Spooner Row Message Board

Why hasn't a planning notice been displayed at this site?

Not MORE new houses for our tiny village!!!!  No doubt the council will just wave this through.  This attitude by the council and its planners is starting to get more than just a bit bothersome here with its constant house building in Spooner Row without providing any forward neighbourhood planning.

This location is very unsuitable particularly with the primary school situated on the corner of this cul-de-sac, with an HGV route running past the junction.   Potholes in the road just keep coming with its wholly inferior surface, one looks like it is over 12cm deep.

The above post is right in that only 5 new dwellings were included here within SNC's "new development boundary" under its recent adopted Local Plan document.  As many of us are aware, this is a prime agricultural greenfield site, but the council chose it over and above an alternative brownfield site put forward, contravening their own Local Plan policies and claiming they didn't know the alternative site had brownfield status (just about everyone knows it has historic brownfield status going back to the war days). Clearly the council decided to ignore our letters and emails sent to them at the time concerning this? 

South Norfolk Council say that the failure to display a site notice is to speed up the decision making process but to also ensure that they meet the statutory requirement. "It is quicker to post a letter than erect a site notice, and we are no longer doing both if there is not a statutory requirement to do so.  We also felt it was important residents received a letter rather than just relying on a site notice".   

Those residents who live adjacent to a development site are still written to.  This element of their consultation has not changed.   The Council does have a duty to notify the Town/Parish Councils, Historic England, Highways, etc.    There will still be site notices where there is a major development proposed, listed buildings, conservation areas, Environmental Impact Assessment applications, development not in accordance with the development plan and development that would affect a public right of way.

This fails to take account of the bigger picture as can be seen from comments already on this website.    Although it is good that those immediately affected by  planning applications should be notified, it is also imperative that a site notice is also  displayed.   In this instance, even if a site notice were to be erected, it would not have been placed at the entrance  to  School Lane for the general public to see it.     It does mean that we all have to be extra observant but not all residents have access to a web site in order to see the weekly list of planning applications.  This carries no weight with South Norfolk Council who feel they have met their statutory requirement in writing to the residents who live adjacent to a development.

It's a simply conclusion, point me in the direction of any logical planning decisions that get refused ?

It's a total waste of time these days, I'm surprised the planning process isn't scrapped, just look at what's happening all over the country, the only way these get stopped if it's a going to effect a councillor directly.

The District Councillor concerned was indeed told off and training was recommended. Whether it took place I am not sure. I bet he must have been shaking in his boots being told off by a scrutiny committee which is made up of almost entirely by members of the Party he was elected for. No power to suspend,  and written censure is as far as it gets. So the District Council is its own judge, jury and executioner. One wonders whether such a friendly telling off would apply to a member of the only opposistion which is the Lib Dems but it is academic, as one would hope they would not be so arrogant to do such a thing in the first place?  

Jobs for the boys as my dad always says 

The sad fact is this;

Planning is sought by the applicant, application is advertised (if you're lucky you might get notification about it if you live real close), council consults application with a number of consultees. The usual highways, power, parish etc etc, the chances of the main consultees objecting like highways is non existent, of course all locals around the application know the road can't cope or it's falling apart but highways will never state that, as it's responsibility lies with them and they have no money to spend .  

The parish might object but of course any locals that feel their voice will be heard and believe in the system object, this becomes the only body of the objectees. During the course of the application various documents will appear on the council website, these might be traffic projections or noise level reports etc etc, all meaningless as the company that did them is working for the applicant. 

Finally d-day arrives, the lead planning officer on your case reports a summary of objections and a overview of the application. If you do read this document, your notice half of the real issues will be missed, the truth will be skewed beyond belief and everything the applicant states is taken as 100% fact. This of course includes promoting a house with no garage and no driveway is not going to cause any parking issues in the street where every family has 4 cars 

This document or some might say sales literature is to present to the planning committee, as if you're lucky you got over 5 objections. The council within that document will of course be all for the planning application as it is a simply decision of if we object can we win the appeal process in court. You can attend the planning meeting and have your say if you wish, but the planning officer is going to sell this bigtime to the committee. Here ends your planning battle, when the chairman asks for all those in favour to raise their hands, your notice a faster response than Usain Bolt doing the 100m.

