Attempts by a housing developer to get out of building affordable homes on a new estate in Holt have been deferred. 

Councillors on North Norfolk District Council’s development committee spent hours debating Hopkins Homes’ application for its 52-home project off Hempstead Road at a meeting on Thursday.

And although they were more-or-less united in their opposition to Hopkins’ bid to have its ‘affordable housing requirement’ removed, they were split over how best to confront it. 

North Norfolk News: NNDC Holt ward councillor Georgie Perry-WarnesNNDC Holt ward councillor Georgie Perry-Warnes (Image: Supplied)

Holt ward councillor Georgie Perry-Warnes said: “The provision of 23 affordable homes was a crucial element of the decision to approve [the new estate in 2020].

“Hopkins Homes now claims the scheme is not viable with the affordable homes provision.

"I share the level of outrage that has been expressed by many people in Holt that the provision of affordable homes is being treated as an optional extra. 

“This is a matter of social justice. It is a fight for fairness.”

Councillor Wendy Fredericks, NNDC’s portfolio holder for housing and benefits, also spoke against Hopkins’ bid and highlighted north Norfolk’s lack of housing for locals.

She said: “Those who work in north Norfolk are being denied the opportunity of living and working in their own communities.

North Norfolk News: NNDC councillor Wendy FredericksNNDC councillor Wendy Fredericks (Image: NNDC)

“Our beautiful district is being taken advantage of yet again.

"I would rather not have another block of houses built which has no benefit for the communities of north Norfolk.”

Councillors were told that if they refused the developers’ bid, they risked having the decision overturned by the Planning Inspectorate - and facing a hefty bill for costs. 

A spokesman for Hopkins Homes said: “We are willing to have further discussion with the local authority to explore how affordable housing may be able to be provided on this site.”

Six councillors voted to defer the decision pending further discussion with the developer, five voted against the delay, and there were two abstentions.