Spooner Row Message Board

Anonymous,

Have you yet been contacted by one of us from the village speaking to residents and explaining the governance review?

If not please give me a call on 07748 300820.  

Robert

Seems odd they would only want 9 houses on that huge field 

Anonymous, I think this proposed development is opposite, on the other side of Station Road. This appears to be yet another greenfield site destined for development.

It is scandalous what you say about the other development going back as far as "The Bungalow" which is behind the School Lane development for 7 houses. Any public consultation and engagement under the new Local Development Plan is utterly pointless as for example, the current Local Plan included a pedestrian footway (under Policy) for children to walk to school on the narrow road on School Lane, but despite planning approved, no implemented of this Policy will take place. As most people are now aware, the other superficial options for a car park extension, or a trod path on the recreation ground or road markings (which are not enforceable) do not provide a protective footway. This goes to prove, that legal implementations of the Local Plan after public consultation and Government Inspector approval can just be ignored by those making the recommendations and decisions at the last planning stage. The excuses they make do not add up and are not consistent (compare Top Common's planning refusal).  You mention the latest 2016 Local Development Plan (in progress), this shows an enormous sprawl of new houses and nothing else. There are no future plans at all to increase the rail service or buses in the village, so there will be many more private cars in use due to little public transport. That should go down well on Station Road, a designated HGV route. Station Road seems to be getting busier than ever.  This is one of the main causes of traffic problems in the village. Why isn't the new 2016 Local Development Plan tackling this issue?

Yes, I think this proposed development is opposite the chicanes - good planning eh ?    Also, I think it was not so very far away that a local chap wanted to place a bungalow on a modest plot in Top Common and was refused permission.     How therefore can this new proposal come about ?    The very fact that there is new building nearby does not have to mean that good agricultural land is also swallowed up.

This planning application is outside the existing Local Plan Development Boundary as Julian says. If this gets approved then it will be another example of the barmy 'lack of a 5-year housing land supply' on which everything (except Top Common) has to get planning approval in South Norfolk.

Julian,  thank you for the info about next Tuesday eve.

julian halls wrote:

---

The 9 houses  proposed are from Queensland to the corner of Top common on that side  of the road only, at the moment , in other words the left hand side as you go out of the village.

This will be discussed at the Planning sub committee at Wymondham Town council offices at 1800 on the 20th , next tuesday and you are welcome to attend and can comment usually at the beginning of the planning applications session

If you are intending to come please let the Clerk know, 603302 as we might need to go upstairs if there are quite a few attending as there is more room there. Also if there is lots of comment on one application we can , at the Chair's discretion jump that up the agenda

---

The outcome of this is so predictable as it has happened sooo many times now. It will be discussed at WTC who will recommend refusal as it is outside of the local plan's development boundary. It will then go to district council planning who will give approval as rather than adhere to their local plan requirements, operate instead the 5 years land supply system. Who benefits from this? Landowners, developers and the district council through the cil payments.

The entrance to this planning proposal is directly opposite the Station Road chicanes and if it is repositioned, further along, it will be opposite the village car park entrance which the school use and can be busy.  The council is run like a business so the financial benefits will no doubt outweigh any consequential problems this development will cause to residents and road users.

My comments to South Norfolk as a member of the Public

This outline is not sustainable and the planning statement is full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. I cite the following

1. The application is outside the development boundary

2. The application is quite evidentially NOT sustainable so paragraph 14 framework does not apply. For an application to be sustainable it has be a balance of 3 factors EQUALLY . It is NOT. there are 4 social reasons, 2 of which are highly questionable, it quotes 1 economic benefit which is for the short term only and therefore wrong, and 5 environmental where once again 2 reasons given are totally unproven or wrong

3. The quoted availability of bus stops and train service are regular BUT are so infrequent as to be useless. This is entirely disingenuous.

4. The service village permitted development numbers of 15-20 plus the floating 1800 allowance has ALREADY been massively exceeded.

5. The proposal will unacceptably erode the characteristics of the village already with limited or non-existent infrastructure. Where are the children going to school ? Where is the shop? and why no mention of the granted permissions already at both Cantley villas next door.

