Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Buck, Crofts and Gourlay.

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 Chairman, subject to the following amendment proposed by the Chairman.

Page 618, RD80: Riverfront Delivery Plan, paragraph four be amended to read:

The Chairman informed those present that he had previously been Project Manager for the North Sea Haven project and he provided information on weaknesses in the area, siltation, engineering and drainage.  He also referred to the idea of opening up the inland waterways and felt that this could be achieved by creating some mooring ponds near the Southgates.  The Environment Agency and other Stakeholders were able to help at the time but felt that the opportunity had now been lost.  The Chairman commented that traffic was an issue in King’s Lynn and something needed to be done to assist the traffic flow in King’s Lynn.

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.

Councillor Bambridge declared an interest in the letter which had been submitted as Chairman’s Correspondence as she was a Member of St Margaret’s with St Nicholas’ Ward Forum who had sent a copy of a letter to the Chairman with regards to the Riverfront Delivery Plan.

To consider any business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chairman 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 Chairman of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before the meeting commences.  Any Member attending the meeting under Standing Order 34 will only be permitted to speak on those items which have been previously notified to the Chairman.

Councillor Bubb – RD91 – Transport.

If any.

The Chairman informed those present that he had been copied into a letter from St Margaret’s with St Nicholas’ Ward Forum.  A copy of the letter had been circulated to Members of the Panel in advance of the Meeting.

Councillor Kunes commented that he felt in general the letter was quite negative.  He explained that as the Quay was a working Quay, it was unlikely that railings would be permitted along the Quay side unless they were removable.

The Chairman referred to comments regarding a multi storey car park on the Quay and commented that any proposals should be in keeping with the area and felt that one way could be to mix the car park with commercial use, for example put a restaurant and observation deck on the top floor.  Councillor Bambridge commented that the possibility of a car park had been discussed many years ago and how it could be a multi-use area, but this was never taken forward.

Comments were also made that the area was allocated for housing and the Executive Director confirmed that there was currently no proposal to add a multi-storey car park to the area.  He reminded the Panel that following the public consultation, options would be brought back to the Regeneration and Development Panel for consideration.

The LDF Manager confirmed that Boal Quay had been allocated for housing within the Local Plan.  He explained that due to the flood risk it was likely that residential development would only be permitted on upper storeys which meant that different uses could be considered for the ground floor, for example commercial or car parking.

The Letter from the Forum had also been sent to the Regeneration Team as part of the options consultation and would be reviewed by the team to assist in the development of the preferred options which would be developed and published for consultation in the Spring.

Item requested by the Chairman.  To discuss transport and traffic issues.

The Chairman explained that he had requested that this item be added to the agenda as he felt that issues with traffic in the town centre were getting worse.  He suggested that the Panel could look at issues and come up with ideas and potential solutions.  The Chairman provided examples of accidents which had happened in the town centre and had resulted in queuing traffic and problem areas.

Councillor Mrs Collingham explained that she had previously suggested a park and ride trial using an empty field next to the hospital, but she had been told that the traffic levels in King’s Lynn would not make a park and ride facility viable.  She commented that she would like park and ride to be investigated by the Panel as a solution to the traffic issues in King’s Lynn.

Councillor Bambridge commented that she felt that the traffic in King’s Lynn had been worse since the new timed traffic lights had been installed.

Councillor Baron Chenery of Horsbrugh asked if the Chairman was suggesting if just issues in King’s Lynn be looked at, or the wider Borough.  He also asked if other transport issues such as Railways could be considered.  The Chairman suggested that initially the Panel should focus on traffic in King’s Lynn, but could look at other areas in the future.

Councillor Kunes commented that one way to alleviate traffic heading south out of King’s Lynn would be to open up Hardings Way bus route to traffic although he acknowledged that some local residents were opposed to this solution.

The Vice Chairman, Councillor Rochford, commented that the problem was that King’s Lynn could not be looked at in isolation, the focus needed to be on the long term.  He explained that any proposals in the future to alleviate traffic in King’s Lynn needed to consider that the town was a mediaeval town, with little opportunity to change road layouts, and the use of the car would increase.  It was not an option to reduce the amount of vehicles in the town centre, instead ways to manage the traffic needed to be looked at.  The Vice Chairman also referred to businesses in the town centre and surrounding King’s Lynn which had lots of employees.  He suggested that work be carried out with the bigger businesses to look at how traffic issues could be resolved, for example shuttle busses, or additional bus services.

Councillor Mrs Watson commented that traffic on the A149 had a knock on effect on traffic issues in the town centre, especially during the holiday season.  She felt that if options to alleviate issues in this area were looked at, this could assist with issues in the town centre.

The Chairman thanked Members of the Panel for their comments and reminded them that King’s Lynn would expand, more houses would be built and this would add to the amount of traffic in the area.

The Business Manager summarised the comments made by the Panel and suggested a possible way forward.  ...  view the full minutes text for item RD91:

The LDF Manager reminded the Panel that the Council was required, by Government, to have a five year supply of deliverable housing in the Borough.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework.  He explained that the figure was calculated and continually monitored.  It was also published on the website on an annual basis as part of the Annual Monitoring report.  He explained that the Monitoring report provided the technical detail on how the figure was calculated.

The Panel was informed that in calculating the five year housing supply, the following were taken into consideration:

·         The Full Objective Assessment Need which was a document provided by Government and included detail of household growth and population.

