Quay name should be pertinent to King's Lynn, Lynn News letters
He said that the St Margaret’s with St Nicholas’ Ward Forum, “ought to find something better to do with its time” than to call for Nelson Quay to be dropped as a working title for the proposed regeneration of the South Quay.
We understand that the use of the name is temporary, having been assured so by Cllr Nockolds, but our concern is that it will soon become established as the final name.
Cllr Kunes is quoted as saying: “Nelson is an extremely well-known name” and that “if this project is going to attract national and international investment, we can’t name it Cresswell.”
Perhaps not, but surely the borough council can summon up more wit and imagination than to place the hero’s name on the project, along with the proposers of almost any enterprise in Norfolk? Is the proposed development so unremarkable that it cannot attract investment in its own name?
What we do want is a name pertinent to Lynn, and that of Nelson is not. Agreed he is the most famous son of Norfolk, but he only ever visited Lynn twice in his lifetime, on each occasion by private coach from his residence at Swaffham, once to receive a presentation sword and the second to be given the Freedom of the Borough; collectively he probably spent no more than six hours in the town during his lifetime.
Regarding the riverfront project we note, with some dismay, that the consultation produced only 85 responses, of which a mere 32% was in support (which includes, presumably, the name Nelson Quay). This is put into perspective when one realises that (2007 Census) 47,000 people live in the town and 143,000 within the borough, so 32% of 85 responses will go to the council’s cabinet early next year to assist them in their deliberations.
Eighty-five individuals from a total of 143,000 is hardly a worthy reason for saying that there is a ‘general agreement’ for the scheme and certainly not for the – misinformed – name. If Cresswell will not do nor the renowned Vancouver, simply call it South Quay, as it has been for decades.
To return to Mr Long’s criticism of the ward forum, we do indeed have good things to do with our time, one of which was our detailed response to the riverfront development – reported in the Lynn News on December 11 – giving the ward forum’s views on elements ranging from the wetland provision to the size and scale of the proposed buildings.
As the ward forum we see ourselves acting as a critical friend, which includes attempting to avert the inevitable ridicule, which must arise from a title with no relevance to the town being given to a proposed development. What, we wonder, will the borough council name its next development? Nelson Two?
Dr Julian W S Litten
Chairman, St Margaret’s with St Nicholas Ward Forum