Spooner Row Message Board

Much made of the public consultation and attempts to justify provision and address concerns on the south Norfolk Planning portal but the elephant in the room is AS USUAL the lack of 5 year land supply which has sucessfully been used to beat any objections over the head ( via appeal ) and justify similar applications in the past plus what seems to be an attitude towards objectors, not just here, but elsewhere to simply ignore opinions given, even if justified and valid.

Please put your comments here so that I can express them at the Wymondham Town Planning sub , both for and against but please remember that you can only make commentary on the application proposals as they stand and not come up with alternative ones as they will not be grounds for objection/refusal . 

I guess this application will be considered at the next meeting which will be 2nd October at the Town Council (1800)  , where as members of the public you can attend and express your views if you want to. Objections and support comments are however always noted when they appear on the web site.

The Transport Statement doesn't look to be very accurate. Apparently, Station Road is now served by an 805 bus route.  Does this mean are we going to get this bus service with this development instead of the usual no bus service at all for the village?  The Report says: "The bus stops on Station Road are served by bus route 805, which provides links between Wymondham and Wreningham, with one bus service at 10:48 towards Wymondham and one at 13:20 towards Wreningham".   

It also says: "A pedestrian link will be provided, set back from Station Road, which will connect the site to the existing pedestrian network in Spooner Row." What is the existing pedestrian network it refers to? Pedestrians would need to cross the busy HGV route and negotiate walking between queuing traffic at the level crossing to reach the pavement on the other side. Is that practical and safe? What about pushchairs and children walking to school?

I can't find any mention in the Transport Statement that Station Road is a designated HGV route with plenty of lorries to support that status, only that it recognises Station Road as a single carriageway, how quaint. 

From a local point of view, I would say that Station Road is ill-equipt to cope with existing traffic, particularly the HGV's and level crossing queues. To build an estate of 40 dwellings with the only access from Station Road would be worse than stupid taking into account the particularly larger lorries which need to mount the pavement to create passing space for similar vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

I completely agree.

Are you able to pass all your comments and such valid points to the planners / council?

Regards 

I note the comments regarding the existing car park which let's be frank no one at the pub or the Church is going to use. I am not at all sure that the new Council would wish to take on the maintenence and ownership of the new car park but they will of course inherit the School playing field car park.

Other comments duly noted as have the very clear majority of objections  from the consultation day.  

Anonymous wrote:

---

So who will be responsible for the maintenance and public liability of the new car park at the junction with Chapel Lane??  Who will be the owner if not the new parish council?

---

 Is the proposed car park going to be privately owned?

julian halls wrote:

---

I note the comments regarding the existing car park which let's be frank no one at the pub or the Church is going to use. I am not at all sure that the new Council would wish to take on the maintenence and ownership of the new car park but they will of course inherit the School playing field car park.

Other comments duly noted as have the very clear majority of objections  from the consultation day.  

---

 I heard some time ago that the pub had agreed to lease the land for a car park, so one would assume the pub will lease it, manage and maintain it. But it makes it totally hypocritical that they should now offer the already agreed car park as an incentive to get planning for the 40 new houses. The car park is more likely a starting point for them to also get planning on the rest of that field.

If there is indeed a carpark for the pub on that field, what do you think the chances are that people will work out how to get into it when looking for a space at the pub, the access isn't exactly close is it, and actually in the opposite direction from the junction. Plenty of people will be doing 3 point turns up by the fancy barns i imagine.

Today we received a letter from SNDC re the above application stating that amended plans / additional information have been received. I tried to find these on the SNDC planning site but the only plans I could see looked like the original ones. 

Does anyone know what the amendments are? The SNDC letter also states and I quote " Any comments made will have to reach me by , quoting the above application number. Please note it may not be possible to consider any comments received after this date." -- unless I am missing something there is NO date!!

Does anyone know when this is being considered by the Planning Committee, is it 30th Jan as suggested in the correspondence on the SNDC site?

The District Council is very keen to implement the Government's national scheme of building lots of houses to get people on the housing ladder (although very few affordable homes destined for here). The council gets money for this. Do you really think that anything the ordinary, little person might say would be taken into consideration? This development will get the go-ahead no matter what. This extension is just a formality. 

The town council decided to once again object to the planning application as revised on the same grounds. Issues with overdevelopment in the village beyond permitted numbers, traffic issues and flood risks

They are taking the soul out of this village, it's just becoming a commuter village. They accept lots of new houses with no benefits to existing residents or essential infrastructural improvements. How do the local authorities consider this sustainable?

A request for an extension from 1 April to 1 May has been made

https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PEJ5GGOQN4800

As the village of Brooke is the Council Ward for the Leader of the Conservative-run Council at South Norfolk District it must follow that what happened at Brooke must also apply to all the other villages within the control of South Norfolk Council with immediate effect. The discussions to withdraw a substantial planning application at Brooke must also now apply to Spooner Row so that this large unsustainable development for 40 dwellings is also withdrawn.  It is good news that the 5 year housing land supply has now been resolved in the district and there will be no more of the uncontrolled speculative developments that makes everyone's life a misery.  

