A row is brewing in a growing village on the outskirts of Norwich, after councillors criticised a plan by locals setting out how the community should expand.
Trowse with Newton Parish Council submitted its neighbourhood plan to South Norfolk Council (SNC), outlining how it would like to see the area develop between now and 2038.
While the document does not set out specific areas for houses to be built, it provides 14 policies for the district to follow when determining planning applications in the village.
But SNC has criticised the plan, suggesting it is not realistic and that it “fundamentally” goes against planning policies.
It says the document - which includes proposals to restrict the height of new homes and reduce traffic - is unlikely to be approved by government inspectors, who must authorise all neighbourhood plans.
It said there should be a "period of reflection”, for the village to reconsider its views.
Trowse, which was originally built to house workers for the Colman's factory, is a small village, with a population of just 880 according to the 2021 Census.
It is faced with significant growth on its doorstep, with 670 homes planned for the Deal Ground and May Gurney sites, and a new development on White Horse Lane.
The Trowse with Newton Neighbourhood Plan (TNNP) includes policies that 50pc of all developments must be three-bedroom homes, demonstrate “high-quality design”, and reduce vehicles going through the village.
But planning officers at SNC raised a series of concerns about some of the policies, including the 50pc split, saying it is “not necessarily appropriate for larger-scale proposals”, including for the May Gurney site.
The officials also questioned whether it was “justifiable or achievable” to require developers to reduce the number of vehicles travelling through the village.
At an SNC cabinet meeting on Monday, Lisa Neal, the member for the economy, said she appreciated the work that has gone into the TNNP but proposed deferring it for the officer’s concerns to be considered.
She said: “I do have concerns about the number of recommendations from officers, which shows that parts of the plan are fundamentally against our district and national policies, which means it could never go forward in this format.”
The delay was agreed.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here