Agenda and draft minutes

Prayers were led by Father Adrian Ling.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Anota, Ayres, Bhondi, Crofts, Dark, Lawrence, Rust, Ryves and Tyler.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 26^th February 2026.

RESOLVED: The minutes from the meeting held on 26^th February 2026 were agreed 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 referred to the Local Government Reorganisation announcement.

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

There was no Urgent Business.

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 Rob Archer

The Mayor invited Rob Archer to ask a question as set out below:

“It is becoming increasingly difficult to find an appropriate cycle parking spot in Lynn town centre as provision of cycle parking has not kept up with the growth in cycling. Indeed, a significant number of parking hoops have been removed in recent years, particularly on the Tuesday Market Place and the Purfleet. Many others are damaged or in poor condition. The new racks at the library are very welcome but we need more throughout the town. 

The proposed ‘Active Travel Hub’ at Baker Lane (now refused planning permission) would have been of little use as it is awkward to cycle to and the design meant that around half the spaces would have been unusable. The cancellation of this project and the similar flawed scheme in South Lynn would release considerable funds to redress the situation, possibly with a more functional covered cycle parking area located near the bus or rail stations, along with a significant increase in parking spaces throughout the town centre. 

I note that the borough council has a ‘Car Parking Strategy’. Would it not be sensible to make this a more holistic ‘Parking Strategy’ and include cycle     parking as a clear part of the parking mix? This would enable more strategic   planning as to locations and the level of provision, as well as managing and facilitating a modal shift from driving to cycling.”

Councillor Beales responded by emphasising the importance of cycling provision within the borough. He explained that extensive discussions had taken place with cycling user groups regarding the Lynnsport development, and as part of that project all cycle routes had been resurfaced and upgraded, including the Sustrans crossings into the new estates. He also referred to the proposed new cycle facilities at the Guildhall.

Councillor Beales highlighted that the Town Deal proposals included alterations to the gyratory system and the introduction of several additional cycle paths. He expressed disappointment at the comments made regarding the Baker Lane scheme, noting that it remained an important project for the town. He clarified that the scheme had not been cancelled; rather, the applicant had received a planning refusal, and options for the next steps were now being considered. He further expressed disappointment that the Planning Committee had not supported the application and encouraged Mr Archer to take an active role in shaping the future of the Baker Lane proposals, including contributing views on facilities such as showers and changing areas.

Addressing Mr Archer’s comments on the Car Parking Strategy, Councillor Beales acknowledged that cycle parking should form part of that work and confirmed his willingness to engage with local cycling groups on the matter.

In his supplementary question, Mr Archer thanked Councillor Beales for his response and enthusiasm. He drew attention to the South Lynn Hub, noting that similar issues had arisen there as with Baker Lane.  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:111

(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 – 3^rd March 2026

Councillor Ring, seconded by Councillor Beales, proposed the recommendation from Cabinet on 3^rd March 2026 for CAB140: Adoption of the Property Disposal Policy.

Councillor Ring spoke in support of the proposals and outlined the input of the Panels into the Policy including consideration at the Regeneration and Development Panel and the matter being called in for consideration at the Corporate Performance Panel.

Councillor Ring highlighted the key amendments to the policy, and the need for clear asset management as the lack of previous plans and policies had resulted in ad hoc decisions.  He explained that the policy provided guidelines for officers and Members, aiming for more effective management of the Council’s asset portfolio.

Councillor Parish stressed the importance of not disposing of assets which were valuable to local communities, and ensuring that community representatives were involved in decisions relating to asset disposal.

Councillor Long referred to improper practices in the past.

In summing up, Councillor Ring commented that in the past some assets were un register and this policy ensured proper processes going forward.

RESOLVED: The recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 3^rd March 2026 in relation to the Adoption of the Property Disposal Policy was approved by Full Council, as set out below.

Cabinet resolves to recommend to Full Council the adoption of the Property Disposal Policy attached at Appendix 1, with the following amendments to the Governance Arrangements and Oversight section:

During potential asset disposals portfolio holders, ward members, parish councils and other community representatives where necessary may have confidential/commercial information shared with them.  It is important that the constitution is adhered to in this regard in particular “Part 2 – Articles – Rights and Duties of Councillors, paragraphs 2.05 to 2.07”.

(ii) Electoral Arrangements Committee 12^th March 2026 – Hilgay Community Governance Review – Next Steps.

The recommendation from the above Committee was proposed by Councillor Beales and seconded by Councillor Ring.

In proposing the recommendations from the Committee, Councillor Beales commented that this was the recommendation from the Committee, however did not reflect his view and he felt that Council should reject the recommendation.  He provided background, explaining that there were representation issues and community feedback, with the results of the consultation supporting the establishment of separate councils.

Councillor Beales provided Council with information relating to precepts, assets and the council tax base, noting that there were smaller Parishes, to those proposed, already in existence.

Councillor Lintern shared the concerns of the Electoral Arrangements Committee regarding the number of Parish Councillors and difficulty recruiting, however noted there were smaller parishes in existence and it was important to ensure all residents were represented.

