Travel hub and cycle parking at Car Park At Granary Court, King's Lynn

What was proposed

The application proposed refurbishing the toilet block and building a travel hub with cycle parking, storage, repair and changing facilities.

“25/01782/F King’s Lynn: Car Park at Granary Court, Baker Lane: Re- development of the Baker Lane car park comprising the refurbishment of the single storey toilet block and the erection of a new single storey building to form a Travel Hub comprising cycle parking, storage, repair and changing facilities. Development to include the re-organisation of the existing car park to provide new external vehicle and cycle parking facilities alongside hard and soft landscaping:”

“Full planning permission was sought for the redevelopment / re- organisation of the Baker Lane car park in connection with the refurbishment of the single storey toilet block and the erection of a new single storey building to form a Travel Hub, comprising cycle parking, storage, repair and changing facilities, alongside hard and soft landscaping.”

Minutes

The site and surroundings

The site was the northern Baker Lane car park, with 35 uncovered spaces, including three disabled bays, and public toilets to its southern side.

“The case officer introduced the report and explained that the application site related to the northern of the two Baker Lane car parks within King’s Lynn Town Centre. The car park currently provided 35 operational uncovered car parking spaces, three of which were disabled bays. The building accommodating public toilets to the southern side of the car park, whilst outside of the red line was connected to the proposed development.”

Minutes

The main planning issues

The key issues were the development principle, appearance and heritage, neighbour amenity, highway safety and other material considerations.

“The key considerations in the determination of this application are as follows: -”

“Principle of Development • Character and Appearance / Heritage Assets • Neighbour Amenity • Highway Safety • Other Material Considerations…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the scheme sustainable and well designed, supporting active travel, connectivity and town-centre regeneration without unacceptable effects on heritage, neighbours or highway safety.

“It is considered that the proposed Travel Hub represents a sustainable, well designed development that aligns with the strategic aims of both the Local Plan and the NPPF. The scheme supports active travel, enhances connectivity, and contributes positively to town centre regeneration while making effective use of existing brownfield land, in line with the Towns Fund, King’s Lynn Town Investment Plan (2021), and the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) and the…”

“The design has been sensitively developed to respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, with no identified harm to heritage significance. Impacts on neighbour amenity, highway safety, drainage, ecology, trees, archaeology, and crime and disorder have all been appropriately assessed, with conditions recommended where necessary to ensure any impacts are limited.”

Officer report

What people said

Consultees generally supported the principle, while objections focused on safety, access, secluded location, cycle-rack design, parking and value for money.

“Moved a popular cycle facility to a secluded area. • Cycle access to and from is forbidden. • Dangerous • No usage instructions • Vandalism • Not an advert for safe parking. • Where are the usage figures to justify the cost of this facility? • Money could be better spent on other active travel projects.”

“Welcome the facility as will be useful for people living in the town centre. • However, it will be of limited use to shoppers and other visitors who need more casual parking in the town centre. • If this is a chargeable facility it is unlikely to be used. • Should include the removal of unused containers on Purfleet. • Should provide replacement high standard (covered) cycle parking. • One way systems mean a lengthy detour.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and a supporter addressed the committee about the scheme’s design.

What members debated

Members debated cycle-rack specifications, conditions, reduced car parking, the location, cycle-route links, accessibility and possible conflicts between cars and cyclists.

“Some Members questioned whether the internal layout of the travel hub met manufacturer specifications and debated the adequacy of proposed conditions to address these concerns.”

“Several Councillors argued that the hub’s location was unsuitable, citing lack of direct links to cycle routes, potential conflicts between cars and cyclists, and the impact on accessibility for local users.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted by 10 votes to 5 to refuse the application.

“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 (10 votes for refusal and 5 votes against).”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the location could create conflict between cyclists and other users, making the facilities poor design contrary to policy.

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

“The development would be in an unsuitable location creating potential conflict between cyclists and users, and the facilities would therefore constitute poor design contrary to LP13 of the Local Plan, and the NPPF.”

Minutes