Spooner Row Message Board

Date: Jun 25, 2012

Planning application 2012/1049 Site at Chepore Lane (this topic has a second page)

Date: Jun 26, 2012

RE: Planning application 2012/1049 Site at Chepore Lane

Date: Jun 26, 2012

The two previous big consultations were organised by the district council who would have been responsible for building and running the traveller site if it had been a sound project - it wasn't. This is different, this is a private individual with a proper Planning Application to develop his own traveller site. You will need to resubmit your objections again.

The previous occupier only had temporary planning permission to live there for health reasons and rumour has it that he has now moved off the site. This greenfield site should now revert back to its original status which is for agricultural use.

If you are concerned about leaving your name and other details, ask the council if you can remain anonymous - anyone should be allowed to do this anonymously! Chris Trett is the planning officer dealing with this planning application. If you don't make your concerns known then planners will think that you are OK with a traveller site here.

Date: Jun 27, 2012

From the South Norfolk Planning website:

If you are worried about your contact details and signature appearing on our website, do the following when you comment on planning applications:

Print your name instead of adding your signature to any documents, and initial the printed name.
Send e-mailed comments as an attachment, so that only the attachment can be published (and not your email address).
Do not include your telephone number if you do not want people to know it.

If you don't think this is enough to protect your identity, then send your comments to your local councillor, who will make sure they are taken into account when any decision is made.

Date: Jun 27, 2012

Below are details of the new Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. Issued by the Norfolk Association of Local Councils:

Norfolk Association of Local Councils

April 2012 LAIS 1327.2 Traveller Sites

What is in this for local councils?

Town and parish councils (local councils) will wish to be aware that a new planning policy for traveller sites has been published. This policy has significance because it must be taken into account in the preparation of development plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions. In the same way that the National Planning Policy Framework is an enabling document for sustainable development, this document aims to ensure equality of treatment in meeting the development needs of the travelling community.

The policies included are:

A. Local planning authorities should use robust evidence of accommodation needs and proper engagement with the travelling and settled community when planning and managing traveller site development.

B. Local plans must contribute to achieving sustainable development including for travellers in line with this policy. Government is imposing requirements, on local planning authorities to identify 5 years’ worth of ‘specific deliverable’ traveller sites and 6-10 (or where possible 11-15 years) of ‘specific developable’ sites/broad locations for growth. Where there is no identified need, fair criteria should be developed for any applications that arise taking into account the traditional and nomadic life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community. Local policies are required to ensure sites are sustainable economically, socially and environmentally including by ensuring access to health and schooling, a reduced risk of damaging unauthorised encampments and through providing a settled base which reduces the need for travel.

C. Traveller sites should not dominate the nearest settled community in rural and semi-rural areas.

D. Local planning authorities are encouraged to release land for traveller sites where there is a lack of affordable land for this purpose, including through use of rural exception sites. The document states: ‘A rural exception site policy enables small sites to be used, specifically for affordable traveller sites, in small rural communities, that would not normally be used for traveller sites.’ Such policies should address the needs of the local community but should also ensure ‘rural areas continue to develop as sustainable, mixed, inclusive communities.’

E. Traveller sites are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the policy also states that where local planning authorities wish to change the Green Belt boundary in order to accommodate a traveller site, they should do so through the plan-making process and not in response to a planning application. If the land is removed from the Green Belt in this way, it should be specifically allocated in the plan as a traveller site only.

F. Where possible, sites for mixed residential and business use should be considered (not on rural exception sites).

G. Appropriate consultation should take place with an applicant and relevant traveller community where a major development is proposed which requires the temporary or permanent relocation of a traveller site.

H. In determining planning applications (including those from travellers with no local connection), considerations should include the availability of sites and alternative accommodation, the personal circumstances of the applicant and any criteria for allocation of sites in such circumstances. Sites should not dominate the nearest settled community and the number of sites in open countryside away from existing settlements should be strictly limited. The design of sites should be conducive to enhancing the environment, giving opportunities for play for children and should not include high walls or other medium which serve to isolate the community. The planning authority should proactively seek ways to overcome objections through planning conditions or obligations.

I. This policy applies from March 2012 as per the National Planning Policy Framework (See LAIS 1327.2). However, if they have not identified sufficient deliverable sites, then 12 months after that date, this fact will be a significant material consideration when determining applications for sites.

Deadline: Published 23 March 2012. Immediate application

References to local councils: 0

References

Planning Policy for Travellers can be found at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2113371.pdf

Date: Jun 27, 2012

To send your objection anonymously email South Norfolk Planning Dept. giving them your name and address and asking for your details to be kept anonymous/out of the public domain and attach your objection letter as a word document, signing it 'Suton Resident' etc. It took me a while to get the person in the planning dept to give me this info as I was first told I had to put my details on the objection.

Also worth noting is that temporary planning was never finally granted on the site because the terms of the permission were never met (Access splays/water supply/drainage etc.)

Date: Jul 2, 2012

Those concern about the planning application for the Chepore Lane, Gypsy and Traveller site may be interested to know that three mobile caravans plus assorted vehicles have arrived on the site today (Sunday 1st July). As mentioned in the previous post no approval has been granted for any dwellings on the site so I assume this is yet again an unauthorised use of the site. I am sure this will be dealt with by the Council in the same speedy and efficient way as on the previous occasion.