6. This is quite clearly A11 corridor development and to say it is NOT is a lie

This application is yet another example of blatant profiteering on behalf of landowners without any provision for proper infrastructure to go along with it. It should be refused.

Perhaps residents should look at the excellent comments on this Message Board  (March/April) regarding the earlier application 2017/0249 for a single dwelling west of Top Common.  Reasons for refusal included 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 etc. etc.

The proposed development (land west of Queensland in Station Road) is but a stone's throw from the Top Common refusal. This smacks of hypocrisy and appears to be down to monetary gain for the Council.

There's still time to object to this inappropriate planning application. The flood authority objects but that's no guarantee this will not just be waved through as other sites with flood problems have been allowed in Spooner Row.

Contrary to the Development Management Report, this proposed development will undoubtedly affect Queensland as well as the houses in Top Common.   The five actual objections consisted of 25 further objections in addition to one from the School.   One objector in another planning application said that their application should be judged on its own merit and not approved due to the lack of a 5-year land supply which is a very valid comment.    It appears that there is justification at every level to approve this application even though they concede that the site is located outside the development boundary.   The justification here is that there are overriding benefits in terms of economic, social and environmental dimensions as addressed in Policy DM1.1.

Access :   Highways have been consulted and have confirmed that the proposed single point of access is acceptable subject to conditions.   The scheme is therefore acceptable in highway safety terms and satisfies the requirements of Policies DM3.11 and DM3.12.

I am not sure what Highways would deem as unacceptable ?     Do numerous HGVs and speeding traffic fit the bill  -  it would appear not.

Not to mention a miserable place to live!

I have just been talking to a contractor in Wym library who lodges in Spooner row.  His Hi-vis jacket says Maersk-oil if that is at all helpful.  He says that there is planning permission for 16000 houses on the fields around SR.  I said, "surely you mean 1600" but he was adamant that 16000 was the number. He said that there's a guy with a nice thatched cottage who presently looks out across fields who is very pissed off.  He said that the place was going to be like a mini-town, but he didn't know about any provision for schools, shops and infrastructure.

I shall drop into SR church on Sunday 25th for the 11am service, or I might hope to catch Graham walking his dog when I next pass through.

I see that this planning application has been given outline planning approval despite the many issues and flood risk next to the main road.

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OQVLXVOQMM600

Unfortunately it's a terrible sign of the times. 

I agree with the last comments.

Whats very concerning is all the chaos and problems that will occur on entering and exiting the village.. opposite the School also. I expect there will traffic lights, contractor vehicles... plus the normal hgv traffic!

With regards to the triangle on hill road I only mentioned to someone the other day how it has just been disappearing gradually and now there's nothing really there. It was quite a substantial piece of triangular verge! Now just nothing..  People who don't live here don't care sadly.

This was a lovely village. 

This planning consent on Station Road, opposite the primary school and recreation ground car park where the road is already dangerous, was an application notice placed at the site? I do not recall one being displayed.

This development is yet another one that is outside the development boundary on prime agricultural land. Has it been granted because of the need for the 5 year housing land supply that the planners cannot get right? What is the actual number that must be reached to satisfy this mythical 5 year housing land supply need?  

So suddenly the original plans have mysteriously changed from 6 houses and two Bungalows to 8 houses + 2 Affordable next to Cantley Villas. Did I miss something? Where and when is this going to planning, because this was not was originally sought? Please can someone explain to me what a hybrid application is???  Well at least we won’t have to worry about flooding ..we will be Spooner Row Mere/Lake/Reservoir/Swamp. (delete where applicable) if we keep this up.

I am surprised that the affordable housing consists of 2 x 3 storey properties? It's good they are 3 bedrooms but is 3 storey really necessary.. within a small village - towering high.

Unfortunately the last two affordable houses were actually that affordable? So I doubt these will be either.

It is apalling how the village is being treated and do they, the Council, the Planners care? Does our District Councillor care ?

5 year Housing supply is still a pipedream as far as I can tell and the developers love it.

