Agenda item

To receive petitions and public questions in accordance with Standing Order 9.

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

1)    Question from Julia Irving

“Why, how often, where and in what circumstances does the council use insecticides on council land.”

Councillor Anota gave the following response:

Why. To control weeds on hard surfaces. Weed growth can spread quickly during the growing season and can cause damage to hard surfaces which can be costly to repair. The presence of weeds encourages a build-up of detritus/litter which does not make for a clean, tidy, and welcoming environment.

How often.    Twice-yearly application of chemical treatment Borough wide:    1^st Application – March 3^rd – April 1^st         2^nd Application May 4^th – June 2^nd   There may be some additional spot treatment for public complaints that come in to us.

Where    Central Town Areas/Tourist Areas, High footfall pedestrian areas, carparks, building back lines, kerb edges and other municipal hard surfaced areas. 

Neighbourhoods, Hard standing public open space, BC owned residential pathways (if required).

Sports Centres/Fields, Around buildings, 3G pitches, MUGAs, athletics tracks, car parks 

Circumstances.    In General, we avoid using chemicals where practical, we do not use pesticides/herbicides in formal parks and gardens. Our main method of weed control is by daily operations and these are removed manually or by street sweepers. From this we actively promote non – chemical methods of weed control to be used where practically possible in preference to chemical methods. But in certain circumstances chemical control is required.

Chemical.   We have now moved to a pre-mixed chemical that includes a residual herbicide and a much lower rate of Glyphosate; this is applied using controlled droplet application; this should now allow us to apply less chemical Borough wide. All Operatives are qualified to National standard and complete a comprehensive record of their work carried out which is kept on record for minimum of 5 years.”

By way of supplementary, Ms Irving asked the following, which Councillor Anota undertook to respond to in writing:

“I have read the draft Pollinator Action Plan which highlights the catastrophic decline in flying insect populations by 60% since 2024 . However the only insecticide mentioned in the report is neonicotinoids , which are to be phased out ‘in the long term’ . My understanding is that this insecticide has already been banned and use of it in any circumstance, requires a special licence . What ,therefore, is the plan to stop the use of other insecticides such as organophosphates , sulfaxaflor, pythrethoids and fipronil to ensure that insect populations are not decimated further?”

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

2) Question from Alastair Kent

“What steps are the Council taking to ensure that those eligible for assistance to insulate their homes and meet the criteria for a boiler replacement or retrofit are helped to apply for the appropriate scheme (e.g. ECO4, GBIS etc) and to ensure that they are able to find an approved surveyor and contractor to undertake the work in a timely and efficient manner?”

Councillor Rust gave the following response:

“Thank you for your question.  I’m always glad to be able to talk about the ways in which our council supports our local residents to ensure that those who are eligible for a boiler replacement or a retrofit, are able to access it.  And we have had considerable success in supporting our residents since we have taken on the services of an energy efficiency officer.  Prior to that, our take-up was quite low.  

Firstly, we use all our available data on housing conditions, which include EPCs, to target properties likely to benefit from the energy efficiency grants and make contact directly.  As many of the people who are eligible are also likely to feel vulnerable to scams, we do this using our council telephone number which is easily verifiable as well as a letter.  We hold regular roadshows called Beat the Bills.  I’ve seen first hand how successful these have been. 

Our Borough councillors can also refer in their residents to our energy efficiency officer.  I have done this myself.  I have also been to talk at a number of events where those who attend are more likely to meet the criteria for the grant and I have made them aware of the facility.  Our energy efficiency team will go out and speak at events and they are very accessible. 

We are working closely with the NHS and the ICB (Integrated Care Board) on a data sharing agreement and are at an advanced stage of this which will mean the NHS sharing specific data with us so that we can directly aim our efforts at those who qualify for the schemes.  This agreement has been some time in the making and does demonstrate the continued difficulties with sharing data even though it would lead to a direct benefit to the individual or couple. 

At the Borough Council the Housing Standards team are responsible for ensuring that applicants are directed to the most appropriate scheme for them based on their needs, wants and eligibility. This is usually done through individual consultations with each respective applicant, but it is now also done through the online referral form found on the council’s website. Funded energy efficiency improvements | Funded energy efficiency improvements | Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk (west-norfolk.gov.uk)

ECO 4 & HUG 2 accommodate full house retrofits, whereas GBIS accommodates singular retrofit measures.

Due to our impartial stance as a local authority, we are unable to recommend any installers to prospective applicants, however we can point them in the direction of the TrustMark register - Find trusted tradespeople with quality at heart   • TrustMark

TrustMark is the only government endorsed quality scheme for domestic retrofit.2.”

By way of supplementary Mr Kent asked if the council would publish quarterly the approval figures with the schemes.  Councillor Rust undertook to ascertain if that would be possible.

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

3) Question from Susan Bruce

“The planning application for a new 3G pitch on River Lane playing field has been extended due to the many objections from residents, consultees, and agencies about a range of issues including traffic on Beulah Street, environmental and health concerns, contamination of the Bawsey Drain, effects on wildlife, the loss of green space and noise and light disturbance.

Are the council considering alternative sites for the pitch, so they don’t lose the funding and if not why not?”

Councillor Ring responded as follows:

“Firstly, for context, there is currently one full-sized 3G football turf pitch in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk,  There is a recommendation for an additional three full-sized 3G football turf pitches within the borough to meet demand and, as the speaker rightly pointed out, Football Foundation Funding has been allocated to the project, conditional that the 3G is located at Lynnsport.

The initial application was withdrawn due to concerns expressed by Highways. The location was changed to nearer Lynnsport to an area of existing, bookable football pitches.  The revised location is adjacent to the existing 3G pitch and access will be via Lynnsport. Lynnsport also hosts the changing facilities required.  The current objections that have caused the extension of time are from Highways, Public Rights of Wat and Sport England.  The final decision on the 3G will be a planning decision.

Officers are looking at alternative options should planning permission not be granted. Discussions with the Football Foundation are ongoing and I have been in contact with their Chief Executive, Robert Sullivan, thanks to an introduction from James Wild MP.  It is my belief that we should be identifying all of the locations in our Borough that we need pitches and we are able to make good sustainable use of.  With the expected population growth and the increased housing targets coming from the new Government, it is important that we plan properly and not just react to available funding opportunities.

The council is committed to providing sports facilities to meet local demand but is mindful of resident’s concerns regarding any development.”

By was of supplementary, Ms Bruce asked if the Fields in Trust (FIT)were being consulted on any new proposals.

Councillor Ring made reference to the fact that FIT had given permission for the use of the site for that purpose and commented that none of the field areas in the site were free to use, they were bookable and payable.  He commented that the FIT were able to comment on any of the applications.