Date: Jul 3, 2012

Surely not! I thought they would wait for and respect South Norfolks decision. I think they appreciate (as do most of the residents here) how ineffectual our council planners and their rules are.

I think our councillors should now be speaking out for the local residents, not just asking them to fend for themselves at meetings that they know full well most people will find it either

Difficult to get to

Difficult to understand the complexities of the planning rules

intimidating: given who they are speaking out against.

There are a LOT of worried residents here especially the elderly...

Come on Council and Councillors..Represent your constituents...I'm sure you'll show us what you are made of (one way or another)

Date: Jul 6, 2012

This posting has been removed.

It was a private letter written by Stuart Harrison, the Applicant's Agent. The Agent contacted residents who had provided Public Comment and Correspondence to Planners at South Norfolk Council on South Norfolk Council's website.

Webstation

-- Edited by webstation on Monday 9th of July 2012 07:01:17 PM

Date: Jul 7, 2012

Dear Mr Harrison and Mr Ashton

Mr Kidds planning permission 2011/0519 was for a “single family residential traveller site including the stationing of one static caravan, one mobile home for a temporary period of 3 years”.

This is not what is currently on the site now and therefore does not comply with the conditions and so is illegal. This is a planning issue.

Exactly what is the racial prejudice from the local community that you are referring to? This is a planning issue. There was no racial prejudice towards the ‘culture’ of Mr Kidd as you suggest. I take exception to this.

Date: Jul 7, 2012

This posting has been removed.

-- Edited by webstation on Monday 9th of July 2012 07:19:18 PM

Date: Jul 7, 2012

I object to being called a racist just because I wish to oppose a planning application. A residential development of that size will be detremental to the local area for numerous reasons outlined by most people objecting to this application. The colour of skin, their family background or the fact they don't like bricks has nothing to do with it.

Their accusations shows how little they know about the local population they want to join.

Date: Jul 7, 2012

...edited... Dont expect south norfolk to listen to the locals or the town council. They never ever do. They dont care about anything but their own targets and spreadsheets. Breckland will be doing the same at besthorpe too. Breckland even say that they are looking to put it on the boundary with south norfolk with the help of south norfolk council! Just you watch. south norfolk planners will totally ignore the governments new rules on travellers, wymondham town councils vote and all the local objections.

Date: Jul 8, 2012

I wouldn't get disheartened over this, as central Government is definitely on our side. Read these, if you can bear it. All our issues are with South Norfolk Council.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1896534.pdf

http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/2126182

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/travellers/

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2113371.pdf

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2113385.pdf

South Norfolk Council are the problem here. After what happened last time with their overly forceful approach and unsound consultation process to develop Gypsy and Traveller sites in Spooner Row/Suton, trust with our community over this issue has been destroyed. Because we think that the "cabinet" at SNC have their own agenda we have no faith in them coming to the right decision in assessing any private planning application related to this issue. It is clear that SNC have done a very poor job in forging good working relationships with their local communities and they are flying in the face of what they have been told to achieve by Central Government. They are so arrogant and probably think they know best! Just remember this is a private planning application, like any other and there are plenty of reasons why it should be rejected on the grounds of planning. Wymondham Town Council agree.

Date: Jul 8, 2012

In response to Stuart Harrison’s letter 7 postings above:

Dear Stuart Harrison and Robert Ashton,

I don’t think by suggesting everyone in the nearby communities as being ignorant and racially prejudiced in the same breath as inviting us to meet you both at a traveller site is going to muster much support – this approach is not recommended for getting people to go to your meeting!

Mr Ashton, no one is criticizing you for being the ‘only person’ to support Planning Application 2012/1049, you are perfectly entitled to do this – well done you! But your biased and sweeping negative comments on the website mentioned in Stuart Harrison’s letter, about ordinary people from this local community is irresponsible. Do you want to cause community tensions or are you just looking for material for your new book? As far as I am aware there has been no “racial vitriol” as you state on another website.

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/blogs/content/12912/thin_end_of_the_wedge

Date: Jul 8, 2012

By mentioning that the new occupants are Roma in his letter and not other groups is in itself racist, as the implication is that other groups would be less desirable. I assume he won't clarify that point.

I am a worried and angry local. Why should I not be? I'm no racist. I have no problem with any group as long as they obey the planning laws, respect their neighbours right to privacy and peace ( a two way process) and don't get special treatment/benefits denied others in the settled community who also have needs, rights and heritage. I'm sure the new occupants are good people. However, a large influx of people for another quite different heritage/culture/way of living whoever they are and wherever it happens can overwhelm and indeed redifine a small existing community such as ours.

Date: Jul 9, 2012

I wonder how many people would oppose a planning application by their next door neighbour for a granny annexe to enable their extended family to be together?

Date: Jul 9, 2012

I have read Stuart Harrisons reply to Robert Ashtons article on the Civic Societys blog and it isn't very nice, but thanks anyway.