Looking at the planning correspondence on this morphed application, it is likely to get the go-ahead. Three story houses are totally out of keeping with the character of Spooner Row. Is there anything the planners refuse these days?

 https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=PF993YOQ0IQ00&activeTab=summary

Given the personal attack on me about whether I care? . Perhaps the person should check to see that I have consistently opposed this and all forms of development in the village beyond the promised 25 which has been massively exceeded and of course this form of development is totally in appropriate.

Perhaps anon you should check your facts  

It is barmy that two of the houses have been built yet it is pending its planning consent with this further hybrid application which overrides what has gone before. Doh

The other part of the hybrid development on land west of Queensland could not be at a worse location with the chicane and primary school opposite on an HGV route. This should now be reviewed and refused. Is this long extended hybrid application a sneaky way of keeping this planning project active?

Executive houses? don’t make me laugh, they are on estates.

It’s like when you see a coach on the motorway which claims to be ‘executive travel’. Executives live in nice houses, but if space around them, in the same way they travel in limo’s not coaches. The majority of the new houses are middle management at best. The only people who think they are executive are the people who live in them.

Dear willow drive resident

If you read my posts you will see I have constantly banged on about the lack of affordable homes for years. Interesting that the developments at Willow drive were linked to several affordable  in Chapel road , a long time before I was elected but since we have seen a completely spurious amendment to reduce the number the developer was required to build and this has been approved by the District council AND still they have not been built this is a disgrace.

Something which I opposed VERY vocifeorously but the controlling majority from a certain political party rubber stamped.

I am also for clarity NO longer on the planning committee as under covid , the excuse for everything nowadays, the controlling party reduced the number of councillors and I was binned ALTHOUGH as pointed out when the majority of these applications were approved I was  not the District councillor and neither was I from the same political party.

Now we see a review of the planning rules lead by Central  Govt ( with very generous developer donations to the  party ) which amount to a developers charter to get AUTOMATIC planning permission and INCREASE the trigger number where affordable houses have to be provided to 50 !!!Something which I also am very very opposed to , as are the district councils incidentally.

Politely, may I suggest you read  the various and numerous posts I have put on this regard before, and note that I was also opposed to the new development on Station road as it exceeds by a very large margin the promised maximum number we were supposed to have  in the village. The 3000 houses ( not a typo)  the developers wants to  build in the village I am doing my best to block and there will be a meeting later this week to look at the first tranche of applications where once again the maximum 25 houses per village promises seems to have gone out of the window

Councillor Halls 

Where is the proposal to build 3000 homes in this village?  I cannot find anything on South Norfolk Councils website to support this?

Are you in receipt of information that has not yet been made public?  If yes, who is proposing to build these houses in Spooner Row?

The Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) is being produced by Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council working together with Norfolk County Council through the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP).

Area of Interest - Land to provide for Silfield Garden Village

Submission reference GNLP2168

https://www.gnlp.org.uk/sites-plan-have-your-say/

Then click on "Interactive Map".  Move and expand until you see Spooner Row and look for GNLP2168.

Land owner - J Alston & Sons Ltd, Park Farm, Silfield

More information to be released next week.

The Silfield Garden Village is one of three "significant residential sites" now being considered by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership Growth Board.

This site is out-lined for 6,000 homes, whilst the two remaining sites of "Land west of Hethel" and "Land at Honingham" are stated as providing 5,000 each.

Honingham falls within the remit of Broadland District Council, whilst Silfield and Hethel are both covered by South Norfolk Council.   

An updated Plan will be issued next week, available from the Greater Norwich Local Plan website.

Information kindly supplied by a Planner within the Greater Norwich Local Plan Team yesterday.

An interesting extract from the evolving Greater Norwich Local Plan.  

Policy 7.6 - Preparing for New Settlements

380. This local plan identifies enough sustainable sites and locations within and on the edge of existing settlements to meet current needs. Consequently, no new settlement is proposed for allocation in this Local Plan. However, with sustainable options for settlement extensions diminishing, the authorities are convinced that one or more new settlements will be required in the longer term, particularly if housing needs rise as signalled by government.

