To receive petitions and public questions in accordance with Standing Order 9.
Minutes:
The Mayor invited public questioners to come forward under standing order 9.
1) Robert Raab:
“Why was Hardings Way Road in King’s Lynn changed from an All Types of Transport Road to a Bus and Cycle Road only?
Councillor Blunt gave the following response:
When Hardings Way was opened, Norfolk County Council traffic order (TRO) for the use of Hardings Way was for buses, cycles and emergency vehicles.
By way of supplementary Mr Raab asked why the Council wanted to change it back to pollute the area.
Councillor Blunt reiterated that it had never been changed, it was the same traffic order as originally opened with.
2) Daphne Sampson – KLimate Concern
Back at the April Council meeting George Gawlinski asked, on behalf of King’s Lynn Climate Concern, if the council would set upa local climate change partnership, a forum of people from across our community, including business, environmental organisations and councillors, to work together in seeking solutions to the ever rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. We pointed out that this partnership was one of the two main ‘asks’ of the excellent Tomorrow’s Norfolk Today’s Challenge signed by the borough council ten years ago. The answer from Councillor Devereux was that the Environment Agency was looking into something similar as part of their planning and that the council was in communication on this. We continued to press for this when we were invited to the Local Plan Task Group in August.
What progress has there been?
Councillor Devereux gave the following response:
“Thank You for your Question. Yes, back in April The Environment Agency was in the process of consulting on their draft Flooding and Coastal Erosion and Risk Management Strategy up to the year 2100. A very important document for us in West Norfolk. A key objective was “Between now and 2050 the nation will be resilient to future flood and coastal risks. Over the next year the Environment Agency will work with partners to explore and develop the concept of standards for flood and coastal resilience”. The strategy attracted a significant national response from across England and is now being consolidated with further work across DEFRA.
However, through my role with the Environment Agency I am involved in one such collaborative activity. The Stakeholder Technical review of the “Future of the Fens” with the EA partners including County Councils, Borough& District Councils, Internal Drainage Boards, Anglian Water and other technical Authorities such as Utility companies and Highway Authorities. This is a long-term activity which will take several years to define the range of available options and perhaps decades for implementation at considerable cost. This is an undertaking that must involve all stakeholders across Government, Industry, Commerce and Community from the highest levels –so partnership working will become essential for its success and our long-term survival.
Specifically on Climate Change mitigation, as you will see from my report later in the proceedings, we are working the Eastern and Great Ouse Regional Flood and Coastal Committees to understand the science, uncertainty and potential mitigation measures that might be taken on a Regional basis. I also attended the Norfolk Coastal Futures initiative with other Councils, National England, the Environment Agency and NGOs such as The RSPB , Norfolk Wildlife Trust, The Holkham Estate and the Norfolk Coast Partnership to share thoughts and experiences to inform development of potential strategies and actions.
This was followed up with the Norfolk Coast Partnership Members Forum last week where we all shared our plans and directions of travel. As a council, our Officers are developing a network of contacts and other resources that can assist in quantifying our approach and strategy including the UEA, Norfolk County Council and the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership. At the local level we have also committed to consulting with communities as our plans and policies firm up. As we see through the media, this is a rapidly evolving matter with new policies, strategies and targets appearing almost on a daily basis, so it is vital we work closely with others engaged in similar work to make the best use of the resources available to us.”
By way of supplementary Ms Sampson asked that in view of the County Council aim to be carbon neutral by 2030, in what ways was the Borough Council taking a leadership role in sharing ideas, which the KLlimate group would welcome. She invited Councillor Devereux to a tree planting event on 2 March.
In response Councillor Devereux referred to the new environmental policy adopted by the County Council. The Borough’s officer team were setting out working arrangements with the County Council to address to work together to prevent duplication. He accepted the invitation to the tree planting event.
3) Chris Rose
Residents of Upwell/Outwell & Emneth have previously had unfettered access to the household waste/recycling site in Wisbech. However, recently Cambridgeshire County Council have revised their policy and are now clearly stating that residents of Norfolk County Council are not permitted to use the site. A number of us have corresponded with both county councils and our local MP however Cambridgeshire are adamant that under current arrangements we cannot use the site. The nearest full time site for us is now in Kings Lynn, using this site adds approximately 30 miles to the round trip and between an estimated 6 - 9 kgs of CO2 for each trip.
Can the Borough Council help to find a solution to the problem of access to a nearby recycling/household waste facilities which minimises the impact on the environment?
Councillor Devereux gave the following response
“Thank you for your question, I have no doubt that many other people in the western part of our Borough are also asking the same thing: why they can no longer make full use of the Household Waste Recycling Facility at Wisbech? My simple answer to you is “I will continue to try to help!”
However, as I’m sure you know, this is not a trivial task! So, for the benefit of others some important facts:-
Cambridgeshire have up until recently allowed uncontrolled disposal of household waste to those living in the area. This has clearly been beneficial to our locals and many others who live nearer to sites provided by Cambridgeshire, rather than Norfolk. The issue however, is not just confined to people in Norfolk, it is happening all around their boundaries with other Counties. So, Cambridgeshire have been picking up the cost for the waste taken to their sites from their neighbouring County users.
Cambridgeshire County Council have decided to change matters and introduced a permit scheme and that has disadvantaged our Norfolk residents. We fully understand that access to the nearest, local service is a benefit, compared to the access to the same service provided by Norfolk County Council at King’s Lynn or Crimplesham.It is also true that this council, like yourself, has no influence on the decisions made by Cambridgeshire. The decision that they have made is lawful and one which is not unique across the country.
