Planning Ref 2015/2850: There is a new planning application about discharge of conditions to planning application Ref 2012/2016 Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road
For planning details: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NZ72V9OQLEX00
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
I have asked the Town Clerk if we are going to look at this again , given that the layout for the ponds is one which the Council objected to previously, as it dictates where the houses go, which was not as given in the outline permission and many residents were opposed in consequence.
The problem is that if this is not a seperate application , but just a fulfilment of a condition, we may not get the opportunity for further comment
I believe contact with Chris Raine has been attempted but so far no joy, and would be very annoyed if our comments about the revised layout had somehow been overruled given the very justifiable concerns expressed by the local residents, and the way in which the outline plan had been changed at the final stage to build houses immediately next to the adjacent existing property, and the way they had been redesigned from two storeys to three.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
This is not acceptable. Changing plans at the final stage without input allowed from the town council and the very people it will affect. Where in the village is there three storeys dwellings? it is totally out of character for this village. How will the planners be able to justify these detrimental changes?
__________________
JUlian Halls
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
What a pity - I loath these 3-storey ostentatious dwellings and as someone has rightly pointed out, they are nowhere to be seen in Spooner Row. This will take architecture into a completely different and undesirable realm. It is just not on for plans to be changed at this late stage; do South Norfolk Council have any input into the design?
Can I be clear here. The plans for the drainage arrangements show the layout of the houses which was submitted to the Council at the FINAL planning stage. The Council noted the changes from the OUTLINE plan and in consquence recommended refusal.
I would hope that South Norfolk Planning noted this refusal and acted accordingly but this is apparently not reflected in the Drainage layout we have just seen and trying to bottom out what actually was decided and find a Planning officer to answer this question is extremely difficult , for some odd reason. My cynical side would suggest their unavaialbility is because they ignored the Town's refusal request BUT I cannot find out , and even if I could, there is nothing I can do about this at this stage. This is now firmly in the hands of our District Councillor to address if it is not already too late, because once passed it stays in place unless the permission runs out of time.
I am not happy but District Council and myself, and more so the Planners enjoy a rather taciturn relationship to say the least. Let us hope the layout is wrong and not what is now going to be built
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
Julian, you are not the only one who feels they have an awkward and exasperating relationship with the district planning /planning policy department. They don't like anyone querying anything they do, particularly when they are not making any sense. If the new properties flood, which they are likely to do, can we hold them responsible?
Let's hope our district councillor can sort this out as technically he is their boss.
__________________
Julian Halls
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
In answer to your first point the answer is no. Many times I have seen a housing development given permission next to a factory , which the residents then complain about and under nuisance law the factory is effectively closed down.
This despite the Environmental health dept objecting at the outset who are then stuck with the mess and complaints to deal with.
No comeback on the Planning dept and/or the councillors who actually make this decision, whatsoever, unless you count the ballot box every 4 years or so but then way too late.
I cannot find any documents linked to the application that says the houses will be 3 storeys?
Regarding the discharge of conditions, it appears residents concerns about flooding at Bunwell Road (and are affected) ate going to be ignored as the powers that be seem to dismiss the issue as it's a small development? Or have I, hopefully, misunderstood. So much jargon...!
Working from memory my thoughts were that this idea of 3 storeys plus the revised layout with houses overlooking the existing was added in at the Final Planning stage. The Town Council made it very clear that they objected to this change.
The revised layout and design was suddenly added after the original outline layout had addressed all the concerns raised by residents. This practice is in my view dishonest and self serving but if the Planners have allowed this they have let us all down AGAIN.
As my daring to criticise the Planners in the past has been seen as 'unhelpful' and my posts in consequence monitored, I will say nothing more. Over to our District Councillor to sort this.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
Why isn't our district councillor doing more to help on planning matters? Everyone turns to parish councillor Halls for help instead, who has no power on district issues.
__________________
Julian Halls
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
I am sure many of you have noted the precense of some building site fencing and toilets at the Bunwell road end in a field full of crops!! I have attempted to bottom out what is happening and have noted the decison notice for approval which is linked to the 2015 application on the south Norfolk web site.