Date: Jul 9, 2012

Anonymous wrote:
I do not believe that the meeting in Chepore Lane on Saturday is a forum for Robert Ashton, it is to meet your new neighbours. What harm can that do? Perhaps meeting them and actually seeing what is happening on the site and what the plans are for the future would be better than listenening to the many people who seem to have adopted a 'pack' attitude and passing on a lot of incorrect information, (chinese whispers are alive and well in Spooner Row). Don't be a sheep (after all, we all know what happens to them don't we - leading the lamb etc etc). I for one am curious to see for myself. I am sure a lot of people are apprehensive about the unknown, and seeing what is happening first hand can only help. Also, I am not clear as to how exactly are they breaking the law? I live too far away to actually see what is going on at the property, as do many of the local residents, but some of them seem incredibly well (or ill?)informed. Mr Ashton obviously has his own agenda concerning this matter, but I understand that this 'civil society' he is a part of is a new hobby of his and if he is intending to make this 'open morning' about him, then I strongly advise him to think again.

Just because many people have written objections to their council about a planning application does not mean they have a "pack" attitude as you say. There is a pending planning application so until that has been decided then I am in agreement that they are breaking the law. We are not sheep as you say and I suggest you stop trying to stir things up and the same goes for Mr Ashton.

Date: Jul 9, 2012

Anonymous wrote:
I do not believe that the meeting in Chepore Lane on Saturday is a forum for Robert Ashton, it is to meet your new neighbours. What harm can that do? Perhaps meeting them and actually seeing what is happening on the site and what the plans are for the future would be better than listenening to the many people who seem to have adopted a 'pack' attitude and passing on a lot of incorrect information, (chinese whispers are alive and well in Spooner Row). Don't be a sheep (after all, we all know what happens to them don't we - leading the lamb etc etc). I for one am curious to see for myself. I am sure a lot of people are apprehensive about the unknown, and seeing what is happening first hand can only help. Also, I am not clear as to how exactly are they breaking the law? I live too far away to actually see what is going on at the property, as do many of the local residents, but some of them seem incredibly well (or ill?)informed. Mr Ashton obviously has his own agenda concerning this matter, but I understand that this 'civil society' he is a part of is a new hobby of his and if he is intending to make this 'open morning' about him, then I strongly advise him to think again.

I couldn't care less about Mr. Ashton's agenda. Why should I want to meet my new neighbours over a discussion about a planning application? When any private planning application is submitted anyone is welcomed to support or raise objections to it on planning grounds. That is exactly what we are all doing. Planning permission has already been broken on this site, which is against the law. We already know what the new plans for the site are so there is no point anyone trying to persuade us otherwise. We don't think it is acceptable on the grounds of planning. The landowner who sold this site to the planning applicants lives nowhere near our community; though, in his defence, he was forced to sell the land since, as far as I understand from Mr. Harrison's letter above, it states that the previous tenants were moved on because ....edited....! This issue has absolutely nothing to do with racism - we all find it offensive to be labelled this by the likes of Mr. Ashton in the public domain. If anybody else in our community wanted to develop something of a similar nature to that proposed, I am confident that it would be met with objections. Rules are rules and the same rules should apply to everyone. We need fairness in our society, not positive discrimination. For your information, I have been reading some of Mr. Ashtons provocative Tweets on Twitter and it could easily be interpreted by many that he is "fattist". Is that acceptable in a civil society?

Date: Jul 9, 2012

It was not Mr Harrison that publicly displayed the details of Mr Kidd's predicament. This was a private letter sent to individuals to help clarify the situation at Chepore Lane. The person responsible for putting this letter in the public domain has chosen to remain anonymous. It is them that should apologize to Mr Kidd.

Mr Oakley and his family are ordinary members of the public, just because their background and lifestyle differs from the majority doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. The have the same rights as anyone else to a family life. Please feel free to meet them on the 14th July and find that they are warm and friendly people.

It appears that councils and governments bend over backwards to supply overseas immigrants with housing and benefits and we can not do or say anything about this. Yet British residents are side lined. This includes those who wish to live within 4 BRICKED walls or those that choose to live in a mobile home or caravan. The councils and government are to blame and as British Citizens we should be more tolerant of each other and find our community spirit that seems to have been washed away in the rain

Date: Jul 9, 2012

Just because someone has a different lifestyle does not give him or her permission to break to the law whether its for planning or anything else. This is not a racial issue!!

Date: Jul 9, 2012

We have sent our planning comments to SN Council, we do not want a letter from the occupant’s agent, Stuart Harrison implying we are racially prejudice.

Robert Ashton is writing a book on Community Activism so no doubt this is why he has got himself involved and wants to meet us at Chepore Lane on Saturday with Stuart Harrison. I have read Robert Ashton’s article on the Civic Society’s website, it is a load of twaddle with incorrect facts and biased comments about his neighbours.

I am sure the occupants are very nice people but with both Stuarts Harrison’s and Robert Ashton’s attitude I certainly wont be wanting to attend on Saturday.

Under the new Government’s Localism Bill the Council should engage the community and provide public meetings.

Date: Jul 9, 2012

Suton Resident wrote:
This posting has been removed.
It was a private letter written by Stuart Harrison, the Applicant's Agent. The Agent contacted residents who had provided Public Comment and Correspondence to Planners at South Norfolk Council on South Norfolk Council's website.
Webstation

-- Edited by webstation on Monday 9th of July 2012 07:01:17 PM

I wonder if Stuart Harrison had permission from SNC to send out letters using residents details obtained from their website?

