Spooner Row Message Board

Thank you for this information. I have used the link provided but cannot find anything relevant to Wymondham let alone map 39. This website is not user-friendly for the public. Please can you provide more details on how to find links and information relating to Spooner Row particularly if it is about yet more unsustainable development for Spooner Row.

go to the main site

About half way down there is tiny maps button also called appendix 2 and 3

Click on this then all the maps for the 3 councils appear

South Norfolk is last and Talcolneston to Wymondham is where we appear and we are the last map 39

our map is 12 MB in size

If it all gets approved which I hope is unlikely the village will double is size as far as houses are concerned

It is early days but VERY noticeable from the wider map in the EDP that nearly ALL the prefered sites are in and around Wymondham, the  furthest from Long Stratton as they can get.

This will ensure that all the councillors whose areas in which NO development is proposed will vote for this if they get a chance.

I hope that our District Councillors get off their hands and do something about this as opposed to just nodding their heads and saying we need houses because the Govt says so.

We do, but we also need some proper infrastructure in place BEFORE it happens and developments have to be truly sustainable. What does that mean ? It means developments have to be equally balanced between Economic, Societal AND Environmental factors in terms of consideration. Right now the balance is nonexistent, as it is all Economic ( to the benefit of Developers ) without the support in place  needed for Society to properly develop, such as schools and transport links , which also links into Environmental concerns, such as the need to get in a car for a pint of milk, travel to work, and properly address flooding and sewage disposal concerns. No shops and poor, to say the least Transport links are key factors.

Forward Planners are supposed to take these matters into consideration but I see damn little evidence that have up to now , although to be fair they have come under enormous pressure from Central Govt and the Planning Inspectorate ( Govt in different clothes)  to lie down dead to anything the developers want. The fact that we are 'way out west' obviuosly helps their cause, so back to line 3 above.   

An extract from today's EDP (Saturday)  : 

" Wymondham, including Spooner Row, was the place where the largest amount of land, by area, was put forward,. About 1,300 acres offered up, while there was a similar figure to the west of Norwich in Costessey, Easton and Honingham.".    

Just who are these people ?

Would it be a good idea if the 'certain landowner' made arrangements to meet the villagers and explain why it is necessary to blight so many serfs (oops! sorry, householders) lives with this constant desire to sell arable farmland to housing developers, I would like to attend such a meeting and I don't think I am alone with this wish.

Yes you heard it here first, Spooner Row is the only small village that has a "?" for it to potentially receive Large (4,000 to 6,000 new dwellings) or New Settlement (6,000 to 10,000 new dwellings), the other villages have been marked "X" as unsuitable.  This number of housing will be a new settlement the size of a town.  See the Assessment for Additional Growth Table (pages 32 to 40) on the "Greater Norwich Development Partnership Board Papers for 14 November 2016 meeting":   http://www.greaternorwichlocalplan.org.uk/

When exactly were they going to consult with residents on this? Once they have everything in place in a year's time? - a bit late then when it starts next week at their Board meeting held in Broadland (not even local).  It is the same old biased strategy to get what they want.

please see below an e mail sent today to the reps on the GNDP board from South Norfolk

Dear All

this recent document , which I believe you, as South Norfolk reps, will be discussing next week, is suggesting that Spooner row is NOT suitable for small scale development but could be suitable for Large and new settlement status , in other words 4-6,000 new homes and/or 6 ,000 to 10,000 new homes.

As the village has approx. 180 homes currently, a development on this scale will completely destroy the character of the village which will no longer be village but will become a small town. The appendices in the document clearly identify flooding issues and poor transport links, to say nothing of other major infrastructure flaws or non existence!

Whilst a large , and I do mean large scale increase in the number houses , 2,200 % to 5,500%, how exactly will this resolve the flooding issues and even given the ridiculous number of preferred sites suggested, there is simply not enough room to do this. The report rather glibly goes on to suggest that this will bring about improved commuter transport links when , as I understand it, this will be entirely in the gift of the train and bus companies. This is to say nothing of the need for a new surgery, schools , roads , broadband etc etc.