Basically the approval has been given in part to 8 properties at the Spooner row end of the site but not yet for the remaining properties BUT the layout plan, the general arrangements layout plan all indicate that the revised site layout , which was objected to by the residents AND the Town Council is the final version. It was objected to because of the effect on the residents of Hill road and the proposal for 3 storey houses.
It would appear that the objections have been ignored as once you put in the flooding pond (called an attenuation pond) there is no where else for the houses to go and this is re enforced by the general arrangements plan which relates to the whole site. See the documents section of the planning site where you will find a very difficult plan to view. I wonder why?
Once again we have been consulted and it would appear , that our comments have simply been ignored ALTHOUGH the final decision on the rest of the properties has yet to be made.
I will be e mailing the Planners to ask what is going on but do not expect a cogent or sensible reply. However being a lowly Parish Councillor who is seen as nothing but a hindrance to the Planning heirarchy, I would strongly suggest that affected residents even at this stage, make it very clear how you feel about this and copy in our District Councillor.
copy of e mail sent Please note the apparent absence of letters of objection against this application
Dear All
I have noted the presence of some building site fencing and toilets at the Bunwell road end in a field full of crops!! And have noted have noted the decision notice for approval which is linked to the 2015 application 2850.
Basically the approval has been given in part to 8 properties at the Spooner row end of the site but not yet for the remaining properties BUT the layout plan, the general arrangements layout plan all indicate that the revised site layout , for the whole site, which was objected to by the residents AND the Town Council is the final version. It was objected to because of the effect on the residents of Hill road and the proposal for 3 storey houses AND was quite clearly different from the outline plan originally submitted to which there were no objections.
It would appear that the objections to the revised Plan , have been ignored as once you put in the flooding pond (called an attenuation pond) there is no where else for the new houses to go and this is re enforced by the general arrangements plan and the layout plan which relates to the whole site.
Once again we have been consulted and it would appear , that our comments have simply been ignored ALTHOUGH the final decision on the rest of the properties has yet to be made.
I have advised the affected residents even at this stage, to make it very clear how they feel about this before the permission is given on the other houses.
Can we confirm who made this decision and also why the Town Council’s letter of objection and the residents letters of objection does not appear in the list of documents against this application please ( as far as I can see )
Julian Halls Cromwells Ward Town councillor
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
I agree, residents affected by this should contact the council about the ignored issues, and to also ask your district councillor, Jack Hornby for his positive and proactive help in supporting the very sound objections put forward by residents and the town council. What is the point of engaging if the district council is just going to ignore local problems caused by this development?
The planning process for this development for 20 dwellings has been very confusing throughout. It was placed together with the allocated site for 13 dwellings at Chapel Road, making a total of 33 dwellings. Planning References regarding this include Ref 2012/2016, Ref 2014/2472, Ref 2015/2850 there maybe more. The confusing approach is contrary to the statement made by Tim Horspole, Director of Growth and Localism on the Decision Document of 2014/2472, which states: "The authority can confirm it has worked in a positive and proactive manner, based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with this planning application, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework."
__________________
Julian Halls
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
A reply from South Norfolk which is helpful and hopeful for the residents. I am eating humble pie as we speak but until the Fat lady sings.......
Dear Julian
Thank you for your e-mail.
For the avoidance of doubt, the reserved matters approval was for only 8 dwellings in respect of the Bunwell Road part of the scheme granted under outline approval 2012/2016, as the Council did not consider the scheme for the entire Bunwell Road site as originally submitted under the reserved matters application to be acceptable, and consistent, with the outline approval.
Likewise the description for the discharge of condition application 2015/2850 makes it clear that the discharge of conditions relate only to the 8 approved dwellings.
In short, neither the reserved matters approval for the 8 dwellings or the subsequent discharge of condition approval 2015/2850 prejudice the ability of the Council to consider the remainder of the site, regardless of any details shown on a plan to date.
I can confirm that upon receipt of any further application on the remainder of the Bunwell Road site, the Council will consider it on the basis of its planning merits at that time, having regard to the relevant policies and material considerations at that time. A full consultation exercise with all relevant parties will also be undertaken and views expressed taken into account in the decision making process.
