More than 130 retirement homes set to be built in north Norfolk
Pensioners could benefit after planners agreed that more than 130 new retirement homes will be built in north Norfolk.
North Norfolk District councillors approved two separate applications, as per their officers’ recommendations, at a development committee meeting on Thursday, August 31.
The proposals were given the go-ahead despite questions being raised at the meeting about why much-need affordable housing was not part of the plans.
Sixty-two retirement apartments on land south of Sheringham House, Cremers Drift, Sheringham will now be built.
Meanwhile, councillors also agreed landscaping for 68 retirement apartments and one bungalow on land in Overstrand Road, Cromer.
Outline planning permission for Sutherland Homes to build the new homes in Cromer to the rear of Barclay Mews and Sutherland Court Gardens was approved two years ago.
Concerns were raised at the meeting by Richard Anderson, who owns a glamping site on the grounds of the nearby Grove country house and restaurant.
He said: “My main concern is during the construction phase and how it will affect my guests and damage the business.”
And Chris Graveling, one of the owners of the Grove, also raised concerns about how the building work would affect their guests, and called for work on site to start at 9am rather than 8am.
Suffield Park ward councillor Nigel Pearce called for all screening work to be fully in place before development takes place.
Meanwhile, Sutherland Homes’ plans for Sheringham were also approved, despite objections from the town council.
Anne Smith, vice-chairman of the town council’s planning committee, questioned why there was no provision for affordable housing in the plans.
She said: “There is a great need for social housing in the area with hundreds on the waiting list.”
The town council also objected on the grounds that the proposed access off the cul-de-sac was “inadequate”, and there were 14 letters of objection.
Sheringham South district councillor Richard Shepherd accepted that the land was on an allocated development site, but he questioned how the £85,000 section 106 contribution from developers would be spent.
But fellow councillor Sue Arnold said that “it looked like a good scheme”.