Spooner Row Message Board

Dear Daz

I have heard nothing and have passed a message to Lisa Neal , the portfolio holder dealing with this issue via the enforcement team, asking to be kept in the loop.

I have had a curious e mail from someone in the midlands who was concerned they are all going to decamp to that location but he was very enigmatic about it all and all I could do was confirm that I had heard nothing.

Mark Davis has sent a prompt as well but I think is getting as far and as fast as you are.

Hardly helpful I know but I will keep pushing

Who wants to bet nothing will happen

Clearly these people are under the impression that nothing is going to happen next month as they have erected new fencing at the rear of the site and have even repainted the existing fencing.

I have little enough faith in SNC at the best of times, and even less over sorting this issue.

Let me translate this for you, the time is coming closer to evict from the site, if they don't go it will cost the council money so I predict they will resubmit an application to 'regularise' the site activities hence whey they have been working with the planners to iron out differences from the last application, this can go on ad infinitum, what's Newals on now, like 9 applications.

Suggest that you contact your District Councillor directly and ask the very same question.  I am surprised that Mr Halls, who lives in the village and is normally very active on this website, has not replied to you already.  You can email him on julian.halls@southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk.

As promised I met with Petra Maryon , the Compliance officer team leader on Wednesday 12th and the brief summary is that there is good news and bad news.

The portfolio holder Lisa Neal is on holiday

It was a full and frank discussion

Despite appearances there is a lot going on and regular meetings. Please see below

We have to remember the Travellers are occupying land which they own.

The Planning Compliance team, and the Development Management Manager have been in discussions with the occupiers of the site and their representatives, and consensus has been reached that the current site is not suitable and no further applications for the use of the site for residential purposes will be considered.

The legislation being administered is permissive and by nature requires the enforcers to balance the concerns of complainants with the planning policies, and to represent all parties fairly.

Implicit in that is the requirement to carry out human rights assessments and apply the principles of the Human Rights Act to all cases where formal action is being considered. This is not a specific requirement to travellers. There are a lot of children on site who go to the local school.

This means that the Enforcement team are continuing to work with the occupiers of the site and their representative in looking at alternative sites to accommodate the travellers, as adequate provision within the Districts for all of the travellers to relocate to has not yet been identified. This is an unfortunate situation partly brought about by a less than robust approach politically to site provision.

What that means is the investigation/ exploration of suitable sites , and a report to explore that option will be considered at a soon to be held Development Management committee, where members of the public can speak.

Yes they did occupy the land without Planning permission but realistically we are looking at probably another six months before the site is vacated. I know that is not welcome but the fences can remain and the land returned to Agricultural use as required by the Inspector, after that time.

If they remain on site , as a last resort, legal action will then be considered to bring about vacation but this is not seen as being in anyone’s interest .

I am posting as a district councillor but will be copying in the other district councillor and the Chair of the Community Council

Has there been any update as we are now in August? The new academic year is about to start next month and there are a number of children reportedly on the site. Will they use the excuse of children settled in school to delay eviction even further? If it was a non G&T planning matter I bet it would have been resolved long ago.

No it hasn't. They had to vacate by June 2022. What is South Norfolk District Council doing about this? 

On the attack again I see . How about ' could Councillor Halls ask the district council and the planning enforcement team for an update on this eviction please ? '  

If you want this to happen, please do so in a manner which is open and non confrontational. 

I am as frustrated by this as you all are , but shall we say, a less than robust approach to traveller  site provision across the district, by those councillors who do not want a site on their patch,  comes back to bite you and this is exactly what has happened. 

Currently, the lack of such provision is holding up the wider planning policy sign off under the Greater Norwich development planning proposals , much to the annoyance of the leader of the South Norfolk council.   

I look forward to such a request 

Thank you Daz 

None of this has been passed to me and I will be having words 

Thank you Daz for the latest updates. What is this SNCouncil term "the settled community" supposed to mean?  I consider myself neither settled nor unsettled, I have lived here for many years and am just a member of the community. This label seems divisive and unnecessary.

The meeting on 14 December needs to decide to enforce the Appeal outcome.

I would vote for Daz and Julian Halls as he is the only district councillor that has engaged with Spooner Row while previous ones tended to ignore us. This area has two district councillors allocated.

I don't understand why this needs to return to the Planning and Development Committee for discussion when it has already been refused and the Appeal lost. It has rightly been decided that this site is not suitable and we already have an established traveller site just a few metres from it. 