For some there is hope though, you may get a committee that has a member who lives in the same street as the planning application is for, this is a great result as now the hands don't go up at all, this time when asked for votes you'd think everyone  was a quadriplegic.

That is the end of the planning process for some, positive or negative. If you are a winner and you get the planning stopped and for some miracle of nature this planning was stopped without a councilor living down your street then I have more bad news. Your victory will be short lived as the Planning Inspectorate during the appeals process will overturn it 

Here endith the planning process in this country.

Or is it ? well not quite, although this process is pretty much standard for trying to stop anything that will help this lovely country, there is some good news for people who complain about neighbours building extensions 1 inch too wide, in these scenarios the planning system works superb 

Yes, let us hope that our District Councillor will send this planning application decision to Committee to decide, so that he can keep his election promise and stop further development in Spooner Row, rather than allowing a done deal with the planning officer - whatever happened to impartiality?

Who in their right mind would support an application for more houses down School Lane anyway?  It now has two unwanted planning permissions right opposite the School Lane junction and the primary school entrance - these building plots have now had their lovely gardens cleared with the stench of bonfire in the air, every day over many weeks. This junction is already noted to have safety issues with Highways with the extensive parking problems at school end/start times. This is made worse when it clashes with the Station Road level crossing queue that frequently goes beyond the School Lane junction.  Residents regularly have trouble getting out of their drives, then getting out of School Lane at the one and only cul-de-sac entrance.

Clearly anyone who supports this planning application does not give a damn about the safety issues to the users of the local primary school and residents. 

I attended this parish council meeting tonight and the decision was to Approve the plans.  With regard to our Ward councillors who sat on the committee; Julian Halls voted for refusal, but unfortunately, Cllr Jack Hornby voted for approval (for more houses). I did notice throughout this discussion, his father Cllr Lee Hornby from Town Ward was making hand and mouth gestures to his son throughout from the audience - I hope this didn't influence his son's decision as we didn't vote in his father to represent us in these matters for Cromwells Ward.

This is normal Karen, for the Hornby's at least.

The point is that the application went through on majority , with Cllr Longhurst voting against as well. It would appear that having a maximum development number of 15 - 20 houses in Service villages is a complete joke, as we now have the potential for 59 and  the argument proffered by Our District Councillor, who you will remember in his election pledge promised to to keep housing development to a minimum in Spooner Row , was that because it wasn't 16 as previously, this was alright.

So the lesson here is apply for 50, get it rejected then apply for the number you wanted in the first place. This is cynical planning at its worst and right now is the way they are done.

Having seven new houses in a field that that can easily cope with many more was apparently okay?????, and that the developers would appeal anyway and probably win. They would appeal because the local plan , which you remember was declared sound and legal by the Conservative controlled Council , has a hole in it the size of the ozone hole called the lack of a 5 year land housing supply. One suspects the hand of senior Political influence which is 'grant Planning applications at all costs'

The fact that this will only contribute to a seriously dangerous junction, and compromise the residents of School lane obviously counts for nothing. I was going to use a much stronger phrase. The data used by the developer to argue that the this will not compromise further the safety of the junction is years out of date, BUT this was apparently agreed as acceptable by the planners. It said so in the application and one has to ask why? See below

So, what can you do? The only thing left to do is tell your District Councillor ( HA HA ) that you object and formally register your objection with South Norfolk against the planning application on line or write. With Our District Councillor, in favour, the matter may not even be considered in committee and planning officers, shall we say are very sensitive to critiscism so will be keen to get this delegated. For those readers who voted for our Councillor in the past,  you might care to review your policy in future when promises made at Election times are simply ignored. 

I will be making a formal objection as soon as this post is done.

It is very worrying and disturbing about the voting aspect on this application.   The Council Chamber is certainly no place for puppeteering as appears to have occurred here. I am very glad that my election vote played no part in his election.

An update from the planning officer to the developer says that she cannot support this proposal and suggests that the application be withdrawn or it will be refused as submitted. 

Thank goodness someone with some sense recognises that developing this site has huge problems. 

Even if they did appeal and win it would still mean that the developer would have to fork out a lot of money to address the problems with this site, mainly the flooding and pedestrian safety.

