Watch this spot for news about life and events in the village of Haveringland, Norfolk, UK.
Checkout the webpages to find out more about our village.
Happy Christmas
Season’s greetings!
Here’s a card sent to us from Jerome Mayhew.
Community update from Reepham Safer Neighbourhood Team
Here’s the December 2020 Reepham Safer Neighbourhood Team community update from Norfolk Police:
Advent Silence
You are very welcome to join us for a shared silence at Haveringland Parish Church on Sunday 13th December at 3pm.
To keep everyone safe, we ask you to let us know you’re coming by filling in this form. By doing this we can allocate socially distanced seating and manage the event according to government guidance.
Please use this Advent Silence Booking Form
Update on planning application for 280 holiday units at Haveringland Hall Country Park (application 20191426)
The application was submitted in May 2020. Nearly 200 letters of objection and consultee comments (including one from the Parish Meeting), an online and written petitions with nearly 1800 names against the proposals were lodged with Broadland Council.
Since then the applicants have been in discussion with the Council about the need for additional information and key concerns. The latest information is that the applicants intend to submit a large number of additional or revised documents, including a new layout plan, in ‘early January’ 2021. Council officers have provisionally timetabled the application for consideration by the Council’s Planning Committee on 24th February.
The Haveringland Parish Meeting has been monitoring the process through a ‘Campaign Group’ made up of the Parish Planning Committee and a number of other local residents who have special skills or experience or live close to the application site. This group has contacted the Council’s Planning officers on several occasions over recent months and has raised a number of points and concerns:
1.The inadequacy of the Council’s assessment of the application when submitted, including the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment given the potential impact of the proposals on important, protected ecological sites beyond the immediate area. This lack of assessment and acceptance of the application for registration has resulted in an application which lacks a number of critical assessments or permissions.
2.The inadequacy of the Council’s consultation process, given the scale and potential impact of the proposals. This involved sending 116 letters to local residents (a number of these were not received), the posting of one site notice and a local newspaper advertisement and consultation requests to other organisations. The Council also failed to gain adequate assurance from the Applicants that all landowners directly affected by the proposals had been formally notified by them. The Parish Meeting publicised the proposal and contacted a number of organisations with a legitimate interest in them such as adjoining parish councils and a range of other organisations such as the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and Woodland Trust.
3. The lack of a proactive approach to managing the further discussions and work on the proposals with a poor response to requests for information from the Parish Meeting. This has resulted in the escalation of anxiety and stress for many elderly and vulnerable residents already living on the site and elsewhere, a loss of trust in the independence of the Council and a considerable expense of time and resources which could have been avoided if the application had not been accepted until it had the necessary documentation and assessments in place. The national ‘Planning Guarantee’ that all applications should be determined within 26 weeks of registration has not been met. The Council has appointed a new Case Officer for the application, arguing that workload issues had affected the responsiveness of the former Case Officer. Given the scale of the additional or revised information and documentation being proposed, the Parish Meeting has urged the Council to request the applicants to withdraw the current application and to submit a new one, after ensuring that the necessary assessments and documentation are in place. The Council have rejected this request.
4.The lack of clarity over the ownership, management and other roles of the large number of companies or individuals involved in the application or on the current site. These number at least 6 companies, some of which are apparently insolvent, and others which have a poor track record of dealing with previous site development conditions or management issues on this site and others across the UK. The Parish Meeting has urged the Council to ask the applicants for clarity on this, but to date they have chosen not to and argue that this and the history of the site (with a pattern of breaching or ineffective enforcement of planning conditions, mis selling of holiday units for residential use etc.) are not ‘material’ considerations for determining the application. We disagree, and argue that this information is important for determining the application, as, if approved, it is of significant complexity and would likely require a legal agreement between the Council and the relevant company to accompany any approval with conditions. Similarly this knowledge is critical for the Council to fulfill its site licensing responsibilities, and to give those living or owning properties on the site a clear point of accountability for day to day management and operation of the site, something they currently lack.
