i) To consider the following Notice of Motion (14/23), submitted by Councillor Rust
“This council notes the dire situation with NHS dentistry in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. While the provision of dental services sits with the ICB and isn’t one that our Borough Council can control, we can seek to influence and shape the delivery of improved services and improved access to NHS dentists for our local community.
We know that a lack of access to NHS dentists impacts on other services such as more calls to NHS 111 and increased visits to Emergency Departments and general practice.
Norfolk and Waveney have the highest prevalence of dental decay in five-year olds in the region with King’s Lynn and West Norfolk having the second highest prevalence of dental decay in 5-year olds in Norfolk and Waveney.
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk also had the highest prevalence of 5-year olds with the dental decay affecting incisor teeth in 2022 in the Norfolk and Waveney ICS at 9.6% - higher than the national and regional prevalence.
The number of dentists in our area has declined at a greater rate when compared to the whole of the East and England. Yet our area has greater levels of need, more areas of deprivation and a higher number of older residents.
Our Council commits to taking action that will positively improve the local situation regarding NHS dentistry provision and actions will include:
Supporting the provision of Oral Surgery in King’s Lynn, which is currently being provided in Wisbech, by locating a suitable council owned property for use.
Explore and support any funding initiatives in the Borough to provide premises for NHS dental services to operate from.
Write to the Department for Health and Social Care to establish a dental training school in Norfolk, mirroring the success of the School of Nursing based at The College of West Anglia.
Lobby for reform to the National dental contract to help reduce the number of NHS dentists giving up their contracts to deliver private contracts only.
Work with Norfolk County Council to establish preventative services such as school dentists.
ii) To consider the following Notice of Motion (15/23), submitted by Councillor Dark
This council recognises the very real threat posed by coastal erosion and sea intrusion to human life and our historic coastal communities, vital tourist industry, important farming industry and wildlife.
We applaud the recent decision taken at the County Council that as a county Norfolk will now press the Environment Agency, government and local MPs strongly to find and invest sufficient funding to cater for the current level of threat posed and to enhance provision for future years so that coastal defences are up to the task.
In support of this we now instruct this administration to write to the Environment Agency and relevant Ministers as a matter of urgency, with follow up engagement, to the effect that West Norfolk unequivocally stands alongside Norfolk County Council on this matter on behalf of its residents and that ‘managed retreat’ from existing coastal protections, allowing any loss of land to the sea or elements is not an acceptable short, medium or longer-term strategy or tactic.
iii) To consider the following Notice of Motion (16/23), submitted by Councillor Joyce
"This Council believes violence against women and girls is a problem for men and boys to fix, not a problem for women and girls to tolerate.
Therefore, this Council seeks to align itself with the values of the white ribbon campaign by becoming an accredited white ribbon organisation and commits to never use, excuse or remain silent about men's violence against women."
iv) To consider the following Notice of Motion (17/23), submitted by Councillor Dark
'This council recognises the significant work undertaken by the volunteers of the Towns Board, officers and partners to date to secure multi-million pounds of external investment into Kings Lyn and to bring the associated transformational projects towards completion.
It instructs the new administration to get fully and unequivocally behind the Towns Board in its work at this crucial stage and in particular to do all it can to support the Internationally significant Guildhall project, by not withdrawing the £3m underwriting guarantee that full council had previously given to this project and allowing officers to continue actively supporting the Charitable Incorporated Organisation and Towns Board to achieve the funding necessary to complete it.
In furtherance of this securing the Guildhall project objective, this council now instructs officers to promptly explore creating a ‘go fund me’ type fundraising platform with the Towns Board, previously intended, to generate public and business donations off of the back of the recent significant media interest in this project and our area’s historic principal Town.
Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
i) Councillor Rust proposed the following Notice of Motion (14/23), seconded by Councillor Kemp.
“This council notes the dire situation with NHS dentistry in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. While the provision of dental services sits with the ICB and isn’t one that our Borough Council can control, we can seek to influence and shape the delivery of improved services and improved access to NHS dentists for our local community.
We know that a lack of access to NHS dentists impacts on other services such as more calls to NHS 111 and increased visits to Emergency Departments and general practice.
Norfolk and Waveney have the highest prevalence of dental decay in five-year olds in the region with King’s Lynn and West Norfolk having the second highest prevalence of dental decay in 5-year olds in Norfolk and Waveney.
King’s Lynn and West Norfolk also had the highest prevalence of 5-year olds with the dental decay affecting incisor teeth in 2022 in the Norfolk and Waveney ICS at 9.6% - higher than the national and regional prevalence.
