Dwelling changes and outbuilding at 3 Saw Mill Road, Brancaster, King's Lynn

What was proposed

The application sought changes to approved plans, removal of the garage and its foundation condition, and amendments to the detached summer house.

“The current application seeks to vary condition 2 (approved plans) and removal of condition 7 (foundation design and construction methodology) through s73 of the TCP Act in relation to the previously approved planning permission (24/01167/F - 'extensions, alterations & remodelling of dwelling and proposed outbuilding').”

“Condition 7 - The removal of condition 7 is sought as this relates to the foundation design of the previously approved garage, which they are seeking to omit from the scheme.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected over overdevelopment, while the conservation and arboricultural officers raised no objections.

“Parish Council: REMOVAL OF CONDITION 2 INCREASES THE OVERDEVELOPMENT OF THE PLOT.”

“Arboricultural Officer: NO OBJECTION to the removal of condition 7.”

Officer report

Objections raised

A third party objected to the retrospective process and raised concerns about unauthorised demolition, foundations, structural support and the proposed two-storey building.

“ONE letter of OBJCETION received from a Third Party raising the following concerns: -”

“25/00865/F Planning Committee 6 October 2025 • Despite this, the owner still proceeded to attempt to build a two storey house with the existing foundations. • The builder then demolished the northern and southern walls, in breach of condition 2. • Requests that committee members / planning officers carefully look at the demolition plan dated 2025 where it clearly shows the areas of the northern and southern walls to be retained.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

A supporting speaker and Councillor de Winton addressed the committee; Councillor de Winton took no part in the debate or decision.

Members discussed the breaches

Members discussed compliance with planning conditions, retrospective applications, possible penalties and whether structural concerns belonged to planning or building control.

“Several Members of the Committee outlined their concerns about developers not adhering to conditions and the limitations of the planning system regarding retrospective applications. Members discussed the inability to penalise developers for such breaches under current law.”

“Members sought clarification on whether 'bad behaviour' could be a material consideration and whether structural integrity concerns were a planning or building control matter. Officers confirmed that retrospective applications were permitted in law and that foundation issues were for building control.”

Minutes

The committee voted

The committee approved the recommendation by 10 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, having been put to the vote was carried (10 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention).”

Minutes

The application was approved

The application was approved as recommended.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended.”

Minutes