Spooner Row Message Board

Date: Sep 30, 2015

South Norfolk Local Plan Inspector's Report September 2015

Date: Sep 30, 2015

Just read most of it. Wel done to South Norfolk Council for managing to get the plan declared Sound and legal.

Date: Sep 30, 2015

I have just read the part for Spooner Row (pages 94-95) and it is out of date. It speaks of Spooner Row having the capacity of including 40 dwellings with planning permission when we are now at approximately 50 planning permissions with 1&2 Cantley Villas just added to the new housing list (bearing in mind it should be 15 dwellings for Spooner Row according to the report). The extra houses have no place in the local plan and have NO approval from the Inspector.

Not impressed.

Date: Oct 1, 2015

This should help keep the Village alive. Just welcome your new residents.

Date: Oct 2, 2015

The village has been here a long time and is very much alive thank you very much. What will kill the village community is hair-brained schemes that will destroy the rural character. Greedy developers or the council have no concerns about the impact these developments will have and it is all about making easy money at the expense of the new residents, most often for people who don't even live in the village or intend to stay longer term.

Date: Oct 2, 2015

How much has this long drawn out and out-of-date Local Plan costs taxpayers to south norfolk? The inspector has supported all the housing developments for Spooner Row. What about the improved train service and a bus service that we were promised.

Date: Oct 13, 2015

Sadly the Plan is not sound and in its current form does not provide the 5 year land supply so developers can build wherever they bl***y well like. They can also appeal if it gets rejected by District and almost certainly, if you read the judgement on No 1 Cantley Villas, will win on appeal AND claim expenses.

The Forward Planning Team used the wrong formula to calculate the Supply so we are getting shafted, so how can the plan be sound ??

We are a service village with the maximum of 15 new houses according to the Planners. We are now approaching 50 !! on account of this utterly incredible gaff. We, as ratepayers are paying for these people and I beg to understand why they are still in employment.

Date: Oct 14, 2015

The council keep having public consultation after public consultation which must be costing a fortune. The Mercury had an article on their latest one which refers to a public questionnaire on their housing strategy. It is not easy to find on their website, but here it is (doubt if they take any notice of what the public have to say anyway)

http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/haveyoursay/506.asp

Date: Oct 16, 2015

Here we go again. Can someone spare us from the silly comments posted on this site by this chap. The plan was declared sound and legal by an independent Inspector. The poster appears be jealous of that fact because it does not fall in with the preaching of his doom and gloom stories. God save us from him.

Date: Oct 16, 2015

Are you still on here. I agree with 'this chap'. Thank goodness he provides us with information of what is actually going on. Just because something is declared sound and legal, it doesn't mean it is the best thing for the community. It seems to be the best thing for someone else. You may call it doom and gloom stories, we call it reality, it's the over development that we will soon be living with.

Date: Oct 17, 2015

Independent inspector ????? who works for the Central Govt Dept whose single rationale is to promote housing development ,come what may, and water and dumb down any possible restrictions on development as he did with the Wymondham Area Action plan, whilst increasing housing provision from a maximum of 2200 to a minimum of 2200.

They are sadly nothing more than puppets to Govt policy in fear of their own jobs and livelihoods, which is exactly what happened to the Audit commission. Do a good job and suddenly find yourself a red tape burden and disbanded.

Date: Oct 19, 2015

What are you on about. All parties on SNC declared the plan sound.

Date: Oct 20, 2015

Of course they did because they do not want to seem like a bunch of idiots.

How can the plan be sound when there is no 5 year housing land supply, which in turn means anyone can build anywhere they like including outside the development boundaries set out in the plan.

Please prove to me that I am wrong !

Date: Oct 20, 2015

That is disappointing. With all the years it took for them to develop their local plan, even doing some parts twice, you would think it would include a 5 year housing land supply to make it workable and robust. How much did all this cost? Was it value for money? What about customer satisfaction?

Date: Oct 21, 2015

The inspectors report says that 40 extra houses are not excessive, that the school can cope and Wymondham has services and a town centre closeby for new people to use. As the local plan promotes more use of public transport, are we going to get a bus service from the village or a workable train service to get us to Wymondham and back? Or a footpath from the school to the top of Station Road in order to get a bus from Suton, which we do now? Currently walking in the road with cars and lorries is not funny. i am unable to find what the plans and improvements are on this.

Date: Oct 21, 2015

I don't think that describing the Leader of your Party ( Lib DEM ) and the other Lib Dem Councillors on SNC as idiots is very helpful. They know that what you say on here is misleading. Perhaps you should talk to them to get the facts about the local plan before you put any more misleading information on this site. All application are judged on a number of issues and not just the five year land supply. If they fail on the other issues then they will not get permission.

Date: Oct 21, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
I don't think that describing the Leader of your Party ( Lib DEM ) and the other Lib Dem Councillors on SNC as idiots is very helpful. They know that what you say on here is misleading. Perhaps you should talk to them to get the facts about the local plan before you put any more misleading information on this site. All application are judged on a number of issues and not just the five year land supply. If they fail on the other issues then they will not get permission.

He actually said, "they do not want to seem like a bunch of idiots" referring to SNC as a whole - looks to me that you are the one trying to be misleading. Perhaps you should talk to him in person rather than anonymously criticising him and his politics on this site and boring as all with your politics. At least he has the strength of character to use his own name.

As for applications judged on a number of issues, well that is just laughable. The Bunwell Rd site should never have been given permission, it floods.

Date: Oct 21, 2015

The obviously Tory ANON is also wrong yet again.

Whilst the Management committee said the Plan is sound and legal and that is the recommendation for adoption at the next full Council meeting, it has not happened yet.

Misleading? That is why the 7 houses at no 1 Cantley Villas has just been given permission EVEN though they are outside the Development Boundary. It was because there is no 5 year Housing Land Supply!

If my fellow Lib Dem colleagues agree that the plan is sound and legal then there are idiots AND I will tell them so. Unlike some I do not fear or cow tow to my party leader and at Wymondham Town that, by the way, is me and me alone.

I was elected to represent Cromwells Ward , NOT South Norfolk and if I were a district Councillor I would NOT be saying this so called Plan is sound, despite what anyone says, because Spooner row and Silfield have been completely shafted on Planning matters and right now they can continue to be shafted with COMPLETE AND UTTER IMPUNITY.

I think the Tory District Councillor who alegedly represents us should remember that BEFORE he votes to say it is sound and legal, and I would like to point out his election promises said he supports the view that new houses in Spooner row 'should be kept to a minimum' - I still have the document concerned.

I believe the PM also when asked in a Question Time in April as to whether the Tories would be cutting welfare payments he categorically replied 'no' So, yet another broken Tory Election promise. My apologies for getting Political but the current situation and the decisions being made which seem to benefit nobody but business and the rich, is nothing less than scandalous.

Date: Oct 22, 2015

This is becoming too political,it is a message board for the village,not a slanging board.If Mr Halls is not happy as a Liberal councillor,he should stand as an Independent and then he can call all other parties equally.

Lets put this negativity to bed and look to the future

We live in the 21 st century and unfortunately change happens

Date: Oct 22, 2015

Ban anonymous posting, then see how the debate flows

Date: Oct 22, 2015

Anonymous postings will remain in place for local people. Due to requests, if people want to make party political comments then they will need to produce their name in order to be published on this site. See http://www.spoonerrow.f2s.com/message_board.htm

Date: Oct 22, 2015

Interesting this

The only time negativity is ever mentioned it is with the specific intention of alegedly moving on and pretending that past promises were never made and therefore do not need answering.

My apologies for the Political rant , but in my defence it was ANON who pushed this post into that arena when he named me as a Lib Dem. See the timeline !!

An interesting point re independence , which is of course designed to consign me to oblivion. Clearly my critiscism of my Party IF they have agreed that the Plan is sound and Legal was not anticipated.

I say again. I am here to primarily to represent the Ward , and we are being shafted by Big business, ALL of us, except those with a vested interest and if that puts me into conflict with Party's views then they will have to accept that I primarily represent my voters, not South Norfolk, unlike some, who incidentally do not even live in the Ward. I would also like to point out that I get paid nothing as a Town Councillor , unlike the District Councillors who do get paid with your money.

There is an issue of accountability here and what all politicians forget is that they are elected to represent the voters opinions and views , NOT that of their party and that is why a 3 line whip is so wrong. It certainly should not have a place at District and never at Parish or Town. Sadly, there are some who think that what is said at Party HQ is gospel and that in order to further their 'career' that have to be seen comply. This is a fundamental fault with a first past the post system which right now, is never going to change on account of vested interests

Date: Oct 22, 2015

How will South Norfolk Council deal with the extra houses that were recently given permission at Cantley Villas and before the Inspector wrote his report? The Inspector has allowed 40 but now that number has increased to nearer 50, all with planning permission. If the Council is still to include the 5 property allocations for School Lane (which do not have planning permission) then this will take the total number to over 50 with an approximate 34% increase on the existing housing stock in Spooner Row, which is excessive - this does not include the split garden developments which would increase that percentage. Anything beyond the 40 housing allocations in the Inspector's Report will not be considered legal or sound. The School Lane site (SPO2) is a terrible allocation due to the safety issues of the primary school on the junction, with school parking, HGV route on Station Rd and now two new planning permissions for nine dwellings directly opposite this junction at Cantley Villas. Highways have had safety concerns with School Lane and its junction for a while and safety problems are still there. I have contacted the Council on the unlawfulness of over 50 houses. I understand South Norfolk Council will be adopting its Local Plan on 26 October.

Incidentally, the Council allocated 15 new houses for Spooner Row - how was 40 found to be legal and sound?

Date: Oct 22, 2015

An update from the Lib Dems at SNDC

They apparently agreed to the Plan being 'sound and legal' at a special meeting monday earlier this week.... I asked why and was told that SNDC adoption is essential so that the final combined plan for Broadland , South Norfolk and Norwich , the joint core strategy, can be adopted and give us the 5 year Land supply protection we need , when Broadland Planners get their act together NEXT year

I still find it incredible that until that time we are wide open to speculative development anywhere a developer wants.

I still object to the word 'sound' as balatantly it is not, until the Broadland Planners do what they are employed to do and one has to ask why we signed up to the joint core strategy if it going to be used a stick to beat us over the head with.

By agreeing to this the Lib Dem group sound complicit and whilst we are talking about a word, you could argue we are at least 2/3 rd of the way there, it does nothing when it comes to preventing more unwanted and unsustainable houses being applied for. 'Sound', I don't think so and all we can do is object on other Planning grounds but on recent past experience that may very well be a waste of time.

I stand by my assertion that I would have voted against this but as I am not in any position to vote that is rather academic.

Date: Oct 23, 2015

I am glad that the 'Anonymous' political posters on here now need to give their name. Their attitude to us leaves a lot to be desired.

Date: Oct 23, 2015

Karen wrote:
How will South Norfolk Council deal with the extra houses that were recently given permission at Cantley Villas and before the Inspector wrote his report? The Inspector has allowed 40 but now that number has increased to nearer 50, all with planning permission. If the Council is still to include the 5 property allocations for School Lane (which do not have planning permission) then this will take the total number to over 50 with an approximate 34% increase on the existing housing stock in Spooner Row, which is excessive - this does not include the split garden developments which would increase that percentage. Anything beyond the 40 housing allocations in the Inspector's Report will not be considered legal or sound. The School Lane site (SPO2) is a terrible allocation due to the safety issues of the primary school on the junction, with school parking, HGV route on Station Rd and now two new planning permissions for nine dwellings directly opposite this junction at Cantley Villas. Highways have had safety concerns with School Lane and its junction for a while and safety problems are still there. I have contacted the Council on the unlawfulness of over 50 houses. I understand South Norfolk Council will be adopting its Local Plan on 26 October.
Incidentally, the Council allocated 15 new houses for Spooner Row - how was 40 found to be legal and sound?

The Inspector will need to approve the 10 extra houses before SP02 can be included in the Local Plan. If the Inspector does approve this massive increase in the number of houses in the village way above what south norfolk council recommended then this puts into question the independence of the Inspector and his/her relationship with the council. It also shows that neither are listening to valid local concerns. You will probably have to take this further. South norfolk council seem to be obsessed with house building and ruining the local landscape, with their only concern being for themselves and their landowner friends profits.

Date: Oct 24, 2015

Last ANON is correct but also be aware that what is called section 106 money can levied upon the developer that South Norfolk gets which they are supposed to re invest in the local infrastructure AND they also get a new Homes bonus from the Government which they can spend on anything they want . Receipts for this last payment over a 5 year period are currently £4.5 Million for South Norfolk alone.

All Councils can and are doing this just to survive.

The Silfield development (1230 + houses) is yet to be added to this ( so more money ) You might think this is Central Govt bribing District Councils to allow Housing and do everything they can to ignore and crush very justifiable local views concerns on poor infrastructure , no school places, development on flood areas etc etc. It is certainly what I think.

Localism the cornerstone of National Planning Policy Framework is effectively dead in the water.

Yes we need Housing but we need a proper infrastructure in place FIRST and a we need to move away from profit driven companies providing it , and cash struck Local authorities trying to provide it.

An interesting fact. The road safety budget for NCC has been cut from £5M to to 0.5M ( Source Iain Temperton) Against this savage level of cuts , which we are told is not affecting services ( Ha Ha ). What chance have we got to have proper safe roads, school places etc.

Date: Oct 25, 2015

I have just looked at the 1 Cantely Villas Appeal decision. I agree with Julian Halls, it makes the adoption of South Norfolk's Local Plan meaningless as the council does not have a deliverable 5 year housing supply. How did they mess up here? This could be considered a dereliction of duty to all South Norfolk residents.

Date: Oct 26, 2015

Hello everybody. A friend of mine has just forwarded an email they received from south norfolk council about how they have adopted THEIR local plan for OUR village. I guess this will be followed by press reports on how wonderful they are and how they believe they have consulted with local people to ask what they would like. I have news for the council... A lot of us don't like what you are doing to and plan for our village and we do not like what you are doing to Wymondham and to other villages/towns in south norfolk.

Date: Oct 26, 2015

I think it is a very good plan. It will allow planned development within our district as well as providing much need houses for our residents.

Date: Oct 26, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
Hello everybody. A friend of mine has just forwarded an email they received from south norfolk council about how they have adopted THEIR local plan for OUR village. I guess this will be followed by press reports on how wonderful they are and how they believe they have consulted with local people to ask what they would like. I have news for the council... A lot of us don't like what you are doing to and plan for our village and we do not like what you are doing to Wymondham and to other villages/towns in south norfolk.

Lucky you for getting the Local Plan email. I didn't receive mine, despite taking an interest in their consultations. There again I am not surprised. Perhaps it will turn up next week, or the week after........

Has anyone got any idea what infrastructure and improvements we are getting to go with all these new houses?

Date: Oct 27, 2015

Quite agree Karen When ??

A good plan. Yes I suppose it is if you live in Brooke. Now, where does the leader of the Council live?? It certainly is not Silfield in Wymondham !!

Date: Oct 27, 2015

Planning is an extremely complex business and is often difficult to understand without knowing all the facts. The reason South Norfolk Council adopted the Local Plan documents was (a) to achieve an up-to-date Local Plan and (b) to bring achievement of a 5-year land supply closer. Because without an up-to-date Plan and without a 5-year land supply, the Council is open to speculative developers on any plot of land in the District that is deemed "sustainable", as has happened in Spooner Row. This sort of thing is now happening all over South Norfolk and indeed the country, not just in Spooner Row, and is ultimately the result of government planning policy. Planning Inspectors have to follow government policy and any Councils that try to stand against this get done for costs. So it's complex and often understandably bewildering to local residents.

Date: Oct 27, 2015

The above post says, "Planning Inspectors have to follow government policy and any Councils that try to stand against this get done for costs. So it's complex and often understandably bewildering to local residents." Just for the record, local residents perfectly understand that councils follow government policy and are not bewildered by this at all.

As for the other bit, the Council thought it had a '5 year housing land supply' but then reviewed its position and then conceded it didn't have one after all. Read the Inspector's Appeal Decision for 1 Cantley Villas, the situation is made very clear. The council messed up here:

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

Date: Oct 28, 2015

It is true that South Norfolk did wrongly believe at one time that it could demonstrate that there was a 5-year land supply. But at least its heart was in the right place in trying to help settlements like Spooner Row to resist speculative developments like 1 Cantley Villas. It is also true that the calculation of whether there is a 5-year land supply is very complicated.

1. First, there are two main methods of doing this - Liverpool and Sedgefield - and no clear government guidance on which should be used.

2. Secondly, the calculation has to be done across the whole Norwich Policy Area (NPA), i.e. Broadland, Norwich and the near-Norwich part of South Norfolk.

3. Thirdly, not every site that's been allocated for housing or has planning permission can be included in the calculation. The houses have to be deliverable within 5 years. For example, if a site is allocated for 1800 houses (as will be the case at Long Stratton) not all of these will be built within 5 years, so estimates have to be made about building rates. And from what date should the 5 years start?

All these points (and more) make the calculation far from definitive. But the main point is that adoption of the South Norfolk Local Plan should give South Norfolk itself a 5-year land supply, so calling councillors "idiots" for supporting this is totally inappropriate and insulting. What we need now if for Broadland Council to adopt its Local Plan, hopefully early next year as that should give the whole NPA a 5-year supply, and enable Councils to resist these ad hoc planning applications.

Date: Oct 28, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
..... so calling councillors "idiots" for supporting this is totally inappropriate and insulting.

No one has called South Norfolk councillors "idiots" and I think it is insulting and inappropriate that you accuse anyone from Spooner Row for saying this. South Norfolk does not have a "heart" and this is clear for everyone to see in how locals have been treated with planning and local plan issues. South Norfolk did NOT do anything to resist the speculative planning application for 20 houses at Bunwell Road. New developments in the village are heading for 60 houses and probably more in the near future, which will destroy our tiny rural village where we chose to live and invest.

Other councils in the country have managed to calculate a 5 year land supply. You moan and complain that South Norfolk finds this complicated while getting it completely wrong. Why not employ someone who can work it out!?

Date: Oct 28, 2015

How can a Policy be 'sound' when we are waiting for another set of Planners to get their act together and we remain wide open to more speculative development until this happens?

Date: Oct 28, 2015

Because the South Norfolk Local Plan is separate from the issue of whether the Norwich Policy Area has a 5-year land supply. Adoption of Local Plans helps to achieve a 5-year land supply because it allocates sites for housing. What we need now if for Broadland to adopt its Plan when it has been found sound by its Inspector.

Date: Oct 28, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
..... so calling councillors "idiots" for supporting this is totally inappropriate and insulting.
No one has called South Norfolk councillors "idiots" and I think it is insulting and inappropriate that you accuse anyone from Spooner Row for saying this. South Norfolk does not have a "heart" and this is clear for everyone to see in how locals have been treated with planning and local plan issues. South Norfolk did NOT do anything to resist the speculative planning application for 20 houses at Bunwell Road. New developments in the village are heading for 60 houses and probably more in the near future, which will destroy our tiny rural village where we chose to live and invest.
Other councils in the country have managed to calculate a 5 year land supply. You moan and complain that South Norfolk finds this complicated while getting it completely wrong. Why not employ someone who can work it out!?

Check out this message board a few days ago:

"If my fellow Lib Dem colleagues agree that the plan is sound and legal then there are idiots AND I will tell them so"

Date: Oct 28, 2015

So the WHOLE plan is 2/3rd complete and we await for Broadland to get their Act together AND quite clearly the South Norfolk Plan is not seperate and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as far as Planning permission is concerned

Sound = complete , entire, firm .................with a 1/3 missing ??? Errr I don't think so, which, I say again still allows speculative developers to apply anywhere they like

No matter how you spin it we are extremely vulnerable and there is nothing we can do about it until another set of Planners get their Act together. What a crass and idiotic position to be in, no matter what the reason(s)

I am told this will happen sometime next year

Date: Oct 28, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
1. ..... so calling councillors "idiots" for supporting this is totally inappropriate and insulting.
2. No one has called South Norfolk councillors "idiots" and I think it is insulting and inappropriate that you accuse anyone from Spooner Row for saying this. South Norfolk does not have a "heart" and this is clear for everyone to see in how locals have been treated with planning and local plan issues. South Norfolk did NOT do anything to resist the speculative planning application for 20 houses at Bunwell Road. New developments in the village are heading for 60 houses and probably more in the near future, which will destroy our tiny rural village where we chose to live and invest.
Other councils in the country have managed to calculate a 5 year land supply. You moan and complain that South Norfolk finds this complicated while getting it completely wrong. Why not employ someone who can work it out!?
3. Check out this message board a few days ago:
"If my fellow Lib Dem colleagues agree that the plan is sound and legal then there are idiots AND I will tell them so"

4. What are you talking about? this is not the same as calling S Norfolk councillors "idiots" no matter how you try and twist it.

Date: Oct 28, 2015

Dear Julian & Anonymous,

OK, I'm sure you know what you are talking about. After all I only have a total of 36 years experience as a member of Planning Committees in Norfolk, including 19 years chairing these Committees and Local Plan Working Groups. So I'm now signing off with best wishes to your community, and will leave local readers of this Message Board to decide whether they believe what you or I have said on it.

Date: Oct 29, 2015

Dear Anonymous,

If what you say is true and you have this wealth of planning expertise of over 36 years in Norfolk, then why not provide your name with your posts to give some credibility to what you say? A lot of posts do come across as a rant at Julian Halls.

I am glad you wish this small community well as we will need it. With bad planning permissions, biased appeals, an inferior local plan, no 5-year-land supply and all this without any local improvements to cope with this expansion. We have been left high and dry. Those with local power need to remember the consequences of their decisions.

Date: Oct 29, 2015

On the subject of ..(edited).. planning - another example of councils having no idea. I just wanted to pop out to post a letter in the post box on Station Road. It was raining so I took the car. I had to wait at the level crossing for a train to cross, hold up all the traffic to pop out to put the letter in the box (getting a couple of angry car horns along the way), queue at the junction in order to turn my car around. Oh, and I passed two huge articulated lorries on a narrow road with no street lighting. This is all in the middle of a tiny village with absolutely nothing going on Councils, you ..(edited)..

-- Edited by webstation on Friday 30th of October 2015 02:01:28 AM

Date: Oct 29, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
Dear Julian & Anonymous,
OK, I'm sure you know what you are talking about. After all I only have a total of 36 years experience as a member of Planning Committees in Norfolk, including 19 years chairing these Committees and Local Plan Working Groups. So I'm now signing off with best wishes to your community, and will leave local readers of this Message Board to decide whether they believe what you or I have said on it.

No such thing as older and wiser then. Just doing the same old thing, in the same old way, with the same old consequences. You need to get in the 21st Century.