There is a planning application, Ref. 2016/2424, for 30 residential dwellings (17 dwellings at Bunwell Road and 13 dwellings at Chapel Road), with associated open space, highways and landscaping works. Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road Spooner Row Norfolk
Hmmm, if you look at the site plans for the Chapel Road end, there seems to be a road which goes no where, almost as if it is planned for the next phase of the estate? wonder what that is going to be explained away as, access to the field?
Enevitable, standard planning process, the whole field will go enventually, the hard part was getting planning to start with, once you get that the expansion goes on and on.
Same old issues, devs get the money on houses with no care for schools, doctors, dentists etc etc etc
I have today sent an e mail to Chris Raine to ask that the way the documents are presented on the South Norfolk site be amended to make it clear which of the identically named reports , roof line , biodiversity, site plan etc etc relate to ( There are 53) Some are combined which is fine but once again they need to be identfied as such as it makes reference to them difficult, given our 'fantastic' download speeds
I have also tried to clarify whether the planned speed unit for the Chapel road end is still on the cards. I also note that the planned monies for the community is the subject of a separate negotiation, ( this is NOT to say that it will not happen) and that the planned allotments at the rear of the Chapel road end have disappeared from the site plan although they appear in the water calculations document. Odd that!
I have concerns on both sites ( why these are combined is a matter for face to face comminication and opinion ) that flooding will be an issue but I think there are two very high brow reports which says it will be okay. Pages of calculations vs local knowledge is a very one sided contest in my experience. Subsequently when it floods the report authors express surprise and astionishment but of course do not live with the consequences BUT I acknowledge I am a cynic.
I don't wish any ill feeling on the people who will eventually buy these houses. But jump forward 5,10 years or whenever they are built and this message board will be full of threads from new residents about lack of primary school places, slow internet, no shop, flooding, lack of decent train service from SR etc etc etc etc....
These fundamental issues will never get addressed whilst greed is the baseline for these developments. This isn't about housing shortages or affordable homes, it's all about making money and damn what anyone else thinks.
Expect the council to doff their caps and rubber stamp the plans.....
I am a bit confused as there is already planning permission for 13 dwellings at Chapel Road and 8 at Bunwell Road. Some of the Bunwell Road ones are half built. Now there is this planning application for 13 dwellings at Chapel road and 17 at Bunwell Road???
Sorry confused you are confused but as this is Planning , smoke and mirrors come to mind. The FINAL planning permission for the 8 houses at Bunwell road was granted earlier on in the year. Whilst OUTLINE permission was granted for the numbers you have (33) this is the FINAL planning permission which is for the remainder at Bunwell road and all of the houses at Chapel road and is in fact for a Total of 31 houses , which when added to those already granted comes to 39.
South Norfolk knowing that if they do NOT allow these will have an appeal on their hands, on account of what is called the joint core strategy, that is three Councils needing a 5 year land supply for houses. Because Broadland have not got their act together we will lose. So as for Gonville Hall its gets approved whatever. This is the current sickness and stupidity of the Planning system which is totally in the developers favour.
It is happening everywhere and yes we need the houses but we also need the infrastructure to support them. Apparently , like a lot of things happening at Central Govt right now, the consequences of which they do not give a jot about
Firstly I will state that we will obviously fight this new plan on Bunwell Road and the increase in houses from those originally granted at the Outline stage.
The audacity of these developers is mind blowing! Not content with upsetting residents regarding a total change in plans to those originally submitted, they then urther compound the issue by asking for more! The treatment of the private property called 'Gladern' on Hill Road is deplorable. This new plan goes to prove that all along there was the possibility of a satisfactory layout while still achieving the same original number of houses and being sympathetic to Gladern. If you took the additional houses out, there would not be an issue.
Regardless of this and any subsequent appeal from the developer. The Council would have to have a total reverse on its original decision not to allow this style of development under Section 3, whereby the layout must adhere to plans similar to those of which outline permission was original given. Clearly this issue not only still stands, but has essentially been compounded by the application for further houses. I will be very intrigued as to the answer to that question from South Norfolk Council. Or can we expect a total disregard for all previous discussions and arguments? To my mind, no new changes have been brought forward by the developer to address the reasons for the previous rejections and make no comment of it in their application.