381. Ensuring a new settlement and its supporting infrastructure is properly planned, designed and resourced takes time. Site promoters also need the confidence to invest in evidence and master-planning. The authorities therefore conclude that it is vital to commit in this Local Plan cycle to delivering new settlements in the next plan cycle.

382. While the intention is to allocate new settlement development through the next plan, delivery will commence prior to the end date of this local plan. Consequently, new settlement development will provide additional flexibility to ensure delivery of current housing targets.

383. The location and design of any new settlement or settlements for Greater Norwich will need to ensure that they are excellent places to live, built to Garden City principles, and provide housing across all types of need. They will need to be well-connected and deliverable, with sustainable access to a range of jobs and services. They will need to promote our local economic strengths, enhance the environment and promote healthy and active lifestyles.

384. To achieve all of this, proposals for any new settlement will need to ensure that a significant proportion of any uplift in land value from current use is captured to fund the infrastructure to support the new community. It will be essential that the legal framework for this is agreed with councils at an early stage in the promotion of any new settlement.

385. Three new settlement sites have been proposed through the GNLP (at Honingham Thorpe, Hethel and Silfield). These will be investigated along with other potential locations in the next plan, taking account of selected criteria. In order to shorten the lead in time for delivery and provide the level of certainty for investment that would allow one or more schemes to be incorporated in the new plan, comprehensive analysis of options will begin in 2021.

386. The timetable for this work, which provides a broad indication of the authorities’ intentions and may be varied to take account of changes to the planning system, is:

• 2021 developing success criteria, site options assessment including technical consultation;

• 2022 following adoption of the GNLP, public consultation on site options;

• 2022-24 development of new Local Plan incorporating preferred site(s);

• 2026 onwards – delivery.

POLICY 7.6 – PREPARING FOR NEW SETTLEMENTS (Outcome)

Subject to the outcome of evidence, assessment and appraisal, one or more new settlements will be brought forward in the next Local Plan.

and it gets worse by the hour ! This has just been discovered

The new planning white paper buried in the text allows new settlements to come forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, which would divorce them from the local planning process and therefore local scrutiny.

Given the clear message from the leader at the last council meeting, that to start a process of having new settlements early locally, would better enable us, as a council, to influence the outcome, this would appear to be a direct contradiction of the white paper proposals as outlined above.

Of course the white paper is not yet law and you may be sure I will making lots of noise to block any such approval of new settlements in consequence going forward

As a resident, I am aware that the affordable houses on Chapel Road were reduced from the provision made in the original planning application from 13 to 6. This is a choice and decision made by the developer/landowner and planners. Most local residents were against this. The developer has three years to build the houses and he is still within that timespan. https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PC23VVOQMAZ00

perhaps building expensive houses with more profit for the builder is something which would encourage him not to build affordable ones, can you blame him?

If the expensive ones sell , why would he bother?

Stop building all types of property’s in Spooner Row. Let the wildlife have the land. 
mr Halls is a good man, that cares for the village he lives in.

if you don’t like what’s happening then move. 

I am in complete agreement that it is preferable for the village to remain a rural community without overdevelopment. I am keen for a limit on housing. However, i disagree with a couple of points; 

1. I don’t want more affordable housing. This tends to be social housing which if disproportionate can have a negative impact on the surrounding area. The larger houses that have been built are not affordable to children of families in spooner row but similarly the affordable housing is likely to be taken by residents on council lists from elsewhere too. At least, if nothing else the larger houses help to retain a high average property price in the village to protect homeowners. 

2. The school is not stuggling with being oversubscribed because of all of the additional housing. in fact the reverse is true. The opening of Wymondham College prep has seen parents select this school and could see a significant fall in numbers at Spoonrr Row Primary. This would be a pity because Spooner Row Primary would begin to fill with children from Wymondham and other villages. it is always preferable for the village school to be composed of children resident in the village. It encourages more community projects, governors etc. We must encourage local families to send their children to what is an established and excellent village school rather than being attracted by the neon lights and promises of other establishments. 

£229k is affordable by local standards. It won‘t buy you much in Wymondham. I moved out of Wymondham to Spooner Row because of the affordability. I do appreciate it is a challenge though. I suppose it is a balancing act. 

