Spooner Row Message Board

The key thing here is that the District Council has a statutory duty to adhere to the requirements in the Local Plan such as to provide a footway in School Lane to accompany planning approval.

During the many public consultations for the formation of the South Norfolk Local Plan, it was made quite clear to the Planning Policy Team that the no-through road of School Lane was very narrow but we were assured that problems would be picked up during the planning process.  The inability of footway provision was picked up during the recent planning process but approval was gained anyway, which does suggest that their previous assurances were meaningless and false.

The Local Plan was very carefully checked word by word by the Independent Government Inspector over many months at South Norfolk and we even went to his Hearing on the School Lane concerns. The pedestrian refuge along with a multitude of other points was included when he deemed the Local Plan to be legal and sound and fit for purpose. It does rather diminish and make his efforts look pointless if the Council allows specific policies such as SPO2 (a pedestrian refuge requirement) to be disregarded.  I have been informed by SNC that the Local Plan is still current and legally compliant.

Just because they're not able to construct a wide enough footpath because the road isn't wide enough, is no reason to ignore this problem. They're obviously happy for pushchairs and wheelchairs to use the road, which was meant for vehicles not pedestrians. They would never get away with this in Wymondham or Norwich. An extended car park alone will not solve these problems as a lot of the vehicles using this road are nothing to do with the school.

Thats true. It's the bad standard of parking and lack of consideration that causes bad feeling.

A car park extension cannot be defined as a pedestrian refuge so its a bit of a non starter. The developer has given £10,000 which is a tiny amount by today's standads to build a footpath or "alternative". It's going to need a considerable amount more than that. who is expected to subsidise this developmet?

There are several excuses given by the Authorities on how this planning application (2016/0627) gained approval despite the legal non-compliance.  These include:

• It is an allocated site under the Local Plan Policy SP02 and therefore the principle of the development has been accepted.

This is a weak excuse as the Policy SP02 wording includes the provision of a pedestrian refuge from the new development to the school to provide safe access. As this section cannot be achieved, then that “principle” cannot stand as valid. The Policy does not discuss mitigation measures.

The District Council has supplied various comments based on different Planning Acts in order to override their South Norfolk Local Plan despite the Council confirming that its Local Plan is current and not out of date. Excuses include:

• Any adverse effects do not out way the benefits
• The decision must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise
• Development proposals should be granted planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits
• If the 5 year supply of housing cannot be demonstrated then the Local Plan is out of date (bearing in mind the Council recently ignored this with the Top Common planning application and refused it)

In total, this basically means that the District Council considers its lack of a 5 year land supply is more important than pedestrian safety on School Lane from the new houses resulting in all residents including wheelchair users, pushchair users, children and people with mobility needs all forced to use the carriageway dodging traffic because the footpath cannot be achieved.  Can they not see that people’s lives are more important than the need to keep building more and more houses way and beyond the required limit of 20 for this village?

I think the District Council has made its priorities quite clear.  Whatever happened to their code of conduct and duty of care?

The landowner/developer seems to be coming off very nicely with this development. £10,000 is a tiny contribution and is nowhere the cost of a car park extension. Who is going to fund the difference? I bet the Parish council plans to subsidise this using our taxes. 

Granted final permission without a footpath. Dangerous and ill-thought through.

I've got to hand it to South Norfolk District Council, they have achieved what they set out to do; to give the go-ahead to an unsuitable housing development on a narrow dangerous cul-de-sac.

Residents have objected to this throughout the many South Norfolk Local Plan Public Consultations over the years, and throughout this planning application, so the Council is fully aware of the hazardous situation, yet residents concerns have been ignored. We were right in that we believed it was a done deal years ago, so not surprised by the outcome. It was obvious to all and sundry, that School Lane was not wide enough to provide a pedestrian refuge/footway and we didn't need the Highways Authority to tell us that. 

The sparrow colony (a Red Listed species) had better find itself another roost before the ancient species-rich hedgerow is ripped out.

So, well done to South Norfolk Council with the power to do whatever it wants because it can. Those involved at the Council must be feeling very proud of themselves in promoting and approving this.

Not looking forward to the road accidents created by the extra traffic from the new builds.  Cannot believe there will be no pavement. School Lane is more like a track.

Thank you for that, Anonymous.

There are three areas where it can be considered that the District Council has gone wrong and fell short on School Lane:

1.  The allocated Site should never have been included in the Local Plan as any development here would make an existing dangerous highway situation worse. The road is not wide enough to provide a footpath yet they still included it as Policy (SPO2) even though it cannot be delivered. The Independent Government Inspector was provided with incorrect information before making his decision when declaring the Local Plan as sound and legal.

2.  The District Council has chosen and decided to give priority to a vague planning policy from the NPPF in order to build more houses over and above a specific Local Plan Policy (SPO2) to provide crucial pedestrian road safety and to prevent an existing dangerous road situation from becoming worse. Therefore this demonstrates that decision makers consider new house building to be more important than road safety on School Lane.

3.  The Planning Committee (called DMC) decided on three alternative options to a footway.  All of these for different reasons were either vague, irrelevant or bizarre, either way, they do not conform to the legal requirement for a pedestrian refuge from the development to the school. Nothing progressed with the undeliverable footway options so someone has given the plans a "final approval" without going back to the Planning Committee. It was to go back to Committee if this was the case.  This is a demonstration of a blatant lack of democracy and the result will endanger lives.  The District Council cannot say it is not their responsibility as it is, or what is the point of planning procedures and their declared Duty of Care?