The unfortunate fact of the matter, as we are frequently told on the news is there is a massive shortage of houses being built. Everywhere.
The new MP for communities and the like ( his name escapes me right now) said on the news a week or so ago, that he will not be allowing NIMBYism (his words, not mine) to get in the way of houses being built, they are coming, and there is an expectation that planning will be granted unless you can prove a reason why they should not, rather than the other way around. The approach we take on this board is, probably mirrored in thousands of other villages across the country, that we agree that houses are needed, but not in my village because I like it just the way it is. That I am very sorry to tell you just isn't going to fly.
I am not saying you are wrong, I happen to agree with you, I also like Spooner Row exactly as it is, it is why I live here, I am just saying that counts for nothing in the grand scheme of things. The bigger picture, which the government (all parties, not just the Conservatives remember) are working to, says build new houses, so that is what will happen. High density, 'affordable' etc.
You cannot argue that they aren't needed/wanted, you only have to look how quickly they sell in Wymondham/Attleborough/Hethersett, all sold out, and I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't already sold some of the new ones here, or at least have significant interest.
This isn't meant to cause a mini explosion of shouting at screens, it is simply a statement of fact.
A 'fact' does not make it right if it is indeed, a fact? The only officially confirmed NIMBY near here was our PREVIOUS district/parish councillor who was reprimanded for his underhand way of doing this on land next to him.
We are not adverse to change, it is just the scale of it. It is not ethical or moral.
If the MP said what you said he did, well I for one do not accept such a dictatorial statement. People are starting to get a bit fed-up with all of this.
Tha key to all of this is the plan , the wonderful plan which takes into account school spaces , transport links , shops , highways etc etc and on the basis of this plan Spooner Row as a service village will get another 15 - 20 houses . Errrrr we are up to and over 50. We have abysmal transport links, poor internet, no shop , an overcrowded HGV road, a school with no spaces, but this does not matter apparently . Build the houses and the rest will follow. Of course the Agent says that extra houses are allowed , which is called the floating 1800 BUT that is for the whole patch NOT just Spooner row and of course is the same argument they use at every new development they are being paid to present.
This is what makes me angry, we are supposed to lie down and take this, listen to the written spin and as a back stop they , the agent and the developer, just casually mentions the lack of 5 year land supply and they get what they want because South Norfolk DARE NOT object because of the cost of an appeal AND of course they, the Council get the New homes initiative ( which is basically a bung) to allow as many houses as possible to be built AND of course thet get the rate revenue when they are. As Central Govt is cutting back to nothing the financial support to all Councils you can see why they might not want to object too hard , but then what is the point of a worthless plan and the staff they employ to produce one, if they and the Plan they work on full time from this year to the next, are just going to be ignored.
I know this upsets persons at South Norfolk who monitor this site , but the real question is what are they doing to get the 5 year land supply in place , and put pressure on Broadland to get their act together, so we can then have the shield which the plan is supposed to be, to stop this kind of development WITHOUT the infrastructure in place to support it.
The communities Minister is just saying that this is NIMBYism to try and curry favour and justify his Govt's attitude to this. It clearly illustrates he is clueless.
The MP was Sajid Javid. The story can be seen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37540803
"And targeting 'nimbyism' (which stands for 'not in my backyard') he said local communities had to reflect on the UK's national priorities not just their own.
"Everyone agrees we need more homes, but too many object to them being next to us," he said."
As to school places - Have you actually checked where the new intake have actually come from? Its not just Spooner Row, but also Wymondham, and other surrounding villages which also have their own school. If the demand in the village increases it just means the children from further away will have to go to their local school, and priority will be given to local children. It wasn't so long ago that local people were campaigning to keep Spooner Row school open because there weren't enough children. The school has to be full to make viable, as long as Spooner Row children are not forced to go elsewhere (which to my knowledge has never actually happened) what is the issue?
