Comment by Roger Woodburn

Mr Woodburn has just contributed this comment to the post What is Proposed, but we feel it merits a post of its own – Ed.

---

Set out below is the gist of the comments I sent to LANPRO after their ‘presentation’ at the Parish Room. The recent meeting did very little indeed to allay or answer my concerns.

I have a large number of concerns about this proposal in terms of (i) the underlying motives for proposing it, (ii) the justification / alleged benefits for the village and (iii) the details so far provided by you.

The proposed site is a greenfield site and what is more it is good agricultural land. This flies in the face of the UK’s need to increase its own food production, reduce imports and their associated carbon footprints.

The main beneficiaries will be the land’s vendor and the site’s ‘developer’, not the village.

Langham is described by you as a strong community; this is self-evidently not the case. The village pub closed through lack of support, likewise the previous shop (Wizard’s End Stores). There are significant numbers of properties that lie empty for long periods during the year - three in our road (St Andrew’s Drift ) alone. Attendance at village events such as quizzes, coffee mornings, and the Street Fayre is low. It should be clearly noted that during the development of the original Langham Glass site the community was assured that a village shop would form part of the development; nothing came of the assurance. It would require an absolute guarantee for the latest proposed shop to be opened and sustained for several years for the proposal to have any credibility.

The expression ‘well designed low density layout’ is used by you about the housing density. By no stretch of the imagination can the proposed density be described as low in the context of this village. It is roughly three times that of the current residences in the surrounding area.

In order to attract young families to the area requires employment opportunities. There are extremely few opportunities locally that would pay employees at a rate that would enable them to obtain and service a mortgage for an ‘affordable’ home. Your mention of the Harper and Langham Hall implies low skill work in the hospitality business, or in the shops and services you mention in Blakeney, Holt and Wells. Your use of the expressions ‘notable proportion’ and ‘majority proportion’ in relation to the proposed houses mean very little indeed and provide a way out of any serious commitment.

The protection you propose for ensuring that the houses are not used as second homes is laudable but very likely unenforceable as the Government is committed to scrapping s.106 agreements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and nothing yet has been proposed in its place.

The ground plan shown at the public presentation appeared to be inaccurate as it does not show the narrow loke that runs up from the west end of Marryat’s Loke to join the path at the end of St Andrew’s Drift. The path to and from the development and St. Andrew’s Drift is not shown clearly.

The access arrangements proposed for both the Binham Road and North Street would render the already narrow roads more dangerous. The public parking areas will likely be used by The Harper’s staff and residents’ second cars.

The biodiversity area shown on the draft layout in dark green on the north side is so small as to be essentially worthless as it is surrounded on three sides by buildings with no wildlife corridor by which many species could arrive. (The expression ‘ecological area’ which you use is scientifically meaningless.)

Update, 1 May 2023

More than fifty people attended the meeting at the Village Hall on Friday, and the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be against the Lanpro proposal. The committee, comprising seven members, was formed. Afterwards the meeting turned into an enjoyable social event amounting almost to a party, thanks to the wine, etc. and gourmet treats generously provided by Jo and Mark Cutmore-Scott of The Harper.

One of the new members unfortunately had to stand down, for personal reasons, before the first meeting.

The committee held its first meeting today, 1 May, with Louise Goodenough as elected Chair. The present members are:

Louise Goodenough

Jonathan Barnes

Frank Blundell

Laura Osborne

Adam Pitchford

Fiona Priest

Don’t forget, this is an enterprise involving everyone who wants to be involved. We will keep you updated via this blog, and if you have any information or other assistance to offer us, we would love to hear from you. The contact details are on the sidebar.

We learned tonight that NNDC has rejected the pre-planning application for the land opposite The Rectory. You can read the Senior Planning Officer’s response here. This greatly reduces the chance that the Binham Road/North Street proposal will get anywhere, but we are still assuming an application for it will be made and have not relaxed our efforts.

The planning process

A proposal like the one published by Lanpro can be worrying, but it is important to keep a level head. The stress is made worse by uncertainty and lack of knowledge. Stress about a housing proposal is greatly eased by an understanding of the process whereby a housing development gets the go-ahead from the authorities.

This process can be protracted, and we emphasise straight away that the Binham Road/North Street scheme is at its earliest and most tenuous stage.

The landowner and the developer

Obviously, before any sort of housing scheme can go forward, the developer either has to own the land or have a legal agreement with the present landowner. Such an agreement is likely to commit the landowner to selling to the developer if full planning permission is granted; by then the price per acre will have increased manyfold.

Someone seeking to maximise the price of his or her land might approach a property developer directly. Alternatively he or she might approach a planning consultancy. A planning consultancy, among other activities, will work on behalf of developers. The planning consultancy in our present case is Lanpro, which seems to have a close relationship with Glavenhill (or GlavenHill; both forms appear on its website), the putative developer. Quite often, especially in urban and suburban settings, it can work the other way round – a planning consultancy or developer might identify a possible site on the map and approach the landowner.

Once these relationships are in place, the next step is to produce an impression of what the development might look like. This is the stage we are at now with the proposal published by Lanpro earlier in the year. Clearly they perceive difficulty ahead, which is why they went to the trouble of mailing a glossy A3 brochure to nearby residents, lauding the purported benefits of the scheme; on 7 March they also set up an exhibition in the Village Hall. The purpose of such moves is generally to minimise the level of opposition to be encountered were a formal application to be put forward. Lanpro themselves claim, ‘We are committed to working with local people, to fully understand the opportunity at Langham and to gauge the support that is likely to be forthcoming for our emerging proposals.’

