22 affordable homes at Former North Lynn Community Centre, King's Lynn

What was proposed

Freebridge Community Housing sought permission for 22 affordable homes after demolishing the former community centre.

“Proposed residential development of 22 affordable dwellings following demolition of former community centre building Location:”

“Full planning permission sought by Freebridge Community Housing for the construction of 22 Affordable Dwellings on land at Lawrence Road, Kings Lynn on land which is the Former North Lynn Community Centre.”

Officer report

The site

The approximately 0.39-hectare oval site was bounded by Lawrence Road and St Edmundsbury Road and lay in Flood Zone 3.

“The site area totals approximately 0.39ha and is an oval shaped parcel of land with boundaries formed by Lawrence Road and St Edmundsbury Road. To the northwest of the site is an estate of dwellings managed by Freebridge Housing, comprising a mix of heights up to 4 storeys total.”

“The application site is within Flood Zone 3.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

The former community centre had prior approval for demolition, and the building had been unused since it closed in 2014.

“The former North Lynn community centre ceased operating in 2014 when it was closed by Norfolk County Council, and the building has remained unused for a significant period. Freebridge purchased the site in 2023, recognising the opportunity to bring a long-vacant and deteriorating site back into positive use.”

“25/00791/DM: DM Prior Notification NOT Required: 12/06/25 - Prior Notification: Demolition of former North Lynn Community Centre (Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B) - Former North Lynn Community Centre…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement securing affordable housing, environmental mitigation and an off-site public open space contribution.

“A. APPROVE subject to a S106 legal agreement to control affordable housing provision in line with Policy LP28, GIRAMS in line with Policy LP27 and an Off-Site Public Open Space financial contribution in line with Policy LP22, alongside associated monitoring fees.”

“B. If in the opinion of the Assistant Director/Planning Control Manager no reasonable progress is made to complete the legal agreement within 4 months of the date of the committee resolution, the application is REFUSED on the failure to secure Affordable Housing in line with Policy LP28, GIRAMS in line with LP27 and Public Open Space in line with Policy LP22.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, the Environment Agency and several other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the local planning subgroup objected.

“Local Highway Authority: NO OBJECTION subject to standard conditions relating to off- site highway works, access/turning area provision etc.”

“Environment Agency: NO OBJECTION Subject to FRA being complied with, providing advice on sequential and exceptions tests.”

Officer report

Objections received

Eleven objections cited overdevelopment, loss of a community facility, parking, noise, anti-social behaviour, overlooking and limited consultation.

“Overdevelopment of area, no need for more housing • Request for retention as community facility rather than more housing • Lack of parking • Impacts of noise, anti-social behaviour • Overlooking • Concern over lack of public consultation…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporting speaker addressed the committee, followed by Councillor Jones, who outlined concerns about the application.

Members’ concerns

Members debated replacement community facilities, play provision, flood risk, accessibility, density, green space and possible anti-social behaviour.

“The Committee questioned the adequacy of replacement community facilities, noting the Discovery Centre's distance and the lack of robust assessment for the loss of the community centre, with officers explaining that prior approval for demolition and nearby facilities (including replacement facilities run by the applicant) was considered sufficient.”

“Several Councillors expressed concerns about the scheme's density, lack of green space, and potential for anti-social behaviour due to design features like archways and rear parking courtyards.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted to refuse the application by 12 votes to 2.

“It was proposed by Councillor Bubb and seconded by Councillor Storey that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and failure to respect local character, which was contrary to Policies LP18, 21 and 22.”

“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 (12 votes for refusal and 2 votes against).”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, because members considered it overdevelopment that failed to respect local character.

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

“The application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and failure to respect local character, which was contrary to Policies LP18, 21 and 22.”

Minutes