Date: Jul 9, 2012

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder how many people would oppose a planning application by their next door neighbour for a granny annexe to enable their extended family to be together?

Some neighbours have applied for a granny annexe and it has been denied by the planners at the Council. Have you actually seen the planning application? It's not just for a single dwelling, but 8 pitches with dwellings crammed into a small field!

Date: Jul 9, 2012

Anonymous wrote:
It was not Mr Harrison that publicly displayed the details of Mr Kidd's predicament. This was a private letter sent to individuals to help clarify the situation at Chepore Lane. The person responsible for putting this letter in the public domain has chosen to remain anonymous. It is them that should apologize to Mr Kidd.
Mr Oakley and his family are ordinary members of the public, just because their background and lifestyle differs from the majority doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. The have the same rights as anyone else to a family life. Please feel free to meet them on the 14th July and find that they are warm and friendly people.
It appears that councils and governments bend over backwards to supply overseas immigrants with housing and benefits and we can not do or say anything about this. Yet British residents are side lined. This includes those who wish to live within 4 BRICKED walls or those that choose to live in a mobile home or caravan. The councils and government are to blame and as British Citizens we should be more tolerant of each other and find our community spirit that seems to have been washed away in the rain

They may well be warm and friendly people; this is not the issue. For your information, overseas immigrants only get homes that are available from the current housing stock that were built following planning regulations.

Date: Jul 9, 2012

I do not believe that the meeting in Chepore Lane on Saturday is a forum for Robert Ashton, it is to meet your new neighbours. What harm can that do? Perhaps meeting them and actually seeing what is happening on the site and what the plans are for the future would be better than listenening to the many people who seem to have adopted a 'pack' attitude and passing on a lot of incorrect information, (chinese whispers are alive and well in Spooner Row). Don't be a sheep (after all, we all know what happens to them don't we - leading the lamb etc etc). I for one am curious to see for myself. I am sure a lot of people are apprehensive about the unknown, and seeing what is happening first hand can only help. Also, I am not clear as to how exactly are they breaking the law? I live too far away to actually see what is going on at the property, as do many of the local residents, but some of them seem incredibly well (or ill?)informed. Mr Ashton obviously has his own agenda concerning this matter, but I understand that this 'civil society' he is a part of is a new hobby of his and if he is intending to make this 'open morning' about him, then I strongly advise him to think again.

Date: Jul 10, 2012

For people who do not travel past the site daily I must say it looks much better today and there was only 4 caravans on site this morning. They have also moved the bright blue porta loo to a different location. The view is much better driving up Chepore. I am sure the Romany residents are very nice and I am not opposed to the family or their culture. I still however strongly object to the 8 pitch development and would do so if it were 8 brick bungalows for white caucasian grannies. I hope the current residents and their 2 children have a stressfree time during the remainder of the 2 years planning permission and hope that the site does not illegally expand to accomodate the other family members.

Date: Jul 10, 2012

Excuse me, but how many 'discussions' about private planning applications have made their way on to this forum? How many of you who live at least a mile away from someone who has applied for planning permission suddenly made it your business to report on here, their comings and goings and how many vehicles are parked in their drive at any one time. Very few I would think!

I would still like to be enlightened as to, in what way, are this family breaking the law. I haven't been and looked you see.

I do not agree with the things that Simon Harrison wrote on Robert Ashtons behalf nor Robert Ashtons remarks, but I have been unable to find on the Civil Society website any reference by Mr Ashton to obese people. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the correct place..? The relevance to this issue being...?

Everyone has a right to oppose this planning application, I haven't said that I support it, but I find it unfortunate that there are so many people reporting the 'goings on' and as there are so many conflicting stories how does anyone really know the true situation and circumstance.

Date: Jul 10, 2012

What a lovely expression 'stirring things up'. Especially as spoons were once made in Spooner Row. LOL smile

Date: Jul 10, 2012

Suton Resident wrote:
This posting has been removed.
It was a private letter written by Stuart Harrison, the Applicant's Agent. The Agent contacted residents who had provided Public Comment and Correspondence to Planners at South Norfolk Council on South Norfolk Council's website.
Webstation

-- Edited by webstation on Monday 9th of July 2012 07:01:17 PM

This letter should be displayed on S Norfolk Councils website. Stuart Harrison of E&P Design is the Agent for this planning application and therefore this forms part of the planning process. He may say it is a private letter, well so are all the letters we sent to the Council private. We have no choice but have them displayed publicly on S NorfolkCouncils website and the same should go for Stuart Harrisons letter in order for the planning process to be considered fair.

Stuart Harrison found and used our contact details from letters published on the Councils website. Was his letter sent on behalf of the Council or was it done off his own back? If it wasn't on behalf of the Council, I hope he seeked the required permission to do this.

Date: Jul 10, 2012

My letter of support does not accuse anyone of racism. I simply point out that it should not be allowed to prejudice the planning process. Like you I am a concerned local resident. Unlike you, I am happy to identify myself. Why do you choose not to identify yourself?

Date: Jul 10, 2012

Erm nobody has invited me to any meeting on Saturday morning and so I am a little in the dark as to what it's all about. My Civil Society blog was not written to antagonise local people, but to make a point for a wider audience for whom I regularly write - if you look at some of the others you'll see what I mean. I apologise if anyone one here feels it oversteps the mark.

