Thought some of you may be interested in this planning application in todays' EDP.
Appl. No :
07/ 2011/0519 F 8 Parish: Wymondham Grid Ref: 608635 298059 Location: Mobile Home And Land Os 5990, Chepore Lane, Spooner Row
Proposal: Change of Use of argricultural land to single family residential travellers site including the stationing of one static caravan, one mobile home for a temporary period of 3 years
Applicant:
Mr A Kidd Agent: The Caravan Chepore Lane Spooner Row Norfolk NR18
I can remember reading in the paper a while back when the Council's G&T proposals were chucked out by the Government's Inspector as being unsound that South Norfolk Council would now pursue letting individual gypsies and travellers apply themselves on their own pieces of land for developing G&T sites. So it seems the Council's original first choice has reappeared via a different route as a potiential G&T site. I suppose the motto here would be that there is more than one way to skin a rabbit!
This land is agricultural land, outside the development boundary. The council has always been supportive for this field to be a G&T site, even when they chose the Standfield Road site, the Suton site was not ruled out. If any of us wanted to build a house on an agricultural field outside the development boundary it would no doubt not be allowed but gypsies and travellers are allowed as it has recently happened in a village near to here. I expect that field will now be allowed inside the development boundary when the changes are made. I have seen on other websites that South Norfolk Council is known as the Trailer Council.
I suppose the G&T Working Party at SNC will be over the moon about their intentions finally coming to fruition! Note that none of the proposed G&T sites whether council or privately proposed are anywhere near where the district councillors live and because of that, this planning permission will probably go through! It's an agricultural green field site, if they are allowed to change its use and install dwellings for living in - whether its a caravan or made of brick, then that rule should apply to EVERYONE - we should all be allowed to build on open green fields!
Is this the field where they are already ..... obviously without planning permission!
Unfortunately this is what seems to happen, they buy a field ostensibly as paddock for horses and then lo and behold a planning application gets submitted for change of use. Exactly what happened in Carlton Rode.
Yes I think it is. I thought that the new Localism Bill was to put a stop to planning permission applied retrospectively after gypies had moved in. If I remember right they were removed from this site several years ago by the council but must have returned. The Council rejected this site when doing their searches for a permanent g&t site as unsuitable and decided on Stanfield Road instead. Technically the council should reject this planning permission if they are consistent and in the light of the new legislation. There again, this and
Is this the field where they are already ..... obviously without planning permission!
Unfortunately this is what seems to happen, they buy a field ostensibly as paddock for horses and then lo and behold a planning application gets submitted for change of use. Exactly what happened in Carlton Rode.
I gather the one in Carlton Rode has already put in planning permission to expand much to the dismay of the residents
yet again its one rule for us and ( the honest, hardworking, tax paying abide by the rules public), and another for the council and the g&ts. Maybe corruption has spread a bit further than just a newspaper and the Met!!!! Can our local councillors look into this and get back to us with some sort of an answer or reason as to why this has gone through?
I totally agree with you - one rule for them and another for us and we are the ones paying for this in our council taxes.
This plot of land is outside the development boundary is designated as agricultural land and I assume they are living there without permission - is this decision legal?
As for expecting the council to justify their decision or even give some sort of explanation, I think hell will freeze over first! Remember this is the plot of land (along with Standfield Road, Wymondham) that South Norfolk Council recently put forward as their permanent G&T site. The Council had several huge Public Consultations (and we made our views known) and even the Government's Inspector chucked out the Council's plans for a G&T site as being flawed yet a G&T site has now been Approved and passed by their Planning Committee quite unnoticed!! (Who sits on this planning committe?) I suppose the next stage is a planning application for 7-8 pitches as per the Council's original plan.
Thank you South Norfolk Council for being so fair! We still want an explanation as to why this planning application has been passed retrospectively which is contrary to the new Government's policy on this subject.
Yes of course you can have a reply. I'm sure everyone will understand that, when a matter is as controversial and detailed as this, our immediate answer is that Diana Hockaday and I are aware of it and working on it.
We will respond more fully as soon as we can. It would not be serving our residents well if we put haste before accuracy.
Change of use of agricultural land to single family residential Travellers site including the stationing of one static caravan,one mobile home for temporary period of 3 years
Members voted 10-0 to authorise development Control manager to Approve with conditions,
1'Temporary permission for 3 years
2.Max 2 caravans
3 Occupation by Gypsies/Travellers only
4 Access splays
5 No Commercial use.
Reasons for approval
Subject to the comments of the Highway Authority, the absence of alternative sites for traveller accomodation is a factor in favour of granting temporary permission which outweighs the degree of harm caused by the development, as suggested in Circular 01/2006.A temporary permission is appropriate to meet the immediate accommodation needs of the applicant for a period within which the relative meritsof this ,and other sites, can be assessed through the Local Development Framework process for allocation as traveller sites."
