Agenda item

To receive petitions and public questions in accordance with Procedure Rule 20.

 

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.

 

1. Question from Kevin Waddington

 

The Mayor invited Kevin Waddington to ask a question as set out below:

 

“Carried forward from previous local plans onto the draft "Masterplan" are the proposals to build 50 dwellings on Hardings Way and at its north end about 350 on Boal Quay. Building these 50 houses would necessarily mean that residents cars, dustcarts, delivery vans, large house moving lorries etc. would have to traverse Hardings Way for access. This would seemingly be in contravention of the conditions on which Norfolk Couty Council received the grant from central government to surface the road, and would also have a very bad effect for both people and the wildlife that lives on Hardings Pits the  local nature reserve. This at a time when the Council is said to be supporting an application to make Hardings Pits a Village Green.

 

Boal Quay is a loop in the river that is frequently inundated with all the positive effects that has for wildlife. The approach to Lynn from the south is widely regarded as the most rural, most peaceful and attractive of any town in England. The proposal to extend the "greenway" from the north end of Hardings Way, along Boal Street and on to the South Quay will be welcomed by anyone who approaches by this route. It is however, incompatible with the proposals to build 350 dwellings on Boal Quay up to 5 stories high and therefore completely out of keeping with the nearby medieval areas of Nelson Street and the South Quay, because unless some sort of overbridge was constructed motor vehicles would have to traverse some part of the "greenway". So much better could this area be used to further enhancing the southern approach to the town.

 

The views of the population on this issue are well established. There have been a dozen well attended demonstrations against building and its accompanying motor traffic on Hardings Way, and a Petition on the issue has now over 1400 signatures.

The draft stage is always the best time to eliminate unfelicitious proposals and my question to Council is this: in the light of the recently adopted biodiversity plan and because most people oppose this aspect of the plan, will the Council take a critical look at these ill-sited building proposals with a view to removing them?”

 

Councillor Moriarty responded to the public question as set out below:

 

“Good afternoon Mr Waddington.

 

Good to see you again and thank you for your question. I think we met last on the site which is the subject of your question, along with Cllr Rust, a couple of years back.

 

There is a quite a long preamble to your question and I just want to qualify a couple of your assertions before getting to the nitty gritty.

You mentioned our latest Local Plan. The Borough Council adopted its Local Plan in March 2025. This was informed by a series of public consultations; it was ultimately found ‘sound’ by independent government appointed inspectors at examination and was agreed by this Council last year.

 

As part of Local Plan, King’s Lynn Riverfront Regeneration Area along with site policies for the Boal Quay site and the site North of Wisbech Road, which are both allocated for at least 50 new homes, sets out the criteria development proposals will be subject to. These include access arrangements subject to the satisfaction of Norfolk County Council as the Local Highway Authority and the conditions you refer to will be a matter for them. Other considerations will include nature conservation issues including biodiversity, project level habitat regulation assessment, site specific flood risk assessment, and heritage impact assessment. 

 

I should point out that It must be some ten years since government inspectors told us our local plans should include the term ‘at least’, but I do not recognise the figure you use more than of 350 dwellings on Boal Quay.

 

The masterplanning work that is now progressing and was subject to public consultation until 16 January does not yet propose a final number of units due to the stage of concept development which will need to consider a number of factors in order to reach the decision on the appropriate number of units for the site, including the type of housing need required in the town, the appropriate design to be in keeping with the adjacent conservation area and adjacent greenspaces and finally what is viable for a developer in order to build it out.

 

The masterplanning work underway for King’s Lynn is reviewing the merits of the previous scheme for Boal Quay and considering new opportunities and ideas identified through the recent consultations and latest local and national policies, including the reforms and housing targets set out in the proposed National Planning Policy framework. Locally, the masterplanning is reflecting on the vision set out in the Pride in Place Regeneration Plan approved by Cabinet and the Neighbourhood Board and the strong feedback through the extensive engagement on the Pride in Place plan (formally the Long term plan for towns and plan for neighbourhoods) through Vision King’s Lynn, and on the need to provide more green spaces and greening of the town centre.

 

Other, more site specific new opportunities being reviewed as part of the masterplanning process to maximise greening, improve biodiversity and ensure that the development blends into and enhances the important natural environment in the area.

 

Your question covers a number of portfolios and  I will hand over to Cllr De Whalley your comment that the Council is ‘said to be’ supporting the establishment of a village green, but you have asked me if we will, before considering the results of our consultation, we will remove part of its subject.

 

If we removed something you liked before considering responses, you would be enraged, so no, nothing will be prematurely removed at this stage. We are reviewing all of the consultation responses and working through testing the plans with the development of a delivery strategy. We are planning a further public consultation on the final draft of the masterplan in the spring (it was due to be May after the local elections but we may be able to bring this forward if we are not constrained by a potential pre-election period). We have an update to the Regeneration and Development panel on the masterplan consultation on 10^th February.”

 

Councillor de Whalley provided further information as set out below:

 

“The Village Green application comprises of three connecting sites and from the river to Wisbech Road they are.

 

The Beuys’ Acorns oak circle, inspired by artists Acroyd and Harvey;

Harding Pits Doorstep Green; & South Lynn Community Orchard, in conjunction with the Purfleet Pantry.

 

We were required to remove the Beuys’ Acorns site from the Local Plan before the Village Green application could be made. An agreement has been made along with an annual grant to Harding’s Pits Association to ensure their future and the care of all three sites. The said Village Green application is with Norfolk County Council for approval and as the land belongs to the Borough Council it should be a formality.

 

The Borough Council has not only donated the land but also considerable time and resources to make the oak circle and community orchard valuable assets. Village Green status ensures the future of all three sites in perpetuity.”

 

Mr Waddington did not have a supplementary question.

 

2. Question from Margaret Friend

 

The Mayor invited Margaret Friend to ask a question as set out below:

 

“Please identify which of the councils assets are being considered for sale to meet the costs of the renovations of the Guild Hall. Please can you reassure us, the people of King's Lynn that any or all of the amount will not impact on any other much needed projects that the council have already committed to. 

 

In particular the west Lynn Ferry project of safer landing stages on both sides of the river.”

 

Councillor Ring responded to the question as set out below.

 

“Thank you for the question. I would begin by noting that this question appears to have been framed around figures and assertions that have been repeatedly promoted by a lone councillor despite not being supported by any report or decision of this Council.

 

I would refer members and the public to the report and presentation made to full Council in July regarding the Guildhall project, which set out clearly the scope, costs, funding approach and associated risks.

 

Nothing has changed since that presentation. I do not recognise the claim that estimated costs have increased from £15 million to in excess of £30 million. That figure has not been presented to Council, does not appear in any public report, and is not an accurate reflection of the Council’s position. Its repetition risks misleading both members and residents.  Any rise in cost of this project since its inception more reflects the increased ambition of this administration.

 

The July report remains the relevant and accurate public record. Any future changes to costs or funding would be brought forward transparently through the Council’s approved governance and decision-making processes.

 

By way of a supplementary the questioner referred to a figure of £30 million and asked if this would come from the 2026/2027 budget.

 

Councillor Ring stated that the funding for the Guildhall was approved in July 2017 and detail of the project funding was included in the reports that went through the relevant democratic processes at the time and was not part of this years budget.

 

3. Question from Karen Champion on behalf of the West Lynn Action Group

 

The Mayor invited Karen Champion to ask a question as set out below:

 

“Please could we know what was recommended by the £150,000 Greyfriars report on the West Lynn Ferry, so that we can be assured that adequate funds are put into the budget to carry out all of the recommendations.”  

 

Thank you for your question.

 

“I was pleased to visit the ferry operation with the leader last week and talk to the ferryman who complimented the work we have done and the prospect of further improvements.

 

I cannot tell you about any recommendations with respect to Greyfriars Project Management’s feasibility study as it is yet to be finalised. The Greyfriars report will lay out all the options to members and officers, with the expectation that it will go to cabinet this summer via due process. The £150,000 budget, agreed by Council, is to bring the proposal to RIBA stage 3 of which the study is only a part.

 

Consultation has taken place with ward members, the Environment Agency, the ferry operator and the Conservancy Board to inform the study. The ward members will be updated and consulted again as soon as the report is ready.

 

Public updates continue via my reports to Council, the press, social media, and the council website.

 

We are currently constructing a budget to be brought before Council on 27th February. Any further schemes requiring funding, such as the ferry, would be brought by officers for consideration in line with the Capital Strategy.

 

The Greyfriars study is the beginning of a complex major technical project for a generational improvement of the ferry infrastructure to support safe operation of this historic service well into the future.”

 

By way of supplementary the questioner referred to three feasibility studies and asked when work would commence.

 

Councillor de Whalley stated that due process would be followed prior to action.

 

4. Question from Helen Mead

 

Helen Mead was not present at the meeting for this item.

 

5. Question from Ermine Amies

 

Ermine Amies was not present at the meeting for this item.