Reepham Town Council has raised objections to the Pettywell Solar Farm planning application following its meeting on Wednesday 15 January, with the four councillors present voting unanimously against the plans.

The meeting was attended by almost 40 members of the public, as well as representatives from the developer, Albanwise Synergy.

The solar farm, which is planned for land east of Nowhere Lane, is a renewable energy-generating project including photovoltaic panels, supporting infrastructure including inverters, transformers, a substation, a battery energy storage system, fencing, CCTV cameras, access tracks, and biodiversity and landscape mitigation.

The project, which also borders Marriott’s Way and the B1145, has a 40-year lifespan, according to Albanwise.

In its submission to Broadland District Council, the town council said the proposed solar farm represents a “significant intrusion on valuable agricultural land, threatens local wildlife and would negatively affect tourism and the local economy.

“The cumulative impact of this development, combined with other major projects, risks overburdening the town and its infrastructure.

“Additionally, the lack of a legally binding decommissioning plan and the uncertain future of the land after the solar farm’s lifespan poses a further risk to the long-term integrity of the site.”

Objections to the plans have also been lodged by local MP Jerome Mayhew, County Councillor Greg Peck, CPRE Norfolk and more than 60 residents. However, no objections have been raised by such bodies as Natural England, the Environment Agency and Norfolk Fire & Rescue Service.

The issue appears to boil down to balancing the need for energy security and decarbonising the country’s electricity network with food security in the face of climate change and uncertain global supply chains.

Many residents and businesses point out that Reepham and nearby villages are already enduring ongoing roadworks, HGV movements and road closures associated with the cable routes passing through the district from two major offshore wind farm projects off the north Norfolk coast.

Residents, led by Hugh Ivins, who lives in Whitwell, next to the proposed solar farm site, noted that, according to government statements, “applicants should, where possible, utilise suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land, avoiding the use of best and most versatile agricultural land where possible”.

He added that an online petition has so far received more than 100 signatures objecting to the proposal. “The solar farm is simply in the wrong place,” Mr Ivins concluded.

However, Albanwise Synergy renewables development manager Chris Banks points out that the project area is primarily a combination of grades 3a and 3b agricultural land, with some grade 2 – land that is currently used for producing common commodity crops, of which the UK is an exporter, and non-specialist crops that can be grown in many areas across the country.

At the town council meeting, Albanwise said that, as a response to feedback from a consultation, it has reduced the total land area of the project by around 25%, repositioned the battery energy storage compound and made improvements to the proposed landscaping around the edges of the site.

The Hertfordshire-based renewables business also revealed that it is considering proposals to establish a community benefit fund worth £2,000 per megawatt (MW).

As the proposed solar farm has a total rating of 40 MW, which could provide enough electricity a year to power more than 14,000 dwellings, this would also offer around £80,000 for local community use.

The planning application (reference 2024/3676) has a potential determination date of 31 March. A spokesperson from Broadland’s planning department said comments can still be made, via the link HERE, up until 30 March.

See our earlier stories:

• Public consultation now open on solar farm planning application
• Plans revealed for proposed Pettywell solar farm

The post Town council objects to solar farm project appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

Members of the new-look Reepham Town Council took a positive and conciliatory line on the proposed new skatepark and other developments at the Stimpson’s Piece recreation ground at their meeting on Wednesday 9 October.

Following last month’s resignation of three councillors over the issue, they agreed it was important to tread lightly and maintain public confidence in the project.

They elected as chair Cllr Hetty Selwyn, who was co-opted to the council in May, with Matthew Steel elected vice chair, and also co-opted Thomas Hills to join them. The town council now has nine members, of whom five were present at the meeting.

Among members of the public who attended the meeting, no-one spoke up on behalf of the skatepark.

Modest funding approved

Councillors agreed to set aside £5,000 to get the skatepark project started. Some of this money will pay for legal advice on the tender documents for the construction contract.

The meeting decided that the council’s general reserves should absorb the remaining £20,000 they hope has been freed up by a previous decision to make Broadland District Council responsible for the churchyard wall.

Projects to improve Stimpson’s Piece could apply for this money in the future, they said, but would have to compete with other demands on the council’s budget.

The bulk of the funding for the replacement skatepark would need to come from grants or be raised by volunteers, councillors emphasised. They supported the creation of a “Friends of Stimpson’s Piece” group to involve local people with all aspects of the recreation ground, not just the skatepark.

But where will it go?

The tender process for a new skatepark should take just six weeks following the legal review, said town clerk Kirsty Cotgrove. It became clear, however, that the project could take much longer because of the need to agree a site and consider other potential projects at Stimpson’s Piece.

One idea is to use part of the overflow car park, said Cllr Sam James, but some councillors and members of the public worried that this might lead to parking problems at busy times.

