Spooner Row Message Board

Post Info TOPIC: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


New residential planning application - Reference 2018/1528 | Proposed residential development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow. | The Bungalow Station Road Spooner Row NR18 9JR

details: https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PBASMAOQM2600

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


I would like to know what consists of affordable housing for the front plots on this site? Does this mean social housing - council owned or shared ownership like the other two which were recently built in the village and sold by warners. Shared ownership  local people with connections to the village would be a good idea- if this goes ahead?? Which I expect it will... as outline permission was granted in 2012.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


Outline permission in 2012 was for 5 dwellings and for the family use, I believe. This one incorporates double the number of houses, the removal of hedgerow, removal of trees and infilling of the pond. This will surely have a wildlife impact, but apparently, from the report, it won't.



__________________
julian halls

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


to whoever

Predetermination rules do not allow me to comment upon this application formally until the matter is heard at the Council

I note however some matters that others might wish to comment upon which will allow me to voice your views at Council. I will be brief

  1. there is presumption that because 5 houses were granted for family use this will simply get rubber stamped for 10. This is not the case
  2. 11 trees will be removed as will a pond which I would have thought is an ideal attenuation measure to deal with flooding issues
  3. there are apparently no bats or reptiles on site which I find quite extraordinary
  4. the development is the largest it can be without any section 106 money being involved
  5. it once again breaches the development numbers (permitted ) for the village
  6. it makes reference to regular bus and train services??
  7. there is no footpath to the A11 which apparently , as it is not visible ??? means this application does not form part of the A11 corridor development
  8. the road has a low traffic status ?? and reference to it being a HGV route is absent
  9. it will potentially compromise the traffic calming measures and produce yet another junction with multiple traffic movements just yards from the school junction where additional development is already approved opposite and proposed in Top common 
  10. the details of the sewage disposal arrangements are missing although masses of paperwork on design ( I may have missed this)
  11. Infrastructure improvements ??

 

Julian Halls



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

This site runs alongside the playing field and anyone can see the bats flying from over there at dusk. The development would cause more devastation to the wildlife in this village particularly with the number of trees to be felled.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

Tough proposed measures from Highways;    the developers are to be applauded for their intention to retain the hedge.   Hopefully at least some of the hedge will be retained :   there are many enclaves of housing in Norfolk which sit happily behind hedges.

"Your Authority should also be aware that to provide visibility (along with the footway), the existing frontage hedge (at least in part) is likely to be removed. This is in contrast to page 7 of the Design & Access Statement which suggest the entire frontage hedge will remain.   The layout of the development does little to enhance a sense of place by hiding the development behind hedges. In order to enhance the gateway into the village and help achieve better compliance with the 30mph speed limit the layout should include frontage dwellings which have direct access onto Station Road. Subject to their being frontage dwellings on both sides of the new access road the existing 30mph speed limit should be extended to encompass the whole site frontage and the adjacent junction with Top Common. An enhancement to the village gateway should be provided. This may include addition of  the village nameplate to the terminal signs and implementing a 30mph roundel on Station Road."

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


I am also concerned about the removal of so many trees (wildlife habitat destruction), flood risk further downhill from this development (and where is the sewage going to go?), and access onto the busy HGV route which everyone local struggles with now because of the lorries.

Thankfully the Town Council at Wymondham recommended refusal for the application on 7/8/18 -  http://wymondhamtc.norfolkparishes.gov.uk/category/meetings/minutes/planning-lighting-highways-minutes/

 



__________________
Richard

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


It seems to me that Town Council often recommend a refusal to a lot of applications, but these then get passed at District. Why is it that the Town's views are over-ridden so frequently? It would appear that putting the matters before the Town Council is merely a "box-ticking" exercise which carries no weight.....



__________________
julian Halls

Date:
Permalink   
 

you are spot on and District openly says they turn over Parish /Town views because they are looking at the wider picture . Need for houses etc etc

To be frank that is tosh and what they are looking at is rate income, a new home initiative bung they get from the Govt for every new hous e built and it has been suggested that there are also other influences at play

The fact that the we have a development limit long since apparently abandoned and that the new houses do not add ( usually) anything whatsoever to the infrastruture which even our Tory MP is very unhappy about, is heartening but at times it seems that our District Council is in thrall to Central Govt Policy so anything goes. 

It does carry some weight but not as much as it should

Next May might be interesting assuming the country has not gone bust by then !



