The Planning Committee of Melton Council met on Thursday 18 June 2026, where members considered several planning applications. The committee refused a proposal for a two-storey rear extension at 25 Norfolk Drive, Melton Mowbray, due to concerns about its scale and impact on neighbouring amenity.

25 Norfolk Drive, Melton Mowbray

The committee refused planning permission for a two-storey rear extension and associated alterations at 25 Norfolk Drive, Melton Mowbray. The proposal was for a two-storey rear extension projecting approximately 5 metres, the demolition of an outbuilding, and renovations to the front elevation, including a new entrance, rendered facade, a 1-metre-high timber boundary fence, and a sliding gate.

During the meeting, objectors, including residents and Councillor Allen Thwaites, the ward councillor, raised concerns about the scale of the extension, its potential to block daylight and sunlight, and its overbearing nature. They also objected to the proposed rendering, new fencing, and gate, arguing they were out of keeping with the established character of Norfolk Drive, which they described as having open frontages and traditional materials. Councillor Thwaites specifically cited policies D1 (design, scale, massing and neighbour impact) and EN6 (character of settlement and street scene) of the Melton Local Plan as being contravened.

The agent, Steve Lane, representing GPEW Architects, argued that the design was in keeping with the eclectic character of the area, citing examples of rendered facades and timber fences on nearby properties. He stated that the extension would not be overbearing and that a sunlight study was not required. He also noted that the proposed boundary treatments were in line with the Melton Borough Design SPD.

The committee debated the application extensively. Councillor Elaine Holmes expressed concerns about the potential for over-intensification of the site and the overshadowing impact. Councillor Leigh Higgins echoed concerns about the impact on the street scene, stating that Norfolk Drive was a very recognisable and aspirational street. Councillor James Mason presented a detailed analysis of the proposed extension's massing, calculating a 51% increase in gross external area and arguing it was overdeveloped and overbearing. He proposed refusing the application based on policy D1, specifically parts A, C, and D.

Councillor Sharon Butcher agreed with the concerns about the character of the street, particularly the use of render and fencing, and stated her preference for retaining the traditional red brick appearance. Councillor Tim Webster, however, expressed support for the project, focusing on the practicalities of construction access.

Ultimately, a proposal to refuse the application was put forward and seconded. The reasons for refusal centred on the scale, massing, and extent of the development, particularly the two-storey rear extension and alterations to the frontage, which were deemed to create a dominant and disproportionate form of development. The introduction of boundary fencing and a gate was considered to erode the established open frontage character of Norfolk Drive. The committee concluded that the proposal failed to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area and would have an overbearing impact and overshadowing to the detriment of residential amenity, contrary to policy D1 of the Melton Local Plan. The application was refused by a majority vote, with two abstentions.

Other Applications Considered

The committee also considered two other planning applications:

• North Lodge, Longcliffe Hill, Old Dalby (Application 25/00898/FUL): This application sought permission for the demolition of the existing farmhouse and the erection of a replacement dwelling and one further dwelling. The report recommended approval, subject to conditions.
• Websters Dairy, 5 Main Street, Saxelbye (Application 25/00845/FUL): This application was for the conversion of redundant dairy buildings into five dwellings. The application had been deferred from a previous meeting for further information regarding conservation officer comments, a road safety audit, and visibility splays. The report recommended approval, subject to conditions.

The meeting concluded at approximately 8:43 pm.