Date: Jul 10, 2012

the SNC Planning website says -

Copyright

Plans, drawings and material submitted to the council are protected by the copyright acts (section 47, 1988 act).

The Council should takes this matter up with Stuart Harrison for using our personal material for contacting us when sending his "private" letters.

Date: Jul 10, 2012

Mr Ashton,

It seems to me that your article written on the Civil Society website regarding genuine concerns of many residents to a planning application, are designed to inflate yourself at the expense of your neighbours and I quote:

"I’m the first person he’s encountered in 30 years to write a letter in support of a Romany planning application"

and

"is this attitude of blanket objection the thin end of a potentially very nasty racist wedge?"

and

"many have chosen to write what verges on racist vitriol"

Your comments speak for themselves. It would be good practice to think twice before you write such vitriol yourself!

Date: Jul 10, 2012

Robert Ashton wrote:
My letter of support does not accuse anyone of racism. I simply point out that it should not be allowed to prejudice the planning process. Like you I am a concerned local resident. Unlike you, I am happy to identify myself. Why do you choose not to identify yourself?

Your letter of support doesn't accuse anyone of racism, but your published article uses the word "racist" twice. Quote: "many have chosen to write what verges on racist vitriol" and ".....a potentially very nasty racist wedge".

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/blogs/content/12912/thin_end_of_the_wedge

I would have thought it was obvious why people prefer not to identify themselves. In any case, anyone can go to the SNC planning website and find out the names and addresses (postal or email) of those objecting as SNC insist on this before you can comment on any application. If, like yourself, you are supporting an application you are not in a confrontive situation. I would be interested to hear your views on the plans by Breckland Council to put a Gypsy and Traveller site in Besthorpe, right near you at The Turnpike? Any public comment on this? Are you going to the Public Meeting tomorrow evening at Connaught Hall?

Date: Jul 10, 2012

Robert Ashton wrote:
Erm nobody has invited me to any meeting on Saturday morning and so I am a little in the dark as to what it's all about. My Civil Society blog was not written to antagonise local people, but to make a point for a wider audience for whom I regularly write - if you look at some of the others you'll see what I mean. I apologise if anyone one here feels it oversteps the mark.

Erm, do you not read your own blog?

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/blogs/content/12912/thin_end_of_the_wedge

Scroll down to Simon Harrisons comments

Date: Jul 12, 2012

Robert Ashton wrote:
Erm nobody has invited me to any meeting on Saturday morning and so I am a little in the dark as to what it's all about. My Civil Society blog was not written to antagonise local people, but to make a point for a wider audience for whom I regularly write - if you look at some of the others you'll see what I mean. I apologise if anyone one here feels it oversteps the mark.

One wonders why you didn’t engage with your local community before writing your opinionated and biased views on them in which to “make a point for a wider audience” on your Civil Society blog – that would have been the proper and polite thing to do. Writing for your wider audience is not an excuse for doing this. It does rather contradict your rhetoric in promoting the support of small communities and the Big Society.

You say that your blog “was not written to antagonise local people” - I would stress that it has not antagonised local people, but we are a little baffled as to why you have done this and concerned about how irresponsible it is. This also goes for your comments quoted in Stuart Harrison’s letter. If its material for your ‘community activism’ book that you are searching for then I suggest you search elsewhere.

People are entitled to voice their planning objections to the council for a proposed 8 dwelling gypsy site. I can assure you that no one else here would be allowed to erect 8 dwellings on their land without planning permission. I am unable to find all the “catalogue of fear” and racist comments you talk about on your blog so one does wonder what the real agenda is here.

Good luck in your quest to support Romany Gypsies, I am sure they are warm people, but just because your neighbours have written planning objections does not imply they are prejudiced or racist.

Date: Jul 18, 2012

Suton Resident wrote:
This posting has been removed.
It was a private letter written by Stuart Harrison, the Applicant's Agent. The Agent contacted residents who had provided Public Comment and Correspondence to Planners at South Norfolk Council on South Norfolk Council's website.
Webstation

-- Edited by webstation on Monday 9th of July 2012 07:01:17 PM

Several people have forwarded the Agent's letter to SNC but it has not appeared on SNC's planning website like all other correspondence. As it is the Agent's letter it provides a crucial part of the planning process. It seems strange that the planners have chosen not to include it, unless they have found it inappropriate and offensive like the rest of us have and unable to publish it. SNC Planners should publish all correspondence sent to them and not pick and choose.

Date: Jul 31, 2012

I dont think that any of us are against the family living there, as long as they go through the correct processes to" try" and obtain planning permission which, personally I hope they dont get.Its the visitors who turn up for 1 or 2 nights, cause some kind of disturbance and then depart before anything can be done, and yes I am speaking from experience with these people. Unfortunately we then tar everyone with the same brush, so as long as there are no issues then no problem! its just the councils who need to clean up their act and be HONEST!

Date: Aug 20, 2012

Monday 20th august. More large caravans have appeared at chepore lane taking the total to about 9, south Norfolk are aware.

Date: Aug 22, 2012

The occupants should conform to the current planning permission, which is one static caravan and one mobile home? We get refused small planning applications on grounds such as, it will damage the character of the countryside or its outside the Development Boundary. Yet this situation is allowed. Are they paying their council taxes like the rest of us?

