Plan to demolish vets and replace with flats is turned down
- Credit: Aaron McMillan
A proposal which would have seen a Fakenham vets knocked down and replaced with a block of flats has been refused.
The application had been lodged by J Feneley and L Rivett with a view to demolishing Summerhill Veterinary Centre, located in Queen's Road.
In its place, there would have been a two-storey and part single-storey building, comprising seven flats with associated driveways, parking spaces, turning area, garages and amenity space.
But the scheme was turned down by North Norfolk District Council's planning department on the basis of there being insufficient outdoor space.
It was concluded to be "overdevelopment" and would, therefore, fail to fit in with its surroundings.
In his decision notice, NNDC head of planning Phillip Rowson said: "The proposed development for seven units represents an unacceptable form of development.
"Failure to demonstrate adequate outdoor amenity provision afforded for the proposed units would constitute overdevelopment and intensification of use of the site.
- 1 Film studio which brought John Travolta to Norfolk shuts for good
- 2 Norfolk winery wins prestigious national award
- 3 Drink driving teacher crashed into church wall with baby in car
- 4 Fakenham farm bids to open field for dog exercise
- 5 Sparse and getting older - What the census says about north Norfolk
- 6 Villagers celebrate victory in 'battle of East Rudham common'
- 7 Norfolk deli owner suffers severe spinal injuries in Ibiza diving accident
- 8 Can you complete the Census 2021 map game?
- 9 Headteacher set to depart school after 'proud' 12 years
- 10 Fisherman could close business after society rejects membership bids
"This would fail to reflect the form and character of the surrounding area."
Documents submitted to NNDC said the vets had outgrown the building and would be moving to a larger, purpose-built facility in the Fakenham area.
Summerhill has been contacted but declined to comment on its future plans.
Giving his decision, Mr Rowson highlighted the scale of the potential development, as well as its orientation and close proximity to a shared boundary to the north, as being problematic.
He said the block of flats would be "significantly detrimental" to the residential amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring properties, as it would "dominate" the view from their gardens.
The block of flats would have consisted of half a dozen two-bedroom flats and a single one-bedroom home, with a total of 15 parking spaces.
But the project received a number of objections from residents living nearby.
Fakenham Town Council welcomed the demolition of a "very inadequate" building, but objected on the grounds of overdevelopment.
The original planning application said several attempts have already been made by the vets to expand the building, all of which were rejected.