Agenda item

(Members are reminded this is a debate, not a question and answer session)

To consider the following recommendations to Council:

 

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

 

Cabinet – 8 September 2026

 

CAB45: Appointment of Honorary Aldermen

 

Councillor Beales proposed Cabinet Recommendation 45, Appointment of Honorary Aldermen, and expressed his support for the former Councillors nominated for Honorary Alderman status. He highlighted the significant contribution each nominee had made through their civic duties, Council responsibilities and ward representation, together with their dedicated service to the local community.

 

Councillor Blunt seconded the proposal and stated that he did so with great honour.

 

Councillor Hodson proposed the addition of former Councillor Sampson to the list of nominees. In response, the Mayor advised that this could be considered at a future date to allow the appropriate process to be followed and to ensure that the eligibility criteria were fully considered.

 

Councillor Long referred to the timing of the awards and requested that consideration be given to how recognition of service could continue to be achieved in the future, particularly in light of proposals for local government reorganisation and the establishment of a Unitary Council. He noted that many newly elected Councillors might be unfamiliar with those who had previously given distinguished service to the Borough Council.

 

Councillor Rust expressed her support for the nominations and agreed that the individuals concerned were worthy recipients of the honour.

 

The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Spikings, proposed the addition of former Councillor Nockolds to the list of nominees. The Mayor advised that this nomination would be considered alongside the additional nomination put forward by Councillor Hodson.

 

Councillor Moriarty reminded Council of the role and purpose of Honorary Aldermen, which was to represent the Mayor in their absence, and expressed his support for the recommendations.

 

Councillor Collop spoke in support of the nominations and reminded Council that former Councillor Lord Howard had played a key role in the establishment of the King's Lynn Area Committee.

 

Councillor Collingham commented that it was important to ensure that the award retained its prestige and suggested that this could be diminished if it were conferred upon too many former Councillors.

 

Councillor Kirk expressed his support for the nominations before Council.

 

Councillor Kemp also supported the nominations and stated that it was important to maintain the tradition of recognising distinguished service to the Council.

 

Councillor Beales, in summing up, thanked Members for their contributions to the debate. He reminded Council that there were currently nineteen serving Honorary Aldermen and advised that rather than considering ad hoc nominations, through would be given to proper consideration to the significant number of former Councillors that fulfilled the minimum requirements for nomination as an Alderman, mindful of the exceptional nature of the award and giving due respect to the will of Council.

 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

1. That the Council places on record its sincere appreciation and gratitude for the eminent services rendered to the Borough Council by former Councillors Carol Bower, Colin Manning, Lesley Bambridge and Lord Greville Howard.

 

2. That, pursuant to Section 249(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, the title of Honorary Alderman be conferred upon former Councillors Carol Bower, Colin Manning, Lesley Bambridge and Lord Greville Howard in recognition of their eminent service to the Borough.

 

3. That an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council be convened on Thursday 29 October 2026, immediately following the ordinary meeting of the Council, for the formal conferment of the title of Honorary Alderman and the presentation of aldermanic badges to the recipients.

 

CAB46: Future Swimming Provision for West Norfolk

 

Councillor Ring proposed Cabinet Recommendation CAB46, Future Swimming Provision for West Norfolk, and reminded Council that there were two recommendations for consideration. He outlined the need for a replacement swimming facility, highlighting the condition of the existing St James Pool, which was approaching the end of its operational life and incurring increasing maintenance costs. He emphasised the importance of maintaining swimming provision within the Borough and referred to the need to improve water safety and swimming ability amongst young people. Councillor Ring advised that the proposals had been developed following extensive consultation and stakeholder engagement and encouraged Council to support the recommendations.

 

Councillor Beales seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

 

Councillor Rust expressed her support for the proposals, stating that they responded to the needs of young people across West Norfolk. She highlighted concerns regarding low levels of swimming ability and noted that the proposals supported the Council's ambition to become a Marmot Place. She further commented that the project would contribute to addressing health inequalities and provide wider preventative health and social benefits.

 

Councillor Long acknowledged that the Corporate Performance Panel had considered and supported the recommendations. However, he requested further information on the costs associated with bringing the existing St James facility up to a standard that would enable its continued operation. He suggested that, in light of the pause in Local Government Reorganisation, consideration should be given to delaying the project until further information on the ongoing costs of retaining St James Pool had been provided.

 

Councillor Long proposed that progress on the project be delayed to allow further work to be undertaken. The Mayor referred Councillor Long to Council Procedure Rule 13.13 and advised that the proposal did not constitute a valid amendment. Councillor Long subsequently advised that he would not be supporting the recommendations.

 

Councillor Kemp expressed concern that relocating the pool from the town centre would reduce accessibility for many residents. She noted the advantages of the current location in terms of proximity to bus and rail services and stated that she could not support the proposals due to concerns regarding the proposed location.