The number of dentists in our area has declined at a greater rate when compared to the whole of the East and England. Yet our area has greater levels of need, more areas of deprivation and a higher number of older residents.
Our Council commits to taking action that will positively improve the local situation regarding NHS dentistry provision and actions will include:
Supporting the provision of Oral Surgery in King’s Lynn, which is currently being provided in Wisbech, by locating a suitable council owned property for use.
Explore and support any funding initiatives in the Borough to provide premises for NHS dental services to operate from.
Write to the Department for Health and Social Care to establish a dental training school in Norfolk, mirroring the success of the School of Nursing based at The College of West Anglia.
Lobby for reform to the National dental contract to help reduce the number of NHS dentists giving up their contracts to deliver private contracts only.
Work with Norfolk County Council to establish preventative services such as school dentists.”
In proposing the Motion, Councillor Rust explained that due to the urgency of the matter she had brought it to the Council as a motion rather than submitting it through the Panels process. She drew attention to the problems with dental provision in the Borough.
Councillor Kemp seconded the Motion and spoke on the issues being faced by families who couldn’t access a dental service and often struggled to afford toothbrushes and toothpaste. She referred to the lobbying she had carried out on their behalf and the use of some of her grant to provide toothbrushes and toothpaste in schools in her ward.
Councillor Joyce spoke on the potential for the item to be referred to the Environment and Community Panel. He confirmed the urgency of the motion and that it needed to be decided upon at the meeting, but also suggested that the Panel have the subject on its agenda in the near future.
Councillor Colwell commented on the fact that West Norfolk dentistry was in decay. He drew attention to the level of tooth decay admissions of children to hospital. He drew attention to the parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee consideration of the high level of enquiries relating to dentistry. He suggested that an emergency scheme be launched for free appointments be provided for the children and pregnant women and young mothers, and the removal of VAT from children’s toothpaste and brushes.
Councillor Beales proposed a minor amendment to include “on commercial terms” at the end of the 7th paragraph of the motion. Councillor de Whalley seconded the amendment, which was accepted by Councillors Rust and Kemp.
Councillor Dark confirmed the dental crisis in the Borough. He explained that it was his expectation that the Motion would be referred to a Panel, but he understood the urgency o the situation. He confirmed it was a big challenge which the council needed to understand what was being done to improve the situation. It needed to be submitted to the Environment and Community Panel at a later date in order to properly engage with the correct people to make a difference.
Councillor Jones supported the motion.
Councillor Kemp, by way of personal explanation reported that preparation work had been carried out with the ICP.
Councillor Devulapalli expressed support for the motion and expressed the plea to twin hatter County Councillors to raise it at the County Council. She undertook to raise the issue with the Norfolk Health Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor Long agreed with the urgency of the matter and asked why the portfolio holder hadn’t progressed the issue within her portfolio work. He supported its referral to the Environment and Community Panel and asked for it to look at some of the practicalities within the motion.
Councillor Ryves expressed concern that the amendment would mean any property would have to be at commercial rates when it could involve the Council assisting with the provision of premises.
Councillor Moriarty commented that Councillor Rust had been carrying out the work before bringing the Motion to Council.
In summing up Councillor Rust had been working on it behind the scenes, she had brought the motion to get access to Council support and resources.
The amended motion was put to the vote.
RESOLVED: That the Motion as amended at the end of the seventh paragraph with “on commercial terms”, be agreed.
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
ii) Councillor Dark proposed Notice of Motion (15/23), seconded by Councillor Joyce.
“This council recognises the very real threat posed by coastal erosion and sea intrusion to human life and our historic coastal communities, vital tourist industry, important farming industry and wildlife.
We applaud the recent decision taken at the County Council that as a county Norfolk will now press the Environment Agency, government and local MPs strongly to find and invest sufficient funding to cater for the current level of threat posed and to enhance provision for future years so that coastal defences are up to the task.
In support of this we now instruct this administration to write to the Environment Agency and relevant Ministers as a matter of urgency, with follow up engagement, to the effect that West Norfolk unequivocally stands alongside Norfolk County Council on this matter on behalf of its residents and that ‘managed retreat’ from existing coastal protections, allowing any loss of land to the sea or elements is not an acceptable short, medium or longer-term strategy or tactic.”
In proposing the Motion he referred to a briefing from the Environment Agency where they reported that they were reviewing their commitment to sea defences along the coast including not carrying out the beach recharge which they had previously highlighted the risk of flooding.
He drew attention to NCC stance objecting to the stance of the Environment Agency’s managed retreat of the flood defences and encouraged the Council to support their action.
