Spooner Row Message Board

Date: Aug 18, 2014

Station Road, Spooner Row, residental development, planning application Ref 2014/1619. New Ref number 2014/1851

Date: Aug 19, 2014

RE: Station Road, Spooner Row, residental development, planning application Ref 2014/1619

Date: Aug 19, 2014

I think you will find that it is permission for 13 in Chapel Road, not 10. With the ones you have listed and 5 at The Bungalow (which we don't mind as it is local residents) brings an ever increasing total of new permissions and allocations for Spooner Row to 50 - plus 2 or 3 additional garden developments.

Where are all the improvements to the infrastucture and services that are meant to be in place alongside new developments - its all talk.

Strange how other villages much closer to Norwich and close to trunk roads aren't getting this sort of development - what's the real agenda?

Date: Aug 20, 2014

Anonymous wrote:

Where are all the improvements to the infrastucture and services that are meant to be in place alongside new developments - its all talk.
Strange how other villages much closer to Norwich and close to trunk roads aren't getting this sort of development - what's the real agenda?

Have you not noticed the upgraded path which is being installed? what level of infrastructure improvement do you expect for a village the size of SR, a Doctors? perhaps a bus station?

I personally think there is a bigger picture - long game here. It would not surprise me if the lovely big field on Bunwell road ( the one which will be surrounded by houses on all sides, those being Queens st, Bunwell rd once the new houses are built, and that lovely big thatched house on the corner) will be the next target, they will get loads on there, and can quite happily argue that it is within the village (now that the village extends because of the new houses on Bunwell Rd)

On the plus side, we may get a new slide or even an allotment

Date: Aug 20, 2014

The replacement of the pot-holed and worn out path is hardly an improvement to the infrastructure - that should be maintained anyway. A bus station?? we haven't even got a bus stop or a bus through the village - the next village at Suton is the nearest bus stop. Don't hold your breath on a new allotment - wasn't that one of the empty promises on the Alston developments? They made SR a Norwich satellite village without anyone being aware - no doubt that has something to do with the long term picture in SR. I thought the new trend was for councils/planners to work with local people - don't see much evidence of that.

Date: Sep 15, 2014

Station Road, Spooner Row, residental development, planning application Ref 2014/1619. New Ref number 2014/1851

Date: Sep 15, 2014

Look fine to me

Date: Sep 15, 2014

There are 18 documents linked to this proposal on the SNDC web site where the applicant's agent refers to the sustainability of this application ( in at least 2 of them ) , quoting nearby access to shops ???? a regular train service ( yes if you count twice to Norwich and once home at night) a nearby school ( full !!!!) and a bus service which being exceptionally generous, is the flexi bus you have to call on request.

This application is infill , way back from the building line and is, as referred to above, is yet another development pushing our numbers well beyond the 15 - 20 identified in the plan and simply quotes the need to provide more houses according to the joint core strategy, which with the 5 year Housing supply requirements is Planning gobbledegook to allow any developer to do what they like.

Quite clearly having a forward Planning team which produces a local plan which is then ignored is a waste of time and my (rate payers) money but that is for another day

If we are going to get more houses we need the infrastructure to support it and quite evidently we are not getting anything as far as I am aware .

Getting a train to stop more often might happen but this is private company here who have to show a profit, which means more passengers and Councils have very little influence here, but where exactly are the local shops ???

Whilst I recognise a housing need I do not like being lied to and there is no way this is sustainable in its current form using the arguments presented in the documents, and I shall be doing everything I can to get this opposed in Town Council but as I am sure you are aware, the decision is made at District Council.

I am not averse to listening to better arguments and demonstrated need should it be proven and properly provided for, but right now we are being paid lip service to and insulting the readers intellect, by lying and hoping we don't notice is not a good way forward.

Date: Sep 15, 2014

The nearest bus stop is in Suton. The train service is very sparce and not a timetable that could be used to commute to work. Therefore lots more car use, which doesn't conform to sustainability. Nearest food shops are at least 4 miles away.