Planning permission

Legislation enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 requires any new development to be granted planning permission. As defined, ‘development’ refers to various enterprises, such as quarrying or engineering projects, change of use (e.g. from residential to commercial use), and putting up buildings.

Some forms of minor development, like maintenance of an existing building (say, renewing the windows in a house which is neither listed nor in a conservation area), are defined as ‘permitted development’ and do not need planning permission.

If planning permission is required it must be sought in the first instance from the local planning authority, which in our case is North Norfolk District Council.

It is not necessary for an applicant to own the land. The applicant will apply either for full planning permission straight away (very unlikely in such a sensitive case as this) or for outline planning permission, which if granted essentially says the local authority finds the proposal broadly acceptable.

The next step is an application for so-called ‘reserved matters’. This provides more detail than the outline planning application, and includes things like the exact size, appearance and status of the buildings, landscaping, and the provision of access roads and other public amenities. There is likely to be negotiation at this stage between the applicant and the local authority.

Once the reserved matters application has been approved, full planning permission can follow. Sometimes a ‘hybrid’ application is made, for outline planning permission for some parts of the scheme but full planning permission for the rest.

If planning permission is granted in full, that does not necessarily mean a scheme will proceed: the landowner may sell the site to another, or decide not to build for the present because of the economic climate. Planning permission is often time-limited and must be renewed. In some circumstances it can also be varied. Sooner or later, though, an approved scheme in one form or another will probably go ahead.

Opposition

If a local authority deems an application unsuitable it will be rejected. Strict policies for new housing are in place, whether drawn up by a district or county council or central government. Even if the application satisfies the requirements of these policies, it yet may be rejected for various reasons, such as concerns about road safety or the capacity of local infrastructure.

At bottom a district council is a political construct and is beholden to the electorate for its powers. Besides deciding whether an application conforms with official policies, it must take into account the views of interested parties, such as local residents.

It is the planning officers who receive planning applications. If these are minor they may be approved without being referred to the councillors on the planning committee. If, however, an application is controversial, it takes on a definite political colour and will certainly be referred to the planning committee for a decision.

Should the vote be negative, the applicant may appeal it; the government body concerned is the Planning Inspectorate. An inspector will review all the paperwork and make a site visit, after which he or she will give his or her verdict, which is binding.

What’s next?

When a planning application is made there is a statutory period of 21 days in which comments can be submitted to the local planning authority. Notices (often on bright yellow paper) may be posted at or near the site to inform interested parties of this.

It is during this crucial 21-day period that objectors must get to work. Sometimes would-be objectors are unaware of or unprepared for an application and unable to act as effectively as they would like.

That is why an action committee needs to be set up now. The steering group, its prototype, have already assembled a veritable arsenal of data and are acquiring more and more as time goes on.

This is only the first stage in what might prove a long struggle. We hope that sense will prevail and the proponents of the scheme will not take it further, but if they do we shall be ready for them.

Six new dwellings opposite the Rectory?

A pre-planning application was submitted to NNDC last January for the erection of six dwellings, with a car park, on land opposite the Rectory:

The consultation period has passed and comments are officially closed, but the Case Officer, Ms Jayne Owen (jayne dot owen at north-norfolk.gov.uk), has indicated that comments may still be submitted*. If you wish to object to the proposal, it is far more effective if each objection is individually written and signed. A petition or form letter, no matter how many signatories it may have, counts as one objection.

The case number is IS2/23/0039, which refers to ‘Erection of six dwellings with car park, publicly accessible open space and landscaping | Land North Of Holt Road Langham Norfolk NR25 7BX.’ NNDC advice about making comments is available here.

The proposal is alarming in its own right in that the site makes a very important contribution to the character of Holt Road and the village in general. This proposal may also have a bearing on the one to build at Binham Road/North Street, in that if Holt Road goes ahead, the case against the other, newer proposal could be weakened.

* UPDATE

It was to the best of our belief that we stated (above) that comments on this pre-planning application were still being entertained. However, our informant was as surprised as we were to find that this is not the case: the commenting period has ended, and we apologise for any inconvenience caused to Ms Owen and commenters alike.

Nonetheless, we understand that all comments will be retained in the council’s case-file relating to the proposal.

GlavenHill and RAF Coltishall

This is another story from the Eastern Daily Press.

In 2021 a proposal was put forward on behalf of GlavenHill for building up to 325 homes on the former RAF base at Badersfield, between Buxton and Scottow.

The base is designated as a conservation area. (PDF)

A statement by the parish council said ‘the proposals are completely out of proportion with the village of Scottow and Badersfield and, if built, would undoubtedly increase the problems of non-sustainable development, where residents are reliant on cars to travel to work and school and our already congested roads worsen.’

No planning application was subsequently lodged with NNDC and the idea seems to have been shelved.

GlavenHill at Dereham

In 2018, 291 homes were approved for construction at Dereham despite ‘significant opposition’ from the community. The initial proposal was put forward on behalf of GlavenHill by Lanpro. According to the Eastern Daily Press, this decision was reached four months after another 279 homes were approved at Dereham. The plans were approved by a vote of six to four. Full story here.