Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs Nockolds.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

A request to amend the minutes had been received from Councillor Rust and was read out by the Chair as follows:

“I’d like to pass to you a request for the minutes to be altered on a matter of accuracy.  The minutes state that I did not oppose the cinema, however, what I actually said is that I did not oppose it per se and I went on to list the provisos and concerns I had.  I did actually state I shared the concerns of my fellow Labour party Councillors – Jones and Bone, who had articulated issues they were worried about.”

The Democratic Officer explained that the draft minutes currently read as “Councillor Rust addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34.  She commented that she did not oppose the proposal but was concerned that the cost of the tickets would present a barrier to some people.”

The Panel felt that the minutes summarised the comments made by Councillor Rust and did not require amending.

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.

Councillor de Whalley declared an interest in the Guildhall Workshop session as he had been involved in meetings with the Shakespeare Trust.  He stated he was not a Trustee.

Councillor Bone declared an interest in the Guildhall Workshop session as he had been involved in a newspaper article relating to the Guildhall.

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 Blunt – all items.

Councillor Devereux – all items.

Councillor Joyce – all items.

Councillor Kemp – all items.

Councillor Kunes – RD25.

Councillor Middleton – all items.

Councillor Pope – all items.

Councillor Ryves – all items.

The asked that, in the future where possible, Members provide more detail on the items that they would like to attend under Standing Order 34, rather than a blanket ‘all items’.

If any.

Correspondence had been received from Councillor Rust regarding the minutes of the previous meeting which had been considered under item RD15.

The Senior Policy and Performance Officer presented the report.  He explained that each year the Cabinet agreed the Performance Indicators and each Panel monitored the Performance Indicators that were relevant to the Panel, on a quarterly basis.

The Panel’s attention was drawn to the indicators which had not met target:

·        CO8b – Number of residential house sales completed – NORA

·        CO9a – Number of residential houses commenced – Marsh Lane

·        CO9b – Number of residential houses completed – Marsh Lane

·        CO10b – Number of residential sales completed – Lynnsport 4/5

The Senior Policy and Performance Officer referred to the notes against the indicators provided by the Service Manager.  An update report would be provided to the Panel in October, but having checked recent sales date, progress was being made. 

The Chair thanked the Senior Policy and Performance Officer for his report.  There were no questions from the Panel.

RESOLVED: The Panel reviewed the monitoring report and agreed the actions in the action report.

An update will be provided to the Panel.

More information is available at https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/info/20010/regeneration/696/kings_lynn_transport_study

King’s Lynn Transport Study Documents are available to view at https://www.west-norfolk.gov.uk/downloads/download/768/kings_lynn_transport_study_documents

The LDF Manager and Environmental Health Manager provided an update on the King’s Lynn Transport Study (as attached).

It was explained that the Stage 2 document had now been published which detailed the outcome of the options appraisal.  Schemes would now be broken into short, medium and long term interventions and Stage 3 work would include creation of a strategy for the area. 

A further update would be provided to the Panel once the Stage 3 work had been completed, prior to its submission to Cabinet.

The Chair thanked officers for their presentation and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.  She commented that she felt that the report was difficult to digest and she was unclear on the proposals.

Councillor Bambridge commented that resident only parking for the Friars should be considered and that school start and finish times across King’s Lynn should be staggered to relieve congestion.  Councillor Bambridge also commented that interventions on the bus network may not be possible as they were privately operated.

Councillor de Whalley asked how the plan would contribute towards the 2050 zero carbon emissions commitment.  He also asked why Stage 2 had not been subject to public consultation and that there was little mention of off road cycle lanes within the report.

The Cabinet Member for Project Delivery, Councillor Gidney, commented that the report needed a simplified analysis, broken down into traffic types, issues prioritised and then delivery systems could be looked at.  He also stated that there was no mention of automated traffic lights in the report. 

The LDF Manager explained that the Stage 2 document included the options which were feasible and Stage 3 would look at them in more detail.  He explained that Appendix H of the report mentioned cycle routes, buses and automated traffic signals.  Interventions did include the bus network infrastructure.

