Bungalows refused over safety fears and proximity to petrol station

West Winch development

The proposed development site is off Regent Avenue, behind the existing filling station - Credit: Google

Plans for two bungalows on the site of a former garage have been thrown out after concerns were raised over road safety and their proximity to a filling station.

Motor Fuel Group applied to develop the site, which is behind aa filling station off the A10 on West Winch Road, West Winch, near King's Lynn.

A report to West Norfolk councillors said concerns were raised whether residential development was appropriate close to the filling station but no objections were received.

West Winch Parish Council objected on grounds of access to the A10. It said: "If other developments along the A10 are being refused on the grounds of unsafe access then this access must surely be considered unsafe, located as it is close to the petrol station access and also a bus stop."

A statement read out from residents of the six neighbouring bungalows off Regent Avenue said there was a safety issue regarding limited vision turning in and out of the lane.

It also asked whether there was sufficient turning space for delivery vans if two bungalows were built on the site.

Councillors raised concerns over access and the development's proximity to the fuel station's petrol tanks.

Most Read

But planning officer Hannah Wood-Handy said there had been no objections from Norfolk County Council or the fire service on safety grounds.

Councillor Alexandra Kemp said the council should not approve further developments off the A10 to put residents' safety first.

Charles Joyce said highways officers had objected to a development "two doors down" from the proposed site, which he said was on one of the busiest parts of the A10, used by 20,000 vehicles a day.

Alun Ryves said building houses next to a filling station was "a really dumb, stupid idea". He added: "Our duty is to protect the safety of our citizens."

Councillors had been recommended to approve the development. But they voted 14 - 2 against, with one abstention.