Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Anota, Hodson and Ratcliffe.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

RESOLVED: The minutes from the previous meeting 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 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.

Those declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair proposes to accept as urgent under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1972.

There was none.

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chair of their intention to do so and what items they wish to be heard before a decision on that item is taken.  

Councillor de Whalley was present under Standing Order 34.

If any.

The Chair reported that limited email correspondence had been shared with Panel Members.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Licensing presented the report proposing updated terms of reference for the Local Plan Task Group, reflecting new government requirements, statutory changes, and the need for a more agile approach to plan?making.

The Chair thanked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Licensing and officers for the report and invited questions and comments from the Panel as summarised below.

The Chair expressed concern that the Local Plan Task Group had not been consulted on the proposed changes to the terms of reference and sought confirmation that the plan remained the Council’s plan.  The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Licensing confirmed it was still the Council’s plan but noted that statutory deadlines and the risk of government intervention limited councillors’ influence, requiring more frequent meetings and quicker decision?making.

Councillor Crofts asked about the implications of removing the statutory duty to cooperate.  The Principal Planner explained that although the legal requirement had been removed, practical cooperation with neighbouring authorities was still necessary, statutory consultees still had to be engaged, and the need to demonstrate compliance to a planning inspector was now less stringent.

In response to a question from Councillor Blunt, the Principal Planner explained the new terms of reference would be flexible and dynamic to accommodate future changes such as the introduction of the mayoral authority.

In response to a question from Councillor Ryves, the Principal Planner confirmed that the plan would take account of the Environment Agency’s suggested policy on wastewater treatment.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Licensing clarified that the terms of reference had been drafted for the current circumstances and that the new Local Plan would be adopted by the new Unitary Council, not the existing Council.

In response to a question from Councillor Bone, the Principal Planner confirmed that they would be working closely with Breckland and other neighbouring authorities throughout the process.

Councillor Bubb asked whether the new plan was expected to improve and enhance the existing plan.  The Principal Planner confirmed that it would replace the current Local Plan.

In response to concerns raised by the Chair, the Principal Planner and the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Licensing explained they were constrained by statutory deadlines and clarified that Councillors’ views should not be ignored but government intervention and national policies may override local preferences requiring councillors to work smarter and to act quickly to influence the plan.

RESOLVED: That the Regeneration and Development Panel support the recommendation to Cabinet, as set out below.

Cabinet resolves:

To adopt the revised Local Plan Task Group Terms of Reference (Annex 1 to the report).

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

The Portfolio Holder for People and Communities presented the report on High Street rental auctions and empty property initiatives, outlining the links between tackling empty retail and residential properties, the funding arrangements, and the operational approach.

The Assistant Director for Health, Wellbeing and Public Protection advised the Panel that the report related specifically to the High Street Rental Auction scheme, and that the empty property post was already underway and would be advertised shortly.

The Chair thanked the Portfolio Holder for People and Communities and officers for the report and invited questions and comments from the Panel as summarised below.

Councillor Ryves asked why empty retail and residential property policies were linked.  The Assistant Director for Health, Wellbeing and Public Protection, and the Regeneration Programmes Manager explained that both types of vacancies negatively affected the town’s economic vitality and public perception, and that combining efforts would achieve a broader impact, including opportunities to repurpose space above shops for residential use.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Regeneration and Programmes Manager confirmed that funding from the Pride in Place programme and other partners would be available.

Councillor Bone commented that converting some empty properties to residential use made sense and stated that he welcomed the scheme.

In response to comments from Councillor Crofts, the Portfolio Holder for People and Communities explained that making empty residential properties and flats above shops habitable would help bring more people into the town to support local businesses and highlighted how the two approaches complemented each other.

In response to a question from Councillor Colwell, the Regeneration and Programmes Manager advised that they would provide the most up?to?date figures on void retail properties in the designated High Street rental auction area, using the quarterly survey data, after the meeting.

Councillor Collingham commented that it was disappointing the Debenhams site was excluded from the auction process.  The Regeneration and Programmes Manager explained that the site’s condition exceeded the reasonable standard required by legislation and added that alternative master planning and grant funding options were being explored for the property.

In response to comments from Councillor Ryves, the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Business explained that the auction process allowed flexible rental rates, enabling new businesses to trial premises at low cost.

In response to a question from Councillor Bubb, the Assistant Director for Health, Wellbeing and Public Protection explained that several options existed for bringing empty domestic properties back into use, including Empty Dwelling Management Orders, which enabled the authority to take over management and recover costs through rent, and enforced sale where appropriate.  It was explained that the Pride in Place programme would also explore the potential for a loan scheme to help landlords bring properties up to a standard where they can be let, subject to a future business case.  The Assistant Director for Health, Wellbeing and Public Protection emphasised the need to understand why properties remained empty  ...  view the full minutes text for item RD97:

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

The Project Officer provided an update on the Guildhall project which covered construction progress, funding status, stakeholder engagement, fundraising efforts, business plan development and outreach activities.

