Latest!
Marina (and Waterfront Regeneration) kicked into touch? This EDP story and the Borough Council Cabinet recommendations (huge document! see page 151) suggest that the Marina scheme and the Waterfront Regeneration project are now well and truly on the back burner. In the same document the proposal to re-route the River Nar through Hardings Pits is also shelved. The current proposal is to expand the flood level capacity of the river with a flood shelf downstream of Blubber Creek* on the south-west bank. This will occupy land currently containing dead concrete between the river and the (currently) cycle path (/proposed bus route)more details here.
Confusingly, the cabinet also propose "The landscaping proposals contained in the Landscape Design Masterplan (Appendix 6) are incorporated within the emerging Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Borough and as a basis for continued discussions with Natural England and the Harding’s Pits Community Association with regard to the impact on Harding’s Pits and the potential variation of the Harding’s Pits Doorstep Green." as if the Nar diversion was still a possibility, but as the snappily titled Surface Water Drainage Strategy Options Assessment estimates the cost of re-routing the Nar at £ 9,152,208.78 (!) (up from about £2million at last estimate) it isn't going to happen in the near future. Whether this figure includes provision of a bridge for the CIF bus route isn't clear.
(*Why the h*ll are planners and consultants now referring to Blubber Creek as 'Blubberhouse Creek'?? Surely that isn't the right name?)
Marina (and Waterfront Regeneration) on hold? This
EDP story and Lynn News report detail the BCKLWN's announcement that
the whole Waterfront Regeneration project is to be reviewed. The same issue of the
Lynn News reports that the planned move of the College of West Anglia to the NORA
site has failed to attract the necessary funding. This means that the NORA project
is dead in the water: the initial tranche of residential building failed to sell and (embarrasssingly)
had to be added to the social housing stock, and if the College isn't moving there isn't
going to be anything on the site apart from a lot of weeds for the foreseeable. With one
major project totally stalled, it's no surprise that the council's appetite for the
gigantic (and financially risky) Waterfront project is ebbing away.
News of the review has been welcomed by the supporters of Hardings Pits, but with
reservations until the outcome of the review is known. Hardings Pits Community Association
secretary Roger Turf issud the following statement:
The sudden announcement by the leader of the borough council, Nick Daubney, that the King’s Lynn marina scheme is to be reviewed has come as very welcome news to HPCA – but we’re attaching a warning notice to it.
The official reason for the review is the present overall economic climate and the uncertain outlook for its short to medium term improvement. Critics of the current proposals for the waterfront regeneration, of which the marina is planned to be the centrepiece, have long insisted that for this reason alone the whole scheme needs such a rethink.
Fears about the commitment of the borough’s entire capital resources to a single venture for years to come, and with no very clear evidence of eventual financial viability, have led to considerable public concern, often forcibly expressed. To these financial problems have been added those of poor access, dependent upon the vagaries of the dangerous Wash tides, to the marina site for sea-going vessels (and none at all for those from the inland waterways) and the need to build large numbers of very expensive houses and flats which would, hopefully, eventually pay for it all, when what the district really needs is many more affordable homes to house the 6,000 or so families presently reckoned to be in need of accommodation. Supporters of HPCA and the Doorstep Green at Harding’s Pits have their personal views about the advisability of creating a marina for King’s Lynn but the policy of the Association itself has never been to oppose a marina development as some borough councillors have tried to suggest.
The Association’s determined opposition to this specific scheme developed following the arbitrary announcement by the borough back in January that to carry it out would require the complete destruction of all that the local community has done at Harding’s Pits. The River Nar was to be diverted across the middle of the site and residential property was to be built upon the northern part in an attempt to raise money from land sales. The site suggested as an alternative open space was, to put it mildly, unappetising.
HPCA makes no apology for its place in the forefront of adverse reaction to this particular scheme. Councillors and borough officials responsible for the regeneration programme made it quite clear during the very limited consultation offered to the Association that the river diversion and the residential development were not subject to discussion or negotiation. They were interested only in the part which the community might be persuaded to play in the development and management of an alternative site. One main reason given for the need to remove the Doorstep Green – that the land was contaminated to the point that human health was at risk – was subsequently shown by the borough environmental health department to be seriously overstated; the reason given for the Nar diversion was the need to alleviate the surface water flooding problem which might arise from the increase in the impervious surfaces of roads and houses built to support the marina.
