The Planning Committee of Melton Council met on Thursday 18 June 2026 to consider several planning applications. The committee refused a proposal for a two-storey rear extension and associated alterations at 25 Norfolk Drive, Melton Mowbray, citing concerns over its scale, massing, and impact on the character of the street scene. The committee also deferred a decision on the conversion of redundant dairy buildings at Websters Dairy, Saxelbye, into five dwellings, pending further information on highway safety and conservation matters.

Application 26/00211/FULHH at 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 included a five-metre rear extension, demolition of an outbuilding, and alterations to the front elevation, including a timber boundary fence and sliding gate.

Objectors, including residents and Councillor Allen Thwaites, the ward councillor, argued that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site, conflicting with policies D1 (design, scale, massing and neighbour impact) and EN6 (character of settlement and street scene) of the Melton Local Plan. Concerns were raised about the scale and massing of the extension, its impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties, and the potential for the new boundary treatments to erode the established open frontage character of Norfolk Drive. Councillor Thwaites specifically highlighted that the proposed changes would alter the relationship with the street scene, which is a recognisable and aspirational residential area in Melton Mowbray.

The agent, Steve Lane of GPEW Architects, argued that the proposal was in keeping with the eclectic character of the area and would have minimal impact on massing visible from the street. 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 keeping with some examples found on Norfolk Drive.

During the debate, Councillor Elaine Holmes expressed concerns about the potential for over-intensification of the site and overshadowing. Councillor Leigh Higgins agreed with the ward councillor and Councillor Holmes, stating that the proposal would spoil the character of Norfolk Drive. Councillor James Mason argued that the gross external area increase of 57 square metres represented a 51% increase, leading to an overbearing sense at the rear of the development and to neighbouring properties. He also raised concerns about the Juliet balcony potentially overlooking gardens.

Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application, with the reasons for refusal focusing on the scale, massing, and extent of the development, including the rear extension and front alterations, 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, failing to respect the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area. Furthermore, the proximity to neighbouring properties was seen to result in an overbearing impact and overshadowing to the detriment of residential amenity, contrary to policy D1 (parts A, C, and D) of the Melton Local Plan.

Application 25/00845/FUL at Websters Dairy, 5 Main Street, Saxelbye

The committee deferred a decision on the application for the conversion of redundant dairy buildings at Websters Dairy, Saxelbye, into five dwellings. The application had previously been deferred at the May 2026 Planning Committee meeting due to a lack of comments from the Conservation Officer, the absence of a road safety audit, and insufficient detail on visibility splays for parking for unit 3.

Since the previous meeting, the Conservation Officer has provided comments, supporting the restoration of the historic building, which is recognised as a non-designated heritage asset. However, concerns remain regarding highway safety and the need for further information. Leicestershire County Council Highways has provided comments, noting that while the proposed access width is slightly less than the standard requirement, it is considered acceptable given the site's constraints. They also confirmed that visibility splays and parking provisions have been addressed. However, the committee still required further details on a road safety audit and visibility splays for unit 3.

Councillor Ronan Browne, the ward councillor, reiterated concerns about highway safety, parking, and the potential over-intensification of the site. He also noted the absence of Conservation Officer comments at the previous meeting and requested deferral to obtain this information.

The committee resolved to defer the application to allow for additional information to be sought and made available, specifically regarding highway safety through a road safety audit by Leicestershire Highway Authority, more detail on visibility splays for car parking unit 3, and the statutory officer response from the Conservation Officer.

Application 25/00898/FUL at North Lodge, Longcliffe Hill, Old Dalby

The committee approved the application for the demolition of the existing farmhouse and the erection of a replacement dwelling and one further dwelling at North Lodge, Longcliffe Hill, Old Dalby.

The application was called to committee due to receiving more than 10 letters of objection. Objectors raised concerns about the scale of the proposed dwellings, potential overlooking and overshadowing of neighbouring properties, loss of trees, and increased traffic.

The planning officer's report noted that while the site is located outside the defined Limits to Development for Old Dalby, the surrounding area has seen significant residential development, making the existing settlement boundary appear out-of-date. The report concluded that the proposal represented the best use of the land, particularly given the unsafe condition of the existing farmhouse, and would visually improve the area. The recommendation for approval was made subject to conditions, including those relating to landscaping, ecological mitigation, biodiversity net gain, and the use of approved materials.

The committee also considered the heritage impact of demolishing the farmhouse, which was noted as being of moderate architectural significance but compromised by modern interventions and poor condition. The report concluded that the planning balance did not favour preservation due to these factors. Highway matters were considered acceptable, with no significant impact on highway safety anticipated. Ecological impacts were addressed through conditions requiring biodiversity enhancements, and flood risk and drainage were deemed acceptable as the site is within Flood Zone 1.