Controversial homes decision put back again

Developer Persimmon Homes wants to reduce the number of affordable homes it builds on the site of a former golf club

A decision on whether to allow a developer to cut back the number of affordable homes it builds on a housing estate has been put back again.

Persimmon Homes is building about 780 homes on the site of the former Royal Norwich Golf Club – and its proposal to reduce the number of affordable properties was due to be decided on last month.

At the time, Broadland District Council's planning committee deferred its decision – so members could visit the site for a closer look.

They were due to vote on the plans on Wednesday – but a meeting heard they had not been given a site visit – so they voted for another deferment.

Since being given outline planning permission in 2016, Persimmon has been building the estate in phases – with a third of those constructed classed as affordable.

It originally had planned for 1,000 properties on the former golf club site.

The first two phases of homes on the estate have already been built

However, it said surface water issues and rising costs meant it was now more likely to build about 780 homes - and providing any more lower-cost properties was not viable.

It changed its offer, asking to reduce the number of affordable homes from 185 to 30 - and a report has advised planning councillors to accept the deal.

The firm also asked to cut down 200 more trees than previously planned.

Its proposals faced objections from Hellesdon Parish Council, with Broadland's tree officer also raising concerns.

Instead of being given a site visit, the planning committee – which was due to vote on the proposals - was shown video clips showing the area at a meeting.

'Large site'

Questioning why councillors had not seen the site for themselves – Conservative Stuart Clancy said he thought a visit would "be hugely beneficial".

"There will be a cost for PPE (personal protective equipment), there will be a time cost and a significant amount of walking around the site required," explained Ben Burgess, assistant director of planning.

"It's a very large site – you're easily looking at a couple of hours and that's a challenge. I don't think you'll get a lot more from the site visit than the videos today,"

While more discussion of the plans did take place, a majority of the councillors felt they needed to see more.

"Are we going with a site visit or aren't we?" asked Clancy.

The members voted in favour of deferring a decision until a visit had taken place.