Councillor Heneghan commented that it was important that local views were taken into consideration.

Councillor Osborne explained he would be voting against the recommendation from the Committee and felt that the creation of two Parish Councils was viable.  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:112

Following publication of the Agenda Councillor Tyler had attended a qualifying meeting within the six month period, therefore this report was withdrawn.

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

Councillor Long, seconded by Councillor Beales proposed the recommendations as set out in the report.

Councillor Long spoke in support of the proposals and outlined the amendments, explaining that the Constitution Informal Working Group had considered them in depth.

Councillor Joyce referred to the amendments relating to the Appeals process for staff and explained that it was important that everyone was treated fairly.

Councillor Devulapalli commented that the Standing Order 34 rules in relation to the Planning Committee were restrictive as notice was required to be given along with a summary of speech.

Councillor Ring commented that the appropriate staff were more qualified to lead on the staff appeals process rather than it coming through the Licensing and Appeals Board.

Councillor Nash felt that Standing Order 34 amendments now presented more barriers.

The Monitoring Officer clarified the amendments to Standing Order 34 in that it was regularising existing practice with regards to Committee Members attending remotely and those sending a substitute if they were unable to attend.

Councillor Parish commented that it was courteous to notify the Chair in advance if you wanted to attend a meeting under Standing Order 34.  He also asked if substitutes could be arranged by Group Leaders, rather than limited to the Councillor who was unable to attend.

Councillor Beales commented that the Constitution Informal Working Group debated Standing Order 34 in depth and it was noted that many other Local Authorities did not have this provision.  He also felt it was courtesy to notify the Chair in advance if you were attending a meeting under Standing Order 34, and noted that the Chair had discretion in terms of arrangements.

Councillor Long explained that Norfolk County Council did not have an equivalent to Standing Order 34 and that Standing Order 34 was important as it allowed input from back benchers.

RESOLVED: Council agreed to the proposed changes to the Constitution included in the report at Appendix 1, 2 and 3, effective immediately.

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

The Chair of the Corporate Performance Panel presented his report, as included in the Agenda.  He thanked all Members of the Panel for their work

RESOLVED: Full Council noted the report.

To consider the following Notices of Motion:

(4/26) Submitted by Councillor Kemp (rolled over from Full Council on 29^th January 2026)

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 the recording of this item on You Tube.

The Monitoring Officer explained that this Notice of Motion had been rolled over in accordance with Council Procedure Rules, from the January meeting, however things had progressed since then, and had the Notice of Motion been submitted for this meeting it would have been rejected under Council Procedure Rule 7.4.4 in that it would require the disclosure of confidential or exempt information.

The Notice of Motion was therefore withdrawn.

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 an update, Councillor Ring informed Council that contracts had now been exchanged with Whitbred regarding the Hotel in Hunstanton which demonstrated the desire to widen the tourism season in Hunstanton.

In response to a question from Councillor Heneghan, Councillor Squire explained that the booking system for the waste disposal centre had caused issues and she was aware that there had been less visits since the booking system had been introduced.  Incidents of fly tipping were also being investigated.

Councillor Parish read out a letter that he stated had been sent out regarding Heacham Beach Huts and asked if the change in lease was the mechanism for easing future sale of the site and Councillor Ring responded no.

In response to a question from Councillor Sandell, Councillor Ring encouraged Councillors to speak to their Parishes with regard to small pieces of land and register an interest with the Council if they had a community need for it, as part of the wider asset management work.

Councillor Osborne requested an update on events at Downham Market and Councillor Lintern explained that the Council offered help and advice through the Tourism department and would assist to promote with events if the organisation contacted the Council and provided up to date information.

In response to a question from Councillor Long, Councillor Beales offered to visit the sites that were impacted by flytipping.  Councillor Beales also agreed to work with Cllr Long regarding of the closure of the gate at Horsley Fields Industrial Estate.

In response to a question from Councillor Parish regarding Heacham Beach Huts Councillor Ring explained that a briefing on this matter would be sent to Councillors in due course.

Councillor Kunes thanked Councillor Beales for visiting sites with him where there had been illegal waste and hoped that the Council would keep putting on pressure.  Councillor Beales explained that the Council were looking at actions to be taken forward and would keep Councillor Kunes updated.

In response to a question from Councillor Ratcliffe, Councillor Ring confirmed that the room at Downham Market was available to host Community Bookings and could be booked through Alive West Norfolk.

Councillor Blunt referred to the bid for the town of culture and Councillor Lintern explained that the framework and background to this was being put together and then an expression of interest would be submitted for 2027/2028.

In response to a question from Councillor Everett regarding the briefing to members on Heacham Beach Huts, Councillor Ring stated he would inform Councillors of when a briefing would be available as soon as he knew.

In response to a question from Councillor Spikings, Councillor Ring confirmed that the Council was in discussion with the administrator dealing with NCP car parks and noted that the land was within the Masterplan area.

In response to a question from Councillor Bubb, Councillor Squire confirmed that unfortunately the MRF  ...  view the full minutes text for item C:117

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.