction it was taking.  He assured members that if there was a problem it would be flagged by officers.


Councillor J Collop asked for information and updates to be forthcoming to members on the progress with the project.


Councillor de Whalley suggested that the proposal should be turned down.


Councillor Mrs Nockolds reminded members that the waterfront development had remained static for a number of years, the economic assessment said it would bring visitors to the area. 


On being put to the vote the recommendation was carried.  Councillor Joyce requested his vote against to be recorded.


CAB54:  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:45i