Councillor Kemp addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34 and stated that the Council’s priority should be Climate Change and that the Hardings Way bus lane should not be opened up to traffic because travel by bus, cycle and walking should be encouraged.  She gave merit to the suggestions for park and ride facilities at Clenchwarton and encouraged use of the Ferry which was also a form of park and ride.  She stated that the Council needed to rule out the idea of allowing traffic on Hardings Way.

Councillor Ryves addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34.  In response to a question from Councillor Ryves, it was confirmed that the provision of electric charging points was included in the report.  He also asked if consideration would be given to car parking offers in line with the potential new cinema at the Corn Exchange.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that a Car Parking Strategy was being produced which would look at this.

The Leader, Councillor Long, explained that this study had been long awaited.  He explained that Norfolk County Council had a Transport Committee, but there had not been much investment in King’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item RD21:

Officers will provide and update and then Members of the Panel will participate in a Workshop session.

Officers presented Members of the Panel with an update on the Guildhall (as attached).  The Executive Director invited Members to contact him if they would like a tour of the complex.

The Chair invited the Panel Members to participate in a Workshop session which would suggest ideas on the future use of the Guildhall.  Suggestions would be used to inform future bid applications.

The Panel broke into groups and looked at three different aspects of the Guildhall; audiences, activities and uses.  The groups fed back the following ideas:

Audiences

·        Synergy across the whole site

·        Young people and those in education

·        Play in a day

·        Stage School

·        Appeal to tourists and the local community

·        Coach parties

·        Link with Shakespeare was a unique selling point and should be exploited

·        Improved access for people with disabilities was required

·        Schemes such as ‘friends of the Guildhall’

·        Rehearsal space for rent

·        Conference and meeting facilities

·        Emerging talent and upcoming artists.

·        Musical Groups

·        Comedy Clubs in Crofters

·        Event hire – intimate space for weddings and functions

·        Workshop space

·        Arts Clubs

·        Christmas Market/Grotto

Audiences

·        Shakespeare

·        Independent films and films made by local people of all ages

·        Contemporary Arts

·        Theatre

·        Arts

·        Dance

·        All ages and abilities

·        Professional and amateur

Uses

·        Flat floor was essential in the Guildhall to create a flexible use space

·        Community events and engagement

·        Retail - crafts, speciality and variety

·        Artistic outlet

·        Work with Charitable Organisations

·        More emphasis on the kitchen

·        Improved disabled access was essential

·        Co-ordinated whole site management

·        Flexible seating

·        Comfort

·        Uses can be restricted by security

·        Cultural Hub

·        Museum

·        Arts space

·        Importance of annual/recurring events to build and grow the offer

·        Diversity

The Chair commented that the Guildhall stage should be movable to make the space as flexible as possible.

Councillor Ryves addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34 and asked if the site could be sold to a commercial operator and converted into a pub or restaurant.  The Executive Director explained that there was a covenant on the Guildhall which meant that it had to remain as a theatre and gallery.  Discussions had been held with the National Trust on this issue, but it was non-negotiable.

Members of the Panel commented that the link with Shakespeare should be exploited as a unique selling point.

The Executive Director thanked the Panel for their suggestions and explained that more detail on future bid applications would be brought back to the Panel as appropriate.

RESOLVED: The results of the workshop session would be used to assist with future bid applications.

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 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.

The Executive Director provided the Panel with an update on the site. 

The Chair thanked the Executive Director for the update and invited questions and comments from the Panel.

Officers answered questions relating to the future plans for the site, investment opportunities and flood risk.

RESOLVED: The update was noted.

Councillor Kemp has requested that this item be added to the Agenda as follows:

“In a recent Lynn News poll, 80% of the public want this important heritage asset saved but the owner has been in dereliction of its duty and has now signed a Demolition Order.  The owner is the Borough Council.  There are important questions to answer, why the Borough –

-        Allowed a heritage listed asset, protected under Planning Law, to fall into disrepair

-        Requested its delisting without proper public consultation

-        Has now signed a Demolition Order

-        Failed to consider the need to preserve heritage assets in deprived areas and provide proper access to it

Its artistic and literary significance as the same, or only surviving, local example of the innovative South Lynn Brick Kiln painted by local artist Henry Baines, to be the subject of a Lynn Museum exhibition next year, built by the Bardell family, whose son is commemorated in All Saints Church.

