Spooner Row Message Board

School Lane 2022 0095-page-001 (1) by spoonerrow, on Flickr

School Lane 2022 0095-page-002 (1) by spoonerrow, on Flickr

A CIL notice has recently been issued due to the additional floor space this development will create. This development is considered to have commenced due to the small hole excavated (with the orange fence) a couple of years back which provided a Certificate of Lawfulness by the Council.  

Under these reversed Conditions it states that no development other than the laying of foundations can commence without the details of the surface water drainage system having been submitted and agreed in writing by the local authority. It then also states that it is the applicants/developers/owners responsibility to ensure adequate drainage of the site so that it does not adversely affect the surrounding land, properties or highway.  This is quite unbelievable as the District Council is fully aware of the existing blockages of the existing surface water drainage system which is in the vicinity of the highway and adjacent land of third party ownership. If any drainage system that the District Council agrees to and authorises then subsequently fails and causes flooding then surely it is only right that the local authority is also held responsible - the Council can't just pass the buck on what it authorises. It was noted after the Public Consultations for the South Norfolk Local Plan under JCS Policy SPO2 that this was to be addressed and the Council is legally committed to this Policy. Policy SPO2 still applies to this development and can be viewed here:

Policy SPO2: http://www.spoonerrow.f2s.com/images/Policy%20SPO2%20School%20Lane.pdf

This very important Policy is difficult to find on the SNC website now, almost like it wants to be forgotten. If this legal requirement has been removed, then why? it should have been referred back for public consultation if this was the case.

Just to recap, Policy SPO2 also states the need for a pedestrian refuge to be provided. The definition of "refuge" was deemed to mean footpath at the Planning Meeting in 2017. This requirement also seems to have disappeared during recent planning variations - the original Planning Permission could not implement Policy SPO2 for a footpath as the road was too narrow and this situation created an unresolvable contradiction.  The possibility of installing some signage and making a nominal payment to the Parish Council does not offer any kind of refuge under the definition of the Policy. During the many Public Consultations, residents informed the Council that the lane was very narrow with an increase of danger to pedestrians with the building of more houses along School Lane, NCC Highways also expressed their concerns.  WTC (our previous parish council) supported residents with this ridiculous and problematic situation and strongly objected, yet it remained and remains unresolved. We were assured by the Council that a footpath would be provided to accompany this controversial and unsuitable development.

Housing numbers are not relevant here and I haven't mentioned this in my post.  So just to clarify, it is SNC's JCS Policy SPO2 for School Lane that still applies in terms of providing a footpath (in recognition of pedestrian safety) and a sustainable surface water drainage system to ensure there's no drainage from the site onto the highway (on an area that already floods). All Policies within the Adopted SNC's Local Plan are made legally binding by the Government's Inspectorate after public consultations, careful examination, hearings and public representations. Thanking you for the opportunity to elaborate on these concerns and the process involved in how SNC's Local Plan is part of the statutory development plan

Thanks, Julian for revisiting the issues with this site.

An interesting reply from the Area Planning Manager. On what grounds has the Council now decided that its authorised Local Plan Policy to provide a refuge/footpath for pedestrians' safety as part of this development no longer forms part of its "extant planning permission"? This was a fundamental concern during the public consultations where numerous residents objected. Who has decided at the Council that this crucial policy provision no longer applies and when? The planning application was supposed to go back to DMC if this anomaly was not resolved but instead was approved six months later anyway.

How can the "applicants/developers/owners take the responsibility to ensure adequate drainage of the site to not adversely affect the surrounding land, property or highway" if the SNC's Water Management Officer's advice (see application number 2016/0627) is to contain the excess water and for the rest to be released in the ditch at the front? This front ditch is the existing one that has been blocked for years and spills onto the highway and beyond - in recent years it has flooded in 2018 and 2020. In order for this sustainable drainage scheme to be approved by the Council the existing flood issues to the highway etc on third-party land will need to be addressed, how will SNC ensure and provide this?

It would appear that these two issues/concerns are SNC's responsibility as this development is included in its Local Development Plan under Policy SPO2, which is legally compliant as advised by one of the Council's senior officers when the Local Plan was adopted. 