In seconding the Motion Councillor Joyce reminded members that the Conservative Government had slashed the Environment Agency budgets he spoke in supporting the motion and the fact that the recharges should be carried out. He drew attention to the Shoreline Management Plan urged council not to turn the back on the area.
Councillor Sandell proposed the following amendment to the third paragraph of the Motion, this was seconded by Councillor Jamieson:
“Council on this matter on behalf of its residents and that ‘managed retreat’ from existing coastal protections, allowing any(NB) increased risk to life or property, or loss of land to the sea or elements is not adesirable short, medium or longer-term strategy or tactic and the matter of potential changes to shoreline management should now be referred to E&C'.”
Councillor Dark and Joyce accepted the amendment, which then became the substantive motion. Councillor Joyce asked if the Leader would write the letters and ensure councillors saw the letters before they were sent out.
Under standing order 14.6 Councillor Parish proposed the matter be referred to the Environment and Community Panel. This was seconded by Councillor Moriarty. Councillor Parish confirmed he was prepared to write the letters which he was happy for councillors Dark and Joyce to co-sign. He explained that as it was a complex matter it required more detail and support before taking a decision on the matter.
Councillor Long explained that he was not supportive of the proposal to refer to the Panel as the Council hadn’t seen the proposals for the changes to the Shoreline Management Plan. He referred to his previous involvement in the Plan. He explained that the Councils would be asked to accept proposed revisions to the Plan in January. He considered the work would have to be re-done at that stage. He had attended a meeting on the issue that day, and expressed that it was vital to get things right procedurally. He waited to see the amended Shoreline Management Plan, and did not want to see it disappear.
Councillor Dark commented that the Motion had been submitted following a comment from the Leader and concern from parishes. He wanted to be able to support parishes. He wanted the chamber to say that it was going there and the Council would be engaging the Environment Agency.
Councillor Rust referred to the point raised by Councillor Long and that it should not be rushed and should therefore go to the Panel for full consideration, dependent on the Environment Agency report.
Councillor de Whalley drew attention to the underlying cause of sea level rise, and the need for an informed debate on flood defences when the documentation was available.
Councillor Beales commented that the issues were of importance, but the Notice of Motion was not the right way to go. Councillor Long and Dark cautioned against haste, therefore the referral to the Panel was a clear action, for a matter that was a complex area of policy for the council. He considered it was right to refer it to the Panel and hoped Councillor Long would bring his knowledge of the matter to that forum.
Councillor Squire referred to the fact that the proposer and seconder had not discussed it with her as portfolio holder when she had offered to do a briefing for all councillors at earlier meetings. She also re-iterated that the Council was talking to the Environment Agency and other agencies about the coastline regularly, she considered it should go to the Environment and Community Panel for consideration, but that the Council was not a decision maker.
Councillor Dark as a point of clarification stated he did not insinuate the portfolio holder or officers were not working but it related to the statement from the Leader.
Councillor Squire confirmed she had spoken to Councillor Long and Kunes on the matter.
Councillor Kemp commented that the Leader should write to the Environment Agency as in a high level flood would affect a large number of properties.
Councillor Colwell supported the referral to the Panel. He considered Councillor Dark was whipping up unnecessary fear in the villages.
In summing up Councillor Parish confirmed he had replied to parishes to confirm he would write to the agency, but reminded members that this was about facts he had reported from the Environment Agency. He suggested that future work of the Local Plan Task Group could involve looking at potential land for the future use if the sea levels rose considerably.
The proposal to refer the amended motion to the Environment and Community Panel put to the vote.
RESOLVED: That the amended motion below be referred to the Environment and Community Panel:
“This council recognises the very real threat posed by coastal erosion and sea intrusion to human life and our historic coastal communities, vital tourist industry, important farming industry and wildlife.
We applaud the recent decision taken at the County Council that as a county Norfolk will now press the Environment Agency, government and local MPs strongly to find and invest sufficient funding to cater for the current level of threat posed and to enhance provision for future years so that coastal defences are up to the task.
Council on this matter on behalf of its residents and that ‘managed retreat’ from existing coastal protections, allowing any(NB) increased risk to life or property, or loss of land to the sea or elements is not a desirable short, medium or longer-term strategy or tactic and the matter of potential changes to shoreline management should now be referred to E&C'.”
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
iii) Councillor Joyce informed the Council that he was withdrawing the Motion (16/23) for this meeting but Councillor Ware would be bringing an amended Motion to the next meeting. Council agreed to its withdrawal.
"This Council believes violence against women and girls is a problem for men and boys to fix, not a problem for women and girls to tolerate.