The lane is too narrow in install a 1.8m footpath and the road surface regularly breaks up and sinks in places which needs to be addressed.

There are existing flood risk and drainage issues which would require a major undertaking to sort out.  I understand there are sub-surface pipes running under that field that work in conjunction with the drainage ditches to direct water to the river – how would the developer ensure these remained intact?

The bewildering question that many of us have been asking, is why was this site included in the Local Plan for residential development when these issues were highlighted during the consultation period and it is clearly unsuitable?

We also now have the issues of two new developments going up opposite the school gates at the corner of School Lane, which will make it a 5-way junction on an already dangerous entrance/exit to the road.

The three parish councillors (possibly four if you include dads) at the Wymondham Town Council's meeting, who held the majority vote for this application to be "approved", agreed between them there was no flood risk here. Doesn't give you much confidence in their judgement and decision making in supporting local needs, does it? 

The council lot aren't interested in listening to the voices of experts unless they tell them what they want to hear.

Julian, is your posting referring to 2 Cantley Villas Ref 2016/1301 rather than School Lane 2016/0627?

Yes, why has our district councillor taken this unusual step??  and why is it going to committee at this stage??

There are a lot of issues that need to be put right by the landowner before this can be approved (the planning officer's email says it needs to be withdrawn or refused on submission). It would be unbelievable if this went to committee and was approved as it would confirm that there is something very fundamentally wrong with the procedures and decision-making of South Norfolk Councillors. How would anyone have any confidence in them or their system as it would leave no doubt that they do not listen to the concerns of the public or authorised professional bodies who have formally submitted their responses and their recommendations are for refusal. 

This will be coming before the WTC planning sub at 1800 on Tuesday 18th October

Members of the public who have concerns can speak and listen to deliberations on this matter subsequently

This proposed development is just so wrong and unsuitable on several counts, e.g. flood risk, highways, safety and even the NCC Ecologist has concerns on the species-rich hedgerow that will be adversely affected by this development.

My neighbour, who is a local wildlife enthusiast has kindly given me the following list of some of the more unusual birds that live and visit this site: 

Green woodpecker,  Lesser spotted woodpecker,  Jay (nest),  Barn Owl,  Tawny Owl,  Little Owl,  Sparrowhawk (nest),  Nuthatch,  Tree creeper (nest),  Chiffchaff (nest),  Goldcrest (nest),  Goldfinch (big autumn flocks),  Yellowhammer (big autumn flocks),  Waxwings (winter),  Long-tailed tit (nest).  Not forgetting the large resident colony of sparrows that roost in the part of the hedgerow they propose to remove - Sparrows are now on the IUCN Red List due to their rapid declining numbers. This morning, I saw a kestrel and sparrowhawk above this field.

Other animals include; hedgehogs, moles, voles, grass snakes, common lizards. Also in the ditch alongside the hedgerow destined to be removed, the large Elephant Hawk-moths lay their eggs.

This is interesting

The trod path is on Wymondham town Council land and if the application is to proceed and takes place I would imagine there would have to be some sort of legal agreement , if not sale of the land in question.

It also talks about expanding the car park which is this happens will also require some sort of agreement and building costs

The legal costs in these  proposals will be high, assuming the council approves them and if the car park is to have an in and out gate, as I believe is proposed,  the chicane in the road will have to be moved and a ramp provided across the ditch.

As a town Councillor I am not aware of any approach to the council so far and the suggested 106 contribution at 10 K would not come even close to the total costs involved in my humble opinion. Of course Norfolk County Education may be prepared to pay for the shortfall but I am not convinced that this will happen at this time.

To be clear here. These are my private views and comments at this moment in time and NOT those of the council and there may be matters and other financial contributions in train that I am unaware of.

This was on the Agenda again at the Wymondham Town Council meeting tonight.  We went along and the Parish Council voted to object to the latest amendments to the revised plans.  There are still outstanding issues with this site.

The next meeting will be the deciding one held at South Norfolk Council on Wednesday 4th January 2017.

Words fail me.......

Looking at this application, it has been resubmitted several times and the planning officer has always refused it as submitted because of all the problems.  I wonder why she's had a sudden turnaround and recommended approval at this stage even though the school children safety needs on the road have not been solved? Hmm... what does our district councillor say about this?