Exactly what infrastructure is missing? - Bus route - provided by private companies, if there was demand and was financially viable it would be here
Shop - same. In fact, if a few people want to get together and put up some money and time then I will support and contribute towards that (I am not however offering to put my head up and do all the work and take all the risk myself). As we have experienced on this board before, lots of people are perfectly happy to let others do all the work but not actually contribute themselves
Broadband - Same, but supposedly in progress, more likely to be resolved as demand rises
If your reason for rejecting new build is because you like the village the way it is/was then that is TOTALLY fine, i support you, but also realise that is not enough.
If you try to stop building by hiding behind reasons which are not actual reality or cannot be resolved quite easily then you will just get nowhere. Flooding - easily fixed, Broadband - easily fixed, School places - easily fixed, Road access - easily fixed
Finally - I totally agree, just because it is a 'fact' it does not make it right.
There is nothing immoral about a business making money by building some houses. The scale is decided by the demand and housing policy, which has been agreed upon by all political, democratically elected parties
New children to Spooner Row school have had to go elsewhere and that is very recently.
It is immoral for a developer to make money out of a business that negatively affects the quality of existing residents lives, more houses will mean an even slower broadband.
The ineffective housing policy, eg the Local Plan is completing overridden by the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, a mistake made by the council and made worse by the hold-up caused by Broadland Council, which everyone thinks is ridiculous.
All the 'easy fixed' points you make can only be fixed by the developers throwing money at the problems, which they will not want to do as it will eat into their profits. It would make more sense for the developers to work with Openreach and put in new fibre as they build the new houses. Are they doing this - NO!
If you significantly increase the numbers of houses of a small rural village, you DO need to put in infrastructure and who asked Spooner Row people if they wanted their village suburbanised with no improvements?
You seem to be a person who just wants to stir things up in support of development and just sees the whole thing as amusing.
When I was canvassing last year I was told by a local resident who lives 50 yards from the school that they were no spaces for her children. I accept that the school has children from elsewhere BUT exactly why are those children here ? No spaces at the school they live next to , so quid pro quo lack of infrastructure.
The bus comes once a week !! Brilliant. Shop not viable. Broadband slow ... so here we go, everything has to make a profit before it can work properly .
Any Planning application says it is sustainable BUT WHAT does that mean ? We can drive 5 miles to, the nearest shop, a school which does have spaces , a railway station. etc etc Being separately qualified in Environmental matters what a load of tosh. I have asked the Planning inspectorate for workable definition and they declined to reply.
No I don't like the village the way it is with poor infrastructure and my point is that infrastructure should be in place BEFORE the houses arrive and it all falls over.
Flooding easily fixed ?? Road access easily fixed when no one has any money ( ask County!!) ...... just how so please?
And then we get to it. Democratically elected means the right to make a profit for business does it? Well it does for one party who right now are screwing up the whole country's economy , but it does not matter as long as you have loads in the bank already.
As far as Housing Policy is concerned I have made the argument it is in tatters, I believe quite forcibly, BUT of course and sorry to repeat myself, developers can ask and do what they want and they are. Policy said 15-20 houses and the floating 1800 document which I found last night says another 15 at Spooner row ( where is the evidence to justify) which is at worst 35. So this development has 39 , and we already have another 9 in train plus another pending application for 7 so please explain exactly how this Policy is working for the village AND what is morally right here ??
-- Edited by webstation on Sunday 23rd of October 2016 07:05:11 PM
I think you are missing the point. This is not a personal attack on you or the village. i am local so do have a vested interest.
my point is, if you want to object, the only way to do so in a way which will have any impact is to have tangible objections which are based in fact not emotion. i do accept that it is an emotive subject, but in official matters these are just disregarded.
the issues which are often given for objecting are usually given in the belief that by using official sounding terms they will have more effect than just 'we don't want it'. Terms like flood risk, school spaces, broadband speed etc. The problem is they are all very easily explained away by a slick planning consultant who just commissions a traffic survey, drainage survey, broadband upgrade plan, stop accepting kids from out of catchment, reduce catchment to only village, etc. then all of a sudden, no more objections. Thats what I mean by easily sorted. The reality of sorting them is different of course
for most services which are lacking and which are operated by private enterprise, if you make it worth their while they will come.
the unfortunate facts are, the government want more houses, and come hell or high water they will come. They will just find new ways to sewed aside your objections. Your only options are to either get on board and shape what is coming, or make it impossible for them to build Like has happened at certain sites elsewhere in south Norfolk, like the site near the station ....)
