Agenda and draft minutes

Prayers were led by Father Adrian Ling.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dark, Dickinson, Humphrey, Lawrence, Spikings, Tyler and Chief Executive Kate Blakemore.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 27^th November 2025.

RESOLVED: The minutes from the meeting held on 27^th November 2025 were agreed by as a correct record and signed by the Chair,

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.

There were none.

To receive Mayor’s communications and announcements.

The Mayor provided Council with information on an upcoming visit of a Royal Naval Vessel – HMS Trumpeter in February 2026.

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

There was no Urgent Business.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

RESOLVED: That the proportional allocation of seats be amended in accordance with the table set out in the report.

To receive petitions and public questions in accordance with Procedure Rule 20.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

1. Question from Kevin Waddington

The Mayor invited Kevin Waddington to ask a question as set out below:

“Carried forward from previous local plans onto the draft "Masterplan" are the proposals to build 50 dwellings on Hardings Way and at its north end about 350 on Boal Quay. Building these 50 houses would necessarily mean that residents cars, dustcarts, delivery vans, large house moving lorries etc. would have to traverse Hardings Way for access. This would seemingly be in contravention of the conditions on which Norfolk Couty Council received the grant from central government to surface the road, and would also have a very bad effect for both people and the wildlife that lives on Hardings Pits the  local nature reserve. This at a time when the Council is said to be supporting an application to make Hardings Pits a Village Green.

Boal Quay is a loop in the river that is frequently inundated with all the positive effects that has for wildlife. The approach to Lynn from the south is widely regarded as the most rural, most peaceful and attractive of any town in England. The proposal to extend the "greenway" from the north end of Hardings Way, along Boal Street and on to the South Quay will be welcomed by anyone who approaches by this route. It is however, incompatible with the proposals to build 350 dwellings on Boal Quay up to 5 stories high and therefore completely out of keeping with the nearby medieval areas of Nelson Street and the South Quay, because unless some sort of overbridge was constructed motor vehicles would have to traverse some part of the "greenway". So much better could this area be used to further enhancing the southern approach to the town.

The views of the population on this issue are well established. There have been a dozen well attended demonstrations against building and its accompanying motor traffic on Hardings Way, and a Petition on the issue has now over 1400 signatures.

The draft stage is always the best time to eliminate unfelicitious proposals and my question to Council is this: in the light of the recently adopted biodiversity plan and because most people oppose this aspect of the plan, will the Council take a critical look at these ill-sited building proposals with a view to removing them?”

Councillor Moriarty responded to the public question as set out below:

“Good afternoon Mr Waddington.

Good to see you again and thank you for your question. I think we met last on the site which is the subject of your question, along with Cllr Rust, a couple of years back.

There is a quite a long preamble to your question and I just want to qualify a couple of your assertions before getting to the nitty gritty.

You mentioned our latest Local Plan. The Borough Council adopted its Local Plan in March 2025. This was informed by a series of  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:90

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

To consider the following recommendations to Council:

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

(i) Cabinet – 20^th January 2026

Councillor Beales, seconded by Councillor Ring, proposed the recommendations from Cabinet on 20^th January 2026.

CAB107: RISK STRATEGY AND POLICY

RESOLVED: The recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 20^th January 2026 in relation to the Risk Strategy and Policy were approved by Council as set out below.

Full Council adopted the revised Risk Management Policy and Strategy.

CAB108: SAFEGUARDING POLICY

RESOLVED: The recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 20^th January 2026 in relation to the Safeguarding Policy were approved by Council as set out below

Full Council agreed changes to the Members’ Code of Conduct to include explicit safeguarding responsibilities.

CAB110: PROPERTY DISPOSAL

Full Council were informed that this recommendation from Cabinet had been called in and was therefore withdrawn from the Full Council Agenda.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

In proposing this item, Councillor Beales read out the recommendations and outlined the detail of the Community Governance Review, reminding Members that this proposal was to initiate a first stage consultation and the Council would be guided by the outcome of the consultation responses.

Councillor Everett seconded the proposal and stated it was about allowing residents to have their say.  He made reference to the history of the town, the civic tradition and town charters.  He reminded Councillors that further decisions would follow on if to move further following the first consultation round.

Councillor Long commented that civic tradition was important but residents needed to be aware of the impact on precepts and finances and it was important that information was included in the consultation documentation.

Councillor Bone commented that any financial impact on residents needed to be made clear.  He acknowledged that this proposal was for the first round of consultation only.

Councillor Blunt supported the proposals, commenting that it was important that roles and responsibilities of any Town Council were clearly defined to residents.

