Spooner Row Message Board

Date: Aug 16, 2018

School Lane development, Variation to planning permission. Ref 2018/1772

Date: Aug 21, 2018

It seems strange that the splay should be widened by that amount just to accommodate a few houses. Is that tiny lane wide enough for such an enlarged entrance? This variation creates a fairly large space between the plots directly opposite the entrance - could it be that another road is intended here which would lead behind the existing plots for further development? Someone should ask the purpose of this.

Date: Aug 21, 2018

I have been in correspondence with two residents concerning this splay, the loss of the hedgerow and the need for a large gap between houses plus the relocation of the attenuation pond.

These are matters I intend to discuss at tonight's meeting but we shall not be reviewing the whole application , which to be frank has been a shambles, as it was clear that the TC opposed the original albeit to no avail ( sadly, as usual )

Pre determination rules prevent me from commenting further until after the meeting but there is nothing to stop anyone concerned about this putting a comment on the South Norfolk Planning portal. I cannot guarantee any success but your views would be noted and it appears from the outset that this application site has been railroaded through despite some very serious issues being completely ignored including the Planners own requirements . Why this has been the case I can only guess at and it puts to shame in my view the Dept concerned.

Not good

Date: Aug 21, 2018

At Town Council Planning tonight the view was taken that the proposals whilst raising concerns on flood risk, loss of hedgerow and narrowness of the lane were valid they were insufficient to not approve the application.

The best we could manage was a note on the commentary regarding the above in relation to those issues

It was appreciated that the re arrangement would likely permit a road through the development for any subsequent development behind , BUT as this was not before us it could not added to the comment sent back to South Norfolk

May I suggest that individuals enter any personal comments on the Planning portal if they are concerned

Date: Aug 21, 2018

What about the road width measurements not being accurate for the enlarged visibility splay? So was WTC happy with that when they voted on this Variation?

Your previous comment, Julian "...it appears from the outset that this application site has been railroaded through despite some very serious issues being completely ignored including the Planners own requirements", does sadly appear that way. We have said all along that those responsible will need to take responsibility as they have knowingly decided to go ahead and approve despite the very serious issues and non-compliance with their own statutory policies. Those who have the authority to make decisions are supposed to provide a duty of care to residents. This Variation will just exacerbate the situation and that in itself should have produced an objection.

Date: Aug 22, 2018

Area of proposed variation to planning permission which includes increasing the size of the visibility splay. This is the location of the entrance to the new development.

School Lane by spoonerrow, on Flickr

Date: Aug 22, 2018

both e mails objecting the reasons given were read out at the meeting

Regarding the width issue we are obviously not in a position to comment on the (in) accuracy of the width but rightly or wrongly a decrepancy of 0.2 metres was not regarded as significant given the dead end status of school lane and whilst it was accepted that the attenuation pond was slightly closer to potentially affect properties again it was not regarded as critical

I promise I did try to get this objected to but it was not going to happen. The chair is a district councillor and the other two members ( we had 1 apology) were happy to approve although 1 clearly did state the re allignment to provide what looked like an entrance through the site to further houses not yet applied for or built, was a valid conclusion but as this was not before us we simply could not comment

I agree with Karen and stand by my comment but was never going to persuade them all to object and the best that could be done was to raise the issues as part of the commentary, and to be frank , one suspects it would have not made one jot of a difference to the outcome at District anyway if we had objected.

Date: Aug 22, 2018

Points taken, Julian, but the 0.2m was the smallest discrepancy from the site plan. Slightly further down the road, the lane significantly narrows and the deviation from the site plan is much greater and should be regarded as significant.

I don't like the influence the district council has over our parish council. Thanks anyway for trying to get this Planning Variation objected to.

I think the photo above says it all. It is quite unbelievable that the entrance to the new development (which has serious unresolved highway safety planning issues anyway) is located on the lowest and narrowest part of the highway which floods.

Date: Aug 30, 2018

I haven't seen any site notices for this application. There should be, as it is a precarious lane that floods.

Date: Sep 3, 2018

WTC's response on the SNC website is for this to be Approved yet have concerns on the continuous problem of the treatment of flood water and the removal of the hedgerow. Isn't this a bit hypocritical as surely it would have made more sense to recommend Refusal? The parish council also have no comment on the "elephant in the room" regarding the narrowness of the highway, which does very much relate to its viability to accommodate such a large splay on this Variation. WTC previously objected with concerns over the highway issue but not on this occasion.

Only one member of this village community sat on this planning committee at the parish council and from what I read above, he was the only one who spoke out. No wonder so many people in Spooner Row are so keen for the village to establish its own parish in order for its interests to be taken seriously.

Date: Sep 28, 2018

The planner has asked the agent if he thinks the proposed surface water drainage is sufficient - no guessing what that answer will be then. It would be prudent for the planner to ask someone who does know and one who does not have a vested interest? The Environment Agency officers who regularly monitor this area would be the best people to ask to get an accurate picture of the situation and future issues which would be a consequence from a larger hardstanding area to School Lane (or any hardstanding). The application has not taken into consideration heavy downpours and surface water run-off and its effects on properties and the highway.

Date: Sep 29, 2018

DOES THIS VARIATION MEET THIS COUNCIL POLICY STANDARD?:

Policy DM 4.2 Sustainable drainage and water management.

Sustainable drainage measures must be fully integrated within design to manage any surface water arising from development proposals, and to minimise the risk of flooding on the development site and in the surrounding area, unless it can be demonstrated that ground conditions are unsuitable for such measures or there are other exceptional circumstances.

Date: Oct 17, 2018

It was agreed at at last night meeting WTC Planning to refuse this on grounds of further hedgerow destruction and vague ( none) explanation as to what issues will be taken to address flooding concerns by the developer

Over to the South Norfolk ( Broadland) for their decision

Date: Oct 17, 2018

Thanks for the update, Julian. I'm glad that WTC decided to recommend refusal to SNC this time on the latest Amendments affecting flood risk and hedgerow issues.

Date: Oct 25, 2018

An ill-suited development site with known flooding and highway hazards. Who will be held responsible when things go wrong and get worse after development is completed? Will it be the council, the developer or the planners?

Date: Nov 7, 2018

When will this be discussed and, therefore, when will we find out as to whether SNC will agree with that decision please?

Date: Nov 8, 2018

There are further amendments to this variation. Replies by 21 November 2018.

Date: Dec 13, 2018

It looks like the authorities are content with the narrower highway measurement of 4.1m but there's no mention of pedestrian safety AGAIN! This development is recognised as dangerous to pedestrians and is why it was essential for a footpath to be included in the legally constructed South Norfolk Local Plan (brushed aside when it was found to be undeliverable, yet still legally binding). I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of those at the council should a serious highway accident happen as a result of this development consisting of family homes.

A porous material will be used on the enlarged proposed splays where severe flooding already occurs, yet this is unlikely to deal with the extra surface water generated from this variation or reduce the existing surface water that flows onto the highway and floods. How effective will this porous material be as there are no details provided? Bearing in mind the ground, ditches, and drains cannot cope now let alone with an additional hard "porous" new surface. Just look at the photo above!

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PD3LXIOQMO300

Date: Dec 29, 2018

SNC Planning has made its decision to approve the variation despite the unresolved issues.

Date: Mar 5, 2019

Can the council please explain why this was approved without all the additional information required by the parish council and others?