That's very interesting - so Mr Trett informed you at the on-site meeting that this WOULD go through!  So what's the point of the planning process and the planners if everything is pre-determined? The Local Plan forward planning team were made aware of these issues at School Lane by my neighbours and myself during the many public consultations and I was told that any problems would be picked up during the planning application process, which they have, and the issues are actually worse than we thought. It proves that public concerns and comments are ignored.

This exposes what is actually going on at South Norfolk Council and shows they are not following protocol. 

Karen

On 25th November 2016, ITV Anglia News reported the Official Government Statistics for Car Accident for 2015. It reported that across the country, 2 children are killed or seriously hurt walking to or from school every day.  This includes cars mounting the kerb to pass parked traffic.

This planning application will involve more children walking on the highway with no path on this narrow lane.  This will be the case even if the town council agree to a path on the playing field as part of the journey will still require children to walk on the road to reach it. We are very concerned that this development will make safety matters a lot worse. Let us hope that the planning committee has some independence of mind to do the right thing and vote for it to be refused. 

Who and why is so desperate for this development to go ahead at any cost?  

This application will come up on Wednesday 4th January at 10 am at the South Norfolk Council offices. 

    "Planning officers will recommend South Norfolk Councillors to approve a vision for seven new houses in School Lane Spooner Row.   The trustees of JM Greetham have applied for permission to build the homes on the western side of the lane, between the primary school and where the lane bends to the left.    Some residents have raised concerns that the homes would add to the area's traffic woes, were not in keeping with the area's character and would be detrimental to wildlife.   Council officer's report said the houses would represent a sustainable form of development".

It is important that the Planning Committee take note of all the objections in this case and in particular to the most recent letters dated 23rd December.   It appears that Chris Trett is seeking a deferral to February and I hope that this is the case.

We have just received this email from Chris Trett informing us that the Development Management Committee meeting tomorrow (4th Jan) has been deferred to 1st February. This has not yet appeared on SNC's website. So no need for us to attend until next month:

Further to our earlier correspondence, I am writing to confirm that the above application will be deferred and not discussed at the Development Management Committee tomorrow. The next available meeting is on the 1^st February.

Regards

Chris Trett

Planning Decisions Team Leader
t 01508 533794 e ctrett@s-norfolk.gov.uk  www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

South Norfolk Council, working with you, working for you.

Sent: 03 January 2017 16:46

This application has mysteriously re appeared on the agenda for WTC Planning sub next tuesday at 1800 BUT is above the comment line which is not good.

Please do attend however to at least see what happens and I may be able to suspend standing orders to allow comment but that is up to the Chair

This whole application has been very badly handled from the outset and whatever way you look at it, one has to say that Planning at South Norfolk have really made a mess of it. 

Just for a change, we went to WTC's meeting tonight, the Town Clerk offered a season ticket with all the visits.

WTC, in response to Mr Trett's email (who is a SNC Planning Officer), decided to agree to negotiate with the developer on the option of a car park extension, assuming the developer will engage on this. It looks to us that WTC is between a rock and a hard place. WTC recommended for Refusal in its letter sent to SNC last month and this still stands as nothing as yet has changed. 

My opinion is that even if there is a car park extension provided in Station Road which may (or may not) alleviate some of the on-road parking, it cannot be described as providing a "pedestrian refuge" on School Lane as described in SNC's Local Plan, Policy SPO2 - a lawful requirement.  There will be a lot more children walking on the narrow road, from the new family dwellings, plus the extra cars from the site and is not a good place to ignore the highway safety of young children walking on the road. 

Actual Wording from the SNC Local Plan, Policy SPO2: Land at School Lane:

The developer of the site is required to ensure the following:

2. Pedestrian refuge should be provided on the western side of School Lane to improve pedestrian access to the school.

Excellent photo. It shows how ridiculous and dangerous this site is for development.  What were the Local Plan 'experts' thinking when they allocated and adopted this site in their Local Plan - they must have visited and assessed it as suitable? What annoys me is locals alerted them to the problems with this site during the public consultation process many times, our concerns were clearly ignored. How can they consider it viable to put a pedestrian refuge on School Lane when it is a road that is considered by Highways (and us) to be too narrow to accommodate it?