I would have thought that it does NOT comply with the approved plan and it is not sustainable , as properly defined, is pretty good. It is not emotive
As for making it worthwhile for companies to come here ( make a profit) and stop the trains, etc etc I assume you mean allow another 50 houses to be built. Do I suspect the hand of a hidden agenda here?
As for the Station I think you will find planting Japanese Knotweed in Spooner row, albeit already found in Chapel road is not a good idea.
Local views , even based in logic apparently count for nothing as far as Central Govt is concerned.
-- Edited by webstation on Monday 24th of October 2016 04:03:36 PM
Regardless of all of the very heavy weighting of reasons why this proposed layout should not go ahead. It still stands that the last layout was rejected by both Wymondham and SN Planning on the basis that it differs entirely from those plans submitted at outline stage. So unless they are doing a complete U-turn, this layout surely must meet the same fate! Unless of course certain planners and/or local politicians have been 'sweetened' by the developers!!! But of course that type of nonsense never happens. As far as I can see, the developers have done NOTHING to address the reasons for their refusal of the previous application. Surely this one should be thrown out purely on that basis.
If they do indeed decide to have a u turn on their decision. They will have to justify that
Anonymous - you are clearly partisan for the developers (which is your prerogative) and no doubt have an invested interest in the go ahead of additional housing. But many aspects of this development are morally wrong. This has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with a national need for housing. if it was it wouldn't include 5 bedroom luxury houses. It is simply and purely about money. Money at the expense and inconvenience of others standards of life. As a Senior Officer at Norfolk County Council I am acutely aware of the requirement for additional housing and challenges facing the country nationally. But please do not attempt to attach that national issue with a few acres in Spooner Row. As a whole it is widely recognised that villages offer little in the way of support to this shortage. Rather new developments on the outskirts of towns and cities where infrastructure can support it is preferred. Developments of this nature are entirely about profiteering using the national issue as a backdrop. That I am afraid does make such developments morally found wanting!
Letter regarding the approval for the initial 8 dwellings on Bunwell Road. Pay particular attention to the NOTE that states all subsequent plans must be consistent with the original Outline plan.
Agent
Miss Elizabeth Kirk
Feilden and Mawson LLP
1 Ferry Road
Norwich
NR11SU
Applicant
Mr James Alston
Park Farm
Silfield
Wymondham
NR18 9NQ
Application Type :Reserved Matters
APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS
Ref: 2014/2472
Location: Land At Chapel Road And, Bunwell Road, Spooner Row, Norfolk,
Proposal: Reserved matters approval for 13 dwellings at Chapel Road and 8 dwellings at Bunwell Road, following outline planning permission 2012/2016/O
Particulars of decision: The District Council hereby gives notice in pursuance of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that approval of the reserved matters following outline planning permission for development has been granted for the carrying out of development referred to above in accordance with the application form and plans submitted subject to compliance with the following conditions :
1. The development hereby permitted shall comply with the conditions attached to the outline planning permission for the development approved on the 11th February 2014, reference 2012/2016/O, and the details as approved.
Reason for the condition
For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with the specified approved plans, as required by the Spatial Vision and Spatial Planning Objectives of the Joint Core Strategy.
2. The development shall be constructed in accordance with drawings ref:
7729 050 P02 received 24th June 2015
7729CR 051 P02 received 24th June 2015
7729 055 A05
7729 056 A05
7729 059 A06
7729 060 A05
7729 067 A06
7729 068 A05
7729 069 A02
7729 070 A03
7729 071 A03
7729 072 A03
7729 073 A03
Reason for the condition
For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with the specified approved plans, as required by the Spatial Vision and Spatial Planning Objectives of the Joint Core Strategy.
