It is astonishing that a local resident has been refused planning permission to build one detached property in line with existing properties on Top Common. I don't live on Top Common, but there have been letters of support from other residents on that road who welcome this one development. Why is it that a local resident gets refused planning permission yet landowners from outside the village who own lots of land, get approval for many houses on unsuitable sites?
Reasons given for refusal for this one property on Top Common include: poor facilities and infrastructure, at odds with the wider rural open countryside and character, not a sustainable development, harmful impact on rural open countryside, greenfield site, contrary to policies, and does not work in a positive and proactive manner. Surely these very same reasons for refusal should have been applied to the large numbers of houses currently being built on Bunwell Road, with full approval from the council, that no locals want which spoil the rural character of the village. These refusal details were ignored for these sites. This decision isn't consistent for Spooner Row and doesn't make sense, and does look very biased in favour of landowners.
Hasn't the council been proudly promoting that it doesn't have a '5-year housing land supply, unlike other councils, so all planning must be given permission?
I think the owner should appeal and they will win as no 5 year land supply and the above post has said, clearly someone somewhere has a graet deal of influence when it comes to land elsewhere in the village so why do they get preferential treatment and others do not?
Do I smell yet another Planning arrangement in hand or maybe that should be back hand
Please don't take this the wrong way because I think I agree with you, but are you unhappy that the single house has been rejected and the hypocrisy that the stated reasons have been used before but ignored by the large scale developers, or are you happy that the single house has been rejected and the reasons which have often been stated are now being listened to?
Would it be reasonable to say that this refusal could be used as a precedent against other larger scale development elsewhere? Whilst this is unfortunate for the applicant, perhaps it could have positive repercussions elsewhere?
(For what it is worth, I personally fully support small scale development of this type in our village)
I do support small-scale development, such as one new property put forward by a local resident, after all this is a rural village with rural open countryside as described by the council. What I am very much against is the hypocrisy of the council when it comes to large-scale development on well-heeled landowners greenfield sites. Reasons for refusing a single development is ignored when applied to large-scale development. How much profit is gained from large-scale developments and for whom?
I don't think this refusal will set a planning precedent for the village or anywhere else, it will be business as usual. It looks very much like the system here is about who has applied for planning permission rather than, is the application suitable or not.
I think the owner should appeal. Rubbish reasons were given and the question is why didn't those same reasons apply to Bunwell Road? How many houses is it now on that site? Is it 30 unsustainable properties with no infrastructure improvement on rural countryside?
Likewise I agree with the sentiments in these previous posts. However sadly the applicant never stood a chance of gaining a planning permission and he still would not on appeal. The planning rules for larger scale developments, lack of five year land supply etc are different for an individual house. It all comes down to policy and there is no policy to allow for individual houses outside of a development boundary in the open countryside. The site in question here falls into that category. Therefore the planning committee was quite correct in refusing the application. If they had not, they would be setting a precedent and it would be open season for individual houses everywhere. The only two exceptions that I know of to this rule is Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework. If you look that up, you will see that the house in question here falls well short of the requirements set out in Para 55. The other is a house with an agricultural exemption providing the need can be demonstrated. The larger developers don't bribe planning committee members as seems to be the implication. They employ planning consultants, not architects, who understand the planning system. Any reputable planning consultant would have advised this applicant not to waste his time and money. I know its a controversial thing to say but the larger developments bring with them what is seen a public benefits. 33% affordable housing. Large CIL contributions. Depending on the size of the scheme there is often off site improvements to roads and footways, sports pitches etc. A single house brings none of these which is why the council will always refuse them if they are in the open countryside and outside of a development boundary. They just regard them as uncontrolled development. Please don't shoot the messenger but I just feel that this applicant has been badly misled by his architect and encouraging him to appeal will only be a further waste of his money. Sue the architect instead!
Thank you for this but your argument does not hold up at all. I have looked up the National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 55, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf
It says " Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside". This is not an isolated home in the countryside as it will be located at the end of a row of about 6 properties. Paragraph 55 does not mention an "individual house."
It also meets one of the special circumstances in Paragraph 55, "be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area." It does, as it is in keeping with the existing properties on Top Common.
The Bunwell Road high-density development for many houses is in the rural countryside and outside the development boundary, so the same development boundary rule can only apply to Top Common as well. The District Council's Policy 15 of the Joint Core Strategy mentions that Top Common can allow for limited infill development.
Site improvement such as footways can only be made for developments of more than one property is not accurate at all. The School Lane development for 7 dwellings is not having its essential footpath provided, which is a requirement for that application. No improvement here, just an existing road safety problem to be made worse through choice and approval.
If planning consultants are employed because they understand the planning system as you suggest, then either they are sloppy or they are choosing to cherry pick the rules they want to apply to the different planning applications. Is this what we are meant to subscribe to? The District Councillors who provide and allow this, have a lot to answer to.
