Retrospective overflow car park at The Dabbling Duck, Great Massingham, King's Lynn
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Kings Lynn Planning Committee on 2 Feb 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective permission for an overflow car park, with a larger site allowing a hedgerow, fire break and fencing around the perimeter.
“Members may recall that application reference 25/00323/F for the retention of an overflow car park to be utilised in association with The Dabbling Duck public house was considered and ultimately approved by the Planning Committee on 28th July 2025 . Since this date, it has become evident that, despite the retrospective nature of that application, the boundaries of the site had not been accurately shown on the approved plans.”
“This application seeks planning permission for a scheme with a revised site area. All other details are the same as the approval, bar for the increase in site area from approx. 902m2 to 1530m2, allowing some 555m2 area around the perimeter of the application site to be landscaped with a proposed hedgerow and 2m fire break and fencing, as per the arrangements of the extant approval.”
Officer report
The site and surroundings
The car park formed part of an agricultural field beside a public footpath and just outside the Conservation Area, with access through the pub’s existing car park.
“The application comprises part of a wider agricultural field, the north boundary to which runs parallel to the edge of a Public Right of Way known as Great Massingham FP7 to the north. Access to the car park has been created through the existing car park at the rear of the public house, where a single width access is provided between the main building and an adjoining dwelling.”
“The application site is positioned just outside of the Conservation Area, the boundary to which runs along the back of houses to the east and to the north. Existing dwellings across the field at Abbeyfields to the north, are within the Conservation Area.”
Officer report
Officers’ recommendation
Officers recommended approval because the existing consent supported the principle, the revised area would not materially change the impacts, and conditions could secure landscaping and management measures.
“The application seeks consent for the retention of a car parking area adjacent to the Conservation Area and outside of the Development Boundary for Great Massingham as defined in the Local Plan. Whilst the use is retrospective, the fallback position of the extant 25/00323/F with the smaller site area is a strong material consideration.”
“The submitted management plan continues to set out measures to control the use of the site, including measures to minimise fire risk. Landscaping conditions would ensure that the proposed hedgerow, fencing and fire break are implemented within the next 2 months and retained and maintained as such thereafter.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
The parish council supported the scheme, highways and fire services raised no objections, and a design officer provided operational advice.
“Parish Council: SUPPORT comments summarised as follows:”
“Secured By Design - Designing Out Crime Officer: Provided detailed advice as to the operation of the car park. This full response has been provided to the Agent for their ongoing consideration.”
Officer report
Residents’ views
Fifteen objections raised concerns about appearance, disturbance, fire, access, hedging and crime, while three letters supported the benefits and one was neutral.
“FIFTEEN letters of OBJECTION, summarised as follows: • Visual impact on countryside • Impacts from engine noise, lighting • Request for hedge to have no gaps and evergreen content to reduce disturbance • Other mechanisms exist for restricting parking on the green • Difficult to monitor site for signs of fire • Gaps in hedgerow would allow access to wider field (Officer Note - The proposed fencing inside the fire break would prevent access to the wider field) • Previous…”
“THREE letters of SUPPORT, summarised as follows: • The Dabbling Duck have gone to in order to appease the relative few villagers which have continued to have issues and criticism towards these proposals. • Economic benefits • Signage has been implemented to discourage parking on the green • Hedgerow would improve local habitat…”
Officer report
Who spoke
An objector addressed the committee, followed by Councillor Beales under the speaking rules.
Members’ discussion
Members discussed fire risk and screening, and agreed that the hedge should provide effective year-round cover with a prompt implementation timetable.
“The visual impact of the car park on neighbouring properties and the public footpath was discussed. The Committee considered that effective year-round screening should be provided. The Committee debated the merits of native versus evergreen hedging. The Planning Control Manager advised that Condition 2 could be amended to require a majority evergreen mix to provide better screening in winter.”
“Given the retrospective nature of the application, the Committee emphasised the need for prompt implementation of the new hedge and boundary treatments. Officers agreed to include a timetable for submission and planting, taking into account the appropriate season for establishing new hedges. This was proposed by Councillor Bubb, seconded by Councillor Spikings and agreed by the Committee.”
Minutes
The vote
Members unanimously supported approval subject to changing the hedge requirement and adding a clear implementation timetable.
“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application subject to condition 2 being amended to require a majority evergreen hedge and a clear timetable for implementation and, after having been put to the vote was carried unanimously.”
Minutes
The decision
The application was approved as recommended, subject to a majority evergreen hedge and a clear timetable for implementation.
“RESOLVED: That the application be approved, as recommended, subject to condition 2 being amended to require a majority evergreen hedge and a clear timetable for implementation.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“The Committee considered that effective year-round screening should be provided.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Kings Lynn Planning Committee minutes, 2 February 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Kings Lynn's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Kings Lynn Planning Committee
- Council
- Kings Lynn
- Date
- Monday 2 February 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- Kings Lynn committee decisions →
This committee's year
29 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 4 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.