This planning application will be going before the Planning committee on the 13th Sep with the recommendation from Chris Raine the Planning officer that it be reduced to 8 houses and subject to flooding investigation work, AND that is be APPROVED
This despite numerous and quite eloquent objections from all and sundry including the School and Wymondham town council
It is apparently sustainable , a very moot point and as such can be granted even though it is outside the development boundary, on account of a lack of 5 year land supply
One has to say that this is yet another example of Localism , that is very valid LOCAL views and opinions and objections being completely ignored and a further illustration of the impotence of the Local Plan.
Here we go again, another planning application that won't be considered fairly and will be given approval, as failure to provide approval will have the council afraid there could be an appeal. The appeal based on the District Council's continual hopeless situation of not having itself a 5 year land supply, an open-ended state they've put us all in.
This has been going on for years and South Norfolk District Council needs to stop whining and whinging that it hasn't got itself a 5 year housing land supply and do something about it. It is really weak-willed and pathetic that it blames a neighbouring district council of this, how can our council allow itself to be influenced and controlled by a different constituency? Perhaps, just maybe, it likes it!? In the meantime, our lovely rural village is being ruined by unsustainable and uncontrolled developments. Who does this benefit?
The time limit for this application has been extended. I see that the Committee Report says that this application complies with relevant JCS policies, but it forgets to say that it doesn't comply with other relevant JCS policies such as the one that states Spooner Row is suitable for 10-15 new dwellings. This ill-devised development will make the total amount of new dwellings destined for Spooner Row to be over 60 new dwellings without the much-needed improvements to infrastructure to support them.
If you want to object, this is the email address: planning@s-norfolk.gov.uk
It says they have not received comments from the lead local flood authority (LLFA) as anticipated, and it has been delegated to the Director of Growth and Localism to decide.
My comments on the very biased report of the planning officer appear in italics and a much truncated version has been posted on the Planning website ( on account of their rubbish word limit)
Development Management Committee
It is evident that that the site is located outside of any development boundary and therefore Policy DM1.3 makes provision for development to be granted in such areas where one of two criterion are met including where there are overriding benefits in terms of economic, social and environmental dimensions as addressed in PolicyDM1.1.
On the basis of the above the following assessment seeks to establish the benefits of the scheme and any harm that would be caused in the
context of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, and in particular, with reference to the three dimensions (economic
role, social role and environmental role) and under each of these three headings the relevant South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies will be referred to.
Economic role
The NPPF confirms the economic role as:
"contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation: and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure."
This is rubbish as if it were true then why has the local plan identified this piece of land as being OUTSIDE the development boundary and where is the infrastructure ??
The scheme would result in some short term economic benefits as part of any construction work and in the longer term by local spending from the future occupants.
The key word here is short term. For a plan to be sustainable the three factors have to be in balance and short term is not vaguely applicable or within the definition of sustainable which has to be long term. It is what sustainable means !!
It is therefore considered that the scheme would bring forward a level of economic benefit.
As both points do not comply how can there be long term economic benefit?
Social Role
The NPPF confirms the social role as "supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations: and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-
being."
The local plan has already identified that a maximum of 20 plus 15 houses will be suitable for the village. How can this alleged high quality built environment be established where there is NO practical services within 3 miles. The lack of infrastructure does nothing to support health, social and cultural well being whatsoever!
Policy DM3.8 requires that development has a satisfactory relationship and integrates effectively with its surroundings. Whilst layout, scale and appearance are all to be considered at reserved matters stage, it is evident that a linear arrangement as proposed in the indicative layout would have appropriate regard for its surroundings. The use of a single point of vehicular access helps to minimise the impact upon the existing frontage development. The observations of the Senior Conservation and Design Officer in respect of the final design and layout can be agreed as part of any subsequent reserved matters application. For these reasons it is considered that the requirements of Policy DM3.8 are met.
As the final design has yet to be agreed how can DM3.8 be met?
Norfolk County Council has confirmed via their consultation response that the impacts on education (Spooner Row Primary School and Wymondham High Academy) and library provision (Hingham Library) would need to be funded through CIL.
The school is full , there is no library for 15 miles plus and you cannot keep adding portakabins where there is no space to provide them!!
The scale of the proposed development triggers the requirements for affordable housing expressed in Policy 4 of the Joint Core Strategy. The scheme would secure two units for affordable rent and the Council's Housing Enabling and Strategy officer has confirmed that this is acceptable.
They have confirmed that the would wish to see 1 x two bedroom unit
and 1 x three bedroom unit provided in any final scheme, the final size of the units can be agreed at reserved matters stage. A S106 legal agreement will secure the provision of the affordable housing units.
It is considered that the social role is satisfied.
I would suggest this is at best a moot point
Environmental Role
The NPPF confirms the environmental role as
"contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment: and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy."
