I have just found out by chance that there is a planning application for 16 dwellings in School Lane. This was registered with the District Council 20 March 2015 but there are no site notices anyway about this, so I doubt if anyone local is aware.
The link is: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NLISPHOQGSJ00
The plans recognise that it is in a Flood 1 zone and the Local Plan which is still in the making recommended 5 dwellings here. 16 proposed dwellings takes up about 2/3 of the site plan which will likely mean that more will be built later on the remaining 1/3.
As there is only one entrance/exit from School Lane with the busy primary school on the corner/junction which means that parents, school children, locals and anyone else will need to negotiate all the large construction vehicles for this development which already has safety concerns by everyone including the Highway Agency. School Lane is a narrow no-through road and is not a suitable site for such a large development.
This is surprising news. I have e-mailed South Norfolk Council - the Case Officer is Lynn Armes - to ask that two site notices are placed - one by the actual site and the other at the entrance to School Lane.
I cannot understand why the site notices are not in place bearing in mind the application was dated 20th March. 16 houses is vastly different to 5 houses and this should be challenged.
This was news to me and from reading the application there are some very generous interpretations of local Policies and some very careful date selections in relation to local Plan development in respect to permitted numbers 10 -20 houses, which given the approvals already given is an absolute joke.
The agents consultants have come up with a form of words, needless to say justifying this proposal but more interestingly was a proposed land swap which Wymondham Town and the School were allegedly aware of, which it is suggested is why the size of the site is so large to allow the swap to take place.
I would be interested to know whether the School Governors are aware? I have not been consulted at Town Council on this at all and will be asking what is known about this very shortly.
Disappearing site notices for contentious applications seems to be happening more and more but when one asks what can be done one never gets a straight answer.
Planning have been positively dismissive of any critiscism that this is an acceptable development site from the outset and given that the 5 year Housing supply has been approved and accepted since the application began, although needless to say the consultant is equally dismissive on this point, I think we have several counter arguments that can be aired.
Normally, as I sit on the Planning committee at Town I am not allowed to form a final view until after the hearing which is the 21st April and I am concerned that such a contentious application is happening at this time given the confusion that inevitably arises with the pending elections.
However, fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately I cannot make this meeting but I have already appointed a substitute who I will be very adequately briefing. They of course will have the power to vote not me.
In that regard any additional info you can supply I will add to the the mix.
Spooner row was alway a happy little village when I was growing up ,the school was just for spooner row kiddio and now they come from all over so that why the school is full j
This will be discussed on the 21st April at the Town Council offices at 1800 before being referred to District.
If you have some views on this application please attend and you will be given the opportunity to express them before the Councillors decide on their recommendation to Refuse or Approve to District.
This will be the last action taken by the Council in its present form before the election
This is the comment I shall be referring to South Norfolk re this application.
I hope whoever gets elected in May has the skill and wit to do likewise and will not be adversely affected by generous donations from wealthy land owners who by and large vote for a particular party
I apologise for its length but it has to be so, to counter long winded and 'carefully' worded reports from Agent.
It is purported to be a sustainable development but a rudimentary examination quite clearly contradicts this in that whilst it may have economic benefit for the Developer , it has very minimal economic benefit for the community.
Social Housing need is not demonstrated as we have exceeded by some margin the housing need of the District and its Environmental aspect is completely unproven, as you have to provide It should there unequivocally be refused in accord with the National Planning policy
Specifically the Planning statement at 2.6 says the Local Authority has failed to demonstrate a 5 year Housing supply. It was independently checked and approved in December 2014. The agent repeats this rubbish at 2.23 and numerously elsewhere.
The statement at 2.18 refers to the Joint Core Strategy housing need for Spooner row as a service Village for 10-20 houses. We already have 40 approved! This reference is quite deliberately misleading and does NOT take into account development already approved.
It purports to be in a sustainable location at 2.22, having a School, a train Station and a regular Bus service. Reading the Travel assessment which appears separately in this application it acknowledges that Bus stops ONCE a WEEK, the train stops Twice going into Norwich in the morning a Once going back to Cambridge This in Disingenuous to say the least.
2.26 and 2.27 tries to argue that this development is in keeping with ENV 8 which protects open Countryside and goes onto say that because the land is not arable of the highest quality, development is permitted ( ENV 21).It quite clearly does not protect the Open countryside and the Farmer is hardly likely to admit to it being the highest quality because he wants to make money by turning low cost Farming land into high cost development land
At 2.34 it tries to argue that the development will NOT prevent the free and safe flow of Traffic ( IMP 8). The existing users of Station road which is a cul de sac already struggle to get out safely , more especially at school delivery and chucking out times.
This development will simply add to the existing problems.At 2.39 the statement tries to say that the site is within ( TRA 1 ) cycling and walking distance of the School and the Village centre AND at 2.41( TRA 3 )one can cycle to the Station and the centre .
The school and there is no village centre and the fact that the Train stops 3 times a day , see 4 above , in a single opposite direction is once again entirely disingenuous At 3.1 of the Statement it claims this application will contribute to the Housing development specified in the Norwich Policy Area of 10 -20 Houses . This has already been exceeded majorly in any event the 5 year Housing land supply has been agreed and approved so this statement is both irrelevant and erroneous
Positive discussions between Wymondham Town and the School are reported with reference to a land swap. In reality this will be simple donation of land at the rear of the site for exclusive use of the School.