1. NOTE : 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.
2. NOTE - The Local Planning Authority would wish to confirm that any subsequent reserved matters application for the part of the Bunwell Road component of the outline approval which is not hereby granted reserved matters approval must have due regard to the agreed parameter plan (dwg 4250 - 051 - Rev D) as referred to in condition 3 of 2012/2016/O. Furthermore, it should be noted that the scheme originally submitted as part of this application (2014/2472) in the context of the Bunwell Road component of the scheme is not accpetable to the Local Planning Authority by virtue of not being considered to be in accordance with the aforementioned parameter plan..
This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment, bylaw, order or regulation and specifically any consent required under the Building Regulations 1991. The attached notes for applicants are also part of this decision notice.
I will be listening to the views of my fellow committee members on the Wymondham TC, and will have some of my own to impart before I put in a representation, after next tuesday 1st November at 1800 if it follows the normal pattern and for some reason this application is not withdrawn. Formally commenting before then excludes me from voting.
(Your last night's post has been amended, Webstation)
-- Edited by webstation on Monday 24th of October 2016 04:05:43 PM
The 8 have already been passed are not on the agenda. The additional 17 at Bunwell road all come under this 'new' application although apparently 1 has been approved in chapel road already, although clearly is still waiting to be started. The 13 at Chapel road are also being considered. So in total for both sites 39 houses ! 9 passed already and 30 to add. So much for the local plan maximum of 15-20 for the whole of the village.
There have been some minor tweaks as far as I can see BUT of course NOT being your District Councillor, ( he has been skiing I believe for the last month) I have not been informed other than as a member of the public, so when this and the school lane application come before the South Norfolk committee I do not know.
He may be back sometime soon and so an e mail to ask might get a response, and it is he you need to ask for the definitive position.
Before you ask he only has to attend one meeting every 6 months before he can be removed
I have asked to attend on behalf of the Parish Council in respect to School lane as the Town Council's objection remains in place, but I am still awaiting a decision on this and cannot speak on behalf of the Parish(Town) unless authorised to do so.
If you think this has been badly handled, I agree totally, but as this site in monitored by South Norfolk Planners I cannot really comment any further
That is very interesting what you said Julian, that South Norfolk Planners monitor this forum (and possibly others). Are they doing this during their work hours, which are paid for by us the council tax payers? Does time for monitoring this forum cut into their planning duties? They seem to make a lot of mistakes. 2 examples: no accurate 5-year housing land supply has been delivered (it is way behind schedule) and they have not kept to the housing numbers for this village, Wymondham, etc which are stipulated in the "sound and legal" South Norfolk Local Plan. It would be better if South Norfolk Planners got on with their job. This revelation does 'fly in the face' of their slogan "South Norfolk Council, working with you, working for you" Where is our district councillor? Where is his input?
Why are there 14 new houses for Chapel Road, when the South Norfolk Local Plan stipulates 10? Why are there new houses being built on Bunwell Road when the South Norfolk Local Plan categorised that site as unsuitable for development? What is going on? The "Floating 1800" is a dubious term. How many thousands of new homes in South Norfolk have been built under this unspecific term?
There were 10 but this has morphed into what we have now ( 39 for both sites ) and apparently the Planners have agreed to this, although we wait the final decision. It would appear that the Plan is next to useless and no effective opposition at South Norfolk just makes matters worse.
For those who know me and my party you may think there is an element of foot shooting going on here but I will always put local values and opinions over and above party politics. It does not make me popular but local politics is about local issues , or at least it should be !!
I do have a document where the floating 1800 is specified in terms of development allocations on a ward basis, but I suspect it is now , like the local plan, effectively useless.
Very sad to see the way people living on Bunwell Road and Hill Road have been treated. Planners and developers working hard together for their own agenda. Concerns with flooding, loss of privacy, negative impact on existing homes have not been properly resolved. Existing homeowners not really given much concern or priority and this has caused upset. It this what they are paid to do?
For those who know me and my party you may think there is an element of foot shooting going on here but I will always put local values and opinions over and above party politics. It does not make me popular but local politics is about local issues , or at least it should be !!