The next stage has been reached and the report for this site and the compliance proposals are  to be presented to the Development management committee ( DMC) on the 14th December at Thorpe lodge. This is  available on the south norfolk website under the 2022 papers for the DMC . 

I am clearly commenting as the District councillor

The enforcement report today which appears in the Planning Management committee at South Norfolk is stating that a further 18 months be granted before compliance action is taken to remove the travellers from the site.

To put it bluntly I very unhappy about this and have told the planners so.

I also , because of past comments am unable to speak at this committee as I am clearly , what is called predetermined, so cannot take part in the discussion or the vote.

Rather peculiarly  being an enforcement report I am advised there is no public speaking although I think memebrs , other than myself will have an opportunity to make comment. The meeting will be live streamed if you do not want to drive to Norwich to see the meeting and what transpires.  

The original date for the sites occupiers as specified by the Planning inspectorate to leave was 29th June 2022 and here we are, six months on, recommending another 18 months , so in total 3 years as opposed to the 1 year given. I am not convinced even then, that action will be taken for the same reasons as now which, in summary are as follows

• Six months delay was apparently agreed on the assumption that a judicial review was going to take place. It evidently did not and that option is now not possible. It was also put to the site occupiers that the council were prepared to accept a modified application. That was never true

• Enforcement action will be time consuming and expensive. SNDC fear a Dale farm scenario.

• The enforcement team would rather that the site occupiers engage positively with the council to work towards a positive solution. It is reported that there is an acceptance that the site is inappropriate for the reasons specified in the inspectorate report

• Forcing them to leave may well result in illegal encampments nearby springing up, as several families have children at the local school

• The Greater Norwich Development plan has identified insufficient numbers of traveller sites being provided in Norfolk and there is work afoot to identify them, BUT it will take time , hence the 18 month delay ( my words at least )

• This action complies with what is called an expediency test. I quote here from a document on exactly what this is. Before enforcement action, the crucial issue is whether the breach of planning control is unacceptable. If yes, then it is expedient to take enforcement action. In other words we should take action as the harm caused needs to stop. Enforcement action should not be taken against trivial or technical breaches of planning control that cause no harm. This is rather wooly to say the least, as how do we define harm ?

To be absolutely clear here, I am not in agreement with these reasons; I am just reproducing them in summary and please read the report for the full details

As almost a lone voice on the committee , who is not able to speak, I can see why some councillors would be persuaded. I also have to say whether they would be so happy to row- in with the enforcement team, if this was happening on their patch. I doubt it and to be frank it undermines the whole enforcement process. A process paid for by the residents whose solicitor was very effective, out of their own pockets much to the embarrassment of SNDC.

We as a parish have done our bit and to have another traveller site already in the parish where last year some of the occupants attacked a van driver and just recently two occupiers were found guilty of dealing and growing drugs. Of course not all travellers engage in such activity but it undermines any argument that they are compliant members of society. They do themselves no favours.

I am sure there are some out there who feel they have been badly let down and I totally agree and have said so previously. I only wish I could do more.

You've done more than enough dude. Just keep what you can thanks.

I emailed the planning inspectorate querying whether they are happy that their inspectors ruling has in effect been ignored 

This was the quite clearly 'standard' reply 

I will leave the reader to draw your own conclusions on this 

Paul Scrivene (The Planning Inspectorate)

8 Dec 2022, 13:17 GMT

Dear Julian Halls

Many thanks for contacting the Planning Inspectorate.

I have to advise that our role in the planning process is as an appeals body for an original planning applicant wishing to challenge/appeal a Local Planning Authorities decision on their planning application, a common misconception is that the Planning Inspectorate operates as a body to make complaints to or comment on LPA decisions or processes.

The council (your local planning authority) ultimately have authority over local planning matters, so if you have a complaint then they have the jurisdiction to handle this and evaluate your concerns fully. They can assess whether any policies have been breached and take any enforcement action needed.

We can however direct you to some more appropriate sources of advice and guidance, such as Planning Aid, who offer free professional advice regarding planning issues and may be able to answer your questions. You can find out more here: https://www.rtpi.org.uk/planning-advice/

If you are unhappy with the council (your local planning authority), or other bodies, you will first need to follow/exhaust their own complaints procedure. Once you have done this, you can escalate your grievance to the Local Government Ombudsman, who may be able to investigate on your behalf. Their details are as follows: https://www.lgo.org.uk/

I am sorry to not be able to assist directly but hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

 Paul Scrivene

slight correction……

2 travellers sites AND a tip in a small rural parish. 

I agree with you Julian, it is extraordinary that the Planners are doing this, and even ignoring you, our District Councillor.