Having studied the Planning notice I note that the Planning officer has recommended approval subject to conditions being applied and concludes in her report  'that this development will not adversely affect the amenties of the neighbourhood'

I have to say that this is a disgrace and also point out that the 'identified housing shortfall' she also refers to, is non existent as we exceed by a large margin the number of houses already allocated to the village including the floating 1800  in the local plan which like the pedestrian refuge is being effectively ignored .

Why is it that some of the Planning policies as listed on the Planning portal and so proudly being featured as relevant in the application, have been practically dismissed.

Quoted as being relevant  

Policy 6 Access and Transportation , which for Spooner row is a bad joke

Policy 15 Service villages where allocated house number to be built has been exceeded and  ignored with the help of the Planning Inspectorate

DM3 11 Road safety and free flow of traffic please see pictures above

DM4.2 Sustainable drainage and water management High risk of flooding to land and adjacent existing properties

DM4.4 Natural Environmental assets removal of green space to provide a trod path or extend the WTC council carpark

DM4.4 Natural environmental assets remove three sections of hedge with nesting sparrows

SPO2 site pedestrian refuge requirement fudge around

What credibility has the Planning team got left if they ever had any to begin with??

I am convinced the Planning officer who originally refused this application has been pressured to write this rubbish and get it through at any cost

I say again this is a disgrace and I hope that the development management committee ate South Norfolk DMC actually chuck it out but, of course we know not where all this pressure is coming from and why??

What has the dealings with Spooner Row got to do with Cllr Lee Hornby? He was not elected to represent Cromwells Ward. He needs to focus on his own Ward.

If what you say is true, then Cllr Jack Hornby has completely reversed on his election promise and done the opposite which was to stop excessive house growth and speculative building in his Ward. He has achieved this well in Spooner Row and Suton hasn't he? (not). We are getting unplanned and unsustainable houses on nearly every street in the village and Suton is getting about 400 new houses. Suton was designated as a hamlet not suitable for development. 

We went to the Committee Meeting today and it was approved. They let it through without any plans or appropriate funding in place for road safety issues for pedestrians walking to/from school from the new houses.  They admitted there is a safety issue on School Lane with pedestrian safety, but they were prepared to accept the proposal without securing sufficient funding for the road safety improvements for the new build.  They did not consider it was the developer's responsibility to provide this.  It was also said that the onus of getting children safely to school is on parents, not the council.

The Council have effectively voted against its own Local Plan Policy SPO2, which requires a pedestrian refuge from the development to the school.  The Local Plan is legally compliant and I would not like to be in their shoes if a serious accident were to happen once the new houses are built.

With hindsight, I think us residents, speaking/objecting as members of the public was a complete waste of time. The developers and planners needs and the need to comply with their Local Plan (even though they have just voted to contravened it) were far more important.

I wonder how they can sleep at night as well? I am sure they think they have done a very good job.

Isn't it council policy to encourage children to walk to school? Is it right that the extra residents from the new houses, will have no choice but to walk on the highway?

This application was allowed through by a majority vote; 8 voted to approve, 3 refused, and 0 abstained. A local councillor, I think it was Colin Foulger voted to refuse, he made some sensible points.

I am a bit bewildered as to why NCC Highways seem to have become vague with this application. On a previous 'withdrawn' planning application for this very same site, they recommended it be refused.  Although it was for several more houses, the road safety situation on School Lane has not changed. Their previous concerns included:

- Given the evidence above it is clear School Lane is limited in width and in part of insufficient width to enable two cars to pass safely

- If approved the increase in vehicle movements generated by the development is likely to increase the likelihood of vehicles meeting on School Lane and the need for vehicles to reverse over-run the verge to facilitate passing, to the detriment of highway safety.

- The lack in carriageway width is compounded by a lack of pedestrian provision over the entire length of School Lane. 

- the development if approved will lead to increased pedestrian activity along School Lane which in turn will increase the potential for vehicle / pedestrian conflict.

- Of particular concern are the more vulnerable highway users such a small children. 

