South Norfolk Council has refused plans for a three-bedroom home off Norwich Road, Dickleburgh, due to concerns about its impact on countryside views

Plans for a new bungalow in a village have been thrown out - after third attempt to develop the site.

South Norfolk Council refused proposals for the three-bedroom home off Norwich Road in Dickleburgh due to concerns about its impact on countryside views.

It was the third attempt to develop the site, with two previous applications having also been unsuccessful, and its owners are growing increasingly frustrated.

Speaking at a meeting on Wednesday, Clayton Hudson, the local councillor for the area, urged members of the planning committee to reconsider their stance and said there was “no development” happening in the village.

The application was submitted to South Norfolk Council by Derek Lock, who sought to build the new bungalow close to Dickleburgh Moor, a 50-acre former glacial lake.

The proximity of the proposed development to the open moorland was one of the main sources of concern for council officers, who warned this building may have an impact on the landscape and rural appearance of the area.

Mr Hudson said the landscape was “lovely” but the new home would not block the view for any of the surrounding properties.

He added: “The village is crying out for development. In my opinion, bungalows are much needed in the area.

“There are already lots of other properties in this road and this would just be one more.”

The council said it had received insufficient information from Mr Lock regarding the impact of the development on protected species and habitats.

However, a representative for the applicant said he had been trying to develop the land for a decade and was becoming exasperated by the never-ending “back and forth” with the planning authority.

He said: “We have done everything that has been asked from us. We can’t keep pumping money into this site – we need some guarantees from the council.

“Of course, we have grown reluctant to pay for and provide more evidence.”

Despite a request from the applicant to defer the decision and allow more time to deliver this information, the proposals were refused.