Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lintern and Ring.

RESOLVED: The minutes from the previous meeting were agreed by the Committee.

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.

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

There was none.

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chair of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before the meeting commences. 

There was none.

1)      First resident consultation response analysis

2)      Decision on whether to proceed to the second

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube.

The Interim Corporate Governance Manager and Corporate Governance Graduate gave a presentation on the King’s Lynn Governance review. A copy of the presentation is attached.

The Corporate Governance Graduate explained that the consultation ran from early February to late March, exceeding the standard duration to maximise responses. Residents could participate via online or paper surveys, email, or letter. A total of 906 individual submissions were received, with nine joint responses, resulting in 915 respondents. This exceeded the 1–2% response rate goal, making it one of the largest responses to a council consultation. The majority of responses favouring a Parish Council came from within the unparished area.

The leading reason for supporting a Parish Council was the desire for increased local voice and representation, with residents expressing concerns about being overlooked by larger authorities and wanting decisions made by those familiar with King's Lynn. Historic bias in funding and decision-making was also cited. Of the 97 respondents opposed to a Parish Council, the main concern was the potential increase in council tax and the lack of a cap on the precept. Additional opposition stemmed from worries about increased bureaucracy and doubts about value for money, especially during the cost of living crisis.

Councillor Long questioned the difference in precept compared to the current special expenses. In addition, he commented on the history of both King’s Lynn and Gaywood and question if a Parish Council had been considered for Gaywood and a Town Council for King’s Lynn.

The Corporate Governance Graduate explained the initial consultation included information about the Parish precept, indicating a difference of just under £10 for Band D properties. The interim Corporate Governance Manager provided a further explanation that more detailed financial modelling will be conducted for the second consultation to provide clarity on the precept and its impact.

The Corporate Governance Graduate  explained following the consultation, a small number of respondents suggested alternatives such as separate Parish Councils for areas like Gaywood or West Lynn, or the use of ward forums and community associations. However, these alternatives were not widely supported and are unlikely to be pursued further.

In response to Councillor Long, the interim Corporate Governance Manager explained the consultation ran prior to the decision being made on Local Government Reorganisation.

Councillor Kemp, raised questions about the financial implications of a new Parish Council, with the interim Corporate Governance Manager referred Members to page 83 of the agenda and confirmed that detailed financial modelling and precept information would be included in the second consultation and that special expenses and asset transfers will be clarified.

Councillor Kemp questioned whether 25 Councillors for the new Parish Council number was sufficient for effective representation given the population size. The interim Corporate Governance Manager explained the suggestion of  25 Councillor was based on external consultant input and Boundary Commission principles. Ward boundaries and the allocation of councillors per ward are included in the draft recommendations, with some discrepancies noted between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Committee’s Work Programme was noted.

To be confirmed.

To be scheduled as required.