Brooke village details https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PD6XBROQMOY00

Why is this extension of time still for 1 May to enable a decision? This plot is not within the development boundary and SNC's 5-year land housing supply has now been met. therefore as it does not meet the criteria for new development - particularly on this scale, it must either be refused or withdrawn.

Anonymous wrote:

---

Why is this extension of time still for 1 May to enable a decision? This plot is not within the development boundary and SNC's 5-year land housing supply has now been met. therefore as it does not meet the criteria for new development - particularly on this scale, it must either be refused or withdrawn.

---

Due to this, there is no legal requirement for the scheme to continue. If it does get approved then the question must be asked, on what grounds? Perhaps residents should do a legal challenge using crowdfunding if it gets approved?

Currently, the planning progress seems to have gone very quiet with this development - is it because of the local elections? 

I think they realise that it would be refused planning permission as the council has reached its 5 year housing land supply. The landowners may be waiting for the results of the allocated development sites/development boundary in the up-and-coming new local plan. It was put forward, but the decisions on which sites get the go-ahead haven't yet been made. 

The district council's policies no longer support this type of large development anymore. I would hope this development would not be voted for approval anyway - they would need to explain on what grounds. The outcome will be interesting as we now have a new district council which hopefully will understand the lack of infrastructure and other issues that do not support such an unsustainable development. 

I agree, but a new District Council at South Norfolk was included in the local elections 2 weeks ago. The new elected District Councillors will hopefully have a better understanding of the issues here when deciding what plans are approved or rejected. 

I have asked the Senior Planning Officer at South Norfolk for a response.  She has replied as follows:

 "I note your comments regarding the length of time the Spooner Row planning application has been with the Council and what you feel are continued delays (extensions of time) in favour of the applicant. I fully appreciate residents frustrations, however Major planning applications, invariably take a longer time to determine, due to their complex nature. This application has a statuary time scale of 13 weeks for its determination which expired on the 05.12.18. As there are outstanding technical issues and additional information required by consultees, extension of times have been agreed with the applicants, to enable this information to be provided and consultees to respond. I have been advised that these should be with me shortly.

  The Government also requires local planning authorities, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), to seek solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with any planning application, where possible. As set out above, with this application I am trying resolve the technical consultees concerns were possible.

  This application also has been call in for determination by the Development Management Committee by the local member, which I appreciate will add to the delays.

  It certainly is not my intentions to cause residents frustrations or distress and I am sorry if the time taken to process this application has resulted in any concerns, but the determination of any application has to follow a set procedure and in line with the NPPF".

I have asked how many times they will keep extending the deadline in favour of the applicant or if there genuinely is a cut-off time by which the application will be thrown out if all "technical issues" are not resolved.  I haven't received an answer yet.

On the recent GNLP call for development sites, most of Spooner Row was put forward as potential sites for consideration. From previous experience on the existing Spooner Row Local Plan development sites, once the policy planners decide on a "potential" site then no matter how many public consultations they hold or how much local people point out the existing problems that would be exacerbated by the development, the sites were given the go-ahead and became legally compliant within the Local Plan. An example of this is School Lane, where the flood issues and the dangerously narrow road were formally highlighted by residents on many occasions during the many public consultations, yet they were ignored. The problems highlighted by residents where subsequently recognised and concurred by Highways during the planning process, but planning permission had to be given (without the issues resolved) as this site had previously been adopted in the legally compliant Local Plan. You couldn't make it up!

If this Station Road site (Ref. GNLP0445) is allocated as a "potential" site in the GNLP then it is likely to be adopted in 2021. If the consultation system continues to be as inflexible as it was before, planning permission will then be just a formality whether it's suitable or not.

To view the site map; go to the GNLP website, scroll down to Wymondham, then scroll through the maps - map ref.2101 is the best one to view it:   http://www.gnlp.org.uk/have-your-say-on-the-new-sites/

I have asked that this application be called before the whole planning committee where I will be probably be speaking against as this was clearly the majority view of the area although  I am open to further discussion.

My major concern at the moment is with the REVISED Planning statement posted on the 21st ( see the planning portal), where they claim that SDC do NOT  have a 5 year land supply at section 7 so it would be okay for them to build in consequence

I have asked the Director of Place for view on this as a matter of urgency

Some of the proposed infrastructure enhancements appear to have been withdrawn

I see the Local lead flood authority has now removed its objection.  Is NCC Highways going to add further comments?

UPDATE 

Dear Councillor Halls

Thank you for your email in respect of the above. Helen has asked me to respond to your queries.

Background

This application was submitted in September 2018 as a 5 year land supply proposal, at a point when the Greater Norwich authorities acknowledged that there was not a supply. It has been delayed due to concerns raised by NCC Highways and the Lead Local Flood Authority and the applicants have now provided the technical information for highways and surface water drainage, together with other information, which I have reconsulted upon. Since the application was submitted the Council has changed its position in terms of its 5 year land supply.

