Attached garage extension at Land At Banham Road, Kenninghall

What was proposed

The application sought to replace an approved detached garage with a 1.5-storey front extension containing a double garage, gallery and enlarged office.

“REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The application has been referred to Planning Committee given Members determined the previous planning application contrary to officer recommendation.”

“DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT This application seeks to vary Condition 2 attached to PL/2025/0628/FMIN, which granted permission for the erection of a self-build dwelling and detached garage. The proposal seeks to replace the approved single-storey detached garage with a 1.5-storey front extension to the dwelling, comprising a double garage to the ground floor, and a gallery area and enlarged office to the first floor.”

Officer report

The site

The site lies east of Banham Road outside Kenninghall’s settlement boundary, with homes to the north and south, fields to the east and west, and a footpath nearby.

“SITE DESCRIPTION The application site is a piece of land situated to the east of Banham Road, Kenninghall. It is outside of the defined settlement boundary of Kenninghall. The site is bounded by dwellings to the north and south, with fields to the east and west. Access onto the existing highway is to the west. A public right of way (Kenninghall FP2) is located to the north of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier dwelling and garage proposal was refused, while permission for a self-build dwelling and detached double garage was later granted.

“RELEVANT HISTORY There have been a number of historic planning applications on this site; the following are the most recent/relevant: Planning Reference: 3PL/2024/0294/F Description: Erection of new self build dwelling and garage (Refused 24-10-2024) – refused for following reasons: 1. The area proposed for residential development is outside of the settlement boundary for Kenninghall and not immediately adjacent to it.”

“Planning Reference: PL/2025/0628/FMIN Description: Erection of new self build dwelling and detached double garage (Granted with conditions 25-03-2026)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension was considered acceptable in design, amenity and highway terms, subject to relevant existing conditions.

“It also falls behind built development to the north (numbers 1 and 2), which means as one approaches the site from the north or south, the majority of built development will be obscured by existing development.”

“CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed variation of condition is considered acceptable and would not result in any significant adverse impacts on character and appearance, neighbouring amenity or highway safety. Subject to the re-imposing the relevant planning conditions attached to PL/2025/0628/FMIN, the proposal is considered to accord with relevant Policies within the Breckland Local Plan (2023), the Breckland Design Guide, and the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the application, highways raised no objection subject to conditions, and environmental protection had no objection.

“KENNINGHALL PARISH COUNCIL Supports this application. NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL HIGHWAYS The proposal is to amend the plans approved under PL/2025/0628/FMIN to provide an attached double garage (instead of a detached building) and revise the driveway, parking and turning arrangements within the frontage of the property.”

“Surfaced in impermeable material for the first 5.0m as measured from the nearside carriageway edge to a specification depth commensurate with the use. • A surface water intercept at the rear of the defined highway verge connected to an on-site soakaway (Inf details below).”

Officer report

Who spoke

Representations were made under the committee’s public speaking scheme, with the applicant and the applicant’s agent listed in the speaking record.

The committee vote

Members voted unanimously in support of the officer’s recommendation.

“DECISION: Members voted unanimously in support of the Officer’s recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions as listed in the report.”

Minutes