Mid Norfolk village that said 'no to 90' is now fighting a new bid for 50 homes on farmland
PUBLISHED: 11:30 07 June 2017 | UPDATED: 11:39 07 June 2017
© Archant Norfolk 2014
A village which successfully campaigned against a developer's bid for 90 new homes on flood-prone farmland is now fighting a scheme for 50 homes from getting the go-ahead.
The parish council in Mattishall is asking its residents to come out in force to show solidarity behind its objection at the Breckland planning meeting on Monday where the scheme by Gladman Developments is recommended fo appoval.
The developer’s outline application for 90 homes on the land on Dereham Road was refused in January 2015 and later dismissed at appeal by an inspector who said “the implications of flooding for possible development are unresolved”.
The new application seeks to address the flooding issue by installing a perimeter drain.
Over 100 letters of objection were received to the original scheme and a further 60 have been sent regarding the amended application. Concerns include drainage unable to cope, overstretched facilities, additional traffic, detrimental to quality of life of the village, outside the settlement boundary, impact on local wildlife, and lack of employment in the village.
Parish council chairman Richard Norton said: “We are opposing the application for several reasons, but mainly because it does not accord with our Neighbourhood Plan which is fully drafted and about to go to referendum.
“In our plan, after thorough consultation, the village expressed a preference for smaller housing developments of up to 12 houses with a maximum of 24.
“Although the number of houses proposed has been reduced from 90 to 50, we still believe that the applicant has not fully addressed the flood risk posed. Also, a development of this size and scale will create a hard edge to the village not in keeping with the existing rural aspect.”
The parish council also believes that the committee meeting is being held too early, in advance of key decisions due to be made in a Local Plan meeting on June 16.
Despite the issues with the site the planning officer recommends approval on grounds that “significant benefits deriving from the development would outweigh the harm caused by way of conflict with development plan policy and the proposal would help address the need for growth in a sustainable location”.