Spooner row as the smallest village in the entire plan looks like it has been royally stitched up , and like the Wymondham area as a whole is taking, a very large chunk of the proposed new development in the GNDP, whilst the other so called partners in Joint core strategy , who apparently have a different definition of what constitutes a service village ( see the report at page 50 ), just sit on their hands, no doubt smiling smugly .

I therefore urge you to object in the strongest possible terms to reject this proposal and or recommendation. It is entirely out of keeping with the current village layout and size .

Julian Halls Spooner row resident and Ward Town Councillor

 I am really worried about the members of the "Board".    John Fuller in his recent EDP article said that  "we shouldn’t be surprised that when you ask landowners have they got land, they put land forward for building."   

  There are many uses to which land could be put, planting trees for example, rather like Dennis Long in Wreningham,,  who planted a 70 acre wood  (Long's Wood) with native species of  trees for the whole village and other walkers to  enjoy.   He is described as an "innovative farmer" which indeed he was;    Now  let's have some similar  enlightenment from our local farmers.

Quite right ANON . This is the sickness of local Planning decisions and the desire to vote for others to take the hit as long as it is not you. Broadland don't give a stuff about Wymondham or its environs and as long as houses go elsewhere they are going to be happy. Norwich with no room will row in with Broadland 

I am about to write to the Chief Exe  at South Norflok to ask what the hell they  ( the Planners ) are doing to protect our community and ask why they are NOT kicking Broadland on a daily basis but like yesterday's e mail to the Board members  I do not anticipate a quick response, if any at all. It just seems to me that there are too many other agendas in play, devolution , mayoral prospects, party donations and self interest which as long as it affects a relatively small majority ( and no where near them ) is apparently okay , because whilst we might lose a few votes, the vast majority will not care as it does not affect them. This is the consequence of apathy and political disinterest.    

I think a meeting is an excellent idea. How can this be arranged? Julian Halls - is this something you can organise?

I have emailed the GNDP policy Manager and asked him whether we as a village can meet him to discuss this. I have info ed Jack Hornby and Adam Osbourne the other Cromwells ward councillor as well as the Town Clerk who might take the view, as might other Town councillors that the Manager needs to talk to the whole council given that Wymondham and Diss look as if they have been stitcthed up as well BUT of course the Board is yet to meet so I guess a reply before then is unlikely

MAPS - GNLP Tacolneston to Wymondham Map:

Spooner Row (page 39) - https://goo.gl/SNpPn5

Suton (page 38) - https://goo.gl/nb8pHb

Wymondham (page 35) https://goo.gl/nm98Y2

It seems to me the assessment results are more than indicative at this stage, as the Board Meeting Report for today's meeting included a chart where other South Norfolk villages have already been considered and been crossed-off as not suitable.  Spooner Row was the only village with potential for large and new town development status.  

Why only a couple of people for a discussion? I think a lot of residents will have questions.  What about our district councillor, Jack Hornby? This will be directly related to his election policies/promises?

How very wrong you are. People here do agree on many things, particularly how this community is marginalised by our council on planning issues. We do not "fly off the handle at the first opportunity and totally over react", but are very concerned as to what is happening and rightly so. I suggest that our district councillor involves himself here on our behalf. I find your description of Spooner Row people quite insulting and ironically an overreaction by you.  I think you are taking this forum too seriously.  

Local people have made it quite clear what they want. 

Julian, sir,

I would very much like to be able to put  a few relevant questions to these councillors, but I would to prefer the meeting to be on 'home turf' as , like yourself, I feel that we should not be having to slog into Norwich when we have an amazing meeting room in the Village Hall.

We should not be limited to 2 representatives, quite a few villagers have questions they would like to have aired and answered.

I have today sent this message to Adam Nicholls. Its tone is slightly agressive but asks I hope the key questions you have asked and has added some comments which you have made. 

Hopefully we will get a response.

The proposal for a short meeting with very few at County Hall was and is not acceptable in my and others humble opinion

The text is as follows  Sorry it is so long :-

Dear Mr Nicholls

Having posted this reply around the village on the message board there is a general view that a small meeting, in County hall where we might be able to feedback the results to those that are on social media or at a Village Hall meeting where we in the village will have to pay for this, is not going to help much at all. Why does it have to be small and brief ? I was also curious as to why I get a reply from yourself when I e mail the Planning Manager responsible and the 3 members of the board who represent South Norfolk.

