Spooner Row Message Board

This is totally disgusting! How can it be allowed?

All about money making.. at everyone else's expense!

We really need affordable housing, not these over priced - over sized - horrible looking houses for half a million..

This is the Mercury article  http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/locations-of-thousands-of-homes-revealed-1-5618193

Nobody moved to Spooner Row to live in a building site with massive development around them, although there are a few residents who support the landowners doing this. 

There needs to be more affordable housing for local people, not more executive houses to increase the profits of the few.

What is the f**King point of making it a requirement to have affordable homes at a certain level only to get your permission and then ask for the number to be drastically lowered at a later date

.....(edited).....

-- Edited by webstation on Saturday 28th of July 2018 01:57:36 PM

The Chapel Road and Bunwell Road developments were/are part of the same planning approval. I think I am correct in saying, that it was decided that Chapel Rd was to take all of the Bunwell Rd allocations of affordable housing. If this is the situation, then this arrangement must be honoured. Low price agricultural land makes a phenomenal profit when converted into housing. I can't see how the developer can claim in its Planning Statement that "delivery of the full 13 affordable dwellings is not economically viable".  More, not less affordable housing is needed in this village.

This is a planning application to revise existing plans. It is the normal procedure and nothing unusual or wrong. It is up to the planners at SNC to decide if this is allowed or not and they are aware of the need for affordable homes in Spooner Row. Lets see what they do.

Policy is for 30% to be provided as part of the planning process and to say 'oh sorry not making enough profit so need to reduce number of affordable homes ' is tosh AND against declared Govt Policy but will the Tory controlled ( business orientated) majority on the Planning committee remember that when it comes to allowing or refusing this variation. I wonder ?

Letter to South Norfolk justifying , reduction of affordable home provision

This unexpurgated version in part of article appearing in the Wymondham and Att news

It says: “Following construction of the first eight dwellings on Bunwell Road, and having sought offers from three registered providers for the affordable dwellings, it has become apparent that delivery of the full 13 is not economically viable.”
The developer said because the site was split across two locations - Bunwell Road and Chapel Road - infrastructure costs including sewage treatments for both sites meant it was no longer able to provide as many affordable homes.

The proposed changes also include increasing some of the homes in size, in keeping with market demand.

The statement says: “The previous scheme provided a mix of dwellings to meet the local affordable housing need, and the need for market housing differs. For example, there is no market need for one-bedroom houses.”

The amendments also seek to reduce the amount of open space included in the development.

Jack Hornby, South Norfolk councillor for the Cromwells ward, said: “Obviously it is very disappointing - we do have a target for affordable homes to reach, but at the same time I do understand that sometimes these can’t be delivered.

“However, there must be a good reason for this, otherwise the application would not have been made.

“South Norfolk Council is already among the councils delivering the most affordable homes in the county, so we take this very seriously.

“Sometimes these things do happen, but it will be up to us to decide if the reasons are good enough.”

I can't believe this would be allowed. It is very disappointing to read the attitude in the above posting, of our elected district councillor.  Does he need to live in an affordable house like many others?

This revised application, if approved, will make a joke of the local Housing Strategy.

Land at Chapel Road and Bunwell Road - Variation of condition 2 from planning consent 2016/2424 - to vary the approved plans for the Chapel Road site only, reducing the number of affordable homes from 13 to 6 with associated minor revisions to the layout and design.

Comments by 25th January 2019

ref   2018/1622

WTC without my help as I was predetermined on this, thinking it was not coming back to council !! decidely unanimously to stick with original comment that all 13 should be built not just 6

This is what I had already said on the South Norfolk Portal

yet another example of wonderful planning in action TOTALLY against local wishes and need. Sustainable development , promoting transport ?? where and how exactly to name but two of the policies this is supposed to support.

Planning who suggested approval are a disgrace and the commitee likewise

Our District Councillor doesn't give a jot about the residents of Spooner Row.