We now await the submission of revised/new documents, and assuming that the promised date of ‘early January’ is met, the Council have confirmed that a further consultation period of 21 days will be allowed. The Parish Meeting have asked the Council to ensure all those individuals and organisations already submitting comments should be informed of the revised documents and their comments invited, and subject to the nature of the revised plans, to continue to consider these and previous comments as relevant. We await a response on this request.
The Parish Meeting remains committed to its position of ‘A line in the sand- NO more development at Haveringland Hall Country Park’.
We will be considering the revised application early in 2021 and urge all those who have supported this position to renew their commitment to this when the opportunity arises.
Nigel Boldero
Chair- Haveringland Parish Meeting
25th November 2020
Haveringland Parish meeting response to the Government’s White paper: ‘Planning for the Future’
1. We are a small parish in mid Norfolk and have had experiences of the current planning system which have informed our response to this consultation.
2. Whilst welcoming the wish to simplify and streamline the current planning system, we have serious reservations about whether this can be achieved without resulting in poorer planning decisions, made without proper assessment and scrutiny.
3. The questions arising over development of most if not all sites are invariably complex, and the Government’s wish to speed things up runs the very real risk of oversimplifying matters, and reducing the scope for proper scrutiny and evaluation. Having one 6-week period of public consultation in the shortened Local Plan-making process does not provide an adequate opportunity for this assessment to be undertaken.
4. The proposals would also appear to allow new settlements to come forward under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, which would divorce them from the local planning process and therefore local scrutiny.
5. Furthermore, it is clear that after many years of reducing resources and capacity, the local authorities and other bodies in place to properly inform and enforce planning decisions and designations (for wildlife etc.) are in a very poor position to inform the planning process in an effective way. Significant investment in enhancing this capacity is required before any major changes to the planning system are brought in.
6. We also feel that the current proposals focus too much on the need for more housing (important though this is), and at the same time blames the current planning process for the lack of new housing. It is clear that landowners and developers are most at fault through land hoarding and constraining supply to maximise their returns; i.e. it is an unregulated housing market that is the main reason why the necessary housing (including much needed affordable and social housing) is not being built quickly enough.
7. We are pleased to see proposals to prioritise brownfield development, setting higher standards in design and improving the mechanisms by which planning gain is captured for the benefit of communities. However, we feel that there are a number of other issues that any fundamental reform of the system should address:
- The requirement for multi local authority local plans to replace single local authority plans where this makes strategic sense (as is the case in Norwich and its surrounding areas)- this should remove the complicated overlapping and duplication of planning policies at local level.
- Any shift from the application for outline planning permission to sites being given ‘in principle’ approval through the proposed local plan zoning system should be accompanied by the necessary resources and adequate time (more than 6 weeks) for effective assessment and consultation (including the local community).
- Confirmation that Ancient Woodlands and other protected sites (e.g. SSSI’s and County Wildlife sites) are afforded automatic national protection prior to their inclusion in local plan zoning discussions.
- The protection, recovery or improvement of the natural environment and biodiversity in any site to be a key requirement at the stage of considering full planning permission for any site, wherever it is in terms of any zoning.
- Stronger sanctions and adequately resourced enforcement of planning decisions, conditions and other authorisations that run in parallel with planning decisions; e.g water extraction, sewage treatment and disposal, natural environment management.
- Any approved development to be given a defined timescale for a start on site plus the continuation and completion of development and the enforcement of financial penalties and/or revocation of permissions if these timescales are not adhered to.
- A requirement that Planning authorities have a duty to both work constructively with applicants, but also to keeping local communities informed of planning discussions and developments, and for applications to be dealt with in a timely way, without open ended discussion with applicants that prolongs uncertainty.
- Encouraging a wide range of ways of engaging local communities in all aspects of the planning process, but recognising that some people are not ‘digitally skilled’ and will require face to face and other ways of being informed and having the opportunity to have their voices heard.
- The establishment of minimum standards to apply to all new housing provision in terms of space for different functions, access to open space, net zero in terms of energy consumption and pollution, etc.