However, thank you for the offer and as a way forward I have posted the various comments made by several inviduals and a list of questions that we as a village of 180 houses would like to ask. The syntax is odd as I have tried where possible to cut and paste and in some cases merge their comments to the message board

A trip to County Hall at my expense where the follow up questions that will be generated, I will most probably not be able to answer in a satisfactory manner. It is a start, thank you, but ultimately not very helpful. Why does it have to a short meeting ? Both you and Mr Burrell will have the answers I hope and as others have said to me personally , as ‘employed officials they need to remember who pays their wages and the fact that they are accountable for their actions.’

Of course the ultimate decision is that of the Board BUT officers put forward the recommendations for Board members to consider, so there is some responsibility here.

If you could address these comments and answer these questions I suspect at this stage there would be no need for a meeting but this of course depends upon what you have to say

Comments

1. The GNDP document , is suggesting that Spooner row is NOT suitable for small scale development but could be suitable for Large and new settlement status , in other words 4-6,000 new homes and/or 6 ,000 to 10,000 new homes. Why?

2. As the village has approx. 180 homes currently, a development on this scale will completely destroy the character of the village which will no longer be village but will become a small town. The appendices in the document clearly identify flooding issues and poor transport links, to say nothing of other major infrastructure flaws or non existence! Whilst a large , and I do mean large scale increase in the number houses , how exactly will this resolve the flooding issues and even given the ridiculous number of preferred sites suggested, there is simply not enough room to do this. On one of the fields earmarked there is a river running through the middle. The report rather glibly goes on to suggest that this scale of development will bring about improved commuter transport links when , as I understand it, this will be entirely in the gift of the train and bus companies. This is to say nothing of the need for a new surgery, schools , roads , broadband etc etc.

3. The GNDP Board Meeting on Monday has 13 members but only 3 of them represent South Norfolk. The other members are from Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council, Norfolk County Council and the Broads Authority. As the Agenda includes proposals for Spooner Row to have large scale development, or even become a "new settlement", will all GNDP Board Members be deciding/considering Spooner Row's future? A large majority of the Board Members do not represent this area and have not been voted for by anyone in South Norfolk. It would be wholly undemocratic for non-electable members from other Authorities to vote/decide on behalf of Spooner Row's future and especially on something as dramatic and life changing as transforming a rural village into a town!

4. I would very much like to be able to put a few relevant questions to these councillors, but I would to prefer the meeting to be on 'home turf' as , like yourself, I feel that we should not be having to slog into Norwich when we have an amazing meeting room in the Village Hall.

5. We should not be limited to 2 representatives, quite a few villagers have questions they would like to have aired and answered.

Whilst I note your initial response “the assessment results are only indicative at this stage and should not be regarded as conclusive for any particular location, and a significant amount of further evidence base work will need to be undertaken. The publication of the assessment results at this early stage is to enable discussions to take place about the merits and disadvantages of strategic growth at specified locations.”

I have to say that I agree with the comment made below

6. It seems to me the assessment results are more than indicative at this stage, as the Board Meeting Report for today's meeting included a chart ( at Appendix 4) where other South Norfolk villages have already been considered and been crossed-off as not suitable. Spooner Row was the only village with potential for large and new town development status. ( If we were one of many I would be slightly less concerned but we are not ) How likely is it that Board will throw out all of the proposals. The question is rhetorical.

7. I have to add ( this is me ) that once again South Norfolk is taking the hit whereas Broadland ( and Norwich) is apparently not going to, so what possible incentive is there for the other councils to vote against this proposal ?

Questions so far

• How will the GNDP ensure that there will be improved infrastructure AND where is it coming from ?

• Who made this recommendation and by which method was it derived ?

• Why was it made? Is there some politics at work here ?

• What possible reason is there to justify it other than Spooner row could be a commuter corridor with a carpark at the Station that can hold 3 cars??