Date: Aug 31, 2012

I drove past the site on Chepore lane the other day and noticed a number of carvans on the site. Surely, if the present tenant can't stick to the existing planning conditions what hope will there be if further consent is granted. How long before it ... edited

-- Edited by webstation on Sunday 2nd of September 2012 01:06:45 AM

Date: Sep 3, 2012

Why was my last posted edited?

I was only suggesting that if planning permission is not adhered to, the site will quickly become over-run with caravans and could potentially end up like a very famous site in Essex!

Judging by what is already being seen there, it is a very realistic possibility.

Date: Sep 3, 2012

I have just looked-up the latest on this planning application (3 Sept), and there are no SNC committee meetings scheduled for this application - is SNC going to deal with it or just ignore it?

There is also a report from SNC's Housing Standards Manager who has "no grounds for objecting to the application". He says that, "Research undertaken by SNC identified there is a need for permanent and transitional sites to meet the existing need in the South Norfolk area". THIS RESEARCH WAS UNDERTAKEN DONKEY YEARS AGO - ITS OLD DATA! Surely claims such as this should be backed up by recent research? In Wymondham Town Council's response, it asks if there is a proven need for these sites and recommends that a new survey be carried out before any decision is made.

http://wam.south-norfolk.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Correspondence-610048.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=610048&appid=1001&location=VOLUME4&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=3

webstation · Newbie

Anonymous wrote:
Why was my last posted edited?
I was only suggesting that if planning permission is not adhered to, the site will quickly become over-run with caravans and could potentially end up like a very famous site in Essex!
Judging by what is already being seen there, it is a very realistic possibility.

Whenever the famous site in Essex is mentioned on this Message Board, it receives lots of nuisance and nonsense postings which are unsuitable for viewing. Sorry to curtail your message but it makes the managing of this site easier not to mention it.

Date: Sep 3, 2012

As stated by somebody else earlier in this thread...

Mr Kidds planning permission 2011/0519 was for a “single family residential traveller site including the stationing of one static caravan, one mobile home for a temporary period of 3 years”.

This is not what is currently on the site now and therefore does not comply with the conditions and so is illegal. This is a planning issue. That SNDC are sitting idly by is a scandal (but of no surprise to any of us) and belittles all of the time and effort that the settled community have used to try and get this addressed through legal means. .The planners involved are clearly ignoring the governments rules on traveller sites, all the various rounds of local objections (including wymondham town councils) and the existing planning laws and allowing this site to happen by the back door while they are on holiday/asleep/looking the other way.

Date: Sep 4, 2012

That's a good point, why is the Housing Standards Manager involved? It is a private planning application for one family only and his opinion is not normally sought. I expect the council are trying to publish as many letters of support as possible for they have tried before to have a G&T site there. I wouldn't be surprised if the councill got their tea lady to write a letter as well!

Date: Sep 4, 2012

Elsewhere in this message forum we have this from the council-

Anita Ragan
Planner
South Norfolk Council

"Suton is considered as a Smaller Rural community, rather than as suburbs or satellites of Wymondham. This decision was based on the features of individual settlements (number and type of services within the settlement, communications with and geographical proximity to larger service centres, etc).

As for who made the decision, the GNDP board consisted of elected representatives of the constituent districts, i.e. elected Members of South Norfolk Council made the decision. This happened over a period of years, following extensive consultation and research studies.

Suton is designated as a Smaller Rural Community within the NPA. As such, it will not receive an allocation of housing. Public responses to our consultations have suggested that local people would like to have more employment opportunities to the south of Wymondham. Therefore, it is possible that the employment area in Suton could be developed on a small scale. Suton will not be considered for housing growth"

Likewise,the Governments current rules on traveller sites are unambiguous. They should "not be placed in a Small Rural communities where there presence would have significant impact".

If south norfolk close their eyes to this issue, what they are effectively saying is that housing growth cannot be sanctioned in Suton..unless you are a traveller then you can have as many homes wherever you want even if its on agricultural land.

Likewise they are pretending that the traveller site is in wymondham or spooner row..it is not, it is very much here in Suton..our alledgedly protected 'smaller rural community'

They have told us this is a private planning application, so lets see them treat it as such and make a decision and not get 'housing standards managers' involved..they wouldn't behave this way for any other 'private planning application'.

Can our councillors please cut through all this smoke and mirrors and find out why this issue is being treated this way or at least explain why the councils own rules and those of central government are being so ignored and we are all being so repeatedly and deliberately misled

Date: Sep 5, 2012

And another good point from the email two above this one, Chepore Lane is very definitely in Suton and not Spooner Row. On the council's own Register of Electors the location of each street is very clearly listed with postcodes - so there is no excuse for muddling the villages for everything is clearly marked. They could even check on a map.

Why should extra homes only be allowed for gypsies in a small rural village - this hardly creates a cohesive community with such unfair governance. And when is the council going to engage and meet with the settled community like they are supposed to?

