Spooner Row Message Board

Further Appeal details: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NFWSLKOQKCG00

This appeal does not look good for the sub Parish of Suton and Wymondham Town although I acknowledge that there is a pressing need for a new Cemetry

The granting of permission for the houses in Silfield has worked against the District Council in this case , and Hallam Estates are well aware of this

The District had 4 grounds for refusal which, and one has to say have been robustly argued against and the lack of a 5 year Housing land supply is clearly key , as is the tacit rejection of the assumption that the site is not sustainable, when other sites with far poorer infrastructure were apparently !

Of course we are in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate but on recent form I would not be backing South Norfolk on this one .

It looks as if the hearing will take place in the New Year at the District Council offices.

My view was that this development was far more appropriate and acceptable than others so I abstained at the Town at the time although it was passed by majority, although rejected by the District.

For what it is worth I agree, but this is the modern world of 'planning gain' , in other words a sweetener to get our plans passed. Sadly examples of this are everywhere and well done to South Norfolk for going against this, but when up against the might of the Planning Inspectorate , an arm of Central Govt who want housing at any cost at the same time as  blatantly ignoring local views , despite loads of waffle that says the opposite, I am not at all hopeful.  

I agree totally with what you say, but South Norfolk does not have a 5-year housing land supply so it is not looking hopeful.

As far as I am aware, but I'm no expert, the council did a 5-year land supply calculation and they used an incorrect method to calculate. The method they used gave a 3.2 year supply (according this this appeal).  I think a 5 year plan is meant to be determined yearly as a sort of planning forecast for the next 5 years and reassessed annually on that basis. 

As the previous 5-year calculation was incorrect, I would have thought that priority should be given to produce a correct one. Waffling on about it is not good enough. Get a date and work from that.

I kept this comment on a proposed application which I think is very good and apt :

"Does the Government expect local authorities to maintain a 5 year supply of land for development in constant rolling perpetuity?   How is that physically possible?   I mean, there's only a finite amount to go round, and some of it is needed for other trivial things like growing food, timber, protecting our groundwater and providing a home for all the other creatures with whom we allegedly share this planet.   I get the impression this Government sees land as nothing more than development waiting to happen".

I have been looking at a Breckland Committee Report for proposed housing in Mattishall which is fairly and reasonably balanced and mentions the many objections of the residents but, in the final paragraph, it concludes  that "the benefits of the housing provision proposed clearly outweigh the social and environmental impacts on the settlement of Mattishall.  The application constitutes sustainable development and the principle of development can be accepted".  The flooding solution is awaited, the road is a nightmare, the doctors' surgery and school are full, but the application is still looked upon favourably because of the 5-year land supply mantra, which Breckland also do not have.

This proposal is due to be re-assessed at the South Norfolk Council Development Management Committee on Wednesday 2nd March at 10 am in the Council Chamber at South Norfolk's offices.   The agenda is to be published online on the 25th February   www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/democracy/default.aspx.

This is for 375 dwellings and associated infrastructure .............................

Oh dear, they just cave in and give way to whatever developers want, whether it is included in the local plan or not.  Talking of the local plan which was only adopted just before Christmas, they are going to be starting another version of it.  The first version would have cost a fortune to produce (did anyone examine the costs spent on this?). The new local plan must have the funding in place for this nonsense, yet they are cutting back on funding for local needs. 

The application for 335 houses was approved today at South Norfolk Council offices by 10 councillors and 1 abstention.    The main reasons for this is that they cannot justify having a 5-year land supply and the scheme can be considered to represent sustainable development in the context of the NPPF, even though it will detract from the Grade II listed building, Gonville Hall, and the possibility that there will be insufficient secondary school places for children in outlying villages, i.e.Ashwellthorpe, Barnham Broom, etc.   People have specifically moved to these villages in order to be in the Wymondham Academy catchment area.