The site was given a year to vacate taking it to June 2022, now this current 6 months extra (who approved this?), now they want another 18 months. What next, another time span after that? The Council ruled against this site and so did the Inspector at the Appeal, yet the Council still hasn't implemented those decisions.

The traffic on London Road is fast moving which is not good when vehicles want to turn right into the site. It's just a matter of time before there is an accident.

This matter which WAS going to be considered at the planning committee Item 1 has been deferred because of a legal challenge. I have not been given any details 

it will therefore not be discussed  

Just received this from SNC.

Our ref 2020/8033

4 January 2023

Dear Sir/Madam

Land At: Plots 1-8 South East Side Of London Road Suton Norfolk 

Change of use of land from agricultural land to land used for residential purposes, 

for the standing of caravans for human habitation and the standing of associated 

timber buildings and  structures

With regard to the above Enforcement case, this will be considered at the meeting of the  Development Management Committee on 11 January 2023, starting at 10.00am. at 

Thorpe Lodge, 1 Yarmouth Road, Norwich, NR7 0DU.

The meeting will be held in the Council Chamber for those wishing to attend and will also 

be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZciRgwo84-iPyRImsTCIng

On the day of the meeting the following guidance is to be followed:

• Do not attend the meeting if you have any symptoms of Covid. 

• Use hand sanitiser on your way into the building, and regularly throughout your visit.

• Wear face masks when moving around the building.

• Observe social distancing when in the building, the office environment and the 

Council Chamber has been set up to ensure 2 metre distancing is observed. 

• Attend the meeting promptly, stay in your designated seat during the meeting, and 

leave promptly once the meeting ends

• You may be allocated a seat to help manage the capacity in the room, please make 

sure that you stay at your seat for the course of the meeting

The Council will be live streaming this meeting.  Should you wish to observe the meeting 

here are the details of the meeting. Our bit is from page 54 onwards

https://www.southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk/downloads/file/5283/development-management-committee-agenda-11-january-2023

South Norfolk Council's current Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document states that, "New sites should not be too close to existing approved sites". Considering this refused site is only a few meters away from an existing site should be enough to promptly enforce the planning requirements.

The Enforcement Report for the DMC meeting on 11th January recommends Option 3 for an extension of 18 months. This is on weak grounds. The report is skewed and written in favour of this option.

The Planning Lawyers letter is balanced and makes better sense and should not be dismissed.

The Planning committee met today and decided, as predicted to allow the 18 month delay on enforcement from today's date. Some members of the committee were less than happy but it was passed 6-2.

There were  2 were abstentions and of course I was not permitted take part as there was no public speaking.

The single sop we were given was a commitment to take the site owners to court if they further divide the pitches, we have already gone from 8 to 10  but it was very luke warm saying it would not be easy to do. 

Concerns were raised about it being kicked down the track again in 18 months if the GNLP plan, which now has to incorporate the Gypsy and travellers sites, is delayed once again.

Sue Hewitson and Shaun Daly also attended but could not speak. Shaun's letter of objection was passed to all the members but Sue's letter somehow got lost which was not her fault. 

I have attached Shaun's letter below

From: Shaun Daly <shaun.michael.daly@gmail.com>

Sent: 10 January 2023 12:48

To: Vic Thomson <Vic.Thomson@southnorfolkandbroadland.gov.uk>

Cc: sue.restoration@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Local Residents Submission to Development Management Committee regarding Enforcement of Planning Refusal at London Road, Suton

Dear Chair of the Development Management Committee,

Please take into account the following submission on behalf of the 10+ group of residents living opposite and adjacent to the site (names available if desired/required).

All of us, and, more importantly, the Planning Inspectorate, think that the initial period of 1 year was sufficient time for enforcement. That period has already been extended by 8 months for 'negotiations' re alternative sites.

What evidence has your Committee seen justifying the comment in the Enforcement Team's report that those negotiations are 'going well'? How many meetings/discussions have there been? Were they minuted/recorded? In the absence of any alternative sites at the moment, it's difficult to imagine the discussion could have been any more than "would you move if another site was offered?" and the answer "yes, if it were suitable", with absolutely no commitment made either way? To describe that as a positive is disingenuous as best?

Have this set of travellers actually been prioritized for a new site? If not, they should be, immediately, as otherwise the Council is effectively treating illegal site occupation as a low priority.