I am generally Conservative, but I would always vote for Julian Halls at local elections even though he does not subscribe to this party. Julian works tirelessly and very hard for this community because there is much going on that clearly is not right. I feel that the Conservatives at a local level, are no longer working with us, for us, but working against us. Just look at the obscenity our own district councillor said to a lady member of the public at Wymondham Town Council's AGM in front of a lot of people. And the Kings Head Meadow, where they called the police because children and parents used the play equipment when the council didn't want them too. Did they really expect the police to arrest people? thankfully the police saw how very stupid this was and left.
I think we need a bit more UKIP influence around here to sort things out.
Although I would welcome new people to the village, I do feel sorry for them as they will have the same rubbish broadband and other poor facilities we have, plus the HGV route that runs past this development on Bunwell Road. They may even be promised that an improved broadband is destined for here, but we all know that this is very unlikely to happen as we have been promised this countless times before and nothing materialised. The usual excuse is that we are just outside of the upgrade area.
What SNC meeting are you referring to? Are you talking about the last SNC meeting on 1st Feb? If so, then this application wasn't even on the Agenda. You don't even say who you are addressing your message to?
I agree re the above. There have not been any meetings scheduled of late that concern this development so I am unsure who or what the second to last message was referring to??
I have just been studying some of the objections and points raised regarding this new proposed layout. I have to say that although not personally affected by it, the current residents are being treated appallingly if there is even a sniff that this new layout will be passed. Specifically the property that lays to the southern boundary of Bunwell Road. I don't think the planners could have come up with a plan that could be more impactful. I have also read with interest the comments regarding shading from the southern boundary trees. It does look as though the new houses near those trees would be cast into almost complete shade. Surely they cannot pass them! He says tongue in cheek whilst forgetting the 'democratic' local authoritarian world we live in. For my part I at least hope common sense prevails and a more suitable layout can be determined.
Planning matters once they have passed beyond the Parish(Town) fall then to the District Councillor to address at that level
The District Councillor for this area is Jack Hornby who as far as I am aware is silent on this issue although his lack of opposition to other developments in the village to say the least has been disappointing as he said he was against further development in the village in his newletter issued just before the election
We need new houses , but we also need the infrastructure. The forward Planning Team decided that Spooner row can have 15-20 houses plus a few (15) more under the floating 1800 fudge so a maximum of 35
We are up at 50 plus so a brilliant plan then being ignored totally ignored and local views being trampled over.
I am a fierce critic of the Planners BUT all I am doing is reminding them that they have a plan , their plan !! which they are disregarding.
I am concerned that they are now spending scarce financial resources on devising yet another local plan, called the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP), which will, going by the current way the District council is operating will also be disregarded. How can they get away with spending such a large amount of money on this existing document with a statutory obligation to follow, yet just ignore it?
The Bunwell Road site should never have been allowed to even entertain an outline plan, let alone get this far and this happened before the 5-year land supply botch-up, which allows everything through. Chapel Road was an adopted site chosen by them (not us) to include in their local plan. To later lump the Bunwell Rd site in with the Chapel Rd planning applications, is an underhand way to operate and not what any of us deserve. The council's published Code of Conduct 2011 needs to be followed and updated as it requires qualities of transparency, openness, accountability etc.
People in Spooner Row have not been treated fairly by this council, but I suspect we are not the only ones.
If you go to the South Norfolk Council page there is a section about making a complaint about a councillor. I think residents should consider this for Jack Hornby. He is conspicuous by his absence and has made no attempt to defend or represent the people of Spooner Row
Cllr Jack Hornby's lack of support and engagement with his constituents would not be seen as doing anything wrong (after all, he did swear at a lady member of the public at an AGM who complained and nothing constructive, other than setting up a discussion group, was done about it). But you are right there is a system to complain but you would have to include the planners who are council employees, and their discriminatory actions towards residents alongside our councillor's lack to defend us.
SNC has a Constitution which states; "Councillors are democratically accountable to residents of their ward. ..........but they have a special duty to their constituents, including those who did not vote for them. Councillors have to agree to follow a code of conduct to ensure high standards in the way they undertake their duties."