 

Councillor Osborne acknowledged concerns relating to the proposed location but agreed that St James Pool required replacement as it was an outdated facility. He explained that redevelopment on the existing site would result in the Borough being without swimming provision for a significant period. Councillor Osborne stated that the proposed project timetable would allow sufficient opportunity to consider access improvements and confirmed that he would be supporting the proposals.

 

Councillor Bubb commented that the proposed location could be difficult to access for residents without private transport. He suggested that either a town centre location or a dedicated bus service should be considered.

 

Councillor Moriarty spoke in support of the proposals and questioned why the concerns raised by Councillor Long had not been put forward when the matter was considered by the Corporate Performance Panel.

 

Councillor Ryves expressed the view that additional information was required regarding both the costs of retaining St James Pool and the overall costs of the proposed project, particularly in light of the Council's financial position and borrowing requirements. He also suggested that further consideration should be given to the proposed location.

 

Councillor Moore stated that he would have supported a proposal to delay the project to allow further work to be undertaken. He disagreed with comments made regarding accessibility and, following a point of clarification from Councillor Osborne that his earlier comments related to improvements in access to Lynnsport, reiterated his concerns. Councillor Moore stated that the proposals should be revisited to provide Members with a fuller understanding of the costs associated with retaining St James Pool and to allow previous work to be reviewed. He advised that he would not be supporting the recommendations.

 

Following further comments from Councillor Ryves, the Mayor reminded Council that Councillor Ryves had already spoken on the matter.

 

Councillor Bone commented that retaining the existing location would result in a period without swimming provision whilst redevelopment works were undertaken. He emphasised the importance of maintaining swimming facilities for schools and considered Lynnsport to be within walking distance of a number of secondary schools. Councillor Bone confirmed that he would be supporting the recommendations.

 

Councillor Ratcliffe advised that she had attended the Corporate Performance Panel meeting and considered that the matter had been thoroughly debated, with costs receiving detailed scrutiny. She confirmed her support for the proposals.

 

Councillor Colwell spoke in support of the recommendations and expressed concern at suggestions that the project be delayed. He described the proposal as an exciting opportunity to deliver an important community facility and support the local economy. He noted that Lynnsport was surrounded by existing housing development, was accessible to residents and benefited from free parking.

 

Councillor Devulapalli thanked Councillor Ring for engaging with stakeholders throughout the process. However, she expressed concern regarding the accessibility of the proposed location and the availability of public transport links. She also queried whether alternative sites had been considered and stated that a pause in the project would allow the concerns raised to be addressed.

 

Councillor Griffin noted that there were already two other swimming pools located to the north of the town centre and commented that the area surrounding Lynnsport often experienced significant traffic congestion at peak times. He stated that he would not be supporting the recommendations as he felt the proposals had not been subject to sufficient scrutiny.

 

Councillor Beales referred to previous comments regarding the accessibility of Lynnsport and noted that these appeared to conflict with concerns raised about traffic congestion in the area. He stated that Lynnsport was already a well-used facility and advised that accessibility considerations would form part of the overall customer experience and design process. Councillor Beales reminded Members that St James Pool was nearing the end of its operational life and carried significant maintenance costs. He also referred to the results of the public consultation and emphasised the need for investment in a modern replacement facility.

 

Councillor Blunt, as Chair of the Corporate Performance Panel, advised that the matter had been the subject of extensive debate at the Panel and confirmed his support for the proposals.

 

Councillor Sayers stated that whilst he remained mindful of the financial implications, the project was about more than finances and would provide a valuable facility for the residents of West Norfolk.

 

Councillor Nash commented that no information had been provided regarding the ongoing costs of retaining St James Pool or detail of other potential locations that had been considered. He referred to the proposed development at West Winch as a possible alternative location and advised that he would not be supporting the recommendations.

 

Councillor Ring, in summing up, advised that a cross-party working group had examined a range of locations and options and had concluded that no town centre site was capable of accommodating the proposed facility. He stated that the Lynnsport location was essential to ensuring the economic viability of the project. Councillor Ring further advised that redevelopment of the St James site would result in the town centre being without swimming provision for approximately two years, with significant implications for swimming clubs and local schools. He referred to available public transport options, including West Norfolk Community Transport services, and stated that Lynnsport was accessible to many residents.  Councillor Ring expressed disappointment that Councillor Griffin was unable to support the proposals, particularly given the benefits that the new facility would bring to residents living in more deprived areas of the Borough. He stated that any delay would postpone the delivery of a much-needed facility for the residents of West Norfolk and urged Council to support the recommendations.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Full Council:

 

1. Approve the allocation of a maximum of £845,609.17 from reserves to fund the new Lynnsport Project through to RIBA Stage 3.

 

2. Delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance, to determine the appropriate reserve to fund the work.

 

 

COUNCIL ADJOURNED FOR A COMFORT BREAK FROM 6.18pm to 6.30pm.