A developer has won a fight to build flats and shops in a rural village after taking his cause to government officials.

Paul Bishopp of Norton Hill has been granted permission to create two retail units, with two homes above, on brownfield land in Stoke Ferry.

It follows a vote by West Norfolk Council (WNC) planning committee members to block the scheme. 

They called it "morally wrong" that previous promises that a new village hall would be built as part of the project were dropped by the development firm.

An aerial view of the brownfield site in Stoke Ferry, where the shops and flats will be builtAn aerial view of the brownfield site in Stoke Ferry, where the shops and flats will be built (Image: Google)

An earlier bid for housing as part of a phased development was approved for this section of land off Furlong Road, outside the development boundary of Stoke Ferry, on the proviso a village hall would be built. 

But this never came to fruition after previous developers Chalcroft went bust, and the site has been left untouched for a decade.

The bid's approval has caused anger among villagers, with councillor Sue Lintern saying the new development would offer "little for the community".

READ MORE: Last chance to have say on controversial farm bid which has sparked 15,000 objections

The Stoke Ferry village signThe Stoke Ferry village sign (Image: Newsquest)

Another councillor, Martin Storey, said villagers had been "abandoned" by the developer.

It led councillors to block the project, as it was outside the development boundary, and due to the harm it could cause to the conservation area not outweighing any potential benefits.

However, after the decision, Mr Bishopp appealed to the Planning Inspectorate - the government department that presides over planning disputes.

The official chose to overrule WNC as there was no evidence presented to support the claim that the scheme would cause harm.

The inspector said: "No harm to the character or appearance of the area is suggested, nor any technical objections such as highway safety, nature conservation or flooding."

Therefore, the official ruled that the project could go ahead, albeit with a number of conditions.

This includes better control of foul and surface water drainage.

The inspector also ruled that the council must pay for the costs of the appeal.