To consider the following Notice of Motions:
(1/26 ) - Submitted by Councillor Blunt
“This Council strongly believes that Norfolk County Council Elections in May 2026 must go ahead”.
(2/26) – Submitted by Councillor Moore
Motion: Review of Consultant Expenditure Relating to the Lynnsport Proposal
This Council notes the work undertaken in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Alive Leisure Lynnsport facility, including plans to relocate the St James Pool as part of a scheme reported to be in the region of £49 million.
This Council further notes that approximately £2 million of public funds were incurred through the use of external consultants in developing this proposal, and that the scheme was later deemed unaffordable by the Section 151 Officer.
This Council is concerned that significant expenditure was incurred before affordability concerns resulted in the project being halted. This raises questions regarding financial oversight, governance, and value for money in the development of major capital projects.
Given the importance of protecting public funds and maintaining public confidence in the Council’s financial management, this matter warrants further scrutiny.
This Council resolves to:
1. Request that the Corporate Performance Panel reviews the decision making and governance processes relating to the use of external consultants in the development of the Lynnsport and St James Pool proposal.
2. Request that the Corporate Performance Panel considers whether appropriate affordability checks and financial controls were applied at an early stage.
3. Require that the findings and any recommendations are reported back to Full Council.
(3/26) – Submitted by Councillor Kemp
Motion to Stop Incinerator on West Norfolk Border
“This Council has a proud tradition of standing up again the South Lynn Incinerator - and held the public poll, in which 65,000 residents voted No. These residents have not gone away. Even after Planning Permission, Government stopped the incinerator. Residents, including Clenchwarton and West Lynn, dread the prospect of being downwind of two 90 metre high Incinerator Stacks, close to the West Norfolk border in Wisbech, one of the biggest incinerators in Europe. This Council is one of 4 " host" authorities for the Wisbech Incinerator, and instructs the leader to write to Government to halt the project.”
(4/26) Submitted by Councillor Kemp
Motion - No to Council Sale of the Freehold of Hardwick Bridge Residential Park Homes for Over 55's
This Council has put the freehold of Hardwick Bridge Residential Park Homes on a list for sale on the open market, without consulting residents, or local councillors, or advising residents of the risks.
Hardwick Bridge Mobile Park Homes in South Lynn are the forever homes of retired residents. All residents must be over 55. The Government Leasehold Advisory Service has advised, the sell-off would diminish homeowners' security of tenure. Therefore this Council resolves not to sell, or otherwise dispose of, the freehold of the Hardwick Bridge Residential Homes Estate.
Minutes:
Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.
(1/26 ) - Submitted by Councillor Blunt
Councillor Blunt presented his Notice of Motion as set out below. By way of an update Councillor Blunt commented that although a decision had been made to postpone the Elections, it was still important that residents were aware that it was not a decision of this council.
“This Council strongly believes that Norfolk County Council Elections in May 2026 must go ahead”.
Councillor Sandell seconded the Motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Osborne spoke in support of the Motion stating that in certain cases it made sense to postpone an election, but it did not make sense in these circumstances. He made reference to the Leader of Norfolk County Council’s submission to Government and that in his view it did not answer the question.
Councillor Bone stated that he supported the Motion.
Councillor Beales spoke in support of the Motion and referred to the importance of democracy. He stated that it was important to maintain a good working relationship with Norfolk County Council at all levels, but this was proving difficult with the Norfolk County Council Leader’s approach to this issue in that they had not sought involvement from any other Councillors. Councillor Beales referred to the decision made by other County Councils and how they had met formally to debate the issue. He was also concerned that Norfolk County Council had stated that this was not a Key Decision.
Councillor Kirk stated that the Reform Group supported the Motion and reminded Councillors that he had resigned from Norfolk County Council because of this last year. He stated that this delay was not democratic.
Councillor Long commented that the Leader of Norfolk County Council was required to respond to the submission and had responded on the basis of capacity. He also made reference to the delay in the Mayoral Combined Authority Elections which had been decided by Government, even though Norfolk and Suffolk were in a position to deliver them. Councillor Long commented that the decision on postponement of election would have been better made after the outcome of Local Government Reorganisation, which would be known in March.