Ever since the initial encampment we have felt that the Enforcement Team has been overly supportive of the travellers and reluctant to say or do anything to upset them, whilst providing little or no information to us and no support whatsoever defending the appeal. Our confidence in the Team and the process is now extremely low and we would like them to explain their strategy at a public meeting with local residents and follow it up with a genuine commitment to inform and engage with them, some of whom have been really struggling with anxiety and stress since this all started in early 2019.

Our expectations of your meeting have been reduced to none by the announcement of a decision (not even described as a recommendation or proposal) to offer an 18-month extension by the Council's Head of Place to the EDP before the Committee even sat to discuss it on the original date in December?! How can that be justified? Have you already been told what decision to make and this meeting is merely a rubber-stamping exercise?

We feel that ANY period of extension offered should be counted from the end of the original period (June 2022) so the 'recommended' 18-month extension would actually end in January 2024. If the Committee somehow concludes that 18 months from the date of their decision is justified, it must be reported as the 26-month extension is is.

We believe that 2 months from now (so actually 10 months) would be reasonable, as, by the time enforcement takes place, more than 2 years will have elapsed since the site should have been restored to its prior state, double the Inspector's deadline.

Whatever period is decided, the real danger is that the tenuous excuses used this time (all considered in detail by the Inspector and dismissed) are highly likely to still apply at the end of it, so this Committee may find it even easier to grant a further extension at that time?

To prevent further can-kicking, we feel that a meaningful incentive is required for all parties, such as a condition on the extension that "unless an acceptable site has been identified and accepted before 3 months of the extension remain, direct enforcement action shall commence", in order that it can be completed as close as possible to the end of the extension.

Other conditions should be considered, such as "no further expansion/development of the current site" (as that has already happened since the appeal was dismissed, hardly the actions of a group fearing imminent eviction and "ready and willing to move")? You could also clarify/ensure that enforcement will be applied to all who happen to be on site now and in future, not just the original applicants.

An important omission from the report is the fact that there is already a large traveller site in Suton (currently running out of control with at least 18 pitches with permission only for 1 or 2?) less than 400 yards (one big field) from this one. The risk that the two sites end up linked and swell to triple their current size if the Council continues to show the weakness it has to date regarding enforcement of planning law is extremely high.

Yours faithfully,

Shaun Daly

(owner of nearest house opposite the site, on behalf of other local residents)

 julian 

Greater Norwich Local Plan update

Sent on behalf of Mike Burrell, Greater Norwich Planning Policy Manager

Dear Consultee

This email is to update you on the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP).

A focused consultation on sites for Gypsies and Travellers will commence at 09.00 on Monday 30 January and will close at 17.00 on Monday 13 March 2023.

We are seeking views on sites put forward for consideration for providing residential pitches for Gypsies and Travellers. It is important to note that no final decisions have been made on sites at this stage. The consultation creates a further opportunity for landowners to propose more sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

We are not consulting on any other sites that we asked for views on during previous GNLP consultations.

You can find information about the sites, along with supporting information and useful FAQs, online at www.gnlp.org.uk, where you can also comment.

Copies of consultation documents are available to view at the following locations:

• Broadland District Council and South Norfolk Council offices, Thorpe Lodge, 1 Yarmouth Road, Norwich NR7 0DU (by appointment);

• Norwich City Council, City Hall, St Peters Street, Norwich NR2 1NH (main entrance – please ask to be directed. Mon. – Fri. 08.45 – 13.00 & 14.00 – 17.00);

• Norfolk County Council, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich NR1 2DH (by appointment); and

• South Norfolk information point at The Octagon, Mere Street, Diss IP22 4AH (Mon. – Fri. 09.00 – 17.00).

Note that viewing the documents at Broadland, South Norfolk and Norfolk County Council offices is by appointment only. Please contact the GNLP team by email at gnlp@norfolk.gov.uk or by telephone at 01603 306603 to make an appointment.

You can also view the consultation documents in Norfolk libraries using their computers.

The easiest and most efficient way to make comments on the consultation is to submit them online at www.gnlp.org.uk. Alternatively, you can respond in writing using a response form which can be downloaded from www.gnlp.org.uk or requested by phone or email. Written representations should then be emailed or sent to us by post.

Contact details are:

Telephone: 01603 306603

Email: gnlp@norfolk.gov.uk

Post: Greater Norwich Local Plan, Room 428, City Hall, St Peters St, Norwich NR2 1NH

You can contact us if you need consultation information in a different format.

All responses must be received by 17.00 on Monday 13 March 2023. No representations will be accepted outside of this period.

Regards

Mike Burrell

Greater Norwich Planning Policy Manager

General Enquiries: 01603 306603 gnlp@norfolk.gov.uk