- The application of design standards and expectations to all forms of development, not just housing. e.g industry, commercial and holiday/residential parks.
- The regularisation of the planning position of ‘mobile homes’ should be grasped, including distinguishing between caravans (which can be moved easily and towed by motor vehicles) and prefabricated units that can only be moved infrequently and then by larger vehicles/tow trucks etc. The latter should be treated as equivalent to new housing development and linked to this there should also be measures to prevent the unauthorised residential occupation of ‘holiday homes/lodges’ as residences.
- Infrastructure levy- we welcome a national scheme to ensure consistency in charges etc. but these charges should be collected at the point of granting planning permission. This would both incentivise an early commencement of development and avoid situations where a Local Authority commits to the early provision of infrastructure but the developer may not develop the site for some time after this. ‘Social infrastructure’ should be included in the eligible spend of infrastructure charges; e.g. community facilities, plus community development activity, support for voluntary groups , especially important in large new housing developments.
October 2020
Safer neighbourhood team newsletter (SNAP)
Here’s the November 2020 Reepham Safer Neighbourhood Team community update from Broadland Police:
Norfolk Police also post many of their community announcements on “NextDoor”.
Remembrance Sunday 2020
Due to current lock down restrictions, our in-person Remembrance Service will not take place.
You are welcome to watch the Service of Remembrance which will be broadcast online at 10:30am on the Haveringland Parish Church Facebook page and at www.st-agnes.org.uk .
At this service, the names of the fallen from each of our local villages will be read out, silence will be observed and wreaths laid.
We’ve created a slideshow to commemorate Remembrance Day 2020 which you can see on the St. Peter’s Church Remembrance Service page: https://haveringland.wordpress.com/st-peters-church-haveringland/haveringland-church-action-group/service-of-remembrance/
Haveringland Parish Meeting
The next Haveringland Parish Meeting will be held on Thursday 19th November at 2:30 p.m. by video conference.
All Haveringland residents are welcome to attend Parish Meetings and discuss
issues which are important to them and which might be addressed by the Parish.
If you are unable to join the meeting online via Zoom, you can also dial in by
telephone (usual charges apply).
Full details about how to join the meeting can be found on the agenda for the meeting
You can find the minutes, agendas and other documents relating to Haveringland Parish Meeting using the following link: Haveringland Parish Meeting – minutes and agendas
Haveringland Gardens success!
On Sunday afternoon the sun shone (it had rained most of the night before), and around 125 people visited Old School Garden, Oaklands Farm and the Parish Church in Haveringland’s first ‘Open Gardens’ event.
We raised nearly £900 for 2 ‘good causes’ (repairs and improvements to the Church and to support the Papillon Project -which is creating allotments at High Schools across Norfolk) .
Many people said how grateful they were for the opportunity to get out and meet others and sit in a peaceful garden. It was especially pleasing to meet two families who had lived in the Old School back in the 1970’s and 1980’s..they loved looking round and remembering the place 50 years ago.
One of them..Dennis Carter (see picture) even wore a badge from back then..he was one of the founders of the ‘Friends of St.Peter’s’ and was pleased to hear about the plans for repairs and improvements.
And at Oaklands Farm Zena and Dave, with 8 arts and crafts stalls also put on a great show. Apart from these attractions their lovely garden was also available and Dave’s work to restore a rare 1930’s Leopard Moth aircraft proved to be a big hit.
And the Papillon Project had a great afternoon explaining the project to some enthusiastic visitors and sold some refurbished garden tools amongst other items at their ‘Pap up shop’!
The Church and Conservation Churchyard were also open and many visitors managed to see inside the Church for the first time, as it is normally closed.
Thanks to Jane Steward of Eastgate Larder and to Peter Purdy of Woodgate Nursery for their donations of merchandise which all helped boost our takings.
Thank you to everyone who came along – we’re already thinking of even bigger and better next year!
Haveringland Hall Resort – Parish Meeting statement of objection
Here’s the response from Haveringland Parish Meeting to the planning application.
Thanks to everyone for their input.