What is Spooner Row going to receive in terms of infrastructure improvements under Section 106 for new house builds? There have been 39 new houses so far with granted planning permission. This is what should happen:

Section 106 agreements, also known as planning obligations, are agreements between developers and local planning authorities that are negotiated as part of a condition of planning consent.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables local authorities to negotiate contributions towards a range of infrastructure and services, such as community facilities, public open space, transport improvements and/or affordable housing.

Date: Sep 16, 2014

Stop moaning about every planning application simply because it is a planning application. Fight the real battles, these houses are out of sight of 99% of the houses in SR, IT DOESNT MATTER

Date: Sep 16, 2014

What are the real battles to fight? Surely getting improvements to the infrastructure to accompany new houses is an important part of planning applications and not just a moan.

Date: Sep 17, 2014

What a lovely "I'm alright Jack" attitude, good to see such community spirit in action!

Date: Sep 18, 2014

Mr Halls lives in a posh house in the Village yet he wants to deny the same opportunity to other people to own their own house. It is a case of Mr Hals saying dont do as I do do as I tell you. The way to get a more frequent train service and some shops is surely to allow development in the Village. There was a shop in the Village but it had to close through the lack of use. Perhaps Mr Halls should consider setting up a shop in the Village. I bet he wont as he would not make a profit due to the lack of people living in SR.

Date: Sep 19, 2014

Its not I'm alright Jack, it is pragmatic.

Your NIMBY approach to rejecting every single application simply because you (not specifically you obviously, but "people") just don't want any development ever. It dilutes your argument, because you are seen as complaining about everything. The very fact that EVERY single planning application is posted on this board, and is pretty much the only thing which gets anyone going (yes, I accept it is something people care about). These new executive houses are at the end of a track, behind bushes, next to the railway line, they are not in the churchyard, or on the playing field, it does not affect me or you.

I assure you, if Wimpy homes turn up in SR and want to build 350 homes somewhere in the village, or someone wants a chemical waste plant, then I will be there laying down in front of the diggers or will be chained to a tree, but there is very little point in rejecting everything because you refuse to accept change and progress (progress is not always positive in everyone's eyes remember, i mean progress in the sense of expanding requirements for houses). Community action is very difficult to muster and harness and should be focused on things that really matter

Remember, your house was new at some point, and I am sure people didn't want you here either, but that is progress from another perspective isn't it

Date: Sep 19, 2014

The big question is, does this planning application affect you directly? If not, then who are you to speak on others behalf? If people want to object or support planning applications, then that is their business. If developers want to keep building houses in Spooner Row which no doubt is somewhere where they don't live themselves, then they, with the Council should sort out substantial improvements to the poor infrastructure. If they will not do this then leave Spooner Row as a rural village. There are thousands of new houses destined for Wymondham nearby, where there is public transport, services, shops, fast broadband, mobile phone signals that work etc, you need to draw the line somewhere.

Date: Sep 21, 2014

You won't win.

They won't deliver anything they are not forced to do, because they are trying to make a living for themselves and the people they employ. They already have to pay the community levy and provide the "affordable and shared ownership" homes at cost/heavy discount, they won't contribute any more (and actually, why should they? just to make your life better?)

I think it is interesting that you are happy to draw the line where someone else has to have new development near them, but not you. NIMBYism in its truest form,

Save your energy for something worthwhile or moan about everything and just make yourself miserable,

i really don't care

Date: Sep 21, 2014

It's the planners and developers who have drawn the line - not any residents around here, so really the NIMBYism is with them (and perhaps with you), for no doubt there will be no unwanted development happening anywhere near them, as they make and influence the decisions.

You ask "why should they make my life better", I say, "why should they make my life and other residents lives worse?" If developers want to build lots of houses in Spooner Row then they need to invest in the village properly and improve the rubbish services and infrastructure here. Do you really think people will be prepared to spend a small fortune on a property to find the village has backward services eg a broadband speed that is one of the worst in the area - no fibre optics anywhere near here - but there is in Wymondham!

