Plans to demolish and rebuild the Norfolk getaway of a shoe-making pioneer have been blocked following fierce opposition from villagers.
The controversial new designs for Brownsea in Holme-next-the-Sea had been branded as "repulsive" by locals, who worried it would harm the heritage of the area.
They called for the home in Beach Road to be protected due to it being "one of the best examples of interwar architecture" and for its historic links with Charles Bennion, a wealthy shoe manufacturer from Leicestershire.
His company, British United Shoe Machinery, became the largest manufacturer of footwear machinery in the world and helped revolutionise the industry.
At a West Norfolk Council planning committee meeting this week, its fate was decided after previous attempts to come to a verdict were delayed following last-minute information coming to light about its historical significance.
An agent for the developer, Chris Lindsey, attempted to persuade councillors that the new design meets the policies of the local plan and that it would bring new life to the "dilapidated" property, making it a more flood-resilient and efficient home.
Planning officers agreed that it would be an improvement to the current property and recommended the revamp be approved.
READ MORE: 'We're not cantankerous, we're lively' - new boss at rowdy council
However, councillors took a different view.
Chairman of the committee, Terry Parish, called the proposed design "appalling," adding: "It has too much glass."
He also wondered if action could be taken to replace a hedgerow that has already been removed at the site.
While councillor Michael de Whalley worried that having a bedroom on the ground floor would pose a flood risk in the future due to rising sea levels.
READ MORE: Villagers in fight against plans to build two mega-farms
There were calls from councillor Anthony Bubb for committee members to conduct a site visit before making a decision, worrying the developer may appeal due to the decision "not being thorough enough".
However, this was dismissed as being unnecessary due to the body of evidence that had been presented.
When the decision came to a vote, members decided to refuse the application on the grounds it would harm the character of the conservation area.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel