Norfolk woodland holiday camp for Pentney Woods blocked

Colin Pennington, who owns and operates the Pentney Lakes resort, wanted to turn neighbouring Pentney Woods into a site housing 36 holiday lodges and a wild swimming centre.

However, the move provoked anger from people living in surrounding villages, who worried it would destroy the habitat home of a variety of animals like otters, badgers and water voles.

The proposed layout of the lodges at Pentney Woods (Image: Forestscape)

At a West Norfolk Council planning committee meeting, Mr Pennington attempted to persuade members that the holiday park would be good for the environment.

He said: "Holiday habits are changing. Our carbon footprints need to be smaller and we should provide better facilities."

READ MORE: Construction firm's concrete crushing woes after council issues enforcement notice

An artist's impression of what the lodges could look like (Image: Forestscape)

He added that the site would be a carbon neutral destination and a third of the site would be kept as "ecological zones."

But locals remained unconvinced, with one villager, Stephen Fisher, saying the development would have an "irreversible detrimental impact".

Gareth Crocker, of East Winch and Bilney Parish Council added that it could affect water quality of the nearby River Nar, a rare chalk stream.

Councillor Terry Parish (Image: West Norfolk Council)

It also transpired that Mr Pennington had sent 'cease and desist' letters - documents which demand the recipient immediately stops actions the sender considers unlawful - to some of the objectors, according to councillor Terry Parish. He called for the scheme to be rejected.

This was backed by councillor Jim Moriarty, who highlighted that some lodges at the neighbouring Pentney Lakes had recently been granted permission to become permanent homes, fearing the same situation could occur at Pentney Woods.

Where the lodges could be built in Pentney Woods (Image: Google)

Officers attempted to support the application, saying a "significant amount of work" had gone into it, including mitigation measures to protect wildlife.

However, after listening to these concerns, members of the planning committee voted to refuse the application unanimously for a range of reasons, which included the potential harm it could cause to the environment.