- The unclassified road serving the site is considered to be inadequate to serve the development proposed, by reason of its poor alignment / restricted width / lack of passing provision / substandard construction / lack of pedestrian provision. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety

The full NCC highways report can be found on the SNC website, dated 1st May 2015:  https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NLISPHOQGSJ00

Also,

This develop will require the ripping-out of the very part of the hedgerow that has served as the roost for the long-established, large sparrow colony in School Lane. Was this really necessary?  Bearing in mind that sparrows are now a IUCN red-list species because they are a fast declining bird. So much for SNC's policy for conserving biodiversity. 

Members and employees of councils have a duty of care to the public. Health & Safety problems must be mitigated not compounded.  Installing highway signs would be a cheap option and not the required option for pedestrian safety. Perhaps the road signs should read, "Children are not allowed to walk on the road". It is ill-conceived and ludicrous planning which seeks to provide a footpath as policy, but in reality, the circumstances on the ground make it undeliverable.

Does anyone know if any Wymondham councillors sat on this planning decision committee and voted for this application to be passed with approval?

No guesses as to who that missing councillor was then?

Did any Wymondham District Councillors sit on the SNC Planning Committee when the decision was made on 1st February - the important decision that gets the final say? It would be nice to know who supports Spooner Row and who doesn't at District level. 

What a cheek that the Planning Team at the District Council tried to get the democratically elected Parish Council to do what it wanted and change its mind. This just gets worse - why go to such lengths?

Noted from the SNC website that Chris Trett the lead Planner in this case chooses to correspond only with District Councillors.

So local views , because they do not agree with the Planners view and actions, which may I remind the reader is  to ignore their own plan, are simply to ignore anyone else.

Sorry SNC Planners, who monitor this site on rate payers time, I will not cow tow to your views and will continue to remind you that you have policies and plans which are supposed to protect us from speculative and inappropriate development. These plans should not be ignored when it is inconvenient to apply them or they reveal , as we learned that they had not been properly researched in the first place as you did not even visit the site before declaring this site as suitable.  

It's hardly reassuring when our elected official doesn't know the difference between "past" and "passed" let alone the fact that he "passed" the buck back to SNC.

Basic lack of real engagement and responsibility to the concerns of his electorate.  Sounds like a typical mouthpiece to help carry out SNC policies and keep in with their representatives to further his own 'career' ambitions. We deserve better than this.

It seems incredible that the council actually made a legally compliant, policy requirement for a footpath on road safety grounds without visiting and assessing the site first to see if it was viable.  Not sure if I believe they are actually that stupid not to do this.  It seems incredible that despite this enormous error, the planners are still defending and promoting this as a suitable development site even after the realisation that it is impossible to build the all-essential path. How can the public have any confidence?  We have to live with their mistakes.  Come on Councillor Jack Hornby, do something to help.

I saw it as well. Absolute chaos. The Jewsons lorry ended up mounted at a steep angle on the grass verge so vehicles couldn't pass. Good job no emergency vehicles had to be called, as they would have had no access. The authorities have a responsibility to ensure that roads are not blocked at any time. This is even before the building work starts. South Norfolk Council just couldn't give a damn. If there is a legal pursuit over some incident in the future, the council will be quite happy for the taxpayer to pay all the fees if they lose the case. The council have had ample warning, in writing, from local residents, so can't wriggle out of this one.

John Fuller ( Tory leader at SDC) tells us we can avoid all the problems of reduced services and austerity but adopting a business model or working at South Norfolk . Anyone running this business would have gone bust years ago.

I hope the Planners who monitor this site are enjoying reading about their gross ongoing incompetence or perhaps that should be incontinence

There's been another extension to 28th July for the final determination of this application.

"Final determination" no doubt means "final approval". How was this development ever included in the Local Plan and allowed planning consent? Duty of care issues applies to this one with serious highway problems. Shame on the Local Authorities.

Full planning permission has been granted to this planning application. 

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=O438N5OQMVB00

Very risky that these plans were approved without the obligatory footpath/pedestrian refuge included.  Dread to think what the outcome will be when new properties are built and the increased traffic puts pedestrians at an increased and perilous risk.

Where will pedestrians go to avoid extra moving vehicles, as on days like today the grass verges are so muddy and slippery they are lethal in themselves? No footpath, muddy grass verges and narrow road - what a combination!!