How exactly is this proposal to rip out hedges contributing and in what way will biodiversity be improved ??
Policy DM4.5 requires development to respect, conserve and where possible enhance the landscape character of the locality. As noted above, whilst layout is reserved for consideration, a linear arrangement as indicated in the indicative scheme with limited loss of the existing hedgerow to the site frontage means that landscape character will be
adequately respected. The proposed new hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site will also help to limit the impact on the countryside and add ecological value and mitigate the loss of the section of hedgerow to the front of the site which his required to facilitate the site access. For these reasons the requirements of Policy DM4.5 are met.
Policy DM4.8 seeks to protect trees and hedgerows, the Council's Arboriculturalist has assessed the scheme and confirmed that the quantity of hedgerow to be removed to facilitate the site access would be adequately mitigated by the proposed planting of a new hedge on the southern boundary. Moot point
With regard to existing trees, it has been requested that further details are provided showing the calculated root protection areas and how they will protection during development. It is considered that given that the final layout will be agreed at reserved matters stage these details can be provided in support of a scheme at that stage rather than as part of the outline application. It is evident that the site size and configuration when
having regard to the level of development proposed and the position of the existing trees that a scheme for 8 dwellings could be provided without causing unacceptable harm to the trees. For this reason the requirements of Policy DM4.8 are met.
It cannot be met as it has yet to be agreed !
The Council’s Environmental Quality Team have requested conditions in relation to contamination be attached to any subsequent permission. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has raised a number of concerns which have necessitated further information be provided by the applicant. This has been submitted and is currently being considered by
the LLFA their views will be updated to the Development Management Committee. On the basis that their concerns are addressed the requirements of Policy DM3.14 would be met.
The fact that this application has been deferred is obviously questioning how these concerns will be met so DM3.14 has not been met !
The application is supported by an ecology report which has been assessed by the Council's ecologist who has confirmed that subject to a condition to implement the measures set out in the report they have no objections.
Conditions are also recommended to ensure an appropriate foul water connection is secured and the new dwellings would meet the required water efficiency standards of policy 3 of the JCS.
In summary, it is considered that the environmental role is satisfied.
Once again the key issues have yet to be addressed so how can they be met ?
In conclusion one of the criteria has not been satisfied at all and the others have questionable basis of acceptance. As they are not all satisfied in equal measure the application is NOT sustainable and being outside the development boundary the application, according the NPPF should automatically fail
Is it just me, but has anyone else noticed that the more inappropriate a planning application is, the more absurd, waffly and stupid the council's planning reports become? The only comments that appear grounded with common sense are Julian Halls response to their nonsense.
I read in the Mercury this week that South Norfolk and Broadland District Councils might merge to save costs. Perhaps South Norfolk Council could take the opportunity and ask Broadland nicely if it would sort out its own housing land supply, which in turn will stop the influence it has over South Norfolk, causing a lack of 5 year housing land supply here. This has been going on a bit too long and is devastating parts of South Norfolk's countryside. How can one independent district council have such a devastating control and effect over another?
It's all about justification as all our most recent/proposed developments are outside the parish boundary. As you say, it is very possible to be taken in with all the long winded policies put forward to justify a possible development.
It was also established that it was sound and legal under various council policies that 10-20 new dwellings were sustainable for Spooner Row, which implies that more than that is unsustainable and we are way in excess of 20 now. Only the council itself is taken in by its own long-winded justification for the massive excess in development, not anyone else. What about the council justifying why it is upsetting residents by allowing unsympathetic developments, some with clear dangerous outcomes and problems for the future and obviously lacking in any form of sustainability.
No doubt, this pants development will like all the others get approved. It must be quite an insult for the resident overlooking this development, who wanted to build just one sympathetic and sustainable new dwelling on Top Common, but had it refused. The council seems to be operating in an Alice Through the Looking-Glass world.
Hasn't this received its planning "approval" yet? It's glaringly obvious that it is completely unsuitable on this open agricultural field with poor drainage, on a busy lorry route, with no bus service or footpath, opposite the primary school and village car park. All important but inconsequential as long as more unsustainable houses are approved. Don't you just love the rubbish planning service that we get provided with?.....
I am advised that the Director of Growth and Localism has now left that role altogether and that Adam Nicholls has taken up the Head position at Gt yarmouth. We are therefore without head Planners and all aspects in that regard and that level are being handled by Broadland Planners.
Word on the street is that this is not good.
As you are aware this is what the leader of the Council wants to happen , BUT I am assured this is a temp fix , waiting for a proper decision and that local decisions will still be made locally. Mellors is the name that keeps popping up for local matters.
Does the leader of the council want this to happen? This does not inspire confidence in him. Seems there are quite a few planning/growth officers leaving South Norfolk of late. Not that I was impressed with them anyway.