I trust that this clarifies the current position in respect of this site.
Kind Regards
Chris
Christopher Raine
Senior Planning Officer
t 533841 e craine@s-norfolk.gov.uk www.south-norfolk.gov.uk
Looks like a final application in respect to both sites will be presented soon for consideration to the Planning sub committee at Wymondham.
I will let you know the details as soon as I am aware but it is clear that the developer is in active negotiation with the Planners at South Norfolk
Any further developments Julian?
The houses look even closer to the Bunwell Road than the plans. I'm also saddened that the area that was going to allow for a meadow-type area to walk has disappeared from the original plans. The result is that the houses aren't set back from the road. Everything to do with the village feels like a losing battle!! Speeding, broadband, planning, phone reception...my Husband just received word that broadband improvements have been put back another year; end of 2017/18.
We await details but the briefing we received showed retention of walk area on the Bunwell road site but more houses to be shoe horned in at the back. If the houses which have Planning permission are being built not to plan let Planners know asap
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
I suppose there is a little bit of consolation in that there are only 8 houses going up rather than the initial 20 intended at the Bunwell Road site. I am also saddened that the meadow walk area has gone from the original plans if what you say is correct.
__________________
julian Halls
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
Original outline was for 33 including the 8 but the plan is now for 39 !! including the 8
so 13 at Chapel road and 26 at Bunwell road was proposed, again including the 8 , but we await details and no guarantee of final planning permission being given , but we were given the impression that Planners were happy with this
Does rather make it a sick joke to then have a service village maximum of 15 - 20 according to the plan when this alone breaks the rule by a considerable margin
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
26 new houses at Bunwell Road, where did that figure come from? They seem to make it up as they go along. I thought it was 20 for Bunwell Road reduced to 8. There's no public information about 26 on SNCs website. The decision of approval was for 8 on 26 April 2016.
What is our District Councillor doing about this? His election promise to us last year was to control speculative housing development, stick to the housing numbers agreed upon in the Local Plan and to stand up for people on the local council. Is this happening?
http://snca.org.uk/?page_id=543
__________________
Richard
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
This promise did indeed appear in our District Councillors 'manifesto'
As a town Councillor , NOT a district Councillor I cannot do anything about this and the Standards board which oversaw Councillor actions and presumably their promises is no longer in existence as it was decided by Eric Pickles that it was unecessary and bureaucratic.
He did beef up the accountabilty in respect of financial matters but then said any other issues can be dealt with at the ballot box , once every 4 years. Whether you think that as correct or not, sadly, it is academic.
I just wondered where the name Newlands Gate came from in the new Glenacre Homes' site in Bunwell Road? Is there some historical significance to Spooner Row here or was the name just plucked out of a hat? I thought developers usually looked at the history of the place in which they build.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
Anonymous wrote ....... The houses look even closer to the Bunwell Road than the plans. I'm also saddened that the area that was going to allow for a meadow-type area to walk has disappeared from the original plans. The result is that the houses aren't set back from the road. Everything to do with the village feels like a losing battle!! Speeding, broadband, planning, phone reception...my Husband just received word that broadband improvements have been put back another year; end of 2017/18.
The new foundations do look very close to the road, which is not in keeping with the adjacent properties on Bunwell Rd. These new housing developments in Wymondham seem to have hardly any front gardens, just look at those densely built ones next to the roundabout on London Rd/Suton Lane. Looks really urban. I wonder who's bright idea it was to change and urbanise Wymondham so fundamentally by allocating such a large number of new houses for the parish.
The new houses are being advertised on Rightmove (and elsewhere) with a price range from £485K. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-55936930.html
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
The new residents, after spending half a million pounds on their new properties, are going to be in for a bit of a shock when they join the rest of us in putting up with a substandard, last century broadband connection.
How much of the profits of this development are going to be put back into the benefits of the village? How about the developer/landowner providing adequate funding for addressing the drainage system in the village, which needs attention.