This is not about housing numbers it is about whether the Council has performed with a duty of care in the full knowledge of the likely detrimental consequences of its decisions.

Karen

Anonymous wrote:

---

Maybe District Councillor Halls should look at the bigger picture for the village. When the school is losing children and new schools are popping up at Wymondham College and soon to be Silfield, the prospect potentially of 7 new families joining the village should be welcomed. Its not like they are building a housing estate. This thread comes across as classic not in my back yard, especially as the resident concerned lives opposite the site. Wouldn't the Councillor do better to tell us what is going on with the low cost houses still outstanding on Chapel Road?  I know of 2 youngsters in the village that would jump at the chance to raise their families locally. What is happening here?

---

Here we go again. Another doom and gloom merchant moaning about other people's efforts. There's a vacancy on the council so why don't you join it and do something positive yourself for Chapel Road.  The 2 youngsters you refer to are unlikely to be able to afford to live in these new properties, which are built to attract wealthy people from outside the area who are more than likely fed up with what is happening where they live currently. Did you not hear Liz Truss yesterday saying that local people will decide where houses are to be built?

Let us all know when you've joined the council.

The latest position (planning application ) from the developer is to provide NO AFFORDABLE HOUSES for the site in Chapel road on the grounds that he cannot make enough profit

see application 2021/0187 which can be accessed from the south Norfolk planning portal 

I have for many years opposed this, opposed the reduction to five, which got passed ,  from the 13 required by policy, and continue to do so in the latest iteration to NONE.

I think therefore, that I can hardly be accused of not thinking of the wider picture and I hope you appreciate the update  

I agree totally with ANON that we need some new councillors and we have in fact  TWO vacancies at present 

Julian 

The CIL has now been paid but what about the unresolved issues involving third-party land, for example, the long-term blocked underground drains which need to work to enable the required drainage for this new development otherwise the increased flood risk will continue. This issue cannot be fobbed off as the responsibility of a developer when it is the responsibility of SNC under its Accepted Local Plan https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=R5UUTYOQG1T00

To the anonymous poster who stated that this site is impacted negatively by long term underground blocked drains please provide evidence of these blocked drains to me as Norfolk County Council Highways have no record of such highway drains at the corner.  When water built up at the corner last time I spoke to the landowner who checked the farm records and he found no reference to suggest a culvert and drain.  More so, when the ditch down the side of this site and Bluebell Barn was cleared I checked the corner and found no evidence of a drain or culvert.  

So if someone can show me where this long term blocked drain is I will speak with NCC Highways and get it cleared and surveyed to bring it onto the county drainage map. My details can be found on the www.spoonerrow.cc website.  Alternatively you can use an app called What3words to locate it to 3 metres and report via the Norfolk County Council website using the Report a Problem page. 

Some photos as a reminder of the drainage issues:

20180602_165250(1) (002) by spoonerrow, on Flickr

20201224_094226 resize by spoonerrow, on Flickr

20201224_085256 by spoonerrow, on Flickr

This site clearly needs serious construction to allow drainage. Using farm machinery to briefly dig a ditch before the plot is developed and then abandoning all responsibility or passing the buck after it gets built on just doesn't cut it. If there was no drainage problem, why does the plan include an attenuation pond? Cllr Foster should be representing the views of his constituents and remain impartial.

Not sure of your sources ANON but as a district councillor I will reply . The final approval for the small village clusters plan as part of the GNLP has yet to take place is my understanding and still needs Cabinet and full council approval. 

It does not come under the remit of the Planning committee but is part of the Regulation and Planning committee agenda which is not the same. 

The exact number PREFERRED is not clear but I will share with you the fact that 21 sites were considered and only 3 have been selected to move forward including a site in Suton

This obviously does NOT apply to the school lane application but all three hamlets , Wattlefield,  Spooner Row and Suton 

Thank you for the information.

Seems strange that the SNC's Local Plan for the School Lane site, reference SPO2 has now become SPO3 and that the new SPO2 is now in Station Road. What's the logic behind this please, as it does appear to blur the edges?

Is it just the reference number that has changed for School Lane or have the legally required (their words, not mine) policy implementations changed too? If so, on what grounds, as the recognised road safety and flood issues have not changed?