Date: Sep 7, 2012

According to the Agent for this planning application, a meeting at South Norfolk Council is going to be held on 12th September to consider the application. If this is so, it would be nice if the Council could engage with the settled community about this - which is what the new Localism Bill states. Again, more secrecy, no engagement with local people and many people think it will go ahead anyway - otherwise, why produce a biased letter from their own Housing Standard Manager which isn't usual for a private planning application? The Localism Bill also states that this type of planning application should not be given retrospectively. If the council grant this permission, then they are not following government policy. What or whose policy will they be following? Who is the council accountable to?

http://wam.south-norfolk.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Correspondence-611236.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=611236&appid=1001&location=VOLUME4&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Date: Sep 7, 2012

I would give the Council some credit as they have published this letter, despite Stuart Harrison wanting to keep the content of it confidential. Let's hope the reply is public knowledge as well!

Date: Sep 9, 2012

RE: Planning application 2012/1049 Site at Chepore Lane (this topic has a second page)

Date: Sep 10, 2012

We wish we could all be more confident that the council will handle this fairly and above board. They have been less than transparent and impartial so far. This is about the 5th round of objections and consultations on that site. Just look at all the work they have again commissioned for what we are told is now being treated purely as a private planning application. I note the council are once again working miracles and putting chepore lane in spooner row (1.4Km away by their own paperwork) rather than suton all of a sudden. This is again being done to strengthen their site assessments. Chepore lane is here in suton on maps, the electoral role and the minds of all of us (seemingly powerless) people who live here.

If the council refuse permission, we should still not sleep comfortably as they will not do a thing to actually enforce it (they haven't ever done so in the last 7 years). Or there will be some appeals loophole that will suddenly surfaces that the council again engage in and ask us to go around yet more consultations and objections.

History has taught us all here in suton that this site will probably remain and expand regardless. Lets hope for once our view of south norfolk council is proved wrong and they show some respect for their electorate and reject this 'large travellers housing development' in what is a clearly designated a small rural community. Given the council can identify land for thousands of homes in wymondham, a traveller site in wymondham next to all essential amenities must be possible rather than endlessly massaging the rules to place it here in suton.

Date: Sep 10, 2012

Remember that this site does have temporary planning permission for 1 caravan and 1 mobile home for three years. The temporary planning permission is about half way through its duration and it was based on the personal circumstances of the previous occupier. If there are more caravans on the Chepore Lane site than the temporary planning permission allows, then the Council would have to enforce their own planning permission and remove them.

This is the umpteenth time that this site has been up for consideration for a gypsy and traveller site, whether it be a private application or part of the council's preferred G&T site as part of their DPD (each time they tried to keep the proposed G&T site a secret). Each and every time we have the hassle of writing to the council with our concerns and it also causes upset within the settled community - on this recent application, it was implied that we were racists by the occupier's Agent - this is not very helpful to anyone. The other occasions have also not been without problems. During one public consultation for this site, the council's underhand behaviour to residents in this community (and their children), actually made local and national news. I am starting to feel that residents are being a bit victimised here with this constant issue and wonder if this is more about wearing the settled community down so that in the end the council think we will just give up. Although there may be a few local supporters for a G&T site on Chepore Lane, the majority of residents think it is unsuitable and the council should take note of that. If the Committee override the Planning Officer's recommendation to refuse this planning application, then it will just show that the council is not in touch with its voters (nor its own planners).

Date: Sep 12, 2012

If this application is approved we have evidence that SNC have not complied with the correct planning policies and procedures etc so a JUDICIAL REVIEW should be sought.

Date: Sep 12, 2012

Well it comes as no surprise that the Chepore Lane site has been approved - I understand that the SNC planning committee voted 6 to 3. To think that Wymondham Town Council objected to this application, most residents objected to this application, SNC planners recommended refusal to this application and three SNC planning councillors (representing Wymondham), voted against this application. Yet the other 6 SNC planning councillors who voted for it were not from Wymondham and are nothing to do with Wymondham, yet they got this approved in Wymondham. That's what we get for this type of democracy around here.

In the past SNC thought that Chepore Lane was suitable for a G&T site, then it thought it wasn't, then it thought it was, then it wasn't as Stanfield Lane was preferred and now they think it is and approved it. What sort of people are in charge of the district council and in charge of us - they are inconsistent and don't give a damn? They can't even recognise the difference between Suton and Spooner Row - the planning report was based on Chepore Lane being in Spooner Row, which every man and his dog knows, is in Suton.

Date: Sep 13, 2012

I am disgusted with our elected representatives. We put them in these positions to represent us, the local community. This approval goes against our wishes and the agreed criterias as demonstrated by numerous previous application refusals.

Can anything be done or is this a "done-deal"?

Date: Sep 13, 2012

Judicial review needed.

Date: Sep 13, 2012

Not sure if the planning permission is temporary or permanent. If its permanent then I think it will be a done-deal.

Who will do a judicial review? It's unlikely that WTC will do one for us.

SNC approved this G&T site because it once supported it - it's as flippant as that. Although it contravenes some of SNC's own planning policies eg its outside the development boundary and it will have an impact on the countryside counts for nothing. These are the main reasons why residents have their planning applications refused. It's about time some fairness, common sense and consistency was put in place at SNC. Thank goodness these councillors won't always be in power, unfortunately on this occasion, it was the ones we didn't vote for that made this decision i.e. the non-Wymondham councillors. I wonder if this decision was pre-decided for some things here just don't add up.