Like I said, please don't shoot the messenger. I am simply trying to point out that the planning rules as they currently sit make it nigh on impossible for a single dwelling outside of a development boundary. Please don't take this to mean that I think think that this man should not be allowed to build his house. You may disagree with what I have said about the para 55. Its not really relevant anyway as the applicant did not use this as part of their application. The only reason I mentioned it is to try and demonstrate how restrictive the rules are on building an individual house in the open countryside. You clearly disagree that this is open countryside, but in planning terms as it is outside of the development boundary that is what it is. Its also no use saying that it complies with one part of the clause as it would need to comply with every part of it. What the applicant has tried to argue is that the site is in a sustainable location and that there is a lack of five year land supply. Whilst there is a lack of five year land supply, Top Common will struggle to make the cut as a sustainable location. The planning statement tries to rely on the Station Road appeal as a reason why Top Common is therefore a sustainable site. I am sure that if the applicant was trying to put seven houses in Top Common, everyone would be jumping up and down trying to make the arguments as to why Top Common is not a sustainable location. Its either a sustainable location or not and if its not sustainable for seven its not sustainable for one. Sadly for the applicant its the later. It would take major infrastructure improvements to change that and you know the only way that will come about and thats what nobody wants.
I am not shooting the messenger, just putting my views across. Suggest you don't take it personally.
So one property is not sustainable, yet lots of houses on other sites in the village without improved infrastructure on greenfield open countryside, is?
Bunwell Road development is outside the development boundary and there's no getting away from that fact and where are the major infrastructure improvements there, which you say are required?
Are you saying that the applicant for Top Common didn't get permission because the planners didn't like his argument to justify the proposed single dwelling? Or perhaps they just didn't like him?
The planning system in South Norfolk is a joke as they interpret (or rather, misinterpret) the regulations to suit themselves.
Fancy trying to blame the architect. The SNC Planners should have advised the architect accordingly. Strangely on other planning applications, it appears the Planners and Agents/Architects work "very closely" together.
Anonymous (the one who is the messenger who does not wish to be shot)
you are wasting your time, your perfectly sensible and valid point will never be seen or understood by the board people, they are masters at missing a point
The SNDC planning case officers will only now offer advise if you pay for a fee for pre planning consultation. Did this architect do this or did he just think that the other applications that had succeeded would be sufficient precedent? The main issue as I see it here is meeting the criteria for sustainable development. The Bunwell Road and Station Road developments do meet the grade and hence they succeeded. School Lane is very dubious. I think it has been demonstrated that it does not but the site had been previously allocated as a suitable site for development and SNDC did not seem prepared to back down from this position. Top Common is almost certainly not a sustainable location and therefore easy for SNDC to refuse. Think of the precedent that would have been set if this house has been allowed in this location. How many others would then jump in with similar applications.
Unfortunately, I think a precedent has been set for large developments which do not fit in with the character of Spooner Row and is something that nobody wants. The occasional house here and there built by local residents is far more in keeping and can probably still be supported by the inadequate infrastructure.
School Lane was allocated as suitable for development but SNDC has since acknowledged that they hadn't visited the site first to establish if the site was suitable to support a footway. Residents were, and still are very aware that the road was too narrow and said so during the formal public consultations, and they were told that any problems would be raised during the planning application. It was raised, but SNC has chosen to ignore it even though they have a lawful duty to comply with their own regulations. As many are aware, the onus has now been pushed onto the parish council and highways department rather than SNC to fulfil the footway obligation when approval was given.
I can't see how large developments here meet the sustainable criteria on land which is outside the development boundary without improvements to infrastructure. Please explain how it is sustainable.
Anonymous (the one who is the messenger who does not wish to be shot)
you are wasting your time, your perfectly sensible and valid point will never be seen or understood by the board people, they are masters at missing a point
Anonymous said, The SNDC planning case officers will only now offer advise if you pay for a fee for pre planning consultation. Did this architect do this or did he just think that the other applications that had succeeded would be sufficient....
__________________________________-
Are you saying that if you pay a fee to the case officers for pre-planning consultation and take their advice, that planning consent will be given and if you don't pay for "advice" it will not get consent? That sounds a bit underhand!!! Is it moral for a publicly funded body who serves the public to operate in this way?
Anonymous (the one who is the messenger who does not wish to be shot)
you are wasting your time, your perfectly sensible and valid point will never be seen or understood by the board people, they are masters at missing a point
save your time and blood pressure.
Board people? who are you referring to?
That depends. Are you the anonymous who is the messenger who does not wish to be shot, or are you a board person who is unable to read and understand a whole thread and therefore missunderstand the general sentiment and point of the post. (As usual)
I think the applicant should appeal under the lack of a 5year land supply for housing - everything else gets through because of this in this village, no matter how unsuitable it is. This application has lots of support from its immediate neighbours. The objections put forward by the council cannot stand up for many valid reasons which include those covered in the above postings. The negative postings above look like they are probably from someone who supports the council and is just talking nonsense to suit their own agenda.