·         The number of units required per annum.

·         Allocations from the Local Plan.

·         The amount of Planning Permissions granted.

·         Permissions which were unlikely to result in development.

·         Lapsed Planning Permissions.

The LDF Manager explained that the Council currently had a 5.81 years supply of housing.  He also made reference to Planning Inquiries and appeals in which the view that the Council had a five year supply was thoroughly tested.

The Panel was informed that the next Annual Monitoring report would be published at the end of the financial year.

The LDF Manager explained the technicalities of the calculation and how monitoring was carried out.  He explained that 66% of sites allocated in the Local Plan had currently come forward with some sort of planning application and the current plan period was to 2026.

The Portfolio Holder for Development, Councillor Blunt explained that the process was very technical and he was confident that the Council had demonstrated that they had a five year supply of housing.

The Chairman thanked officers for their update and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.

In response to a question regarding the delay between outline planning permission being granted and development on site, the Planner explained that he was not sure on the actual figure, but he explained that information on past time periods was used in the calculation.  The LDF Manager agreed to circulate an information sheet to the Panel on time periods.

The LDF Manager explained that allowances were made for sites which would not come forward and this was factored into the calculation.  The lapse rate of three years was also included.

RESOLVED: The update was noted.

Councillor Mrs Collingham provided a report to the Panel and a presentation (attached) on the structure of the Panel and content of meetings.  She explained that she had used the agenda items considered by the Panel at a previous meeting as an example of a way a meeting could be run in the future.  She highlighted the following points:

·         Reports or updates which are for information only or background setting, should be limited to twenty minutes.

·         Creating a SWOT analysis for items.

·         How do projects fit in with the vision for King’s Lynn?

·         Questions from Members could be sent to the Chairman or officers in advance and tabled at the meeting.

·         The Panel’s ability to establish Informal Working Groups.

·         The opportunity to be involved in projects at an early stage.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Mrs Collingham for her report and presentation and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.

Councillor Pope suggested that Members of the Panel have a read of the Urban Renaissance Strategy which provided a development strategy for the town and had been prepared by consultants on behalf of the Council.  The Clerk to the Panel agreed to circulate the document to Panel Members via email.

The Panel generally agreed that they would like to have more input on projects at the beginning of their lifecycle and see projects all the way through.  Projects could then be presented to the Corporate Performance Panel for post-evaluation.

Councillor John Collop commented that it was important that the public were consulted during projects and this should be a consideration of the Panel.  He also felt that financial issues should not be discussed by the Regeneration and Development Panel and instead should be presented to the Corporate Performance Panel.  Councillor Mrs Collingham commented that her presentation in no way suggested that work should be taken away from other Panels, but felt that knowing how projects were funded and how much they would cost would be important to the Regeneration and Development Panel when considering them.

The Chairman reminded those present that any Councillor could attend any meeting under Standing Order 34.  Representatives from other Panels could also come under Standing Order 34 and present collective views from their respective Panel or Committee.

The Executive Director summarised the comments made by the Panel in that they would like to be involved in projects in their initial stages, this would be before financial implications were known.  Councillor Mrs Collingham commented that when considering projects the Panel could also factor in who should be consulted on the project and at which stages.

The Chairman explained that he would pass on the comments of the Panel at his next joint meeting with Panel and Committee Chairmen and the Leader of the Council.

Members of the Panel were reminded that an eform was available on the Intranet which could be completed and submitted if Members had items which they would like to be considered for addition to the Work Programme.

The following items were suggested for inclusion on the work programme.

1. Transport – as discussed earlier in the meeting.  Officers from Norfolk County Council to be invited to a future meeting of the Panel.

2. NORA – The Chairman asked if it would be possible for a timeline of when the NORA project would finish.  The Chairman felt that an update on the history of the site and the different projects ongoing would be useful for the Panel.  He explained that it would be difficult to put an end date on the project as some of the schemes were subject to commercial investment.

The Chief Executive stated that NORA was made up of lots of different projects including the following:

·         NORA Major Housing Scheme.

·         Enterprise Zone

·         Acquisition of Morston Asset and HCA land on NORA

The Chief Executive explained that the Panel could be updated on the different projects on the site and this would be added to the Work Programme.

3. Railways.  The Chairman requested that the state of preserved Railway tracks and potential uses in the future be added to the Work Programme.  He also asked for an update on the Ely North Junction improvements.

The Chief Executive explained that a report could be provided to the Panel on progress with the Ely North Junction improvements, the possibility of longer trains and half hourly service from King’s Lynn.  The Chief Executive informed the Panel that a joint Authority Group, made up of officers from Local Authorities along the rail routes, representatives from Network Rail, train operators, freight operators and the Local Enterprise Partnerships met on a regular basis to work on the design and feasibility work for the improvements ready for the 2019 funding period.  The Chief Executive agreed to arrange for an update to be presented to the Panel at a future meeting.

RESOLVED: (i) The Panel’s Work Programme was noted.

(ii) The above mentioned items be added to the Panel’s Work Programme.

To note that the next meeting of the Regeneration & Development Panel is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 15^th February 2017 at 6.00pm in the Committee Suite, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1EX.

The next meeting of the Regeneration and Development Panel would be held on Wednesday 15^th February 2017 at 6.00pm in the Committee Suite, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE30 1EX.