Date: Sep 14, 2012

It does seem strange that District Councillors voted against their own policies and ignored their own professional Planner's report that recommended refusal to this application. These District Councillors did not follow Government policy either, as they were supposed to engage with the settled community before any decisions were made. What is the point of having policies if you don't follow them? Think of the waste of public money and all the hard work that the District Council's employees have done to formulate policies and write reports. The individual District Councillors who voted in favour of this application should be made to explain themselves.

A lot of resources went into this application - take a look at the 'View Related Documents' option on the District Councils website: http://internetbusinessinfo.co.uk/SNC_planning.htm

Date: Sep 14, 2012

BH - if what you are saying is correct, is there any recourse or appeal against this ruling? If so, who would challenge it and how? Surely something MUST be done....

Date: Sep 15, 2012

I don't know what can be done. They should be made to explain themselves, as these individual councillors don't represent us in Wymondham. There is the Ombudsman but you would need to go through the District Council's Complaint system first.

Another thing that is strange here, is most people did not know that the planning meeting to decide this was on 12th September - it came out of nowhere. On the District Council's website for this planning application, the 'Date of Committee' is empty (and still is). The Council were still receiving Related Documents up to 11th September, then the next thing we know is that it's been approved. Why did the District Council not advertise this important Committee Meeting with this application? It's tucked away on their planning agenda where most people are unlikely to look.

Date: Sep 15, 2012

The King Lynn's incinerator had some sort of judicial review because there was a large public outcry that it was not carried out properly. With the Chepore Lane site, I heard that at the SNC planning meeting where the application was approved, no residents turned up. Was this because residents did not know the date of the meeting (see posting above), or because they were at work (earning money to pay their taxes), or because they were led into a false sense of security thinking that it was going to be refused, or just plain apathy?

SNC obviously feel they know what's best for the residents of Suton & Spooner Row and are working in our best interests by NOT engaging with the settled community, IGNORING the majority of objections, GOING AGAINST their own & Governmental policies and IGNORING their own planner's advice. We need to accept that this treatment and outcome is what SNC want for us, for this is what their councillors have chosen to do. It seems the only time we are of any importance to them is when it comes to election time!

Date: Sep 15, 2012

It was only recently that the District Councillors elected themselves a 3% pay rise (5% for their cabinet) - they must think they're worth it. Hmmm ...they're not really value for money when they just do their own thing by not serving their electorate, as in this case.

Date: Sep 17, 2012

What this shows is that nothing in the planning process that was in place to inform this decision had any weight whatsoever on the day. Absolutely nothing. What mattered was the self important already prejudged views of a few councillors who represent (ha ha) communities in now way connected to this planning application.

The following had not weight of any sort-

Wymondham Town Council. no representitive power of any sort. Ineffectual A waste of our taxes.

The planning inspectors detailed report and recommendation. Ignored and belittled by people with no planning background or knowledge of the site or the community.

All the local residents views alledgedly sought on the application...no weight, no voice. 59 against ignored, 5 for given a fair hearing

The LDF Traveller consultation. no point, no credibility of conclusions, a waste of all of our time and taxpayers money. ignored

The current LDF development conclusions on Suton. Ignored, swept aside, used to stop settled community development only (Discrimination Acts clearly flouted)

The Government Legislation on Traveller Site Provision. Completely Ignored even though part of the committees agenda documentation. They obviously can't read or if they can, think it a worthless document. For this reason, The Communities Minister should now be involved.

The distress that South Norfolk Council have inflicted on our community over the years (and continued now) in pursuit of their own agenda/targets on traveller sites (as played out in the National Media a few years ago).

So the big question is- and the question should be asked if not of the council then by the communities minister in an formal letter..

'When this private planning application first came forward, what evidence would it have taken to prevent this planning committee from passing it? The answer is that not a single thing could have. All the evidence did indeed come forward but the committee sought to undermine it all.

By their own actions, these councillors clearly demonstrate for all to see that they are not fit for public service. They wonder why the settled community did not turn up..on this issue, it was clear that they shouldn't have had to. How very VERY wrong was our view of our representatives levels of integrity.

Date: Sep 23, 2012

This is the Mercury news article giving details of what happened at the planning meeting when the Chepore Lane site was approved. Councillors did not agree with the refusal recommendation of their own planning officer because the distance to the school of a mile, is within an acceptable walking distance. Were the councillors not concerned that this walk to school would be along an HGV route with no footpath most of the way? Were not the other concerns of residents and their planning officer of issues like, countryside erosion etc not taken into consideration?

http://www.wymondhamandattleboroughmercury.co.uk/news/travellers_site_approved_near_wymondham_despite_planning_concerns_1_1516035

Date: Sep 26, 2012

I've read the Mercury article and think how arrogant these non-Wymondham district councillors are to think they know better than the professional planners who they employ for their expertise and advice (then ignore). The Mercury article says these councillors live in Loddon (about 20 miles away), Poringland (about 15 miles away) and Diss (about 14 miles away) - they hardly live locally! Fancy having presumptions that they are better informed than their own planning experts in a locality that they live miles away from. As they don't live near here, they could have at least engaged with us first and given us our meeting, which they were supposed to do. I would have thought (and hoped) that life as a district councillor was about serving the electorate rather than serving a jumped up ego! What expertise have they got on planning anyway?