The broadband is being addressed as part of phase 3 of BBFN.
And, if I am forced to have new houses built in my village, which lets face it, many around the country are as we are CONSTANTLY told that there is a shortage of houses, at least they are nice houses and not some horrible cheap*(the * means see below) rubbish like the stuff they are building in Thetford/Wymondham etc. These are expensive, on with Savils not your Abbo's or WH Berks. You should get some well healed executive types who will commute to Cambridge or The City (not Norwich city obviously) every day, leave at 04:30 and back at 22:00 so you wont see them, and therefore not actually have to interact with them (and they might actually make the train stop more often) and send their kids to Town close/Old Hall/St Felix etc. (so no worries about school places either). I can't see a downside.......
*(Obviously they are not actually cheap, before you start shouting at your screen/me/the planners etc. but you have to accept that there are different classes of horrible new estate, the low end of the market where they are of shocking poor quality, overlooked, seventeen stories high and no parking, but still quite expensive, or the good ones, top of the market horrible new estates like Abel or Hopkins and so on which are really expensive, not quite so over looked, bit of astroturf and a window box)
The developer has agreed to give some money to the school ,the village Hall and provide a speed sign at the Chapel road end of the village , but until the final planning permission is given we will not see the details. This part of modern planning process and is called CIL or community infrastructure levy which was section 106 for large ish developments. The Town will be getting a new cemetery on the back of the Gonville Hall development !
Whether you think this is ethical or not is sadly not a question I can answer. It is now Law. That said whilst i accept that the drainage in the village is in need of sorting I would be very much against a developer subsidising this , having paid for this already in my County rates and in at least one area, Network rail should be sorting this , and paying for it
Link everything to the developer and they have the perfect excuse/reason to get what planning permission they want , and it is already a process bordering on bribery.
The theory is that all things relate back to our wonderful plan where infrastructure and school places are all taken into account apparently but demonstrably it is not working and my telling the Planners this , does not go down well by South Norfolk who monitor these posts, and mine especially. At which point I will stop.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
The broadband is being addressed as part of phase 3 of BBFN.
And, if I am forced to have new houses built in my village, which lets face it, many around the country are as we are CONSTANTLY told that there is a shortage of houses, at least they are nice houses and not some horrible cheap*(the * means see below) rubbish like the stuff they are building in Thetford/Wymondham etc. These are expensive, on with Savils not your Abbo's or WH Berks. You should get some well healed executive types who will commute to Cambridge or The City (not Norwich city obviously) every day, leave at 04:30 and back at 22:00 so you wont see them, and therefore not actually have to interact with them (and they might actually make the train stop more often) and send their kids to Town close/Old Hall/St Felix etc. (so no worries about school places either). I can't see a downside.......
*(Obviously they are not actually cheap, before you start shouting at your screen/me/the planners etc. but you have to accept that there are different classes of horrible new estate, the low end of the market where they are of shocking poor quality, overlooked, seventeen stories high and no parking, but still quite expensive, or the good ones, top of the market horrible new estates like Abel or Hopkins and so on which are really expensive, not quite so over looked, bit of astroturf and a window box)
To address your points:
I will believe that the broadband will be updated when we get it. Promises of improvements have not materialised in the past.
Don't assume local people do not want to "interact" with new people, there is no problem welcoming new people to the village, to say otherwise is quite insulting.
Many people can only afford "cheap" houses. Building controls are in place to prevent "shocking poor quality low end of market" housing.
This development will overlook existing properties.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
Quite apart from any comments regarding these new houses, it has to be said that the layout is a huge difference to the larger (older) houses just past The Boars, towards Bunwell. They have generous hedges, good drives and .............. seclusion.
I hope the new buyers realise that the new houses are on Bunwell Road which is a designated HGV route so they'll have lorries etc. driving past night and day. Anyone who pays half a million for that must be seriously stupid! Don't think the train at Spooner Row will get you to Cambridge and back....You'll need to park at Wymondham station, so good luck with that!
Actually not quite true. Catch the 1 train per day to Wymondham that stops at Spooner row. Change platforms then get a Cambridge train back, so no parking problems and then do the reverse in the evening or you could go to Attleborough.