In summing up, Councillor Beales commented that this proposal was just for the first round of consultation and detail would follow later in the process.  He explained that it was important that the Council was guided by residents and the consultation would help determine if the Community Governance Review should proceed further.

RESOLVED:

1. Full Council endorsed the initiation of a Community Governance Review for the unparished area of King’s Lynn, enabling the first stage of resident consultation.  Following this, Officers will assess the feedback received and confirm the proposed timetable for completing the CGR, giving due consideration to the concurrent Local Government Reorganisation legislation, after which Full Council will determine whether to proceed to stage 2.

2. Full Council considered and approved the draft Terms of Reference for the Community Governance Review.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Councillor Kirk, seconded by Councillor Hodson, nominated Councillor Pidcock to the vacancy on Hunstanton Advisory Group.

There were no nominations to the other outside bodies.

RESOLVED:

1. Councillor Pidcock was appointed as the Borough Council’s representative on Hunstanton Advisory Group.

To consider the following Notice of Motions:

(1/26 ) - Submitted by Councillor Blunt

“This Council strongly believes that Norfolk County Council Elections in May 2026 must go ahead”.

(2/26) – Submitted by Councillor Moore

Motion: Review of Consultant Expenditure Relating to the Lynnsport Proposal

This Council notes the work undertaken in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Alive Leisure Lynnsport facility, including plans to relocate the St James Pool as part of a scheme reported to be in the region of £49 million.

This Council further notes that approximately £2 million of public funds were incurred through the use of external consultants in developing this proposal, and that the scheme was later deemed unaffordable by the Section 151 Officer.

This Council is concerned that significant expenditure was incurred before affordability concerns resulted in the project being halted. This raises questions regarding financial oversight, governance, and value for money in the development of major capital projects.

Given the importance of protecting public funds and maintaining public confidence in the Council’s financial management, this matter warrants further scrutiny.

This Council resolves to:

1. Request that the Corporate Performance Panel reviews the decision making and governance processes relating to the use of external consultants in the development of the Lynnsport and St James Pool proposal.

2. Request that the Corporate Performance Panel considers whether appropriate affordability checks and financial controls were applied at an early stage.

3. Require that the findings and any recommendations are reported back to Full Council.

(3/26) – Submitted by Councillor Kemp

Motion to Stop Incinerator on West Norfolk Border 

“This Council has a proud tradition of standing up again the South Lynn Incinerator - and held the public poll,   in which 65,000 residents voted No. These residents have not gone away. Even after Planning Permission, Government stopped the incinerator. Residents, including Clenchwarton  and West Lynn, dread the prospect of being downwind of two 90 metre high Incinerator Stacks,  close to the West Norfolk border in Wisbech,  one of the biggest incinerators in Europe. This Council is one of  4 " host" authorities for the Wisbech Incinerator,  and instructs the leader to write to Government to halt the project.”

(4/26) Submitted by Councillor Kemp

Motion - No to Council  Sale of the Freehold of  Hardwick Bridge Residential  Park Homes for Over 55's 

This Council has put the freehold of  Hardwick Bridge Residential  Park Homes on  a list for sale  on the open market, without consulting residents, or  local councillors, or advising residents of  the risks.

Hardwick Bridge Mobile Park Homes in South Lynn are the forever homes of retired residents. All residents must be over 55.  The  Government Leasehold Advisory Service has advised,  the sell-off would diminish homeowners' security of tenure. Therefore this Council resolves not to sell, or otherwise dispose of,  the freehold of the Hardwick Bridge Residential Homes Estate. 

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

(1/26 ) - Submitted by Councillor Blunt

Councillor Blunt presented his Notice of Motion as set out below.  By way of an update Councillor Blunt commented that although a decision had been made to postpone the Elections, it was still important that residents were aware that it was not a decision of this council. 

“This Council strongly believes that Norfolk County Council Elections in May 2026 must go ahead”.

Councillor Sandell seconded the Motion and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Osborne spoke in support of the Motion stating that in certain cases it made sense to postpone an election, but it did not make sense in these circumstances.  He made reference to the Leader of Norfolk County Council’s submission to Government and that in his view it did not answer the question. 

Councillor Bone stated that he supported the Motion.

Councillor Beales spoke in support of the Motion and referred to the importance of democracy.  He stated that it was important to maintain a good working relationship with Norfolk County Council at all levels, but this was proving difficult with the Norfolk County Council Leader’s approach to this issue in that they had not sought involvement from any other Councillors.  Councillor Beales referred to the decision made by other County Councils and how they had met formally to debate the issue.  He was also concerned that Norfolk County Council had stated that this was not a Key Decision.

Councillor Kirk stated that the Reform Group supported the Motion and reminded Councillors that he had resigned from Norfolk County Council because of this last year.  He stated that this delay was not democratic.