Anonymous wrote:

---

£229k is affordable by local standards. It won‘t buy you much in Wymondham. I moved out of Wymondham to Spooner Row because of the affordability. I do appreciate it is a challenge though. I suppose it is a balancing act. 

---

 I’m surprised Spooner row is cheaper than Wymondham, but £229k seems reasonable to me  for a house in a village with good transport links, pub and school. It’s only worth what someone will pay though! 

I will have to differ on some points made previously. Spooner Row does not have good transport links, there is no bus service and the train service is far from good, one or two trains a day! If you live here you will know that. £229K is not affordable for most people.

Surface water flooding is a major concern for several residents in Spooner Row. Your flippant comment, "a small number of houses did suffer water ingress," should not be taken so lightly. This 'small' number will increase if more houses are built on fields that flood.

The recent rain has left parts of the recreation field waterlogged even several days later. It does not flow away. The Environment Agency provides information on river and sea flooding, it does not provide information on waterlogged fields caused by a lack of adequate drainage systems and clay soil. 

You appear to be someone who is supportive of housing developments in Spooner Row which is not what most people want.

And now there is a fasting flowing river running across the drive and because of them being built the houses surrounding have been flooded! 

Who is responsible for this? Clearly something wasn’t done properly!! 

Yes, I am supportive of affordable housing.  Young families benefit the school and are the future of any village. 

As for Mr. Halls earlier comment back to the Willow Drive resident who posted earlier that the resident should contact the developer himself, this was wrong.  It is time for our District Councillor to find out from South Norfolk District Council when the affordable housing will be built on Chapel Road.

Regarding transport links, every house in the village has a car out front.  As long as people can drive the majority are not bothered about catching a bus.  This is a rural location with good road links; Wymondham, Attleborough, Thetford, Norwich, Cambridge - very much a straight road to each and every one.  Good road links matter to residents, not buses or trains.

As to my comment relating to water ingress, how can such a factual statement be considered flippant?  Are you implying that a far greater number of houses suffered rainwater damage or just misreporting my words to suit your narrative?  Excess water events are becoming more frequent.  We know this.  Clay soils in Norfolk?  Any geography student at Wymondham High could tell you this.  Water on the playing field – try clearing the ditches that haven’t been touched in years.  Surface water on a field that drains naturally away in a matter of hours or a few days shows me that the flood plain is doing its job.  Spooner Row en mass did not flood last week but unfortunately several properties did suffer damage.  

If I was the owner of Cantley Villas I would be wanting to know where all the surface water drains run from all of the properties located up from me.  Water does not flow uphill, so from Queensland to The Ridings, the question has to be why did so much surface water end up at Cantley Villas?  What has changed from previous years?  It might be time for the residents on that side of Station Road to get together and work out a solution. 

"Spooner Row has had some major flooding in the past.My mother tells me it used to be nick named the Dyke".

I was taken by this comment from an earlier Anonymous poster, so much so that I sought out a resident that has lived in Spooner Row all his life and asked him if he had ever heard the village or any part of the village referred to as "the Dyke".   The answer backed up my own experience, as his answer was no.

As someone that has lived in the village for 52 years I would add that I have also never heard Spooner Row referred to as the Dyke.

Julian you are a top man! And do not let anyone else say otherwise!
You have broad shoulders so I know you won’t care,but let me sum this up.You strive to make spooner row a lovely place to live.

You have excellent values,you care about the residents,you care about wildlife.You are a man who cares about his community.

Get off his back,the few who for whatever reason do not agree.Or are so small minded that they belittle people on here by picking up on grammar etc.

My mother was resident 57 years ago,and NO. Was not lying when she said The Dyke.

It was flooded from the boars/ shop and also on the way to wymondham at the bridge.

So my dad couldn’t get to work.

People are all too quick to criticise,have more compassion in2021 or don’t bother posting as most decent folk think you are a joke.

I am the owner of No 1 Cantley Villas and we are investigating why our home got flooded on Christmas Eve with the help of other residents. We want to make sure our home doesn't get damaged like this again and that it doesn't happen to anyone else in the future.