Norfolk Broads marina lodges major plans for expansion
Brundall Gardens Marina wants to build 68 dry mooring berths – areas where boats can be stored off the water
A bid to build dozens of mooring berths at a quiet marina looks set to go ahead.
Brundall Gardens Marina wants to build 68 dry mooring berths – areas where boats can be stored off the water – on grassland next to the River Yare.
Planning officials at the Broads Authority (BA) have recommended the scheme for approval, ahead of a meeting on Friday.
The site owner describes the area as a quiet location away from the main marinas in the village.
The application originally included floodlighting, which has been removed following consultation.
Several local groups have objected to the plan, including Brundall Parish Council (BPC), The Broads Society and the BA’s own landscape officer.
BPC raised a series of concerns about the application, with fears that it would impact the biodiversity of the site, has poor road access and would have a visual impact on the countryside park.
The Broads Society, which was set up in 1956 to protect and promote the waterways, argued the development would not meet planning policy set out in the Broads Local Plan.
They said: “While the Broads Society usually supports applications to support Broads industries this site is effectively a green field location adjacent to the Norwich to Great Yarmouth railway line.
“We are also concerned as to the choice of proposed surface material in such close proximity to watercourses.”
But BA planning officials have dismissed the concerns and supported the application.
They said: “The proposed development would allow the applicants to expand the boatyard activities through boat storage on a piece of land adjacent to the Brundall Gardens Marina site, and on land which has previously been used in conjunction with that business.
“The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on either landscape character or appearance, ecology and designated sites, and no undue impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.”
They also argued the site was not a flood risk.