The developer should have done his calculations better in the first place as he would have employed experts and spoke with the planners at the council. If it had been done properly the Evaluer wouldn't have been involved at a later stage to make changes that impact on the local community. The "system" shouldn't just cater for the developer.

The Planning Committee members need a better understanding of what they are giving approval for in general - or perhaps they just don't give a damn? How qualified are they in planning affairs anyway?

Half the number of affordable homes at Spooner Row approved by Planning committee at South Norfolk to what was agreed earlier and this despite WTC firmly opposing this change, twice now.

An article in the local rag listens carefully to the arguments that not enough profit will be made by the developer if ‘I am forced to build the original number of affordable homes’. Curious then that that relentless rise in costs has not stopped him building the high profit high end ones at the other end of the village. The argument is somehow twisted to say that he has had to provide double the support services. Did he not know this when he put this stupid double site plan together? Of course he did and the suggestion that he is generously giving money to the local school and the village hall is tosh , as he has to by law !! And where is the evidence that construction has started on early phases of the new site? There is none.

The Tory controlled planning committee have wimped out once again and given in to the developer allegedly regrettably, but wimped out they have.

It is all about money. Promise this and promise that to get PP then renage on these because they know SDC will cave in because they want the Govt bung payable for every house they pass and have hardly any staff to do enforcement anyway

The letter is brilliant and I suspect is about as popular as a ...(edited)...  As it is 4 pages of very technical and legal commentary I have attempted a summary of key points.

Please read the letter in full if you have concerns and please bear in mind this is my reading of the letter and my understanding of it. It is not necessarily my view that it being expressed here but it is my interpretation of what Mr Robinson has said, and it does raise some very valid points and concerns. 

• The writer has serious concerns as to how a deed of variation can apply to two quite seperate sites and cannot understand the new deed can remove the affordable housing provision agreed previously
• The committee report prepared by the Planners is silent on key points and whilst clearly stating there are no grounds for refusal in the light of the information submitted they rely heavily on the conclusion made by the DVS property specialists that in their view the provison of 13 affordable houses in not viable
• The writer says quite clearly the use the land value based upon its previous value as Farm land as opposed to developed land is nonsense and that once the correct value is used it will be viable if all the affordable houses as outlined originally, 13 are built 
• The council were wrong to rely on the Property valuers conclusions alone ( a very clear side swipe at the Planners )
• As the land is already in the ownership of the developer to suggest that that there is an on going borrowing cost in nonsensical
• The profit once the suggested and clearly erroneous  calculations listed above are taken in to consideration, would in fact be nearly 2 million for the 13 affordable homes and give a return to the developer of 17.6% well within the acceptable profit value of the revised Govt Planning guidelines
• The writer has been unable to discuss this with the property specialists DVS BUT very clearly says that there are grounds in place to suggest that the Council re visit this, as it is yet to make the final decision 

Julian Halls

-- Edited by webstation on Saturday 16th of February 2019 11:30:28 PM

Thank you for this update. This is an appalling way to conduct business. The whole of SNC's planning process needs to be investigated and overhauled and this includes the decision-making process at the planning committee. How have things been allowed to get like this? 

See the letter from the independent professional dated 1st April. https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PC23VVOQMAZ00

yesterday I received a planning application 2021/0187 to remove the need to provide ANY affordable houses as part of this development.

I am, to be frank apalled at the suggestion and disagreed with the decision made at south Norfolk, as you can see sometime ago,  where it was approved to reduce the requirement to six which was at best a complete fudge based on some VERY questionable calculations of land values. see previous posts.

To be crystal clear here , wearing my district council hat I have made it very clear I will be objecting to this proposal in the strongest possible terms and hope the applicant withdraws this. If he does not, I will calling the application in to the Development management committee at South Norfolk and will be speaking very firmly against.

