Plans to build 19 houses in a Norfolk town deferred following opposition
PUBLISHED: 17:36 31 July 2019 | UPDATED: 17:36 31 July 2019
A planning application to develop on land in a Norfolk town has been deferred following a vote against it.
Plans to build 19 houses in Downham Market were deferred following a meeting on Monday, July 29.
The application to develop on land to the south of Prince Henry Place was voted down by King's Lynn and West Norfolk council's planning committee.
It was proposed to build 19 houses, including four affordable houses with associated garages, parking, access road, landscaping and open space.
Objecting to the application on the website, Elaine Berger said: "We strongly object to the proposed development adjacent to Prince Henry Place on the grounds of the terrible disruption the building work would cause and the adverse effect the dirt and dust would have on the residents, many of which suffer from COPD, severe asthma and other breathing illnesses.
You may also want to watch:
"The physical and mental stress this building work would cause to everyone who lives here is tremendous. This area is totally unsuitable for this sort of development and there are lots of suitable areas in other parts of Downham.
Steve Harper, who shared these frustrations online, said: "Although 19 houses seems reasonable, this is yet another slow drip of covering our small market town under concrete. Past objections to many building applications have all sited the obvious that we do not have the infrastructure to cope."
Previous plans to build on the site were refused in November 2017 and dismissed on appeal.
A spokesman from the borough council said: "The application was recommended for approval by officers. However during the debate, it was proposed that the application be refused by Sandra Squire and seconded by Christine Hudson on the basis that the proposal was an over development of the site resulting in a cramped form of development compared to the surrounding form and character of the area. This proposal was voted on and lost.
"Members then returned to the main recommendation to approve the development and having been put to the vote, it was also lost.
The application has been deferred for further discussions with the applicant, with suggestions for a revised proposal.