Note: The plans had their "final approval "with the three ill-thought-out footpath options included as a Condition still to be resolved. Despite this manipulation, this is not what the Committee decided.

Highways:  The District Council has said that Highways has no objection. But actually, Highways has not said whether it objects or not.  There is a play on words here in that Highways has said that in principle the School Lane site has been accepted because it was an allocated site in the Local Plan Policy; this is not the same as having "no objection".

In a recent School Lane report issued by the Highways Authority in 2015, it said that although residents currently have to walk on the carriageway, development would increase pedestrian/vehicle conflict, of particular concern, are the more vulnerable such as small children. In that report, Highways recommended for it to be Refused.  Admittedly that report was for 16 dwellings but the point taken from this is that an increase in residential traffic is of concern.

So to be clear, Highways has not stated it has no objection to this planning application. It has, however, determined that the road is not wide enough for a footpath, which says it all.

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

Are there are more sites included in the local plan within the village? Which are outlined as suitable.. 

suitable? (never) but just passed anyway!

my comment reagrding planning Inspectors may have appeared jaded to some. Please note that on saturday tensi properties got their appeal at Breckland ( Watton )  for 177 flats and houses approved by the Inspector even though noboby wanted them, except Tensi of course and the Government. 

It could not clearer . Localism and local views are dead in the water and all these plans and policies are a complete FARCE so why not get rid of the Planners altogether and save us some money for mental health and caring sevices instead

Looking at this School Lane situation, how can planners and a planning committee strive to support a new development of seven FAMILY houses which will result in the new occupants having no choice but to walk on the crumbling road, together with no choice but having to compete with moving traffic for space? No footpath will not only result in children walking to school with this predicament but also children wanting to USE the recreation ground and play equipment where the pedestrian ENTRANCE is on School Lane and serves the whole village. Do the authorities concerned actually expect parents to control and supervise all children's every movement until they are 18 years old?

Committees and planners who choose to create a high-risk pedestrian environment MUST take responsibility.  On road safety, this is A DERELICTION OF DUTY.

Well done to all those who brought this to the public's attention.   It appears that the "holding up" of the development was of more concern to Lee Hornby than the provision of a suitable path.

why was this pushed through without a path and before a proper alternative solution was found? its common knowledge it was to go back for another consideration if nothing progressed and nothing did progress. The council has made decisions behind closed doors and the essential path lost without a duty of care. I cant see much point in the silly alternatives anyway as they cant protect those walking along the road.

on Wymondham Politics Facebook our own district councilor said  " Also it is law that every submitted planning application be considered fairly. "

maybe he needs to have a word with his council and familiarise himself with what is happening here and everywhere in Spooner row. 

Fair play with your conviction on this, but I feel as with most things planning related, it’s a waste of time.

All planning should be decided on a parish level with local people deciding, simples.

School Lane development (2016/0627) no pedestrian refuge supplied, while a legal requirement to provide one - Complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman:

After waiting nearly four months for the Ombudsman to publish its results in its weekly public newsletter, the outcome of my complaint has been listed with the following summary:

South Norfolk District Council

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a development close to her home. We have not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

I don’t know why the Ombudsman mentioned the proximity to my home as this was not included in my complaint as I specifically focused on the planning processes and procedures of SNC and the lack of highway compliance with this planning approval.  I submitted lots of accurate and detailed evidence (with the offer of more) which included relevant transcripts of the DMC planning meeting and a Councillor’s email stating that it was to return to the planning meeting if no highway solution was found for Condition 12 (which was not followed through).  Bear in mind that the Highways Authority had safety concerns of its own and its entry in the planning report included that Policy SPO2 for a pedestrian refuge has not been provided and needs to be amended to comply with that policy before commenting; and another entry regarding Policy DM3.11, that planning permission will not be granted for development which would endanger highway safety – in this case it does endanger highway safety to make an existing problem worse.  The actual policy wording in the South Norfolk Local Plan has been carefully and legally drafted (and adopted) and the wording has not been altered and must be adhered to otherwise what is the point of policies?  This and more (including details of the inaccurate Minutes) was covered in my complaint.

I can only assume all my detailed evidence provided to the Ombudsman was carefully assessed (investigated?) before it was concluded it would not investigate.  The Ombudsman also said in correspondence that it was a decision the Council was entitled to make, as well as no evidence of fault with the Council’s actions.  As the Ombudsman concluded that SNC was entitled to make that decision, then it is only just and proper that those concerned at SNC must be held accountable for the increase in highways dangers their decision will create.

Any private agreement between the Developer and the Council (with a financial contribution) is additional and does not change the legal compliance of highway safety policies unless SNC chooses to dismiss its policies.  SNC must take responsibility for its actions taken, rather, than the situation as it is at present, which is to put the onus on the Highways Authority to approve a highway scheme as yet unsubmitted and one that will not return to the DMC planning meeting for a final decision.  This is passing-the-buck to the Highways Authority for a legally required “pedestrian refuge” that cannot be met and where that requirement was established with substantial public consultation on Allocated Sites.

George Freeman MP advised me to go to the Ombudsman after he corresponded with SNC on this matter.  I have let him know my views and he has not replied.  Does a council’s “duty of care and safety” still exist, or has it been discarded?  I am of the opinion, that the current system for redress to the public via the Ombudsman (and the public consultation processes on planning applications) is biased in favour of councils and their cohorts and is a complete waste of time and money to both members of the public and the council (at taxpayers expense).