As a point of clarification, Councillor Beales stated that the districts managed Norfolk County Council elections on their behalf and to his knowledge Norfolk County Council did not ask this Council, nor Breckland District Council, nor North Norfolk District Council about their capacity to hold local elections.
Councillor Sayers spoke in support of the Motion, referred to other authorities that had made the case that they did have capacity and was disappointed that there had been no respect for democracy. He called upon the Leader of Norfolk County Council to resign.
Councillor Kemp stated that elections should be held and the Government should have made a decision after the outcome of Local Government Reorganisation was known in March.
Councillor Devulapalli asked if any more of the twin-hatters would stand down to force an election.
Councillor Storey stated that his priority was to his residents and he would continue to ask what they wanted and do the best for them.
Councillor Moriarty thanked Councillor Blunt for bringing this Motion forward. He supported the Motion. He asked Councillors to be mindful of the impact arranging elections had on officers when called at short notice.
Councillor Nash commented that Councillors had the powers to force an election by resigning and commended Councillor Ring for doing so. He asked Councillors to join him in a round of applause for those that had resigned.
Councillor Coates asked about the cost of by-elections.
Councillor Ring stated that it was not just the Leader of Norfolk County Council’s responsibility to respond to Government and that it should have be addressed by the Council.
Councillor Long commented that it was the responsibility of the Leader to provide a technical response which was given by officers.
Councillor Ring supported the Motion and referred to the importance of Local Government and democratic legitimacy. He stated that the decision to postpone elections muted the voice of the people and provided information on why he had stood down from his County position. He encouraged all Councillors to support this Motion.
Councillor Parish proposed that Council move to the vote.
Councillor Sandell as seconder of the Motion commented that it was important residents voices needed to be heard and supported the Motion.
RESOLVED: The Council supported the Motion that “This Council strongly believes that Norfolk County Council Elections in May 2026 must go ahead”
(2/26) – Submitted by Councillor Moore
Motion: Review of Consultant Expenditure Relating to the Lynnsport Proposal
Councillor Moore presented the Notice of Motion as set out below
“This Council notes the work undertaken in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Alive Leisure Lynnsport facility, including plans to relocate the St James Pool as part of a scheme reported to be in the region of £49 million.
This Council further notes that approximately £2 million of public funds were incurred through the use of external consultants in developing this proposal, and that the scheme was later deemed unaffordable by the Section 151 Officer.
This Council is concerned that significant expenditure was incurred before affordability concerns resulted in the project being halted. This raises questions regarding financial oversight, governance, and value for money in the development of major capital projects.
Given the importance of protecting public funds and maintaining public confidence in the Council’s financial management, this matter warrants further scrutiny.
This Council resolves to:
1. Request that the Corporate Performance Panel reviews the decision making and governance processes relating to the use of external consultants in the development of the Lynnsport and St James Pool proposal.
2. Request that the Corporate Performance Panel considers whether appropriate affordability checks and financial controls were applied at an early stage.
3. Require that the findings and any recommendations are reported back to Full Council.”
Councillor Ryves seconded the Motion and reserved the right to speak.
Council were reminded that prior to the debate on any Notice of Motion, the Leader had the right to propose that the Motion be referred to a relevant Council Body for consideration.
Councillor Beales thanked Councillor Moore for the Notice of Motion and proposed it be submitted to the Corporate Performance Panel for consideration under Council Procedure Rule 7.1.22.
Councillor Moore accepted the proposal to refer the matter to the Corporate Performance Panel.
Councillor Jones seconded the proposal from the Leader to submit the item to the Corporate Performance Panel for consideration.
RESOLVED: That the Notice of Motion be passed onto the Corporate Performance Panel for consideration.
(3/26) – Submitted by Councillor Kemp
Motion to Stop Incinerator on West Norfolk Border
Councillor Kemp presented the Notice of Motion as set out below:
“This Council has a proud tradition of standing up again the South Lynn Incinerator - and held the public poll, in which 65,000 residents voted No. These residents have not gone away. Even after Planning Permission, Government stopped the incinerator. Residents, including Clenchwarton and West Lynn, dread the prospect of being downwind of two 90 metre high Incinerator Stacks, close to the West Norfolk border in Wisbech, one of the biggest incinerators in Europe. This Council is one of 4 " host" authorities for the Wisbech Incinerator, and instructs the leader to write to Government to halt the project.”