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

I asked a friend who is a planner at Breckland about this a while ago who says that there is a great deal of nimbyism in Norfolk so when a town council refuses almost every new house proposal then their opinion does carry less weight over time. We should pick our battles more strategically.

There is a huge field behind this which has gone forward in a 'regulation 18' that would have a devastating impact on Spooner Row.  How do we get our comments across on this as there is no planning application made at present, but a process must be running on it? I feel as though our best chance is to stop plots from getting onto a local plan so it deters developers from even getting to planning stage.

 

 

 

 


__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


Anonymous wrote:

Tough proposed measures from Highways;    the developers are to be applauded for their intention to retain the hedge.   Hopefully at least some of the hedge will be retained :   there are many enclaves of housing in Norfolk which sit happily behind hedges.

"Your Authority should also be aware that to provide visibility (along with the footway), the existing frontage hedge (at least in part) is likely to be removed. This is in contrast to page 7 of the Design & Access Statement which suggest the entire frontage hedge will remain.   The layout of the development does little to enhance a sense of place by hiding the development behind hedges. In order to enhance the gateway into the village and help achieve better compliance with the 30mph speed limit the layout should include frontage dwellings which have direct access onto Station Road. Subject to their being frontage dwellings on both sides of the new access road the existing 30mph speed limit should be extended to encompass the whole site frontage and the adjacent junction with Top Common. An enhancement to the village gateway should be provided. This may include addition of  the village nameplate to the terminal signs and implementing a 30mph roundel on Station Road."

  

 


 The NCC Highway's comments state that the hedge would need to be removed because of the visibility splays and requirement of a new footway.  This is contrary to what the developers claim on their Design and Access Statement. Why should the developer be "applauded" for that misrepresentation? Spooner Row is losing too many of it's historic and long-established hedges due to housing developments.  This garden development originally had planning permission for 5 new dwellings, 10 dwellings would be detrimental to this site.

According to CPRE, local councils are supposed to be strengthening hedgerow protection, is SNC doing this? It is pointless to replace established hedgerow with new as it will take decades to reach the same biodiverse and wildlife value.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

I see that this has been recommended for approval by the District Council ready for its planning meeting tomorrow, this is despite the concerns of the Parish Council who recommended it for refusal. See Agenda report  https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/development_management_committee_agenda_7_november_2018.pdf

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


So once again the planners are ignoring objections and recommending acceptance. It beggars belief



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


Thanks for the link to this report which is interesting.   It seems that the developers now have acceptance that affordable housing is not viable in this development even though it is a requirement that 10 dwellings generates an obligation for 3 affordable homes.      The infrastructure provision  : demolition of the existing bungalow and outbuildings, installation of a private sewage treatment plant, soakaways, an extension to Station Road footpath and other service infrastructure costs renders the provision of affordable housing unviable.  Interesting points at 3.5. SNC Housing Enabling and Strategy Officer, also 4.15, 4.22, 4.28, and 4.29.

4.15 Whilst the number of dwellings proposed is greater than the number originally approved (5 dwellings, plus the bungalow), it is considered, that in principle, providing an additional 4 dwellings within a village which is identified as a service village in the JCS and is in the Norwich Policy Area would reflect the aspirations of paragraph 127 of the NPPF to optimise the potential of a site, and, is in principle, acceptable, subject to the scheme satisfying all relevant planning policies in respect of matters such as design, neighbour amenity, highway safety etc.

"4.22. The proposed scheme would provide housing in a location where the JCS identifies a shortfall in housing land supply against requirements which would represent a social benefit. However, the significance of this benefit is diminished by the most recent evidence of the updated SHMA which identifies a housing land supply in excess of 8 years and this is material consideration in determining this application "

 

4.28 Policy 4 of the Joint Core Strategy would normally require 33% of dwellings on the site to be for affordable housing. However, this policy also allows for the proportion of affordable housing sought and the balance of tenures to be amended where it can be demonstrated that site characteristics, including infrastructure provision, together with the requirement for affordable housing would render the site unviable.

4.29 Information has been submitted in the form of a viability appraisal to demonstrate that the number of affordable dwellings as approved renders the scheme unviable. This is due to a number of additional costs associated with the proposals as set out in the planning application, which include the demolition of the existing bungalow and outbuildings, installation of a private sewage treatment plant, soakaways, an extension to Station Road footpath and other service infrastructure costs. The District Valuer has considered this information and agrees with the conclusion that development of the site with three affordable dwellings is not viable and that the scheme is only marginally viable allowing for the provision of no affordable housing or commuted sum in lieu of the provision of on-site affordable housing. In light of this, the Housing Enabling and Strategy Officer has assessed the application and also the conclusions of the District Valuers report and has raised no objection to the application

Will the condition/cost of providing sewerage facilities in the village be constantly used as a lever to avoid the affordable housing requirement ? 