The Council will therefore no longer be contesting the Appeal lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

Two access points are contemplated on London Road.    Notwithstanding this, we can look forward to greater traffic in Suton Lane.     There is also the risk of flooding in this area.   This is good agricultural land, and a lovely vista when approaching from the south which will be lost.    English Heritage have suggested only 2-storey houses be built here.   However, the application is liable for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

The late David Mawson, owner of Gonville Hall, said that "the setting of a manor house involves the whole of the manor and not just that small area around the house and garden.  If the setting was lost it would seriously compromise the historical setting of the manor.  The present setting has remained almost intact for over 600 years".

It appears to look like a complete botch-up on the part of the planning development team at the council.  I have read on their website that because they have now officially approved their Local Plan yet not provided a 5-year housing land supply, this has provided the developers with the opportunity to appeal, which the council does not wish to contest.  What was the point of the Local Plan??? How does this successfully serve the community??? Are they feeling proud of themselves???  Read the 'Committee Report' dated 2 March 2016: 

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NFWSLKOQKCG00

Cannot use the I-player with the hopeless broadband connection here - nice idea though if Spooner Row were allowed to get into the 21st century.

SNC do not have a 5 year land supply - see the post above with the planning link - it clearly says the huge London Road development has been passed on appeal due to the lack of this.  If John Fuller is blaming Broadland and Norwich councils for lagging behind, then surely it would have made sense for all three councils to communicate, cooperate and arrange to synchronise the adoption of their Local Plans as a joint enterprise under the Greater Norwich Area - that way we wouldn't be burdened with the consequences of these unfettered developments. Personally, I have always found John Fuller to be unsubstantial in what he says so I wouldn't want to listen to what he had to say.

As for consultations, that process was a joke, lacking in consistency and allowing developments such as the 20 houses in Bunwell Road to slip through - nothing complicated about that.  

I attended the Inquiry today at South Norfolk Council offices.    They are no longer contesting the application,  the reason being that they do not have a 5-year land supply. The opposition maintain that the impact on the character of the surrounding landscape/townscape would not be significant or give rise to visual harm.   A consultant maintained that the impact on the Grade II listed Gonville Hall is minimal, the land having been separated from the Hall many years ago.   Highways feel that there will be no problem with Suton Lane even though, as everyone knows, it is very narrow in places and will obviously have more traffic.    335 houses will result in how many cars ?  Children will easily be able to cycle or walk to either Wymondham College or Wymondham Academy.   Flooding will not occur.   The landscape is of minimal importance, many of the hedges having been removed.   It was not easy to listen to the degrading of the land in question, with its historic hall and lovely sweeping countryside and mature trees.     The development will effectively urbanise the town from the south - it will become just like any other town in the country.     The Inspector's decision should take about 8 weeks.  The Town Council have always supported this application.

Anonymous wrote:

---

I attended the Inquiry today at South Norfolk Council offices.    They are no longer contesting the application,  the reason being that they do not have a 5-year land supply. The opposition maintain that the impact on the character of the surrounding landscape/townscape would not be significant or give rise to visual harm.   A consultant maintained that the impact on the Grade II listed Gonville Hall is minimal, the land having been separated from the Hall many years ago.  .....  

 

---

 

South Norfolk Council had its failed 5-year land supply policy rejected some time ago, why hasn't it been put right by now?  Why the delay in doing this??  It is clear that a 5-year land supply is urgently needed for South Norfolk or speculative developments will continue.

Why hasn't the council allocated the surrounding land to Gonville Hall as Amenity Land?  This status is to protect the scenic value with things like the setting of a nearby listed building.  It meets this criterion.  Despite the land being separated from the Hall, the open agricultural fields still provide the desired and appropriate setting for the Hall - lots of houses will not.

The permission for this enormous and unnecessary development seems to be making headway because of the District Council's lack of action.  It is very disappointing that they are no longer contesting the application.

One has to say that being a Planner is a good job isn't it? Produce a plan , get payed a great deal and then Developers ignore it anyway or appeal knowing they will win because their collegues at Broadland cannot get off their fat ***** and get their plan approved, so we all suffer. 

Because the developers will win, the Council then just roll over dead and lack of schools and infrastructure apperently does does matter at Central Govt, but like footballers they, the forward planners ( Ha Ha)  still keep getting the dosh even if the results are rubbish

Why are they not kicking Braodalnd to get their act tiogether when the so called 'sound' plan was approved last year !!! or is the fact that one of the management team at South norfolk is an X planner from Braodland relevant ??  Must not upset our collegaues .

The appeal has been allowed so there will eventually be 335 houses on this site.   The Planning Inspector's report is now in the South Norfolk case :   2014/2495 and makes interesting (if not unexpected) reading.    There are "overriding benefits in terms of the economic, social and environmental dimensions".   The landscape quality is described as "medium to low" with the surrounding landscape described as medium quality.   The Inspector does concede that the introduction of housing and a cemetery would remove part of the agricultural setting which would represent a loss of significance but he considers that the harm to the significance of the heritage assets would be less than substantial and even as minor.   However, mindful of his statutory duty, he finds that the setting of the listed building would not be preserved.

When this lovely agricultural land and rural aspect becomes no more, we must remember that there are many such "benefits".  

I had cause to check the Wymondham area action plan given the latest Central Govt approval for the houses at the Rugby club despite their being concerns about lack of school places and infrastructure.

It was an interesting read

The minimum number of houses to be built in Wymondham which was changed by the Inspector to minimum as opposed to maximum was 2200 but did say that this makes allowance for a provision of a little over this amount 

Including all the approvals pending and in place , some of which I accept may actually be in Suton and Spooner row and therefore outside the Action plan is so far 3505!!!

I say include Suton, as I quote from the plan which says' there will not be any growth' in Suton para 42, and the plan does not include Spooner row which as a service village will only have 15-20 houses

So the 60 odd in Spooner row granted so far and the now approved 335 houses at the Gonville Hall site , a stones throw from the Wymondham Town border apparently do not count, but for even my dodgy maths if you discount the 395 added into the total shambolic number of approvals granted  we are way over the limit already.

Whilst it may not be South Norfolk's fault, we are suffering as a consquence of Broadland planners sitting on their hands. It beggars belief that we have a plan which when it comes down to it can simply be ignored.  Why are the planners not kicking their colleagues only a daily basis to get their act together ??

It looks as though fences have been erected adjacent to the new West Gate development in Suton along with a couple of containers.   The West Gate properties were marketed as being "adjacent to open fields" ?   This development is a step too far - good agricultural land amidst an age old landscape.

Does anyone know why this new development is called William's Park, Wymondham (Suton).   Perhaps the name refers to a local person or did they take the name out of a hat?  It is certainly changing the persona of Wymondham and the people on the old London Road must be pretty devastated.  Absolutely a development too far.

Reassuring but also heartbreaking to see we're not alone in being disgusted by this monstrosity of a housing estate.  No way in keeping with the area and no attempt to maintain the visual environment of the historic area.  Can't be the only one thinking that these developers must have contacts in high places - so much for 'localism'.  I feel like crying everytime we have to pass it.  Absolutely furious with South Norfolk Council, the Town Council and our MP, complete incompetence and not even a hint of an apology.  After spending years cultivating and enjoying the local wildlife now just want to sell up for building ourselves and move somewhere that countryside is actually appreciated.  

I am sorry but I must take issue with the assertion that it is the 'council's' fault. Of course one cannot deny that the Town council wanted a new cemetery and such is life nowadays that planning is all about money, and dare I say it, open offers to provide extra land for this and extra land for that. That is modern Planning, where the house buyer in th end pays for it all. The lack of a 5 year land supply however was the cruncher.

South Norfolk objected and it went to appeal but then , knowing they would lose did not offer any evidence and the application was granted

Of course we do have a 5 year land supply now BUT it is too late and despite the aforementioned policies, quietly ignored , by the planning inspectorate  this got permission. 

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly although sadly we have to recognise we need houses and even now they sell like hot cakes