Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Assembly Room, Town Hall, Saturday Market Place, King's Lynn PE30 5DQ. View directions

Contact: Kathy Wagg on 01553 616276  Email:

Link: View Live Stream

No. Item




The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He advised that the meeting was being recorded and streamed live to You Tube.


He invited the Democratic Services Officer to conduct a roll call to determine attendees.



To receive any apologies for absence and to note any substitutions.


Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bubb and De Winton.



To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting held on 5 September 2023 (previously circulated).


The minutes of the meeting held on 4 September 2023 (previously circulated) were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 131 KB

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the Member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.


These declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.


Councillor appointed representatives on the Internal Drainage Boards are noted.



The following declarations of interest were declared:


In relation to 9/1(a), Councillor de Whalley explained that he was the Chair of Congham Parish Council but had not taken part in any consideration of the application.


Councillor Long declared in relation to 9/1(a) that he was Chair of the Norfolk Rail Group.


Urgent Business Under Standing Order 7

To consider any business, which by reason of special circumstances, the Chair proposes to accept, under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1972.


There was none.


Members attending under Standing Order 34

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chairman of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before a decision on that item is taken.


The following Councillors attended under Standing Order 34:


Cllr Dickinson              9/1(c)   Hunstanton

Cllr Morley                   9/1(g)   South Creake – comments to be read out.

Cllr Lintern                  9/1(h)   Wereham


Chair's Correspondence

To receive any Chair’s correspondence.


The Chair reported that any correspondence received had been read and passed to the appropriate officer.


Receipt of Late Correspondence on Applications pdf icon PDF 192 KB

To receive the Schedule of Late Correspondence received since the publication of the agenda.


A copy of the late correspondence received after the publication of the agenda, which had been previously circulated, was tabled.  A copy of the agenda would be held for public inspection with a list of background papers.


Glossary of Terms pdf icon PDF 398 KB


The Committee noted the Glossary of Terms.


Index of Applications pdf icon PDF 22 KB

The Committee is asked to note the Index of Applications.


The Committee noted the Index of Applications.


Decisions on Applications pdf icon PDF 206 KB

To consider and determine the attached Schedule of Planning Applications submitted by the Executive Director.

Additional documents:


(i)              23/00894/F

          Congham:  Congham Bridge Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway Dismantled, St Andrew Lane:  Retrospective structural infilling of former railway bridge using engineering fill and foam concrete with embankments formed on either side:  Historical Railways Estate


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


The case officer presented the application and explained that the application site related to Congham Bridge which was a historic railway bridge structure built circa 1926 carrying St Andrews Lane over the former railway line.  The setting of the bridge was rural in nature with open fields to the south of St Andrews Lane, Congham.  To the north, a restricted byway extended northeast following the line of the former track.  The restricted byway was mostly tree lined with fields and small pockets of trees beyond.


The works that the application sought consent for related to the infilling of the underside of the bridge structure described in supporting documentation as structural infill using engineering fill and foam concrete with embankments formed on either side.


The application had been referred to the Committee for determination because it had been called in by Councillor de Whalley and also referred by the Assistant Director.


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, Graeme Bikerdike (objecting), Ophelia Donovan (objecting on behalf of the Parish Council) and Fiona Smith (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.


Councillor Mrs Spikings stated that this was a shining example of architecture by William Marriott in 1926 and there was no reason to obliterate the past with this cheap infilling destroying everything that was good there.  The trees had also been removed and the animals gone which left an appalling visual outlook with no thought to the past.  She supported that the application be refused and proposed that an additional condition be imposed requiring enforcement action be carried out to rectify the situation.


The proposal for enforcement action was seconded by Councillor Long.


Councillor Storey agreed with the comments made by Councillor Spikings on the landscape issue and asked if there was any way of knowing where all the objections came from, were they all local or were there some regional ones.


The case officer explained the process for dealing with objection letters and that there had been a mixture of local and regional objections.


Councillor Storey added that he supported the amended recommendation for enforcement action and was concerned that this was a retrospective application.  He considered that the bridge looked a lot better in the past than it did at present.


The Conservation Officer explained that the bridge had been assessed in terms of its historic and evidential significance.  Its historic significance had been discussed by the Committee. It was designed to the Marriotts system although William Marriott was dead by the time the bridge was built.  It had evidential significance because the bridge was still there and could still  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC55:a


Delegated Decisions pdf icon PDF 193 KB

To receive the Schedule of Planning Applications determined by the Executive Director.

Additional documents:


The Committee received schedules relating to the above.


RESOLVED:   That the reports be noted.