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


so more double speak from the Planners to justify a Policy of affordable housing provision being torn up when the developer apparenntly will not make enough profit !!

We need the houses and we need affordable ones but HEY let's ignore that bit

This is truly pathetic and it questions the need for Planners existence in my view.

Let us have free for all unless you want to build a single house on Top Common when apparently that is not permitted



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

What! The planers have ignored the no affordable housing requirement! Therefore more profit for the developer and more trees and hedge to be removed. The report says 'the owner of the site is known to an employee, or close relative of South Norfolk Council'. That's convenient. 



__________________
julian halls

Date:
Permalink   
 

The readers will no doubt be pleased to learn that despite UNIVERSAL local opposition and following (from a developer submission)  that basically says not enough profit will be made by having to build 3 affordable homes, this application has been passed by SNDC without the need to build any affordable homes.

It was referred to committee but has once again this has not made one jot of difference. 

Several conditions we need to carefully watch to ensure they are adhered to but as minimal enforcement staff available ......

What is the point of having a 33% affordable home provison which you then ignore?

What is the point of having a service village designation with a maximum number of houses permitted which you then ignore?

I could go on but it is bad for the BP

Yet another brilliant decision made by SNDC Planning committee ?? You decide !



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


This is appalling. Ten luxury properties and not enough profit to be made to include affordable homes for local people. Seems strange that there was enough profit when there was planning permission a few years ago for just 5 houses. 

Has SNC lost the plot?



__________________
julian Halls

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


it would appear so

I will be e mailing the Housing Enabling and Strategy officer to ask for clarification on where the Policy is that says you can ignore planning Policy when it suits ( Irony) and to explain which policies are affected by this change of Policy 

Confused??  Yes so am I. 

Permitted development numbers is another example,  as is outside the development boundary. Up to now the excuse has been although not sustainable , a term widely abused and misunderstood, that there is no 5 year land supply so we can ignore that bit as they might appeal

I heard a rumour that might have changed so we appear to be on the next raft of excuses from developers to basically do what they damn well want aided and abetted , it would once again appear, by SNC and Planners

Sod lack of local opinion against and no infrastructure and now no affordable housing either.

Clearly Planning Policy is a complete joke doing the exact opposite to that intended. Sorry if that smarts SDC as I know you monitor this site, but tell me I am wrong and then prove it



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


Julian, perhaps you could ask SNC for the specific details of where and when their planning policies were changed as they are legally obliged to implement them. Or is it now policy to ignore their own policies? If so can SNC provide evidence of this and who decided? They may claim the NPPF (Nation Planning Policy Framework) overrides their own planning policies but the NPPF is actually ambiguous and can be interpreted from many angles, so it actually comes down to SNC and the choices that this council decides to make. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/740441/National_Planning_Policy_Framework_web_accessible_version.pdf



__________________
Julian Halls

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


I posted this on Wymondham Ways and Rob Fenton has already asked the question and this was the astonishing reply.

I did some research and have edited an article from the Guardian

 

23 November 13:06

So the “why is this question” needs an answer.

 This is what I ( Rob Fenton ) gleaned from various sources today.

Developers can ask planning depts for a valuers report. They submit their estimates and costs and their anticipated profit to the council who get it reviewed externally. The developers show two sets of figures - with and without compliant percentage of affordable homes.

 The reviewer tests their assumptions / figures and reworks the numbers where needed.

The government in the National Planning Policy Framework says that a developers profit for purposes of decisions should be between 15 and 20%.

 There ARE checks and balances in the system ( apparently )but if the anticipated profit goes below 15% then planning depts are likely to vote in favour of the developer.

 I guess they could decide to stick with their local policy ( 30% provision of affordable homes) but they run the risk of developers not building anything at all if the risk/reward profile isn’t acceptable.

After the Guardian March 2018

 

Developers are required by local authorities to provide a proportion of affordable homes – often about 30% – in any new development. However many use “viability assessments” to negotiate down the number by arguing that the requirement would adversely affect their profit margins. ( 20% or less)

Last year Shelter conducted research showing that the use of viability assessments in 11 local authorities across England contributed to 79% fewer affordable homes being built in urban areas of England than would have been if local rules had been followed to the letter.