Many questions need answering here if this ‘carrot ‘ is to be regarded properly.Who will maintain this land and for how long Who will own this land What if anything will happen to the land if the School is forced to shut . Whilst this may seem very appealing to the School which suffers from lack of play space and who ‘borrow’ the field from time to time, this is conditional and the field is shared with dog walkers and what their owners, sadly leave behind. Taking on this new piece of land would necessitate fencing and maintenance and considerable work to make it suitable as a play area. One can anticipate noise complaints from the new residents whose houses would be immediately next to this proposed new area. Perhaps asking Wymondham Town Council what provision could be made as part of the existing field might be a way forward to address this issue and if the School needs more classroom space which they clearly do perhaps a financial arrangement could be made with County to address this and NOT link this provision effectively as an inducement to get Planning permission .
The Transport Statement makes the point that School lane is a cul de sac and explicitly refers to the VERY poor public Transport arrangements currently on offer. The Planning statement virtually ignores these facts and this is in part repeated in this statement. Having a station a 5 minute walk away is championed as a bonus. Brilliant when you have to wait 6 hours for a train to turn up, that is going to stop, or 7 days in the case of a Bus for one to turn up.
The Transport statement once again at 4.8 refers erroneously to the fact that the emerging Local Plan has highlighted the provision of 10- 20 houses in the Service Village of Spooner Row.
Matters to which the Agent does not refer specifically are
The TPO on the Oak tree opposite the Cottage and the other Oak on the junction with the School in School lane, which should surely have one and the fact that several established trees will have to be removed. It makes a mockery of the suggestion that the wildlife will be protected. Flooding and drainage. The site I understand is underlain by land drains and it is accepted that is a Flood zone 1. Given the last serious flood was 1953 a thousand year event prediction , given the current rapid climate change we are seeing with extreme weather events is hopelessly out if date. What is going to happen to the land drains?
Bearing in mind the above, this site is wholly unsuitable as a location for these houses and the Planning permission should be refused.
E mail reply from Town Clerk I have had one meeting, at the request of Spooner Row School, with Mr Gowers and Pauline the Head Teacher together with a representative of the developers. It was suggested that a land swop would be in the mutual interest of both the School and the Council. Both the school and I asked for a plan outlining exactly what they were proposing. I wanted to see what land the Council would be gaining and what we would be loosing. No plan was forthcoming and no further contact was had with the developers or the school regarding this matter. Having looked at the planning application I can see that the developers refer to this in Design & Access Statement (Page 5) . No proper proposal has been put forward for the Town Council to consider and yes I presume that to try and get the school on board they are offering the land behind the proposed houses. I cannot see how this is beneficial to the school as they have no problem in using our land for sporting activities, they are more in need of land on which to build further classrooms to increase the schools capacity. Many thanks Trevor Gurney Town Clerk Wymondham Town Council.
There are some minor transcription errors , which is my fault, to the message which appears here reagarding my objection . The one to South Norfolk does make sense and I am sure any reader will get the general drift of what I was saying.
The really annoying bit is that my comments can only be 2500 words but the Agent can prattle on for days with multiple 30 page reports. I suppose they have to justify their fee somehow!
The field is actually prime agricultural land - the same as the fields surrounding it. It has only recently been left fallow since it was put forward under the Local Plan proposals. The developer has provided incorrect information on this.
The school has full use of the recreation ground to which it is joined. This provides more open space than a lot of other primary schools in the area. The proposed donated piece of land is not adjacent to the school. The children would need to walk down the road to reach it and with all the extra cars using this cul-de-sac would put them at further risk. Will the school be expanding significantly to cope with the many new dwellings? Currently, local people moving to the village cannot put their children in Spooner Row School as it is full - and this is before they build the other 40 plus houses with planning permission.
If this is a land swap for a piece of the recreation ground owned by WTC (our parish council), does this mean that the council will be selling off a piece of our recreation ground for houses also? One of the main reasons (we were told) that the Local Plan chose this field was that it was opposite existing houses, so in that light, is the intention to continue the houses from this field up to the school playground? Previously, WTC wanted to sell off some of its land for houses in Wymondham.
More cars using School Lane will be contrary to Policy IMP 8 - promoting the safe and free flow of traffic. Anyone who uses this road will know that when cars are parked in the junction with Station Road by the school (during the school run), that it is anything but an area of safe and free flow of traffic, but more like a clogged-up, chaotic bottleneck, open to all sorts of accidents (Highways know this is a problem after the last accident). This development will worsen the current situation.
This is confusing A district Councillor can call in an application to be heard by the full Planning committee if he/she is unhappy about it being delegated. This gives the Councillor an opportunity to ask / liaise with his colleagues who sit on the planning committee to grant his wish to get it refused. Equally he can directly speak to the Planning officer to whom this matter has been delegated , which ONCE AGAIN I say, should never happen if the parish/town council has recommended refusal, ( which they have in this case) to try and influence the outcome , but to do so he must have good grounds for doing so and very good knowledge of Planning Law to do this. You are of course discussing matters with an Officer with years of experience and qualifications.
Anon can you advise me please how you know he has asked for refusal?
As has been pointed out by others this still does not prevent an application for less than 16 , if it is refused and this site is still, in my view incorrectly listed a site for development but SNDC and being really bloody minded about this
The District Coucillor has taken the correct approach here. He is simply saying that if the recommendation is for refusal he backs the council stance. However, if the recommendation was for approval it would automatically be put before the committee. So the Cllr is backing the residents views on this application.