• The land around the station and the village is not large enough to build these number of houses ! ( potentially 10,000 remember)

• I have a question to ask the council prior to the meeting - what was the outcome of the GNDP Board Meeting last Monday with their discussion of Spooner Row's enormous large-scale development proposals? It was on their Agenda.

• When was Adam Nicholls and his team thinking about engaging and informing Spooner Row that we are the only village that has been included to get to this stage? Localism (an Act of Parliament) is about involving the community to provide them with what they would like.

 I look forward to your response

Julian Halls

I feel very sad that this little village is going to be developed beyond recognition. Who would want a large town built on them?

As the proposed plans for Spooner Row would significantly affect everyone with a home, residents at the very least, deserve a meeting for some fundamental explanations. Has Spooner Row now been re-allocated up from its status of a Norwich Service Village to a Key Service Centre which could mean major development?. If Spooner Row's status has been advanced up, when was this done and who was involved in the discussions? Why were Spooner Row residents not involved in these early discussions (or any discussions) to establish if this was what residents wanted? Not to do so would be considered as the authorities acting unfairly and in an undemocratic manner. What was the outcome of the recent GNDP Board meeting where only a fraction of the Board members were from South Norfolk District Council with the majority (over 75%) of the total made up of other council members who do not cover this area? We need a proper village based meeting with explanations and it would be a good opportunity for Spooner Row's District Councillor to re-engage himself. The authorities have a responsibility to act morally and give Spooner Row residents some respect. 

no reply yet althought Tim Horspole hints that one is on the way in his reply to my letter to Ch EXE of SNDC See post on Wymondham area action plan.

As regard the second point I could not agree more

Next election will be 2019 and Cromwells ward ,  along with the new Ketts Park ward will become the new South Wymondham ward , the largest of the new 3 wards proposed  by a country mile. We will have 2 district councillors and 5  ward councillors if the new arrangements get agreed.  ( 4 for Cromwells and 1 for Ketts Park) The downside is that Spooner row , Suton and Wattlefield will be the smallest population  group of that ward and will get swamped by the many of Silfield . I argued with the Boundary commission that we are and should be seperate, having a different character , needs etc BUT was summarily dismissed. Me thinks the hand of political influence was at play but no proof and they claim they are independent and of course a lot can happen in the remaining 3 years

reply from Adam Nicholls last week

Dear Mr Halls,

I am writing to apologise for the delay in replying to your email. However, I hope to be able to reply fully on Monday or, at the very latest, Tuesday next week.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Nicholls

South Norfolk Council Planning Policy Manager

Greater Norwich Local Plan Team

T: 01603 224329

E: adam.nicholls@norfolk.gov.uk

W: www.greaternorwichlocalplan.org.uk

As today is Wednesday . Must be a very busy man. I will post when I do get a reply

reply received today Again as previously untouched for your delectation 

Dear Mr Halls,

Thank you for your email of 21st November. I apologise for the delay in responding, which has been due to pressure of work.

Firstly, you were sent, on 2nd December, a response from South Norfolk Council to your letter to the Chief Executive, Sandra Dinneen, which covers some similar ground, and I do not repeat some of the broader points made in that letter. However, I answer your more detailed points below:

1) How will the GNDP ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support the Greater Norwich Local Plan?

It is important that any Local Plan demonstrates, through an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (or similarly-named document), how the provision of infrastructure will be planned for positively and delivered in a timely manner. Clearly this is an important area of work in preparing the GNLP, and this will be tested during the examination by the Inspector. Areas such as transport, green infrastructure, schools, energy and water (to name but some) are already being investigated, and further, more detailed work, will follow. The larger the potential development allocation, the larger the infrastructure demands will be (obviously), and so such locations will be subject to careful assessment and analysis.

2) What is the possible justification for Spooner Row being identified as having potential to accommodate 6,000-10,000 new dwellings? How and why was this recommendation made? And what was the outcome of the GNDP Board’s consideration on this point?