The CPRE having looked at eight rural councils over one year, have revealed that half the affordable homes which councils were asking the developers to build were lost when viability assessments were used.

 

My comments

 

A call to the Government to revise the NPPF so far has fallen on deaf ears

It would appear that affordable Housing provision is now is based on rules embedded in Ferengi philosophy ( see Star Trek ) and is the latest weapon being used by developers to not build affordable houses and keep profits up

Using Orwellian misquotes , it would appear that whilst all animals are equal some are more equal than others when it comes to making money and this is being used like a cart and horses to completely undermine so called low cost affordable housing provision

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


This is appalling. Superficially it looks good, but in reality, the system stinks. 

These new houses aren't even that energy efficient, which no doubt is also to increase profits. It's all about a handful of greedy people who want to get rich quick and who don't give a damn about anything else.



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


So ....................... the oft quoted phrase "much needed homes" is in fact a hollow one.  Who are these 'much needed homes' for - they are at present primarily 3, 4, and 5 bedroom homes so where does this leave the affordable homes for those anxious to get on the housing ladder ?



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

Is the hedge which runs along the edge of the playing field going to removed? And panel / some sort of fencing behind?

i think it's really sad this is going ahead.. especially considering they have managed to escape the affordable housing!! It's so unfair for local families...



__________________
julian Halls

Date:
Permalink   
 

an update which has to my surprise ( humble pie eating) brings to your attention the fact thet the Govt are working towards closing the loophole on affordabilty that allows NO affordable homes to be built.

Below is the latest position

Legal guidance on viability assessments

The updated planning practice guidance on viability sits alongside the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2018), both of which were published on 24 July 2018.

The NPPF 2018 is to be used for all planning decisions taken from that date. For plans in the plan-making process, those submitted on or before 24 January 2019 will be examined against the original National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and the previous guidance.

The updated guidance advocates use of viability assessments at the plan-making, rather than the decision-taking, stage. An Existing Use Value plus approach is required which categorically excludes the price paid for the land being used in viability assessments. The guidance also seeks to standardise the inputs into viability assessments.

Clawback

There’s one other step the Council sometimes takes in these cases and this is a so-called “clawback”. This is a requirement for developers who have under-provided affordable housing to provide details of their costs/income when the development is complete. Again this will be subject to independent scrutiny and if the developer's profits have been significantly higher than their initial projection, the Council can “clawback” some of these profits to help provide affordable housing somewhere in the District.

My comments 

So in brief (VERY) anything prior to the 24th Jan 2019 can be considered under the old NPPF guidelines in respect to viability assessments BUT there might be a clawback option the council can invoke. I am sure the developers will be keen to show that there has not been undue profits and higher than expected costs and will the Planners be able to have the time/staff / resources to check this?

 Sorry that is me being the cynic as ever

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


There is a revised planning application, Ref 2020/0955, Variation of conditions 2 and 11 of 2018/1528 - amendments to house types and revised flood risk assessment, The Bungalow, Station Road

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=QBE3I2OQJGU00&activeTab=summary

How much established hedgerow will be removed?



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


And yet again the affordable housing is dropped, the council really need to stop this happening everytime there is a development. The developers get the permission and then change the plans as they can’t afford it, what a joke! 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

Hi, I am the developer of this site.
 
I can confirm that there is no additional hedgerow to be removed over and above what was approved with the original application.
 
If you have any specific enquiries about this scheme, please feel free to contact me directly. My email address is ben@hestia-realestate.com 
 
Kind Regards
 
Ben Morgan
Director of Hestia Real Estate


__________________
Ben Morgan

Date:
Permalink   
 

Hi, I am the developer of this site.
 
I can confirm that there was no affordable housing requirement with the original approved application so nothing has been dropped with this variation of condition.
 
If you have any specific enquiries about this scheme, please feel free to contact me directly. My email address is ben@hestia-realestate.com 
 
Kind Regards
 
Ben Morgan
Director of Hestia Real Estate


__________________
julian Halls

Date:
Permalink   
 

I think the question here given that the Policy is for 30% affordable and given that this change  is to increase viability ( profits) I would suggest to you that now is the ideal opportunity to provide some affordable housing.

Could I also refer to you my post of the December 2nd 2018 above , which given that this variation is now dated 2020 I would have thought becomes relevant as to provide no affordable housing could indeed be regarded as under provision,  in relation to Clawback and policy in a village with no , to date, affordable houses having been built. What was promised was reduced quite severely, on grounds which were, in my view and others not justified, by South Norfolk . 