To have any sort of redress to the unfair planning actions of the district council, you would need to be prepared to take your complaint through the procedure from Stage 1 up to Stage 3, which is the Local Government Ombudsman. This is quite easy, but be prepared for the Ombudsman to see things from the council's point of view. If enough residents individually complained to this level (and we have good cause to complain) then the shoddy way we have been treated, may perhaps have some effect on the state of affairs. Remember Spooner Row has already been short-listed for the possibility of future very large-scale development (without including residents views or informing them), which would make the current appalling situation on Bunwell Rd, for example, much worse. Have a think about it.
Houses help to keep the Villages alive. The sensible Lib Dems on SNC supported the local plan and they voted in favour of the houses in School Lane when it came before the planning committee.
As a sensible Lib dem who is apparently not anon !! I was appalled that the Local Plan was deemed and voted for as being 'sound and legal', when , as being part of the joint Core strategy all three councils have to have a plan in place in order to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Broadland have never got their act together ...so no 5 year land supply and a perfect excuse that developers use to get around planning refusal when they want to build new houses.
If they get refused they simply appeal and will win as has happened in the past
This despite being in breach of the local plan in respect to numbers of houses to be permitted in the village as determined by the Forward Planners which they deemed as being acceptable.
The vote interestingly enough in respect to School lane was split , with 3 (?) Tories voting against so quid pro quo absolutely nothing to do with political policy whatsoever !! At least those gentlemen actually read the application and the very valid objections in sufficient detail, to vote that it not be approved when the application was clearly in breach of the South Norfolk planners own requirement to provide a refuge !!
I had a brief exchange of e mails with the Lib Dem rep on the planning commitee who was of the opinion that as this site had been identified for development it is that which overweighs everything else. I will let you fill in the blanks as far as my reply was concerned.
The Planning committee were in my view , by majority completely wrong to pass this. It is nothing to do with keeping the village alive where demonstrably we already have insuficient infrastructure in place to support what we have. It is simply about having land and making money by building houses on it.
I am sorry anon but your comment was and is completely disingenious.
Houses help to keep the Villages alive. The sensible Lib Dems on SNC supported the local plan and they voted in favour of the houses in School Lane when it came before the planning committee.
Are you for real? You clearly do not live in the village as most people would not object to the odd new house being built to keep the village alive. It is the unreasonable and dictatorial attitude of the council, planners (with the developers) to hand out permissions to build, build and build some more houses that is outrageous.
Anon, what has the School Lane's very dubious decision for Approval got to do with this Bunwell Rd & Chapel Rd current application? - they are not the same - have you actually visited this village? It looks like you are trying to make political comments on the back of people's concerns because the County Council elections are due soon - this always happens. I don't care which political colour Julian Halls is, all I know is that he does his very best to stand up for residents with the very limited amount of power he has as a parish councillor. Thank goodness we have Julian Halls as someone who speaks out about this mad planning scenario, as I don't hear anything at all from Jack Hornby who does have influence.
I cannot believe the size and design of the new houses going up on Bunwell Road.
They are not in keeping at all with nearby houses..
Several years ago a house was built at the other end of the village and had to be in keeping with nearby houses and lots of building criteria had to be met.
How things change.. now a monsterous mini estate can be built! On a busy road.
What we need is a Councillor / Councillors who will actually do something about these developments instead of paying lip service to us residents who are sick of being told that it is always somebody elses fault we are in this mess because they are worried they won't get re-elected next time, and why should they, maybe it is time for a change, get somebody in who actually does something for once other than play party politics at a base level.
We are in Forehoe for County elections as Cromwells is separate from Wymondham ( yes that is nuts!) and the two candidates that I am aware of are Colin Foulger Tory and Bob Mc glenning Lib Dem
For Wymondham Town it is me and Joe Mooney (Tory) I think as we are still awaiting confirmation on this
Pleae note that I am trying very hard to be a balanced as possible on this. I think UKIP and Labour will also field candidates
As far district Council elections are concerned the next election is May 2019 !! when if approved by the Boundary commission there will be two district councillors for the new South Wymondham ward which is basically Cromwells as now:- ( Silfield ( Town ) , Suton, where no development is supposed to be taking place Ha Ha) Wattlefield and Spooner row ( service village with 15 -20 new houses ( Ha ha)) and Harts farm estate.