Councillor Rose seconded the Motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Beales proposed that the Motion be debated at this meeting.
Councillor Kunes, seconded by Councillor Long proposed that Council move straight to the Vote.
Council voted on if this Notice of Motion should go straight to the vote. This vote was lost and Council continued with the debate.
Councillor Beales stated that the Council had opposed the incinerator and highlighted the campaign work that he himself had been intrinsically involved in and the work of Councillor de Whalley and other Members of KLWIN (King’s Lynn Without Incineration) such as Mike Knights, Richard Burton and Martin Little. He also highlighted the key roles played by the then Council Leader, Councillor Nick Daubney, former Chief Executive Ray Harding and former Councillor Lord Howard who had lobbied hard using Westminster contacts. Unfortunately the permission for this incinerator had already been granted by Government and Councillor Beales felt that it was too late for a letter to Government to made a difference. Councillor Beales stated that the Council were fully engaged with supporting Fenland District Council and highlighted that the Motion put forward made no reference to Fenland District Council. Councillor Beales stated that he did not support this Motion, but he would be prepared to write to the Leader of Fenland District Council to see if he could help.
Councillor Sayers supported the Motion because of the impact it would have on residents, the economy and tourism, but felt that this was a case of election campaigning.
Councillor Bone proposed an amendment to the Motion so that the last sentence read:
“This Council is one of four hosts, with the primary host being Fenland Council. We would like the Leader to engage and support the impacted Council to pose opposition to the Government in writing of the incinerator”.
Councillor Kemp accepted the amendment to the Notice of Motion.
Council debated the Notice of Motion, as amended.
Councillor Squire commented that unfortunately the moment had passed on this and instead Councillor Kemp may like to investigate ways to promote recycling. Councillor Squire highlighted the work of the Council in educating and encouraging residents to use food waste caddies and recycle. Councillor Squire invited Councillor Kemp to accompany her on the roadshows.
Councillor Devulapalli supported the Motion and felt it was important for the Council to make a stand.
Councillor de Whalley referred to the campaign efforts to oppose the incinerator. He explained that the Council could take action in the future if the incinerator breached levels whilst operating.
Councillor Parish commented that this had been considered by Council on three previous occasions and highlighted air pollution and recycling levels.
Councillor Ring stated that this Motion was electioneering and could not support it.
Councillor Rose as seconder spoke in support of being seen to do something to stop the incinerator.
Councillor Kemp in summing up stated that many of her residents were concerned and she would be happy to accompany Councillor Squire at a Recycling Roadshow. Councillor Kemp stated she had been writing to the Government herself on this issue. Councillor Kemp requested a recorded vote on this matter. This was not supported by the required amount of Members.
Councillor Moriarty asked for clarification on the Motion and it was explained that Council were voting on the Notice of Motion, as amended which required the Leader to engage with Fenland District Council.
Councillor Beales commented that he would be prepared to write to the Leader of Fenland District Council, but did not support writing to Government.
RESOLVED: Council approved the Notice of Motion, as amended:
“This Council has a proud tradition of standing up again the South Lynn Incinerator - and held the public poll, in which 65,000 residents voted No. These residents have not gone away. Even after Planning Permission, Government stopped the incinerator. Residents, including Clenchwarton and West Lynn, dread the prospect of being downwind of two 90 metre high Incinerator Stacks, close to the West Norfolk border in Wisbech, one of the biggest incinerators in Europe.
This Council is one of four hosts, with the primary host being Fenland Council. We would like the Leader to engage and support the impacted Council to pose opposition to the Government in writing of the incinerator”.
(4/26) Submitted by Councillor Kemp
Motion - No to Council Sale of the Freehold of Hardwick Bridge Residential Park Homes for Over 55's
The Mayor explained that the time limit for considering Notices of Motions had been reached and this Notice of Motion would roll over to the next ordinary meeting of Council.
COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR A COMFORT BREAK FROM 6.55pm to 7.05pm