The Chair thanked the Project Officer for the report and presentation and invited questions and comments from the Panel as summarised below.

In response to questions from the Chair, the Project Officer confirmed that Tim FitzHigham had overall responsibility for fundraising.  The CIO played a key role in accessing specialist funding streams unavailable to the Borough.  The Project Officer explained Tim FitzHigham led the mixed?model fundraising approach planned for the coming years, and that the fundraising consultant worked under his direction, with their time allocated according to agreed priorities.  The Project Officer clarified that the strategy set out the CIO’s ability to attract both capital funding for construction and revenue funding for long?term operations.  They were key to accessing funding streams that the Borough could not apply to directly.

In response to a question from Councillor Colwell, the Project Officer explained operational risks such as water leaks and global events affecting materials and costs were being managed with insurance claims and built-in contingencies and the project team were tracking costs and risks closely, with no current impact on budget or timeline.

Councillor Bubb asked what plans were in place to promote that Shakespeare was in King’s Lynn.  The Project Officer confirmed efforts to promote the Guildhall’s Shakespeare connection was ongoing, including partnerships with national Shakespeare organisations and outreach to schools and libraries.  Officers were working to ensure the message peaks at the right time and to book significant touring companies well in advance.

Councillor Ryves asked whether the business plan was being continuously kept under review.  The Project Officer confirmed the business plan was under continuous review, led by the new Assistant Director for Culture and Leisure, and that there responsibility is to ensure the plan is fit for purpose and responsive to changing demographics and market conditions, with a focus on multiple income streams and operational durability.

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Business commented that this was a major project managed by several officers and highlighted that, although a fundraising team was now in place, Tim FitzHigham had undertaken significant work promoting the project internationally.  The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Business emphasised that raising substantial funds was a long?term process.

The Portfolio Holder for Culture and Events reminded the Panel that outreach and education work had continued across the borough during the construction period, including activity in schools and libraries to maintain engagement with young people.  The Panel were also reminded that the project covered the wider Guildhall complex, including galleries, the café and the restaurant, and that significant ongoing outreach activity supported the overall programme.

The Chair proposed that the panel receive updates every six months, focusing on financing, technical issues, and preparations for the opening, to ensure ongoing transparency and oversight.

RESOLVED: That  ...  view the full minutes text for item RD98:

RESOLVED: The Panel’s Work Programme and the Forward Decisions List was noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Regeneration & Development Panel is scheduled to take place on 2^nd June 2026 at 4:30pm in the Council Chamber, Town Hall.

The next meeting of the Regeneration and Development Panel was scheduled to take place on 2^nd June 2026 at 6.00pm in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Saturday Market Place, King’s Lynn.

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube

The Assistant Director for Regeneration, Housing and Place presented the report on Custom House refurbishment as included in the Agenda.

The Chair thanked the Assistant Director for Regeneration, Housing and Place for the report and invited questions and comments from the Panel as summarised below.

Councillor Colwell raised concerns about the condition of Hanse House, noting that the Grade I listed building was affected by UPVC banners and bins.  Councillor Colwell felt this was inappropriate and suggested that the owners should be engaged to ensure the area supported the wider ambitions for an improved waterfront.  The Assistant Director for Regeneration, Housing and Place confirmed he would speak with Councillor Colwell outside the meeting regarding the points raised.

The Panel agreed to move into closed session to consider the exempt sections of the report.

To consider passing the following resolution:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act”.

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 it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

The Assistant Director for Regeneration, Housing and Place responded to questions from Members relating to the exempt information contained within the report.

RESOLVED: That the Regeneration and Development Panel support the recommendations to Cabinet as set out below.

Cabinet resolves:

1.   To proceed with the Custom House element of the Riverfront Regeneration project based on the RIBA Stage 4 design.

2.   Delegate authority to the Assistant Director for Regeneration, Housing and Place to award the contract to deliver the Custom House Project (“the Main Contract”) to the successful tenderer, as identified through the completed procurement process within the approved budget as authorised.

3.   Delegate authority to the Assistant Director for Regeneration, Housing and Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder to approve material changes to the scope of the project and/or variations to the Main Contract that are within the approved budget and in accordance with the Local Assurance Framework for this project.

The Principal Project Manager presented the report as included in the Agenda.

The Principal Project Manager gave a presentation on Southend Road Post Project Evaluation as included in the Agenda.

The Panel asked questions to which the Principal Project Manager responded.

RESOLVED: That the Regeneration and Development Panel formally promotes the findings of this review and ensures the institutional knowledge gained from the Southend Road project is systematically embedded into all future project management processes.