Replacement self-build dwelling at Mary-Lyn, Ringstead, Hunstanton

The site

The site is within Ringstead’s development boundary, on Burnham Road, east of the Conservation Area and within the National Landscape.

“The application site is within the development boundary of Ringstead, approximately 0.08ha in size, and located along the north side of Burnham Road. The site is approximately 51.6m to the east of Ringstead's Conservation Area and within the National Landscape.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Permission was granted for the replacement dwelling in March 2025, while a later variation application was refused in November 2025.

“24/01813/DISC_B: Discharge of Condition final letter: 10/02/26 - DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 10 (Retrospective) FROM PLANNING PERMISSION 24/01813/F - Demolition of existing bungalow and replacement with a new 1.5 storey property - Mary-Lyn 9 Burnham Road Ringstead…”

“25/01451/F: Application Refused: 26/11/25 - VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 2, 3 AND 10 FROM PLANNING PERMISSION 24/01813/F - Demolition of existing bungalow and replacement with a new 1.5 storey property - Mary-Lyn 9 Burnham Road Ringstead…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the amended design was considered acceptable and would not materially harm the National Landscape, Conservation Area or neighbours, subject to conditions.

“The application is within the Norfolk Coast National Landscape, and the LPA has a legal duty under S245 (Protected Landscapes) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, 2023 (LURA) to seek to further the statutory purposes of Protected Landscapes.”

“The amendments have also been considered with respect to their impact upon the Conservation Area to the west. There is an objection from the Conservation Team, who also objected to the previously approved replacement dwelling and consider the amendments have a cumulative harmful effect on the views, setting and character of the rural conservation area.”

Officer report

Objections and consultation

The parish council and Conservation Team objected to the dwelling’s size, scale and impact, while two neighbours raised concerns about light, overlooking, drainage and landscaping.

“Parish Council have opposed the scale, height and massing of this development from the start. Considers the changes significant and material to the previously approved scheme. • Considers it is contrary to the adopted Ringstead Neighbourhood Plan. • Does not consider this a 1.5 storey dwelling. • This application seeks to regularise retrospective development that has been carried out in breach of conditions. • Consider the proposal is contrary to paras.”

“The proposed Juliet balcony, given the previous applications, implies the intention to reinstate a large glass balcony over the proposed flat roof lounge/diner. This should be changed to a window rather than balcony doors. • The amended drawing appears to shift the proposal further south and the proposed building appears taller, which will impact upon the neighbours kitchen window (overbearing/overshadowing) and therefore contrary to LP21.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor de Winton withdrew from the meeting and addressed the committee under Standing Order 34; the case officer introduced the application.

Members’ discussion

The committee discussed permitted development rights and heard concerns about the Conservation Team’s arguments, with roof height identified as the reason for a condition.

“In response to Councillor De Winton’s comment regarding the removal of permitted development rights, the Planning Control Manager explained that Condition 10 took away any alterations to the roof of the dwelling and guidance was clear regarding the removal of permitted development rights which should only be done in exceptional circumstances. The main issues were to keep the height low and was the main reason for Condition 10.”

“Councillor Moriarty drew the Committee’s attention to the conservation team’s arguments which were strong.”

Minutes

The vote

The recommendation to approve was carried by 12 votes to 2.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (12 votes for and 2 against).”

Minutes