I think , no names, some, are desperately hoping the electorate have SHORT memories
Driving towards Spooner Row from the direction of Wattlefield and looking across the field at the back of the houses on Bunwell Road, I noticed just how out of place the building of this new development is starting to look. The existing houses are pleasantly spaced out then there is a sudden cluster of high-density buildings on the end which looks so out of character for this rural village, goodness knows what it will look like when finished. How did the planners manage to get this allowed?
If you read the conclusion of the council's planning report, it has described this development as, within the 'development limit' demonstrated by the historical approvals for this site. What exactly does development limit supposed to mean? Planning permission for this development should never have been allowed as it is not included in the Local Plan and is therefore not within the local plan's 'development boundary'. Is this a play on words to make 'development limit' look like 'development boundary' to try and justify this? Their justification for allowing more houses as acceptable due to 'historical approvals on the site' is laughable as this must be referring to the 8 dwellings which have only recently been approved a year or so back and can hardly be described as 'historical'.
If you look at the view from that road you see a mix of a couple of old cottages, some which have been modernised, a row of 30's/40's semi's, new(ish) red brick houses, a new house, 60's/ 70's bungalows (can you see them from that road?), a couple of barn conversions and a large (restored) thatched farmhouse and now this new estate. Exactly how would you define the character of that view which you say is being spoiled by the new houses? Which ones are out of place exactly? How many houses in this village are actually 'Old' and truly in keeping with a rural village? About 10 - 15 I would guess
I agree, that the new estate looks different, and I wouldn't buy one myself, but I wouldn't go as far to say they are any more or less attractive than what is already here.
The point is that the existing houses are spaced out and have gradually evolved over the years as you have rightly mentioned - that is the character on Bunwell Road and is like most rural villages unless you live in the Cotswold. What is happening on Bunwell Road is nothing to do with attractiveness, it is the high-density of a massive new development full of modern houses stuck on a large field at the end of a single row of spaced out properties. You are missing the point. This was also considered as an area not to be developed under the South Norfolk Local Plan and has flooding issues.
"I wouldn't buy one myself". Doesn't that just say it all! Have you any thoughts for those who have to look at them constantly, rather than enjoying the field views they once had, or those who enjoyed the open countryside as they drove past? Have you got a nice field view yourself? This is typical selfish, landowner/developer get rich quick attitude. The rich get richer and the poorer get f***ed. What about the Legoland at the end of Suton Lane in Wymondham as well. What an ugly monstrosity of random red bricks! No trees, no landscaping, no green areas between the clumps of houses. Maximum profit is all that matters to these developers who don't have to live in them. People like you make me sick. Fortunately, politics are taking a sharp change in this country at last. By the way if you're reading this forum and are thinking of buying any of those houses which currently enjoy field views, bear in mind it won't last long! Once the developers have your money after selling you property with a premium because it has a field view, they'll soon be putting in more planning applications to destroy your view and quality of life.
10 - 15 old or really old houses - now there's a challenge ! I will check and see if this is accurate ! I live in an old cottage in the village for which I am truly thankful. Undoubtedly, the roofscape of the Bunwell Road houses is something we will have to get used to but they are in sharp contrast to the larger houses further along where there are good driveways and gardens, behind hedges. New development is too "measured" nowadays, look at Easton, Attleborough and Wymondham to name but a few.
Bunwell Road development looks too suburban for a rural village. It would probably look good in a town location but it is not in the character of Spooner Row and looks out of place.
New planning application Reference 2017/0601 relating to this application. Discharge of a condition for materials to use. This has already been decided and approved.
I see there's been quite a bit of recent email activity and building regulation queries on this development. A tree has been omitted from the plan and there are clay sub-soil concerns.
See SNC's public website: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OEZG0YOQIHZ00
