Agenda item

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the attached Schedules of Planning Applications submitted by the Assistant Director.

 

The Committee considered schedules of applications for planning permission submitted by the Assistant Director for Planning and Environment (copies of the schedules were published with the agenda).  Any changes to the schedules will be recorded in the minutes.

 

RESOLVED:  That the applications be determined, as set out at (i) – (iv) below, where appropriate to the conditions and reasons or grounds of refusal, set out in the schedules signed by the Chair.

 

(i)               25/01783/FM

King’s Lynn:  Development site west of Nar Ouse Way:  Application for the phased development comprising the change of use of the land to an Active Travel Hub, alongside the construction of a single storey hub building, surface car park, pedestrian infrastructure, access, landscaping and ancillary works:  The Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application site related to a parcel of land measuring approximately 1.45 ha at the King’s Lynn Enterprise Park, located on the western side of Nar Ouse Way, King’s Lynn.

 

Full planning permission was sought for the phased development involving the change of use of the land to an Active Travel Hub, including the construction of a single storey hub building, surface car park, pedestrian infrastructure, access, landscaping and ancillary works.

 

The cycle ‘hub’ building comprised covered and secure cycle parking for 48 regular bicycles, six cycle hoops and adapted cycles and one long cycle hoop for longer cycles.  Lockers and a cycle repair stand would also be available within the hub.  There were a further four-cycle hoops proposed outside.  Toilets, showers and changing facilities would be included within the hub.

 

The car park would include 236 car parking spaces including 201 standard bays, 11 accessible bays, 20 standard electric car charging bays, 4 accessible electric car charging bays, 4 accessible electric car charging bays and 2 motorcycle bays.

 

Two new bus stops were proposed on Nar Ouse Way for the ‘EXCEL’ bus services to and from the town centre, plus an internal bus drop-off area and landscaped public courtyard.

 

The development was proposed to be delivered through two phases.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination in accordance with the Planning Scheme of Delegation.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr James Grant (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

Councillors raised questions about scooter and coach parking, usability of two-tier cycle stands, operational management, and the width of parking spaces.  The case officer explained that e-scooter parking had been removed, coach parking was not included but could be considered in future, and two-tier stands were compliant with government standards and designed for ease of use.

 

Several councillors questioned the practical use of the hub, its connectivity to the town centre, and who would use the facility.  Officers explained the hub's flexible use for both cyclists and drivers, its role as the first phase of wider sustainable transport improvements, and the existence of various cycle and bus routes connecting the site to the town.

 

Technical questions about flood risk were addressed by officers explaining the on-site water storage and controlled discharge into the Puny drain, with agreement from the drainage board. It was clarified that the hub was not expected to increase net vehicle movements as it targeted existing traffic patterns.

 

Members of the Committee expressed concern that the proposal had not been reviewed by the Regeneration and Development Panel and therefore referred it to the Scrutiny Panel for further operational detail. Councillor Bubb proposed that the application should be deferred.  This was seconded by Councillor de Winton.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to defer the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (9 votes for and 3 votes against).

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred, to allow for further operational information to be provided.

 

(ii)          25/01420/F

Heacham:  Land at Heacham Manor, E567837, N338621, Hunstanton Road:  Construction of floodlit padel tennis courts, associated bar and clubhouse facilities, and formation of car park extension.

 

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

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application sought planning permission for the construction of four padel tennis and bar and clubhouse facilities at Heacham Manor, Hunstanton, Heacham.  The plans also included the construction of a car park extension, and a nature walk area.

 

Heacham Manor was Grade II Listed, although the application was largely shielded from the Listed Building by more modern development.

 

The site was within the Heacham Neighbourhood Plan area and those policies therefore also applied.

 

Since submission of the application, lighting reports and noise impact assessments had been provided in support of the scheme.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Parish.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Mr M Delany (objecting) and James Wells (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillor Parish addressed the Committee and outlined his concerns in relation to the application.

 

Councillors debated the adequacy of noise mitigation, with proposals for an acoustic wall and reduced operating hours.

 

Officers advised that further negotiation with the applicant was needed to clarify the extent and impact of such measures, especially given the site's listed status and therefore recommended that the application should be deferred to allow further consideration with the applicant, which was agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred to allow further consideration with the applicant regarding noise mitigation and operational hours.

 

The Committee then adjourned for a comfort break at 10.45 am and reconvened at 10.58 am.

 

Councillor de Winton left the meeting.

 

(iii)         26/00382/F

King’s Lynn:  12 Kitchener Street:  Retrospective – use of former store building as one bedroom dwelling:  Mr D Hall

 

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

 

The application sought retrospective consent for the conversion of a store building to a modest one-bedroom dwelling at 12 Kitchener Street in King’s Lynn.

 

The application site lies within the development boundary for King’s Lynn, in the area known as South Lynn.  The site was also within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and within the Tidal Breach Hazard Zone.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Joyce.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then read out a statement from Councillor Joyce (Ward Member) who could not be present at the meeting.

 

Councillors discussed the retrospective nature of the application, enforcement history, and whether modifications such as a larger escape window would alter the recommendation, with officers confirming that flood risk and space standards would still warrant refusal.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused, as recommended.

 

 

 

(iv)         26/00521/F

North Wootton:  5 Gregory Close:  Householder: single storey side extension and new porch:  Mr A Burton

 

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

 

Councillor Bone left the meeting having declared an interest in the application and took no part in the decision or debate, as he was related to the applicant.

 

The case officer introduced the report and explained that full planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing detached single garage and the erection of a single storey side and rear extension and alterations to the existing house to create additional living accommodation.

 

The site was located within the parish of North Wootton within the development boundary within an established cul-de-sac of primarily detached single storey buildings.

 

The application had been referred to the Committee to determine at the request of Councillors Coates and Ring due to the level of interest in the application.

 

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.

 

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Martine Rawson (objecting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 34, Councillors Ring and Coates addressed the Committee and outlined their concerns in relation to the application.

 

Officers clarified the differences between attached and detached permitted development rights, and the committee discussed adding conditions to remove permitted development rights and require obscure glazing for the WC window if approved.

 

After extensive debate on the impact of the extension on local character and amenity, Councillor Storey proposed that the application should be refused on the grounds that of scale and massing and the impact on the neighbours and form and character of the area and cited policies LP18, LP21, and Policy 3 of the North Wootton Neighbourhood Plan.  This was seconded by Councillor Lintern.

 

The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the proposal to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (9 votes for and 1 abstention).

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused, contrary to recommendation, for the following reason:

 

The development by reason of its scale and massing would be out of character with the locality and would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of adjoining occupier’s contrary to Policies LP18 and LP21 of the Local Plan and with Policy 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Councillor Bone re-joined the meeting.