The Community council have yet to consider this but will do so at the next meeting

we are all busy people so here is a summary

Reduction in affordable home provision to NONE

I will be brief as I can

In 2016 ( planning App 2424 ) linked very curiously two sites in Spooner row as one to allow the builders to provide the required 30% of affordable houses at the Chapel road end

Initially it was 30 houses in total which morphed into 39 with all sorts of sweeteners promised such allotments and improved buses service and trains NONE of which have happened of course

Anyway 13 affordable in Chapel road

In 2018( 1622) it was argued using some very dodgy calculations based on spurious land values to reduce the number of affordable down to 5. SDC despite it being policy to provide 30% agreed to drop this to 6. 30% of 39 is NOT 6. It was alleged by the applicant that the development had started in Chapel road according the planning app. It had not

Now in 2021 ( 0187) we are being asked to remove the requirement of affordable houses to NONE

What do you as the reader think of this planning process which to be frank is a debacle where , it could be argued the developer is asking for what they always wanted, and what is the point of having a policy which just gets ignored.

Before anyone has a go at me, being the district councillor I am very firmly opposed, have registered my disgust and have done so at EVERY stage here as did Wymondham Town council when it was part of their jurisdiction

This item is on the Community Council's Agenda later this evening ( 25th Feb). The public is allowed to participate. Contact Martyn Lemon for details of how to join the meeting via Zoom. See https://spoonerrow.activeboard.com/t65534689/spooner-row-community-council-meetings-archive-agendas/

There is also an excellent letter in Tuesday's EDP about this from Chris Dady of the CPRE.  

He confirms that it is nothing new for affordable housing to either be reduced or eliminated and is common practice.  "For many years, developers have been able to use a loophole in planning law that allows a renegotiation of such planning conditions, based on the developer's  ability to make a profit.  Affordable homes are often removed on this basis, with the community having no say."  The writer feels that this is outrageous.   "In every development, there is a double profit - one to the landowner, and one for the developer.  However, the planning renegotiation ignores the price of the land, even though land prices are inflated by the simple fact landowners and developers know that the system allows them to overturn planning conditions.  In the past, the land price would have reflected the requirement for the 13 affordable properties.  House prides have continued to rise, so inflation in building costs is not a valid excuse either."

He concludes by pointing out that this has been raised with MPs but as yet no action has been taken to prevent this excessive double profiteering from housing developments.    The only losers are our communities and those trying to get onto the housing ladder.   He hopes that by highlighting this issue, that our councils and MPs will take urgent action.

It looks like this planning application has been re-activated to reconsult all parties for a Financial Viability Assessment Addendum. The attached documents referred to have not yet been uploaded to the SNC planning website. Planning Reference 2021/0187.

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QNOWO8OQ0IS00

posting as district councillor

I have once again raised my objection to this amendment

please express your views on the south norfolk planning portal

Our ref 2021/0187

19 January 2022

Dear Sir/Madam,

Proposal: Deed of Variation of the Section 106 Agreement from 2018/1622 to remove the

need to provide affordable housing.

Location: Land At Chapel Road And Bunwell Road Spooner Row Norfolk

Applicant: Mr Iain Hill

Application Type: Modify/Discharge Section 106 Agreement

The above proposal has now been amended copies of the amended plan(s)/additional information

can be view online at https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QNOWO8OQ0IS00

If you have any further comments to make please let me know either by writing, emailing your

views to planning.snc@southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk or comment online at

www.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk before 29 January 2022. It may not be possible to

consider any comments received after this date.

You should note that any letter will normally become open to public inspection and may be copied

by the applicant and members of the public.

Where the application is to be determined by the Committee, a copy of the Agenda will be sent to

you before the date of the meeting. A representative of your Council can speak at the meeting to

present their views otherwise they will be reported to the Committee before a decision is reached.

If the consultation period has not expired when the committee consider the proposal, any decision

will be subject to there being no new comments received in conflict with the planning committee’s

views.

Chris Raine

Area Team Manager

This is included on the council's agenda for Thursday at the village hall.