The matter was raised during my last meeting with Norfolk Waste Partnership, when County Officers said that they did not favour the Cambridgeshire approach and had suggested instead either reciprocal arrangements, or, evidenced recharge of costs, but without success. I understand that the matter had been escalated through channels to central Government, who acknowledge that whilst there is a duty to cooperate, the decision ultimately lies with Cambridgeshire.
I suspect that in the short-term, the provision of a new Recycling facility on the Norfolk side is likely to be economically and environmentally ‘unaffordable’ to NCC. It could happen perhaps as part of a potential plant rationalisation consideration over the long-term.
So, for now, I intend to use the recent adoption of the new Norfolk County Council Environment Policy to provide further leverage through the NWP to seek a new cooperative arrangement to mitigate the increased carbon footprint consequent on the Cambridgeshire decision for the mutual benefit of all our communities.”
By way of supplementary Mr Rose welcomed partnership working and suggested that the local residents be involved in looking for solutions.
Councillor Devereux explained that the relationship was to be addressed through the Waste Board which he would raise it through, but as a county function it would be for them to decide if they would accept direct petitions.
4) Andrew Nixon on behalf of the Eastern Counties section of the Showmen's Guild.
Members of
the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk.
While it was agreed that in regards to the right to
hold a fair after the tragic accident in 2012 it was established
that the Showmen's Guild would work with the elected Task Group to
review all aspects of the future operations and arrangements to
enable the Mart to take place, and that a fair, just and
proportionate agreement be made to the mixture of measures to
ensure the Mart would be sustainable for the future. We have been
trying to draw your attention over the last eight months to the
fact that the current terms of this agreement has included a number
of human oversights and procedural anomalies that we would like
recognised and corrected. This primarily being the fact that 2020,
being a leap year, causes the agreed three weekends to fall
correctly within the agreed terms just mentioned; in lieu of our
agreement to forgo the Monday and Tuesday.
We feel all our attempts over these last eight months to draw your attention and illicit a timely response to these oversights and anomalies have been ignored. It is our belief that in you being a public authority whose primary duty is to be fair, equal and non discriminatory are denying us a fair, just and proportionate claim to our rights to pursue both our cultural rights set out in this agreement and diminishing the right to pursue our cultural way of life for such an important and significant fair within our community. Therefore our question is, for what reasons are you refusing to recognise and correct this human oversight contained within this agreement?
Councillor Nockolds gave the following response:
“Good evening Mr Nixon,
thank you for your question.
I have always supported the
Showmans Guild and have attended the
Mart since 1960.
You rightly claim that ourselves and the Showmans Guild attended several Task Group meetings together with local businesses and residents including the local bus company.
The recommendations of the Task Group were supported by our Review Panel. On 11th June 2014 the recommendation from Cabinet to the Council was to accept the rolling 6 year agreement between the Showman’s Guild and the Borough Council. This was agreed and we have both been working within that programme.
At a meeting between the Showman's Guild and ourselves, in November 2017 to discuss contractual agreements for 2018, your solicitor confirmed that the Showman's Guild wished to secure a 5year rolling agreement, once the Safeguarding Policy, Event Management plan and the provision of a pedestrian Crossing Point issues were addressed.
Finally it was agreed that the number of operational days for the period of 2018 to 2022 be included in the rolling 5 year agreement, which is on the same basis as the 2014 agreement which went through Full Council.
This evening you state that you feel we have ignored you during the last 8 months. As I understand it we have been corresponding with you, via letters, one of which took you no less than 8 weeks to reply to.
Unfortunately you held a meeting in Yaxley in late July which we could not attend.
A letter of explanation was given, with the reasons that we were evaluating the implications of your request due to your oversight.
A meeting was held with yourselves on 10th September 2019, at which 2 ongoing projects were explained following the contractual closure.
An overview of the proposed works to the Corn Exchange during and after the Mart which potentially included a road closure.
As stated in our letter to the solicitor dated 30th October 2019, we are unable to vary from the contract for the 2020 Mart. We have reviewed the notes of our meeting with the Guild Solicitor during the drafting of the contract and they show that the dates were scrutinized as part of the meeting before the Agreement was signed.
It is unfortunate that this anomaly was not recognized at the time.
We have worked in good faith in planning other projects.
As you have been informed we have 2 projects on-going which currently rely upon the availability of the TMP in the week immediately following the closure date of the Mart 2020.
This significant project is the substantial works to the Corn Exchange where it is envisaged that part of the new roof structure will be built in the TMP prior to being craned into place.
We want to work with you and offer assistance.
In our letter to you dated 30th October we have asked what your specific situation is regarding what appears to be a spare week within the Showman's Guild calendar.
We are offering an alternative location in the Borough as well as giving you the choice of arriving earlier than the contract date you have signed, we have yet to receive a reply from you.
By way of supplementary, Mr Nixon asked that the issue was as a result of the leap year and the agreement there was a shortfall of 6 days not covered by the current agreement which had allowed the Borough schedule works at the Corn Exchange. He asked if there was no change to the agreement who would shoulder the loss f earning. He that the Borough had known about the issue in February 2019, and the decision on the Corn Exchange was not made until June 2019.
Councillor Mrs Nockolds responded that the tenders for the Corn Exchange work were already out at that time. She reminded them to contact the Borough regarding the offer made and if there were any problems with this.