New plans are set to be revealed by the owners of a property branded a 'fortress' they have been ordered to pull down.

London theatre producer Adam Spiegel and his wife Gay have been told to demolish the house they built in Cley, between Wells and Cromer, after a long-running battle.

The Planning Inspectorate has set a deadline of October 18, 2024, for the house on Holt Road, called Arcady, to be removed from the site.

Villagers claimed the property breached planning rules and towered over their homes.

Eastern Daily Press: The new property was originally turned down because it did not fit in with Cley's conservation areaThe new property was originally turned down because it did not fit in with Cley's conservation area (Image: Chris Bishop)

In August, its owners said they intended to replace Arcady with a smaller property.

Their consultant, Tim Schofield, has now provided Cley Parish Council with more details on its design.

Minutes from a meeting earlier this month say: "Mr Schofield stated the new dwelling would have more familiar features such as gables and a pitched roof to fit in with the local street scene.

"The intention is to greatly reduce the scale and mass viewpoint from the Green and the south, significantly scaling back the building from these locations.

"The new dwelling will be of modern design, using James Henman, an architect from Fakenham."

Eastern Daily Press: Cley is famed for its picturesque millCley is famed for its picturesque mill (Image: Chris Bishop)

More details are set to be shown to the council later this month when villagers will be asked for their comments.

In 2013, North Norfolk Council rejected plans to build a two-storey house and swimming pool because the design was "inappropriate".

A year on, the decision was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, with permission granted on the condition the development had to be carried out in accordance with the drawings in the original plan.

But in 2019, the council served an enforcement notice to demolish all buildings on the site because the development was "materially different" to the approved plan.  The owners' appeals were rejected.