Therefore, this Council seeks to align itself with the values of the white ribbon campaign by becoming an accredited white ribbon organisation and commits to never use, excuse or remain silent about men's violence against women."
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
iv) Councillor Dark proposed the following Notice of Motion (17/23), seconded by Councillor Jamieson:
“This council recognises the significant work undertaken by the volunteers of the Towns Board, officers and partners to date to secure multi-million pounds of external investment into King’s Lynn and to bring the associated transformational projects towards completion.
It instructs the new administration to get fully and unequivocally behind the Towns Board in its work at this crucial stage and in particular to do all it can to support the Internationally significant Guildhall project, by not withdrawing the £3m underwriting guarantee that full council had previously given to this project and allowing officers to continue actively supporting the Charitable Incorporated Organisation and Towns Board to achieve the funding necessary to complete it.
In furtherance of this securing the Guildhall project objective, this council now instructs officers to promptly explore creating a ‘go fund me’ type fundraising platform with the Towns Board, previously intended, to generate public and business donations off of the back of the recent significant media interest in this project and our area’s historic principal Town.”
In proposing the Motion Councillor Dark drew attention to comments made by the Leader which led to him submit the motion, he sought to get officers to continue doing all they could to assist with the work of the Town Board and projects in the town.
Councillor Osborne proposed an amendment to delete: .
“by not withdrawing the £3m underwriting guarantee that full council had previously given to this project and”
And adding to the second paragraph after promptly explore .. “all possible fundraising opportunities including…”
Councillor Jones seconded the amendments. Councillors Dark and Jamieson accepted the amendments. This then became the substantive motion.
Councillor Parish spoke on the amendment expressing his hope to get quality professional performers at the Guildhall, as well as allowing its use by amateur groups, whilst at the same time having to take account of the overall financial needs of the council. He hoped finances would be forthcoming from outside the council.
Councillor Ring not support the motion because of the language used within it. He supported the work of the Town Board and happy to see changes that recognise the delivery phase. He drew attention to the history of the building whilst in the council’s tenancy. He drew attention to and recognised the work of the volunteers such as the Shakespeare Guildhall Trust, which he considered were not recognised in the motion. He drew attention to the fact that a lot more money would be required for the building. He also commented that the dedicated officers who were working on the projects were working hard on the project and did not need instruction but support.
Councillor Morley drew attention to the fact that works had not been undertaken on the Guildhall and the complex over the years. He indicated he would support the motion but had reservations about the proposed funding, when serious funding was required. The CIO was now beginning its work and fundraising was part of their role. He reminded members that there was no underwriting agreement for the shortfall, but there was unsupported borrowing in the accounts, but the original costs associated with the project were totally different now.
Councillor Moriarty reminded members no one was authorised to speak on behalf of the Town Deal Board but he felt that with the new make up of the Board he was disappointed the motion was in the papers today. He said he would abstain from the vote.
Councillor Kemp said she would not support the Motion but considered the MUCH building should be scrapped and its funding put into the Guildhall.
Councillor Beales recommended that the politics be taken out of the Guildhall situation. He requested support from the conservatives on the Town Deal Board, and taking account of those points would support the amended motion.
Councillor Colwell considered that the National Trust should fund the works required.
Councillor Bullen drew attention to the recognition the floor was receiving internationally. He hoped they could be held in the area and not lost nationally like other treasures from the area.
Councillor Dark in summing up explained that the word instruction was designed to give clarity. He did not consider it was political but would help the CIO and officers and help get the finances.
A debate ensued on whether those who had left the room were able to vote. The Monitoring Officer agreed to take it up with group leaders after the meeting. Those who had left the room should abstain.
On being put to the vote the motion as amended was carried.
RESOLVED: That the following Motion be approved:
“This council recognises the significant work undertaken by the volunteers of the Towns Board, officers and partners to date to secure multi-million pounds of external investment into King’s Lynn and to bring the associated transformational projects towards completion.
It instructs the new administration to get fully and unequivocally behind the Towns Board in its work at this crucial stage and in particular to do all it can to support the Internationally significant Guildhall project, and allowing officers to continue actively supporting the Charitable Incorporated Organisation and Towns Board to achieve the funding necessary to complete it.
In furtherance of this securing the Guildhall project objective, this council now instructs officers to promptly explore all possible fundraising opportunities including creating a ‘go fund me’ type fundraising platform with the Towns Board, previously intended, to generate public and business donations off of the back of the recent significant media interest in this project and our area’s historic principal Town.”
At 7.30pm Council adjourned and reconvened at 7.41pm.