Councillors and officials sought to give the impression that the river diversion was the only solution acceptable to the Environment Agency. During the council-run public consultation period in early June, it was clearly stated by a borough official that even if the marina and residential plans did not go ahead the river diversion was an initiative of the Agency rather than the council and the Agency was insisting that it be carried out. Enquiry of the Agency by HPCA researchers later elicited a direct contradiction of these statements.
The Agency is all powerful in these matters. The erroneous information that it favours the diversion of the River Nar can only have impressed upon those who heard it that the diversion cannot be prevented. This is not the case and the Association has asked the borough to make this clear at any further public consultation or in publications.
So, what next?
HPCA will leave it to the public in King’s Lynn and the wider area of west Norfolk to comment and act upon any revised scheme which the borough now brings forward. Conscious that it is not enough simply to say ‘We don’t want it’ suitably qualified members of the Association have been working up their own ideas for a marina development of a scale, in terms of both size and cost, more suited to the needs of King’s Lynn. The Association will also continue to lobby for real consideration to be given to the development of riverside assets which the town already enjoys, not least being the Purfleet and the Millfleet. In the longer term the possibility of developing part or even all of the docks as a marina for sea-going leisure traffic should also be properly re-examined. The Association will continue to watch developments very closely and to prepare itself to defend the Green once more if a revised scheme contains any element which would be damaging to the existing site. Much information on the European Union and UK legislation concerned with environmental and wildlife protection has already been amassed by HPCA research and this activity will continue in preparation for any objection which the Association will wish to make at the planning stage for a marina if and when that is reached. Those who have to date expressed so much concern about the whole regeneration project should be prepared to consult and contribute to a revised scheme but at the present time it would be unwise to drop their guard.
Elizabeth Nockolds, cabinet member for the arts,
sport and open spaces, is inviting residents to take responsibility for flowerbeds in their
area. She explained "This is a great way of helping communities to improve their
local environment" according to the report in the Lynn News
(20th March 2009). This is certain to annoy the hardworking volunteers of the Hardings Pits
Doorstep Green,
whose hard work will be obliterated if the waterfront regeneration project goes ahead.
Here's the response from Roger Turf, Secretary of the Hardings Pits Community association:
In 2002 the community group which became the Harding’s Pits Community Association accepted such an invitation from borough councillors – admittedly a different lot to the present administration. This led to the creation of the Harding’s Pits Doorstep Green in 2004. Councillor Nockolds and her colleagues now intend to wipe out the Green by diverting the River Nar across part of it and selling the rest for building.
Roger Turff, secretary, HPCA Ltd.
End of the road for BCKLWN?? New proposals for the reorganisation of local government
in Norfolk suggest just 2 options: one unitary authority for Norfolk or two unitary authorities: Greater
Norwich and Rest of Norfolk.
These proposals were published by the Boundary Committee of the Electoral
Commission on 16th March and the adoption of either would mean the extinction of the Borough
Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk.
Us ordinary joes have until 14 May 2009 to get in and make our views known through the
on line submission form, via email to reviews@boundarycommittee.org.uk
or snail to
Review Manager (Norfolk Review) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Natural England are to decide on Hardings Pits lease.
The land that constitutes Hardings Pits Doorstep Green is owned by the Borough Council of
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk: when the Doorstep Green was launched just 4 years ago the land was leased
to Natural England for 25 years and the Harding's Pits Community Association was to
manage the land. Now the Council are seeking the return of the land and are to meet
Natural England on March 23rd at Natural England's Peterborough office.
The Council have objected to HPCA being represented at this meeting (what do they have to fear?)
and, perhaps surprisingly, Natural England have agreed to this. Under pressure from HPCA, Natural
England's regional director for the East of England is meeting representatives of HPCA on the same day.
Natural England claim they are here to:
Will they fulfill their brief and support the Doorstep Green or will they roll over and allow its destruction? To add your weight to the campaign to save Hardings Pits, see our 'get involved' page.