Councillor Long commented that the Leader of Norfolk County Council was required to respond to the submission and had responded on the basis of capacity.  He also made reference to the delay in the Mayoral Combined Authority Elections which had been decided by Government, even though Norfolk and Suffolk were in a position to deliver them.  Councillor Long commented that the decision on postponement of election would have been better made after the outcome of Local Government Reorganisation, which would be known in March.

As a point of clarification, Councillor Beales stated that the districts managed Norfolk County Council elections on their behalf and to his knowledge Norfolk County Council did not ask this Council, nor Breckland District Council, nor North Norfolk District Council about their capacity to hold local elections.

Councillor Sayers spoke in support of the Motion, referred to other authorities that had made the case that they did have capacity and was disappointed that there had been no respect for democracy.  He called upon the Leader of Norfolk County Council to resign.

Councillor Kemp stated that elections should be held and the Government should have made a decision after the outcome of Local Government Reorganisation was known in March.

Councillor Devulapalli asked if any more of the twin-hatters would stand down  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:94

In accordance with Council procedure rule 8, to receive reports from Cabinet Members to be moved en bloc.  Members of the Council may ask up to four questions of Cabinet Members on their reports and portfolio areas.

The order of putting questions shall commence with a Member from the largest opposition group, proceeding in descending order to the smallest opposition group, then non aligned members, followed by a Member from the ruling group. This order shall repeat until the time for questions has elapsed or there are no more questions to be put. 

The period of time for putting questions and receiving responses shall not exceed 60 minutes for all Cabinet Members and the Leader

Climate Change and Biodiversity – Councillor M de Whalley

Culture and Events – Councillor S Lintern

Planning and Licensing – Councillor J Moriarty

Environment and Coastal - Councillor S Squire

Finance – Councillor C Morley

People and Communities – Councillor J Rust

Deputy Leader and Business – Cllr S Ring

Leader - Councillor A Beales

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

Councillor Beales moved the Cabinet Members Reports.

By way of update Councillor Moriarty explained that he had met with Heritage Live and impacted organisations regarding Sandringham Events and there had been positive engagement and lessons learned.  He had also met regarding the RHS event in July.

Councillor Rust referred to a recent SNAP meeting at Gaywood Library which she was unable to attend.

Councillor Kunes referred to a recent Norfolk County Council press release relating to Electric buses which had been partly funded through the Bus Service Improvement Plan Grant and asked if there were any plans to introduce electric buses in this area.  Councillor de Whalley explained that bus companies were looking into feasibility of this, but range was also an issue.

In response to a question from Councillor Collop, Councillor Ring confirmed that the Gaywood Nursery site had been withdrawn from sale, pending the recommendations from the Cemeteries Informal Working Group.

Councillor Kemp asked Councillor Rust relating to Hardwick Bridge Caravan Park.  Councillor Ring stated this question should be directed at him and reminded Councillor Kemp that she should not be releasing confidential information.  Councillor Kemp stated that it was in the public interest.

The Mayor advised Councillor Kemp that she should not be disclosing confidential information and asked her to stop.

Councillor Kemp stated that this was a very sad day for this Council and we were living in a dictatorship here.

Councillor Beales asked Councillor Kemp to confirm what she meant by a dictatorship and asked that the Monitoring Officer note the comment made by Councillor Kemp.

Councillor Beales called a point of order reminding Councillors that the Mayors ruling could not be challenged at the meeting.

Councillor Kemp attempted to question Councillor Ring further and was asked by the Mayor to stop.  Councillor Kemp stated again that we were living in a dictatorship if the Cabinet were not talking about the things that they were doing.

The Deputy Mayor referred to Council Procedure Rule 19.1 and asked for Councillor conduct to improve.

Councillor Parish referred to the meeting with Sandringham Estate and felt that the consultation should be wider.  Councillor Beales agreed to make that suggestion and confirmed that Sandringham Estate would be treated in exactly the same way as any other licensed event. 

Councillor Long asked if consideration would be given to holding a civic event to mark the retirement of the Chief Executive of King’s Lynn IDB, Norfolk Rivers and WMA.  Councillor Beales commented that he would pass on this request to Mayor and it could be used as an opportunity to meet the new post holder.

In response to a question from Councillor Kemp, Councillor de Whalley referred to his response to the public question relating to the Ferry.

Councillor Heneghan stated that the Mens Shed would have to move shortly due to the Council selling the land and sought assurance that the Council would support them as needed.  Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:95

In accordance with Procedure rule 9, Members of the Council may ask any questions of the Chair of any Council Body (except the Cabinet).

There were no questions.