You say put your energy into something worthwhile, so why don't you take your own advice. Also, what do you mean by "You won't win"? Is everything predetermined then, with no public say? no democracy? who exactly are you?

Date: Sep 22, 2014

I see in the planning diversity report there are house martins nests and signs of bat roosts on a barn to be demolished for this development. House martins return to their nests every year and are in national decline and bats are a protected species and not to mention all the hedgehogs that will be living and hibernating in the long grass there. Building at certain times of the year to help one species can be detrimental to another. A lot of people like and enjoy the wildlife, I suspect the developers will laugh at this - its just develop at any cost to them and then they call it sustainable.

Date: Oct 3, 2014

This application will be discussed at the Wymondham Town planning sub committee on Tuesday evening , 7th October at 1800 in the Town Hall.

Item 5 on the agenda invites public participation, who may ask questions and give representations to the committee members

I am not a member of this committee so will be addressing the committee as a member of the public.

Julian Halls

Date: Oct 8, 2014

For those of you who did not attend the Planning hearing the result was that the application be objected to on the casting vote of the Chairman.

The fact that the agent had lied, the application was not sustainable, there are clear highway splay issues, the proposal is opposite a busy and dangerous junction, the school had objected as they are full, and they have access concerns, the area has a history of flooding and several trees and hedges would have to go, in the eyes of two councillors were not sufficient grounds to object to this proposal.

I could not believe my ears (!)

It was only the casting vote of the Chairman that swung it. My real concern is that one of the councillors who voted in favour is also a district Councillor.

There is great deal more I would like to say but I think the moderator would have to intervene so I have kept this post short and sour.

Thank you to all those who attended

Date: Oct 9, 2014

Thanks for the update and salient reasons for objecting. Hope the supporting district councillor is not on the planning committee.

Date: Oct 9, 2014

How can some councillors at that meetings, think that the proposed development, which is opposite an already dangerous and busy junction on which the local primary school is located, is not sufficient grounds on which to object? What an insult to the safety of local children and people. No doubt those councillors don't live in Spooner Row, where is their responsibility to the community?

Date: Oct 9, 2014

My apologies

I forgot to mention that the development is ALSO outside the settlement boundary and 7 more houses would bring the grand total of houses in the village to nearly 50 with some in the pipeline where the service village number ( Spooner row is one of these) was 15 -20 new houses.

The matter of the development being outside the settlement boundary was mentioned by the Clerk, clearly to the irritation of the two who had already made their mind up who simply dismissed this.

So all in all eight reasons to object. Being exceptionally generous, some, maybe two could possibly be addressed by planning conditions but certainly not all of them.

I am glad the Chair in the end made the right decision but it was a close run thing when it was plain as a pike staff this should have been objected to by all of them

To be clear here this is not a political assessment but one which is simple common sense but I am sure some will see it that way.

For interest, as a result of a recent resignation I will be sitting on the Planning committee in future at Wymondham Town.

Date: Oct 10, 2014

Thank you Julian. Glad to see that you are making good representation for the village.

Date: Oct 16, 2014

Time for a FOI request about funding received from estate agencies/developers by council officials/parties me thinks.....

Date: Oct 21, 2014

Good luck with the FOI request!

Planning is a complex and has vested interests all over the process at every level, which of course does not make it right.

Planning officers are there to apply Policies which have been years in the making and having gone through due process, consultation etc etc should be there to protect us. Unfortunately such in the pressure on housing need that that Central Govt have stepped in and given an overarching requirement on District Councils to provide more houses. This is called the 5 year Housing supply (need) and as a consequence sharp suited agents acting for their clients have used this to successfully appeal against planning refusals and the practical upshot has been that the planning policies we have all worked so hard to formulate and agree upon are being ridden roughshod over and some District Councils are rolling over to this.