Dear Julian,

I have just read pages 609 to 610 from the Regulation and Planning Policy Committee Document and the original and crucial SPO2 item for "A sustainable urban drainage scheme should ensure that no surface water drains off the site" has been removed from the new requirement. Why has SNC decided to no longer ensure that this requirement is included when the current situation has not improved or been addressed? The pedestrian refuge (footpath) to the school has also been watered down. I was informed by Planning that the actual Policy Wording is what is important. 

Page 610 (now SPO3):

Any new planning permission will need to ensure the following:

• Off-site highway works to include improvements to the provision for pedestrian safety in the immediate area of the development site, details of which to be agreed with the Highways Authority and the LPA;

• Protection of the existing protected tree (subject to a Tree Preservation Order) on the east of School Lane during the construction phase of development;

• Retention, protection and reinforcement of the existing established hedgerow and tree boundaries along the south and east boundaries of the site wherever possible;

• Appropriate boundary treatments to the north and east boundaries to reflect the rural context of the site. 

See Regulation and Planning Policy Committee Document:  https://www.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/downloads/file/5270/regulation-and-planning-policy-committee-agenda-4-january-2023

Talking of flooding issues, the development near the school.Did it not have the original pond as part of the development?

As clearly as they have filled it in and I personally would not want to buy a house that was once a pond! This POND ,which clearly was there as this is a natural flooding area.

Now when we have rain,creates a lovely ford . Which yesterday when I drove past and a car was coming the other way.my windscreen was inundated with water.To a degree that I could not see anything for a few seconds.

I guess it’s called Diverting the situation so it’s someone else’s problem!

I guess Councillor foster would say there’s not an issue here either!

i agree with you Mark, 

Public consultations also have legal status. What is considered to be sound and made statutory cannot merely be dismissed and played down just because the council then finds it inconvenient. Councils are aware they have a duty of care and to act responsibly.

The development plot on School Lane is back on the market again and was included in the latest SNC's Draft Local Plan Village Clusters Consultation as Site VC SPO3 (also called SPO2 in the current Local Plan).

There were numerous objections lodged against site SPO3 during this latest consultation which included objections from residents, the Parish Council (SRCC), and the NCC Strategic Planning Team (Highways). Bearing in mind that this site was originally selected as a Local Plan site (adopted in 2015) with the mandatory inclusion of a footpath to the school (despite the road being too narrow to deliver) and an urban sustainable drainage scheme (which includes third-party land for proper drainage to the river with ongoing problems). Both of these two very essential safety requirements were strangely omitted in this latest Consultation. 

The objection put forward by the NCC Strategic Planning Team, who is the Authority on highway matters was very interesting and very accurate; they have objected to an extent that they request that the site reference SPO3 is removed from the Draft SNC Local Plan as the proposed alternative safety measures have not been demonstrated; they consider the site as substandard in nature and School Lane is without scope to provide appropriate highway improvements, and should the existing permission expire, they would not support the site for reallocation. During the various planning applications over the years for this site, NCC Highways has continuously expressed its concerns for pedestrian safety on this road particularly as very young school children walk on the highway.

Just to be clear, I think the unresolvable issues with the School Lane site are not the fault of the developer or landowner but rather with SNC's planning policy procedures, as over the years, residents continuously engaged with SNC during the many public consultations and planning applications and submitted their concerns (with photos, explanations, road measurements, etc), yet clearly residents were ignored. What was the point of consulting with the public if the District Council didn't listen or was it all just an exercise to go through the required motions?

I am very glad that the NCC Strategic Planning Team has spoken out so succinctly and factually about the problematic SPO3 proposal and their concerns with the existing SPO2 policy.  https://southnorfolkandbroadland.oc2.uk/document/reps/1762 

I am also very grateful to the Community Council for their support to local residents who have concerns.

julian Halls wrote:

---

I have asked the planning team for clarification given that in the past a single objection by NCC is usually enough to bin the application, even if all other tests have been passed  

---

 Hi Julian, did the planning team give you clarification on this situation?

It's been over two months and no deleted documents have been reinstated on the SNC planning website to include Consultee and Public comments for 2016/0627 and 2018/1772. I have now contacted our SNC District Councillors for help to resolve this. These documents contain concerns and information on safety and other unresolved issues that cannot just be deleted and swept under the carpet.