The broadband is being addressed as part of phase 3 of BBFN.
And, if I am forced to have new houses built in my village, which lets face it, many around the country are as we are CONSTANTLY told that there is a shortage of houses, at least they are nice houses and not some horrible cheap*(the * means see below) rubbish like the stuff they are building in Thetford/Wymondham etc. These are expensive, on with Savils not your Abbo's or WH Berks. You should get some well healed executive types who will commute to Cambridge or The City (not Norwich city obviously) every day, leave at 04:30 and back at 22:00 so you wont see them, and therefore not actually have to interact with them (and they might actually make the train stop more often) and send their kids to Town close/Old Hall/St Felix etc. (so no worries about school places either). I can't see a downside.......
*(Obviously they are not actually cheap, before you start shouting at your screen/me/the planners etc. but you have to accept that there are different classes of horrible new estate, the low end of the market where they are of shocking poor quality, overlooked, seventeen stories high and no parking, but still quite expensive, or the good ones, top of the market horrible new estates like Abel or Hopkins and so on which are really expensive, not quite so over looked, bit of astroturf and a window box)
To address your points:
I will believe that the broadband will be updated when we get it. Promises of improvements have not materialised in the past.
Don't assume local people do not want to "interact" with new people, there is no problem welcoming new people to the village, to say otherwise is quite insulting.
Many people can only afford "cheap" houses. Building controls are in place to prevent "shocking poor quality low end of market" housing.
This development will overlook existing properties.
Whilst I share your optimism about the broadband, it is actually coming, it is just part of a more complicated program of work in Wymondham
Building controls do not protect against very high density, lowest possible specification, smallest garden, poor workmanship to finishes because of the very fast build rate/cheap materials which you find at the 'low end' developers who's names I wont mention here, but are currently being built quite near here.
Overlooking existing properties is not the concern of the developer as he wont actually live there.
They are not 'cheap' in the sense they don't cost the purchaser a huge amount of money, and I accept that people are right on the edge of what they can afford when they buy them, but they are cheaply built, and sold at the lower end of the market.
The ones being built here are seemingly of a top end (of the new build market which isn't saying much), seemingly bigger, better specification etc. which if you have to have to have new houses in a village, is what you want. And, anyhow, you can't exactly say that Spooner Row is a 'pretty' village, not in the Cotswold chocolate box sense of the word, there are already new and old houses together along that road all mixed in.
As to people 'who pay half a million' being seriously stupid, i would say you are wrong on at least 2 levels.
1. Half a million is the starting price, and if people pay it for that end of the village it will set a precedent for the value of the surrounding houses, so you will probably see an uplift in your own value
2. That is a sensible price for large executive type houses in this area, perhaps Spooner Row is 'on the up'
Just wait until you see how much the really big ones will be behind the Cantley villas, i bet they are up in the £750k range
Is the same developer building at the other end of the village and will they be the same specification?
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
Actually not quite true. Catch the 1 train per day to Wymondham that stops at Spooner row. Change platforms then get a Cambridge train back, so no parking problems and then do the reverse in the evening or you could go to Attleborough.
Sustainable transport links ?
One train per day in one direction and two in the other. The last and only train arrives back at Spooner Row about 5pm so hardly an adequate DAILY commute to work in Cambridge. You would only be able to work for a few hours per day to fit around the sparse train service - this wouldn't pay a half million pound mortgage. Adding to that, working from home without adequate broadband is a non-starter.
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
RE: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2
Paying half-three quarters of a million for living in a village that is certainly not "pretty", on an HGV route where there are no facilities, in the middle of a property boom (that can only end in bust) is just ridiculous. Developers like this are just interested in maximising their profits and have no regard for the consequences of their actions. Do you honestly believe that Network Rail will provide a better train service to Spooner Row and that we will get broadband at speeds that "executive" types will expect simply because of a handful of new houses? There would have to be hundreds of houses before that would happen (which is the objective here) and then the whole character of Spooner Row would be destroyed. I hope the new residents in their overpriced new houses enjoy their field views while they can, because it almost certainly will not last.