It is also very important to remember that Officers make recommendations to the planning committee members who are elected and they may also be under considerable pressure to pass applications despite officers recommendations to the contrary. As Prince Charles rather astutely said ' just look at the skyline of London'

Officers of the Council have Political masters so they tread a difficult line and whilst continuing pressure to make more redundancies is coming from Central Govt , a muddly set of contradictory policies does allow for some strange decisions sometimes.

My view is that we should be brave enough to look at the facts, and all the factors, such as a valid and proper infrastructure before we allow large and small developments to take place. I do have sympathy with the Officers as they are in a difficult place but that is what they get paid for and members should be brave enough to resist central Govt dictats so a proper infrastructure is in place before we make decisions which are blantantly unsound or leave others to pick up the mess.

Local Govt is about Local issues, at least it should be !

Date: Nov 24, 2014

By way of an update

SNDC have an open web site for planning applications ( good) and an e mail from the Planning Officer to the Agent has been listed virtually promising them a free ride by clearly suggesting that this matter can be dealt with under delegated powers.

This power is reserved to discharge matters which are non contenious I will let you decide on that one !!

I have written to the Chief Exe pointing out that this has to be wrong but such is the level of arrogance that the Planners seem to think they can do what they want. I await a reply

It is small comfort but Mattishall is having the same battle on identical grounds but there, they are dealing with a 100 houses.

Quite clearly, Planning from the centre ( Central Govt ) has lost the plot and such is the level of contradictory advice and policy that basically , it would appear , a Planning authority can pick and choose whichever Policy they like in support of whatever the Political mood or colour is in charge.

It would foolish and silly of me to not recognise that there is a housing need, but until something is done to force improvements in the supporting infrastructure and to genuinely address other safety and sustainable matters, I will be dis inclined to support any development, and make no apology for doing so.

Date: Nov 24, 2014

Thanks for the update Julian.

So the planning officer says that this planning application is to be dealt with under "delegated powers", are we allowed to know on what grounds are these "delegated powers" made? Surely, the fact that many have objected to this application would make it a contentious planning application. The council's decision making process doesn't make sense and does sound a bit iffy! What is the point of people engaging if all their concerns are ignored. No wonder people are fed up with this council.

Date: Nov 24, 2014

I could not agree more

Delegated powers were put in place to save time and deal with applications in a sensible time frame which no one had a problem with if un contested. Clearly attempting to deal with matters which are contentious via this route is in my view entirely inappropriate but of course , if a Planner thinks the objections are spurious or can be easily addressed by adding conditions this can still be an option.

The safeguard is that the District Councillor (not me) can ask for the full committee to consider this , which of course is no guarantee that it will be refused but who knows what will happen, as applications in the past which quite clearly should have been thrown are not and others which could have been passed are chucked out.

The Ch Exe could well do this as well, so we wait and see.

Date: Nov 24, 2014

>I can confirm the application will be referred to the next Development Management Committee on the 10 December 2014. A copy of the officers report will be available to view on the Council’s web site from the 3 December 2014 and will be able to be accessed via the following link: http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/democracy/default.aspx

Regards,

Helen

Helen Mellors
Development Manager

Date: Dec 9, 2014

This is being heard tomorrow if anybody wishes to attend. http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/CARMS/meetings/dmc2014-12-10-ag.pdf

Date: Dec 10, 2014

It took some finding but the Officers recommendation to committee was for refusal. Outside the settlement boundary, overlooking the Granary and lack of secondary schooling places were probably the key issues

I am unaware of what the committee decided

JH

Date: Dec 16, 2014

I received this message from Cllr Halls. Webstation:

The planning for the 7 houses behind 1 Cantely Villas has been refused! Fantastic news. I am just about to read the report

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NBDWJFOQGRL00

Date: Dec 23, 2014

So Cantley Villas is not to be sold,it has now been empty for nearly 2 years.What happens next,does it fall down and fly tippers dump all their rubbish on the land

Date: Dec 24, 2014

An option here would be that a family moves into Cantley Villas and lives there as before. This is what usually happens, it doesn't have to fall down or be surrounded by new houses.