Just to recap on this site as it has been going on for years:

This School Lane site is a designated site in the SNC Local Plan which was formally adopted in 2015. It is Policy reference is SPO2 and this provides a legal status for the policy content to be delivered. This includes a footpath from the development to the school (it can't be delivered as the road is too narrow), and a sustainable drainage system (unlikely to be delivered as the drainage for that site relies on ditches and drains to the river on third-party land and SNC has no remit over the long term management on private land to deliver this. This area is susceptible to flooding due to the blockages).

The subsequent planning application (ref 2016/0627) was just a formality because this site had technically already been accepted within the SNC Local Plan. At the DMC Planning meeting held in Feb 2017, it was decided by the Committee that the pathway issue had to be resolved before approval was finalised. Instead, it was approved quietly six months later without the footpath issue being resolved with an S106 Agreement. The S106 Agreement was pointless as its alternatives to the undeliverable footpath did not provide pedestrian refuge along School Lane as Policy SPO2 legally required. 

There have been several planning variations over the years including a Certificate of Lawfulness (ref 2020/1328) which involved digging a small hole on the site in 2020, you can still see the remains of the orange fence surrounding this. Unbelievably, this demonstrated to the Council that the development work had commenced and met a planning condition to start building within three years of the approval date otherwise the consent would have been cancelled.

SNC is now preparing a new Local Plan for which SPO2 has been carried over and has now been re-labeled as VC SPO3. The crucial features for a footpath and sustainable drainage system have been removed from the proposed new Policy document wording. This is of concern as the wording, once accepted has legal status. The Public Consultation for this ended in March 2023 and was called the Village Clusters Housing Allocation Plan, Reg.19 Draft. NCC Strategic Planning (Highways) does not support VC SPO3 nor the previous Local Plan status and has asked for it to be removed from the Draft on road safety issues. See comments: https://southnorfolkandbroadland.oc2.uk/document/reps/1762

Also relating to the emerging Local Plan VC Public Consultation, there is support for policy VC ROC to be added to the School Lane site, but this is specific to Rockland St Mary and has nothing to do with Spooner Row. This was not included in the Public Consultation literature for School Lane as it was added retrospectively four months later to the website and therefore we were not given the opportunity to comment or a right to reply. How was this allowed? This VC ROC policy allows for the removal of hedgerows and trees if considered "unavoidable" so long as certain wording is added to say that mitigation measures were made. This is not acceptable as who gets to decide what is "unavoidable", is it the Council or the Developer? This is open to misinterpretation and puts the long-established and highly biodiverse adjoining hedgerow at further risk.

In summary, it continues to be questionable as to how Policy SPO2 was ever included in the original SNC Local Plan in the first place and how the subsequent planning approvals were allowed with the pedestrian safety issues unresolved. The continued lack of reinstatement of the deleted Consultee and Public documents on the SNC Planning website is of concern as they should be available to the public, and also of concern are the crucial omissions in the new emerging Local Plan for VC SPO3 which are too important to be dropped. The whole thing looks like a right mess. Where does this leave us, the public? Are we not entitled to a duty of care from the Authorities? Are they not accountable for their decisions?

It has been over four months since the deleted 2016/0627 documents were sent to SNC Planning to be restored on its website. Although a number of them have been restored, several of the objections submitted by residents have not. I have been informed by my District Councillor who spoke with Planning that they relate to other planning applications when they clearly have Ref 2016/0627 written on them and will not appear under this reference - this doesn't make sense. Since when have correspondences and submissions from the public from different planning references been merged? I haven't heard of this before and is not a proper excuse to keep them out of the public domain. In the interests of transparency and after 4 months, the missing documents should be given priority to be restored to the SNC website under their proper reference particularly as the School Lane site is an active site included in the emerging SNC Local Plan with its outstanding issues unresolved. I have asked where will these missing residents' documents be published if not under Reference 2016/0627.  Taking into account, that documents were permanently deleted (apparently) and so far only documents for 2016/0627 have been sent to SNC to be restored on its website.  

In my opinion, this sounds like a cover-up to brush under the carpet outstanding issues relating to the problems of development of this site which will adversely affect any purchaser/developer, residents, and other members of the public alike.