The applicant should pay the planners for some "advice" that will do it.
Its a lovely idea that the occasional house should be built here and there by local residents, but how would that ever be regulated? Locals would be encouraged to pretend that they were behind an application just to get it though and then guess what, the plot would just be sold off to the highest bidder. Shock, horror -someone from away moves in to the village and its the end of life as we know it. You can't have planning rules that says one rule for locals and one rule for everyone one else. How long do you have to have lived in the village to be a local? Maybe only a week. If so a developer could buy a house and then under the "being a local" clause could then get planning on lots of plots all over the place. Or is it three generations? Please don't get me wrong because I completely agree with the sentiment but its just not being realistic. A site is either regarded as suitable for development under the current planning regulations or it is not, regardless of who is the applicant. This whole idea that successful applications are just bought is nonsense.
Your argument is irrelevant as SNC's lack of a 5 year housing land supply is the rule of the day and that means anything goes, with planning permissions always going ahead. Where's the regulation here that you speak of? The council is applying one rule for landowner developers and a different one for locals. This is showing favouritism and bias. It would be better for the council to act more fairly.
In any case, both developments and No's 1 & 2 Chantly Villas (on a hazardous HGV road / school junction) are from non-residents which got permissions as split garden developments. Don't try and change the issue and turn it into a 3 generation thing. Having a clause for this is stupid and would not be enforceable. There again, when has that ever stopped SNC from following what is enforceable?... Hmm, School Lane (lack of a footpath, flood risk, destruction of ancient hedgerow) and Bunwell Road (outside the development boundary, flood risk and imposing ugly designs) etc etc. Can't see how this is sustainable or regulated.
As said on here before, the Applicant needs to appeal and pay what they want to get it though with planning 'advice', or maybe the Applicant has principles instead.
yeah but you have the play the game. Grease the palms of the Planners via chargable consultation and make sure application is suppoerted in Council by generous entirely voluntary donation to vested interests. Planning in thsi country stinks
Councils should still follow Government schemes though, they are not above this. After the way this village has been treated by the district council with a convenient lack of a 5-year housing land supply when it suits them, I am very disillusioned. Sadly we have to put up with this because the power is with them.
Actually the power is with you at the ballot box. Planners only make recommendations and if an elected member wants to argue the case in committee it is their right to do so and they can , with their colleagues ignore the recommendations. Unfortunately it is a sword that cuts both ways so when the planners are against a development, or for one, it can still be turned over.
However the message is clear if you want to argue a case, lobby your elected councillor and whether you voted for them or not they should take your views on board.
That would be great but that only works if you have an engaged elected councillor on side in which to lobby. As far as I am aware our elected district councillor has never stood up and argued a case in committee that supports residents of Spooner Row, even though there is strong opposition against speculative and badly implemented developments. His electoral pledge was to stop this, but instead, landowner developers get the go-ahead. The actions speak for themselves.
Councillors employ the 'expert' planners to deliver what is asked of them, so no guesses where Spooner Row's district councillor stands. The damage will have been done by the next elections. There needs to be some accountability in the system when things go wrong.
I see that this Appeal has recently been dismissed and the Final Decision is Refusal. This was one application from a local person for one dwelling and it received several letters of support from residents. This was considered by many, to be in keeping with the line of houses next to where it was proposed. It would seem there is one rule for larger, unsustainable, unwanted developments compared to one sympathetic, sustainable and welcomed single dwelling. What happened to SNC's lack of a 5-year housing land supply where everything had to be Approved no matter how many protests? Clearly, not everything has to be Approved which creates a level of inconsistency with Planning decisions by the Council.
This Planning Appeal result can be found on page 32, https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/development-management-committee-agenda-8-november-2017_0.pdf
See decision information: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OKP64OOQ0CR00
The appeal decision bewilderingly describes that this development would extend onto an agricultural field and into the open countryside. Isn't that exactly what recent and larger planning approvals have done in Spooner Row on Bunwell Road, Chapel Road, School Lane and soon to be approved Station Road development opposite the school?
Well, actually if you think about it, you can't have double standards in law.
So, could this refusal be used to our advantage, and be used against other unwanted development applications? i.e. a larger application has to be declined for the same reason this one has
If you are talking about double standards and what is lawful, I don't think the council give a damn. The School Lane planning approval, for example, was clearly unlawful as it violated the council's own legally compliant policy to provide a pedestrian footpath using a range of superficial reasons to bypass it - this will endanger the lives of pedestrians. The inconsistencies in which the council either allows or does not allow planning applications is unbelievable. There needs to be more accountability in decisions and the consequences of those decisions, particularly where it could be argued that they have not provided a duty of care.
What annoys me about this one dwelling application is that the Appeal decision has just repeated the nonsense the council and planners previously churned out and portrays the Appeal process as unfair for an ordinary local person who just wants to build one house in a suitable location.
Looking at a previous posting on here, perhaps having friends in high places is what it is about. What happened to fairness and integrity?