How it can be restored, placed on the Heritage Day List of events and used as an educational asset and promotional aid to the Enterprise Zone?”

For information, Historic England have provided a detailed assessment setting out why they felt the building did not meet the criteria for inclusion on the Statutory List.  Which states:  “The kiln was first listed in 2003 on the basis of what was then known about its date, type and context.  Since that time, detailed information on the significance of a widerange of historic building types, including those which form parts of integrated or multi-component sites such as brick and tile works or textile factories has been produced by Historic England in the form of Listing Selection Guides which offer guidance on designation assessments.  In instances where we believe sufficient justification exists for a different evaluation of special interest – as in this instance, in respect of the dating of the kiln, the incompleteness of the site and the relative significance of the kiln type in a national context – Historic England will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State which reflects that changed evaluation.”

Councillor Kemp had requested that this item be considered by the Panel and was invited to address the Panel.

She commented that heritage was very important.  She explained that the brick kiln had been de-listed, and formed part of the Heritage Action Zone site.  She felt that the Heritage Action Zone was the perfect place to showcase this historic asset but was concerned that there was no report available on how the brick kiln could be restored.

Councillor Kemp suggested that a competition for local companies to restore the brick kiln could be held and that the asset should not be lost as heritage was important in an industrial area.

She explained that there was funding available to restore historic buildings and this building should not be lost as once it was gone it was gone and there would be no way of getting it back.

Councillor Joyce addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34.  He asked why the Civic Society had not been made aware of the decision to de-list the building and why there had been no Councillor consultation on the demolition order.  He stated that there was a live planning application on the site, and he was aware of one developer that wanted to incorporate the brick kiln as a feature on the site.

The Executive Director for Development provided the Panel with the history of the site.  He explained that in 1996 it had been reported that the building was dilapidated, over grown, crumbling and likely to collapse.  A report had been produced in 2007 by Morston Assets in support of an application for a supermarket which sought to demolish the kiln.  He explained that the report referred to a structural report which stated that there were cracks, missing bricks and the building was deteriorating.  It also stated that the roof was likely to collapse if the plant growth was removed.  The Executive Director explained that the building had been in a poor condition for a significant amount of time.

The Executive Director referred to the report from Historic England.  The report included comments from the Civic Society which proved that they had been consulted as part of the de-listing process.  The Executive Director clarified that there was not a live planning application on the site, the application had been determined over a year ago.

The THI Project Officer provided the Panel with information on the de-listing process.  He explained that, as part of the Heritage Action Zone project, listings had to be updated, therefore a review had been carried out.  This had resulted in some buildings being delisted, some being downgraded and some being added to the list.

Councillor de Whalley commented that the purpose of the Heritage Action Zone was to breathe life into new areas by combining development with heritage.  He felt that demolishing the brick kiln was counter intuitive to the project aims.

Councillor Ryves addressed the Panel under Standing Order 34.  He explained that he had been in touch with a  ...  view the full minutes text for item RD25:

The Chair informed the Panel that this would be the Chief Executives last Regeneration and Development Panel Meeting before his retirement at the end of the month and requested that thanks be recorded for his assistance and guidance to the Panel.

RESOLVED: The Panel recorded their thanks to the Chief Executive.

The meeting in September was likely to take place in Hunstanton.  The Panel would be informed of the arrangements in due course.

RESOLVED: The Panel’s Work Programme was noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Regeneration & Development Panel is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 10^th September 2019 at 6.00pm in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Saturday Market Place, King’s Lynn.

The next meeting of the Regeneration and Development Panel would be held on Tuesday 10^th September 2019 at 6.00pm.  Venue to be confirmed.