As stated in the letter by Tim Horspole referred to above, a high-level assessment of the potential for strategic scales of growth (more than 1,000 dwellings) was undertaken for 22 different settlements and sectors. Spooner Row has been considered because it does have some locational advantages: it has a railway station (although there is a very low frequency of stops at present, this might be able to be increased in the future) and is very well related to the A11, as well as being close to Wymondham (with its retail, employment, education and leisure offer). Whilst there would, obviously, need to be very significant investment in infrastructure to deliver large-scale growth at Spooner Row, it may, properly planned, have potential to accommodate this scale of growth. It is for this reason that lower levels of strategic growth for Spooner Row are considered to be inappropriate; 2,000 dwellings (say) would not be sufficient to help fund and delivery necessary additional infrastructure (such as a new high school).

I must re-emphasise that the work done to date is very high-level and not, in any way, definitive – much more work needs to be done to assess all potential sites, whether for large- or small-scale growth. It is therefore possible that after closer scrutiny officers may recommend that Spooner Row is not considered further for strategic growth, but it is important at this early stage of plan-making that all main options are considered appropriately before the options are narrowed down.

The Sectors and Settlements analysis (Appendix 4 of the November GNDP papers) was prepared by officers; Spooner Row was assessed objectively, alongside the other 21 settlements and sectors. None of the conclusions of the Appendix are definitive: further work needs to be (and is being) undertaken on all of them to develop a better understanding of constraints and opportunities. The GNDP Board did not reach any firm conclusions on the analysis of any of the 22 sectors and settlements at the meeting; they did not discuss any of them at any length, and I do not recall there being any discussion about Spooner Row at all.

3) When was the GNLP team thinking of informing Spooner Row residents about the contents of the November GNDP paper, and the conclusions for Spooner Row in terms of growth potential?

The publication of the 14th November GNDP Board papers, including the Sectors and Settlements analysis, was published on the GNLP website on Friday 4th November. I emailed all South Norfolk Parish Council clerks on the morning of 4th November to inform them of the publication of the papers. As a Wymondham Town councillor, you will understand the key role of parish council clerks in disseminating information not only to other members of the parish council, but to parishioners more generally. With the best will in the world, it is simply not practicable for council officers to personally contact all South Norfolk residents to notify them of the publication of Local Plan information and papers, but by publishing them on the website and notifying parish councils (as well as all district councillors), and ensuring that there was appropriate coverage in the Eastern Daily Press, it maximised the “reach” of the information.

4) Is the democratic consideration of the Greater Norwich Local Plan appropriate?

The GNLP is being prepared jointly by South Norfolk, Norwich and Broadland councils, working with Norfolk County Council. This is the same arrangement that the current Joint Core Strategy was produced under, and required that all three/four councils separately agreed (through their Cabinet/Council meetings) the JCS at various stages of production. You will know that whilst the JCS does not allocate specific sites, it does allocate quanta of housing to locations – a minimum 7,000 homes in the North-East Growth Triangle (Broadland), and a minimum 2,200 homes in Wymondham, for example – and all the councils agreed to the distribution of dwellings and employment areas across the Greater Norwich area jointly. The GNLP process will be little different. The GNDP Board cannot make decisions, only recommendations to the individual councils – but all the councils will be asked to agree the GNLP jointly, so that will mean, for example, Norwich councillors voting on the distribution and location of housing in South Norfolk and Broadland as well as their own patch, just as South Norfolk councillors will vote on the distribution and location of housing in Norwich and Broadland too (and vice versa for Broadland councillors).

I hope the answers above are helpful to you. Please let me know, after consideration of the answers, if you still feel a meeting is required and we can discuss the way forward.

Yours sincerely,

Adam

Adam Nicholls

South Norfolk Council Planning Policy Manager

Greater Norwich Local Plan Team

I'm not an expert on planning but this is what I really don't get.

The previous county I moved from, I lived in a village, i lived there for 16 yrs. When I left it was a town, they added 2500 houses, nothing like what the thoughts are here. Forget the action group that was set up with some very rich people backing it, all the others issues, I'd just like to highlight one small thing, traffic. This village had great access not far to the A421, similar to the Spooner Row great access to the A11 argument. Is there any need in explaining what peak traffic was like trying to get home, that was with potentially 1/10th of the traffic (I left when the development was half built) and no railway line stopping flow and a link Road twice as wide as Station Road.