I honestly don't know if you are deliberately antagonistic or just simple....
STOP obsessing about the HGV route - most roads have HGV's on them, how do you think products get to shops?
STOP obsessing about the broadband speed - in most cases it is perfectly adequate unless you want to live stream high definition video which is VERY easily countered by selecting your video choice, pressing pause for 1 minute to allow the system to download ahead of what you want to watch and then pressing play
STOP finding fault with EVERY single comment on this forum, it is not a personal attack on you and your way of life. You seem to read comments, and fixate on a single word/comment/phrase and totally take it the wrong way. Yes I know Network rail is unlikely to lay on extra services specifically for the new houses, but it is possible, why always be so totally negative?
Spooner Row does not have character, it is a hotch potch collection of houses, most of which are under 50 years old of varying aesthetics next to a road which has a nice pub and is close to the A11, full of people who (judging by this forum) secretly despise each other when they can hide behind the 'anonymous' name but in public are probably as nice as pie to others faces. Most people have many reasons for choosing to live here, but village character isn't one of them
STOP obsessing about every single detail on this new estate, and the prices and weather the new residents will or wont pay the price you clearly disagree with. If you don't like it or cant afford it DON'T BUY ONE. Unless you are unfortunate enough to live near the new houses, find a new way to get to Bunwell then you wont have to look at them. Personally I hardly ever go that way so I wont see them either
There wont be hundereds of houses built there anyway, they will be put elsewhere in the village, on the sites which are clearly not being farmed and being saved for such a use ( Such as field next to the pub, field next to the post box, field opposite the new estate)
Blimey Anonyous, what an out of touch rant. You need to accept people are allowed to have their own opinions which may be different from yours. Your rant is wrong on many counts, eg having HGV's drive down a road is different from a "designated HGV route" which Bunwell Road/Station Road is. You are clearly not from the village as you describe us as full of people who secretly despise each other - what a derogatory thing to say and totally wrong. You moan about the village not having character (in your opinion), well many of us do like its rural character very much (there's no shame in that) and that is why we choose to live here! I suggest you need to "STOP obsessing" about our opinions on the new houses, get a life and let people have their say without getting yourself so angry.
One wonders why you support these unwanted new houses so much.
Struck a nerve there I think. Funny how when people with vested interests in these developments find out that others know what they're up to, they don't like it. Forgot to mention that Spooner Row has lots of bonfires, so city "executive" types won't like that. Oh yes, and it's way too far to commute to Cambridge by car. There are plenty of villages between Spooner Row and Cambridge that are far better and more affordable. By the way, I actually live in Spooner Row and I think what is happening to our village is immoral.
As a person who is not anon, do you not think being anon yourself is just a tad hypocritical.
Broadband speed is pants
The road is on a much used and an unsuitable HGV route
Characterless is harsh and there is an active village Hall committee, a not very pretty Church but with a good choir, an award winning school and an award winning pub
Find another route so as not to see the houses ? yes brilliant suggestion !
Sadly unless we whinge we will have hundreds of houses AND no infrastructure to support the village as currently our planning system is being completely highjacked by , one suspects greedy developers.
I will take your suggestion up and will not be buying one of these houses which are very high end price wise whichever way you look at it and no don't expect street lights
Thank you for your contribution
__________________
Anonymous
Date:
Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road - Planning Ref 2015/2850, Discharge of conditions, planning application 2012/2016
Is now a good time to suggest banning anonymous posting?
(Thank you Anonymous for your suggestion, this has been dealt with in previous postings. Posting anonymously is popular and allows for local people to express a point of view. See http://www.spoonerrow.f2s.com/message_board.htm)
Webstation
-- Edited by webstation on Wednesday 5th of October 2016 05:12:38 PM
What a liberty to say "Spooner Row does not have character, it is a hotch potch collection of houses". Personally, I like its rural setting, that is why I live here. Just because this person does not like Spooner Row, he thinks it is ok to ruin it with lots of executive houses. This person seems to know a lot about where the next houses will be built in the village and how many hmmmm....
