Decision to refuse 80 new homes on edge of Norwich was right, rules inspector
"I appreciate that there is a national housing shortage, but this does not mean development at all costs."
Those were the words of a planning inspector who says councillors were right to turn down plans for more than 80 new homes on the edge of Norwich.
Members of Broadland District Council’s planning committee went against advice from their own officers when they rejected the application for 84 homes off Salhouse Road in Little Plumstead in July last year.
Objections were lodged by Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Councillors turned it down because it would harm the countryside and was not sustainable.
Applicant Glavenhill Strategic Land appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but inspector John Morrison has dismissed it.
Councils which can demonstrate they have a five year land supply have more ability to reject planning applications.
But Mr Morrison said it was “more likely than not that the council cannot demonstrate the required supply of housing sites having the evidence before me in this particular case.”
However, he said he still needed to consider whether the adverse effects of the planning application outweighed the benefits.
While he said there would be benefits, such as new homes and affordable housing, he said the location was not sustainable and “it is more likely that new journeys arising out of the proposed development would be by means of the private car”.
He said: “I appreciate that there is a national housing shortage, but this does not mean development at all costs.
“The housing and affordable housing this scheme would deliver would no doubt be beneficial and there are associated economic benefits that come with a general increase in population.
“But to my mind, it should still be delivered in the right place.”
Shaun Vincent, leader of Broadland District Council and councillor for Plumstead ward, which includes Great Plumstead, Little Plumstead and Thorpe End, welcomed the decision.
He said: “I’m delighted that the appeal has been dismissed and that the planning inspector took into account our concerns, which contributed to his assessment that this is not a suitable location for large scale development.”