What is the point of a policy if it can be ignored and this is something I feel very strongly about 



__________________
julian Halls

Date:
Permalink   
 

sorry my comment is unclear and in one respect technically wrong

The reduction in affordable houses does NOT apply to this site and strictly the only matters under consideration here are the amendment to the TWO conditions placed on the original PP

I still think that the fact that the affordable housing policy was ignored on the original and passed was wrong, but I suspect is not within the remit of the variation application

We still do not have a single house built so far in the village which is described as affordable and that has to be wrong



__________________
Robert Foster

Date:
Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


Speaking as a resident, it appears to me that individuals (Anonymous and others) should research their concerns before taking to the keyboard, as this would avoid fake news.

It is wrong to tar Mr Morgan and his company Hestia Real Estate with the same brush as those developers that have reduced their numbers of affordable homes in our community.  Mr Morgan obtained planning permission from South Norfolk Council and his development permission does not require him to provide affordable homes.

It is also worth remembering that those developers that have reduced affordable home numbers have only been able to do so with the consent of South Norfolk Council.  So coming back to Anonymous and anyone else that wishes to complain about the lack of affordable homes in our community, may I suggest that you formally take the matter up with your representative at South Norfolk Council, District Councillor Mr Julian Halls.  Our District Councillor is well placed to deal with such concerns as he happens to sit on the very committee that sets the council’s own rules on this matter, the Regulation & Planning Policy Committee.  If you evidence concerns through the right channels then things might start to change for the good of all within this community but sniping from the sidelines as an anonymous poster gets us nowhere.

And finally, we should be careful not to demonise all developers as bad developers, when the fact is that many local jobs depend on building houses.  The newly started site at Cantley Villas is a good example; the 3 men on this site are all local lads.  The digger driver was from Horsford.  MW Surfacing did the work this week to lower the kerb and his 2 girls go to the village school. With things as they are at the moment, we should be glad that trades are working and wage packets earned.

 

 

 

(Thank you for your view regarding anonymous postings. This anon issue has been raised on numerous occasions. The option to post anonymously is welcomed by users of this forum and will remain.

Webstation)

 -- Edited by webstation on Thursday 18th of June 2020 12:16:50 AM



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

Dear Robert Foster,

I don't see any evidence of specifically naming and tarring Mr Morgan and his company on this website. I guess you have also done your research (before taking to the keyboard with your concerns) to direct us where this appears? From what I can see, Mr Morgan has merely replied to general comments about a planning variation.

I would also say that no one is demonising all developers, but residents are concerned about the level of development for Spooner Row without the essential infrastructure and the lack of any affordable housing. Residents are entitled to their opinions.



__________________
julian Halls

Date:
RE: Planning application 2018/1528 - Station Road, development of 10 dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow
Permalink   
 


Being named may I give my response to the suggestion I can influence policy and ultimately any decisions.

To be clear I have as Wymondham Town council rep on Planning in the past and now as as District councillor, consistently opposed a relaxtion of the rules to allow no or much reduced level of affordable ( so called ) housing provision .

If the majority of the committee for whatever reason deem to allow this there is nothing I can do about it but I do still object so no need to convince me.

There is a 30% policy to provide affordable but when a developer suddenly decides he is not making enough profit, he/she/they  want to reduce the number of affordable houses based on what is to be frank a smoke and mirrors calculation.

To be clear this is where farm land , at very low purchse price suddenly becomes magically development land at a premium price and THAT is used in the calculation, then that has to be wrong.

In this part of the world the land value office allow this charade to continue but in other parts of this country is it is rightly chucked out and there is reference to this in the ORIGINAL application but of course it was buried, Dated 15th October 2018 from Pathway although this was in reference to a CIL calculation ( community infrastructure calculation ) which is money that comes in part to the local community.

Let's be clear here, the revised site scheme, and the original come to that  is there to make money otherwise what is the point, and Planning as was and in my view, as is , is so riddled with contradictory policies that developers runs rings the planners in this process.

This is a very sad state of affairs on so many levels but I come back to my original comment. What is the point of having an affordable housing provision policy which gets promptly ignored , even if it was NOT originally granted 

 

 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   
 

I found this on the internet. 

Between 35 per cent and 50 percent of all housing development of 10 or more homes will have to be affordable housing

I think Julian as a valid point.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard