Plan for Norfolk house that 'would disturb peacocks' rejected

Neighbours said peacocks who roam around gardens in the area would be "greatly disturbed" by the proposed house

A plan for a new house on scrubland has been blocked after concerns were raised about the effect it would have on peacocks.

A developer wanted to construct the home behind a row of houses in East Winch, near King's Lynn in Norfolk.

Some people objected to the proposal, saying it would disturb the peacocks who roam around gardens in the village.

A planning inspector has now refused permission as the plan would "harm the character and appearance of the area".

The land where the house would have been built runs alongside the A47

One person living nearby, who described themselves as an animal lover, said: "There are many peacocks and peahens that travel from Church Lane over the gardens down towards Lynn Road.

"They are beautiful wild creatures who, together with the nesting bird population, would be greatly disturbed by this application."

Another neighbour said: "I would urge the planning committee to not seek to destroy these birds but allow them to remain undisturbed as they are a significant part of East Winch history."

The Planning Inspector said the proposal would harm the character and appearance of East Winch village

The Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk had rejected the application as it was considered a "backland" development that went against its planning policies, said the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The council's refusal led to an appeal being made by the applicant, Andrew Chapman, to the government's Planning Inspectorate.

His agent, Simon Lemmon, argued there had been a precedent set in the area due to comparable "backland" developments being allowed and the proposed house would be in a good location with access to public transport.

Neil Devereux, the inspector, decided that the council made the correct decision when it blocked the application.

In his report, he said: "I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area" and he added that the development would not be "sympathetic to local character".