Thank you Diana for the information. It seems strange in the present climate that planning approval was given in this case. I have a sneaky feeling that it will be one caravan and one mobile today as a temporary condition but shortly this will change and South Norfolk Council will get what it originally intended and it will expand to a 7 pitch site. Also, the fact that ONLY gypsies and travellers can live here is a bit discriminatory to the rest of us - perhaps WE WOULD ALL like to set up dwellings on agricultural and green field sites (outside the development boundary) and be given retrospective planning approval - wouldn't that be nice!
as i said earlier one rule for one, and one for another its a disgrace. We should all send in applications to change land use bet they wouldnt all get passed! Is there somewhere we can contact within SNDC to oppose this?
So thats it then. Seems to be accepted by our councillors. Now we await a field full of caravans as permission will be extended similar to Carleton Rode
The Planning Approval says, "Members voted 10-0 to authorise development Control manager to Approve with conditions". Who are these Members/SNC Councillors who ALL voted in favour of this? Are they from the Wymondham area or not? Maybe THEY would like to give us an explanation as to why they have voted in favour of this planning application after their own G&T DPD (which included this Suton site) was rejected by the Government's Inspector as being unsound.
Now that this piece of land has a G&T occupancy status, it will just be a matter of time before it is extended to include more pitches. We all made our valid views quite clear to the authorities at SNC's various public meetings/consultations - obviously our views didn't count for much. These Public Meetings cost an absolute fortune and paid for from our taxes, what a waste of everyone's money and time! We said at the time that the outcome was predetermined and a "done deal", which they denied, but the facts speak for themselves.
I've only just seen this application and am furious. South Norfolk Council doesn't represent the wishes of the communities at all (you know, those of us who pay their salaries). Who are these 10 people anyway - I have a right to know who they are, so I know who not to vote for next time. I bet none of them have a travellers site in their back yard. South Norfolk councillors are clearly not carrying out the policies of Central Government and have their own agenda. We need to take action to reverse this decision as SNC will without doubt try to extend the site and adopt their original plans for a travellers site in Suton/Spooner Row depsite the fact that it was judged to be an unsound proposal. SNC clearly knew how we all felt about the idea of a travellers site in Suton/Spooner Row and have completely ignored us. This idea of integrating the travelling community into existing communties is totally flawed. The planning application said the site was for Gypsy and Travellers use only, which clearly shows that the aim is to exclude those in the local communities. Can you imagine the response if any of us put in a planning application for development/change of use of a piece of land and said it was only for non-travellers use!?
I have had lots of dealings with gypsies/travellers over many years and I have found them, without exception, to be the most anti-social, disgusting, criminal, menacing and selfish people I've ever met. They will cause problems and won't adhere to the planning terms that they have been granted.
I'm sorry to say but there will be trouble in the village when these people move in and our elected councillors will have a lot to answer to....
Planning decisions are made at District Council level and our District Councillor Representative is Neil Ward. He is also Wymondham Town Council's Mayor - maybe you should contact him with your concerns about the G&T site expanding.
If you look on South Norfolk District Council's website, you can see the documents relating to their Planning Meetings and who sits on these Planning Committees (6th July in this case). It is annoying to see that none of the District Councillors who made this decision to Approve this Planning Application represent Wymondham on that date. Even more annoying is that there are Wymondham District Councillors who do sit on these Planning Committees but it is at alternate Meetings only. Surely an important issue such as this should have been scheduled for when Wymondham District Councillors were present. I suppose this arrangement makes life easy for them.
As far as I know, the small group of Suton site travellers have lived on this field quietly for some years, this just means that they are now on there legally. Hopefully it will stay this way and not expand.
If you mean Wymondham Town Councillors by that remark, it's sort of flattering of you to imply that we have any sort of power or authority. As far as Planning matters go, [1] WTC is no more than an advisory body and [2] In any case, neither Diana Hockaday nor I are on the Planning Committee. We do try to do our best to represent your views as far as we can.
If you mean Wymondham Town Councillors by that remark, it's sort of flattering of you to imply that we have any sort of power or authority. As far as Planning matters go, [1] WTC is no more than an advisory body and [2] In any case, neither Diana Hockaday nor I are on the Planning Committee. We do try to do our best to represent your views as far as we can.
John, Its a pity that you and Diana do not have more power as Wymondham Town Councillors in the decisions of Planning Applications. What annoys me is that WYMONDHAM DISTRICT COUNCILLORS who sit on Plannings Committees at South Norfolk Council are not present when important Wymondham planning issues arise and decisions are made. Important planning applications like the gypsy site and other topics should be decided at the Planning Meetings when the WYMONDHAM DISTRICT COUNCILLORS are present and not when they are absent. Afterall they were elected to represent us as well. I think it should be District Council policy to ensure that Wymondham District Councillors are present when Wymondham planning applications/issues arise.