In April this year, we are were in a position to confirm an updated land supply position which is was published in SNC Development Management committee reports in April (I attach a copy for your information) and the following has been added to Development Management report where land supply is an issue.

On 12th April 2019 the Council published an Interim Greater Norwich area housing land supply statement for the position at 1st April 2018. This showed that the Council could demonstrate a housing land supply of 6.63 years. This sets out the housing land supply position for Greater Norwich for the period 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2024. The interim statement has not been formally endorsed by all three Local Planning Authorities and is not the final statement that will be published in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk. The AMR will be published in due course.

The housing forecasts included within the housing land supply statement have been based on the Councils’ detailed knowledge of sites and discussions and correspondence with the relevant developers and site promoters. The housing forecast is considered to be fully justified although some signed statements are still outstanding and will be published in due course. In addition, the Councils continue to work with developers and site promoters to establish the deliverability of some additional sites where information is not currently available and have not therefore been included in the current calculated supply.

Notwithstanding the interim status of the statement, it is considered to be a credible assessment of housing land supply in Greater Norwich and has been carried out in a manner that is consistent with the expectations of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As such, the statement justifies the conclusion that a five year housing land supply can be demonstrated across the Greater Norwich area.

The applicants agents have been made aware of the Council’s changed position.

Response to the revised planning statement

The applicant’s agent is raising in Para 5.10 of their planning statement, the appeal decision for land to the north of Health Loke, Poringland (ref. 2016/1627), which whilst being dismissed the Inspector, concluded that ‘the supply not been established in a recently adopted plan or subsequent annual position statement, which has been produced through engagement with developers and others and has been considered by the Secretary of State, the Council’s findings cannot be considered to have been demonstrated in the terms of paragraph 74 of the Framework. Consequently, this means that the policies which are the most important for determining the application are out-of-date in accordance with paragraph 11 d) of the Framework’.

In light of the above, the applicant is arguing that we do not have a 5 year supply and therefore in the absence of such the titled balance set out in Para 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged, (para 7.3 of the applicant’s planning statement) in that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Paras 7.6 and 7.7 (planning statement) refer again to the appeal decision and the lack of 5 year supply.

We consider that the Planning Inspector in the determination of the appeal at Health Loke, Poringland has erred in his judgement and the Council has challenged this decision in respect of the 5 year land supply position.

Equally, at the Public Inquiry held last week in respect of the appeal by Orbit Homes Ltd regarding 52 dwellings at Land at St Mary’s Road, Long Stratton, the appellants agreed that the Council could demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and that the titled balance in NPPF para 11 did not apply.

It is my opinion, in view of the above, that we do have a 5 year land supply and therefore our relevant policies are not out of date. In the determination of the application, we have to consider whether the proposal brings forwards any exceptional material considerations to grant consent contrary to the development plan; contrary to the plan led system; and contrary to the Council’s Spatial Vision and Objectives as set out in the Joint Core Strategy.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss,

Kind regards

Claire

Claire Curtis

Please don’t hide behind the wall that is “Anonymous” posting.

Station Road is a main through road within the village and it is up to all road users to abide by the speed limits set.  I would be interested to learn of your evidence to support the comment of “traffic driving rough through the village”.  The Community Council is actively working towards introducing measures to bring about positive change and improvement when it comes to vehicle speed awareness.  Your evidence could be useful.

Mr Foster, Just ask any resident or user of Station Road what they think of the crazy traffic going through the main through road in the village. There's your evidence.

Where is your evidence that villagers in Spooner Row would like 40 houses on Station Road? Have you asked them?

Thanks for letting us know about this. Nothing came through my door about it. Please don't assume that the views attending the meeting on Saturday represent the majority view in the village. People lead busy lives. These sort of things can easily be voted for online and give a true reflection of feeling in the village for such a development.

Well, I'll be there on Saturday.  I simply cannot understand why this planning application keeps being dragged out when there is an adequate land supply until at least 2025 in South Norfolk.  In terms of "dangerous traffic", I live on Queen's Street and regularly have to contend with a) HGVs trying to squeeze down Station Road when there are parked cars on the side of the room and there simply isn't room for them to pass safely, idiots ignoring the right of way at the chicane near the school and barging their way into the village when the right of way is with traffic leaving the village, cars parked all the way along Station Road sometimes nearly as far as the level crossing, particularly on Tuesday evenings.  I am not sure why this is, is there something on in the church on Tuesday evenings?  Traffic is also consistently parked on the junction of Station Road with Chapel Lane - this means that if you are trying to pull out of Station Road you simply cannot see if there is oncoming traffic approaching.

Oh, and add to that the lack of proper pathways through most of the village...….

I would hope that the Parish Council will continue to resist this outline application in the strongest terms.

Another extension to the 13 December has been requested. Why is this application constantly being stalled?

The carpark sweetener has been dropped. How exactly will this high density development benefit the village?

This planning application has been withdrawn, which probably means it will be resubmitted at a later date. It was recommended for refusal on the Planning Agenda for next Wednesday. The planning report can be read on the SNC planning website -  

https://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/development_management_committee_agenda_15_january_2020_1.pdf