Bid to produce shipping containers in village rejected

West Norfolk council is warning about a tax scam. Picture: Ian Burt

West Norfolk council has rejected plans for a shipping container storage business. - Credit: IAN BURT

A storage container business has had its plans for a Norfolk village rejected by councillors.

Plans for 38 shipping containers on a former quail egg farm were recommended for approval by West Norfolk Council officers.

The plans for the Church Lane, East Walton site drew a mixed reaction from the council's planning committee.

Westacre Estate Management, the applicant, had already placed 37 containers on the site, which have been used by residents, businesses and the Montessori School.

Bill Lewis, chairman of the village meeting, said it was clear that it was not suitable after 11 months of the shipping containers being on the site.

Mr Lewis also raised concerns that new businesses were being started on the site after floodlights were installed.

Green Party member Michael De Whalley said he had visited the site and it was unsuitable for large mechanical vehicles.

Most Read

“The location of the site has led to an increase in traffic that any condition could not reasonably be policed. 

“The B1153 is a dangerous road to turn out on, with the last accident just two weeks ago.” 

However, a report to councillors said traffic on the site was unlikely to be higher than when it was a farm.

Brian Long raised previous planning history for the business, which had been turned down for an application at Abbey Farm in West Acre. 

“It’s right in the middle of a rural area,” he said. 

“The reasons why it was turned down in West Acre - there is no real change here. I just don’t see what is different.”   

Sandra Squire disagreed. She said: “I’m a little concerned by what I am hearing that only agricultural [business] is allowed in our villages. 

“How is it sustainable to make people living in the village to travel to Kings Lynn to get to their storage? 

“The Abbey site, it was very different, there were conservation issues that are not the case here.” 

The plan was rejected 10 votes to seven and one abstention.