Two-storey rear extension at 25 Norfolk Drive, Melton Mowbray

What was proposed

A two-storey rear extension, outbuilding demolition, front alterations, new boundary treatments and internal changes would retain one dwelling.

“Proposal 4.1 The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two-storey rear extension projecting approximately 5 metres beyond the existing rear elevation. The proposal also includes the demolition of an existing outbuilding located within the rear garden. In addition to the rear extension, the development incorporates alterations to the front elevation of the dwelling, including the remodelling of the entrance and façade treatments.”

“At first floor level, the layout would be reorganised to enhance the quality of accommodation, including the provision of a master bedroom suite with associated dressing area and en-suite facilities, alongside additional en-suite provision to other bedrooms. The property would remain in use as a single dwellinghouse, with no change in use or material intensification proposed.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is a detached two-storey home in an established residential estate, with neighbouring properties on three sides and an earlier approved first-floor extension.

“Main Report 2 The Site 2.1 The application site comprises a detached two-storey dwelling located on Norfolk Drive within an established residential estate to the south of Melton Mowbray. The surrounding area is characterised by similar properties arranged along a planned street layout, with a consistent pattern of front driveways, garden boundaries and private rear gardens.”

“The dwelling itself is typical of the area, constructed in the late twentieth century, and incorporates a mix of brick and painted finishes. The property benefits from off-street parking to the front and a private enclosed rear garden. The site shares boundaries with neighbouring residential properties to either side and the rear, resulting in relatively close but typical housing developments styles which are an important consideration in assessing amenity impacts.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because amendments addressed design, amenity and highway concerns, and the proposal was considered acceptable overall.

“Amendments 5.1 The scheme has been amended to address concerns raised by the officer relating to design, amenity and highway safety. Changes include refinement of elevations, introduction of a Juliet balcony, clarification of materials and improved driveway access arrangements and visibility splays. These changes have reduced impacts and improved policy compliance. The amended scheme is considered acceptable.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways and ecology raised no objections, while 26 neighbours and a ward councillor objected over scale, amenity, design, parking and highway matters.

“Neighbours 7.8.1 26 objections have been received from neighbouring properties raising concerns relating primarily to the scale of the development and its impact on residential amenity. Concerns raised include the perceived excessive size of the extension, potential loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring gardens, particularly in the afternoon and evening, and the view that the development may appear overbearing when viewed from adjoining properties.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer summarised the application, followed by an objector, the agent and a ward councillor, each given three minutes.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because its scale, frontage treatment and proximity to neighbours would harm character and residential amenity.

“The introduction of boundary fencing and a gate would erode the established open frontage character of Norfolk Drive and, when taken together with the overall design approach, would result in a development that fails to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area.”

“Furthermore, by reason of the proximity to neighbouring properties, the development would result in an overbearing impact and overshadowing, to the detriment of residential amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D1 (in particular parts A, C and D) and Policy EN6 of the Melton Local Plan.”

Minutes