Cllr James mentioned other potential projects such as a sensory garden and a plan to move the children’s playground away from the trees. These could delay agreement on a site for the skatepark, the meeting noted.

The next meeting of Reepham Town Council will be at 7.30 pm on Wednesday 13 November at Stimpson’s Piece Pavilion, Bartle Court, Reepham, followed by the Stimpson’s Piece Trustee meeting at 8.30 pm.

See our earlier story:

• Town councillors resign over skatepark decision

The post Town council gives skatepark project cautious backing appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

He said the statement that “fellow councillors agreed to approve the decision and contribute £25,000 towards the project”, which appeared in an article in the North Norfolk News and in the latest “Your Council Matters” on the Reepham Life website, was “factually incorrect”.

“To state that the £25,000 is ‘no longer required’ is misleading – it is town council funds and taxpayers’ money and represents about a third of the total annual precept for managing the assets/facilities in Reepham.”

Mr Lester said such a grant to the trustee (Reepham Town Council is the sole trustee of Stimpson’s Piece Charity) was not discussed or agreed during the subsequent town council meeting. Councillors need to be certain that such a grant is the best use of taxpayers’ money as it could set a precedent for how other future grant applications are dealt with, he added.

He also raised questions as to what was actually agreed at the Stimpson’s Piece Trustee meeting regarding the decision to replace the skatepark, which was removed in 2022 on safety grounds.

“Proposers and seconders were nominated during the meeting, but no votes were taken. While the trustee meetings are not governed by town council standing orders, there is still a need to act responsibly and if a proposal is nominated you would normally expect a show of hands. There was no agreement on what to replace the skatepark with, where it was to be located or how much it would actually cost,” he said.

“Further, the tender documents, which were not drafted by the town clerk but sent from another council, apparently in Essex, where they were used in another project, were never discussed and were not agreed. Councillors can not be expected to agree a tender document until such time as legal opinion has been obtained as councillors can not second guess what that opinion may be.”

He also commented on the “rude, loud and aggressive comments and behaviour” made by members of the public, including a former town councillor, during the Stimpson’s Piece meeting, and the small number of responses to the “skatepark survey” with its “leading” questions, which in his opinion was unrepresentative of the local community.

Mr Lester asserted that the town clerk and a certain town councillor have “undertaken to push decisions through without consideration of any other priorities at Stimpson’s Piece or elsewhere in Reepham, via bullying tactics and emotional outbursts, driven by the closing date for applications to Ørsted’s Hornsea 3 Community Fund in November.”

He said too much importance has been placed on a single community fund, which, if successful, will only provide about 50% of the total funds needed to replace the skatepark. “Any application to the Hornsea 3 fund will need to have green credentials,” he pointed out. “A concrete skatepark made with hundreds of tonnes of concrete may not be considered appropriate.”

Mr Lester continued: “I do not want to be associated with a project that commits to spending such a large sum of money for the benefit of a small minority of one particular age group, without considering other priorities both at Stimpson’s Piece and elsewhere in the town.

“Process has not been followed and appropriate due diligence has not been carried out. Alternatives have not been studied and the less-experienced councillors have, in my view, been bullied and cajoled into making a decision where the implications, financial and otherwise, simply have not been considered.

“I am not anti-skatepark, far from it, but in my opinion such a large sum of money would go a long way to resolving many of the issues with the children’s play facilities at Stimpson’s Piece, the old tennis courts, replacing the ground source heating system at the community hall, etc., and even provide some cash to include a replacement skate ramp and more play equipment, so that all age groups will benefit in a well-managed and safe environment with easy access.”

Reepham Town Council has been contacted for comment.

See our earlier stories:

• Town councillors resign over skatepark decision
• Why I resigned as town council chair

The post Process has not been followed’ over skatepark replacement decision appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

The previous skatepark facility located at Stimpson’s Piece was closed and removed in 2022 on safety grounds owing to persistent rust damage to the metal ramps.

Paul Mitchell (pictured above), who has resigned from the council and also as its chair, said insufficient steps had been taken to consult the wider community of Reepham and to allocate £25,000 of Reepham taxpayers’ money towards a “ridiculously expensive” skatepark that will require further funds to be found from elsewhere and be used by a relatively small number of youngsters.

Earlier estimates to replace the skatepark were reported to be around £100,000.

The decision, made at last Wednesday’s meeting of the Stimpson’s Piece Charity, of which the town council is the sole trustee, approved the skatepark replacement, although its location has yet to be determined.

The subsequent town council meeting agreed to assist with grant funding and to make a sizeable financial contribution – money that had been “ring-fenced” for repairs to the churchyard wall, although this responsibility has now been transferred to Broadland District Council.

Expressing concern that his fellow councillors had not properly considered the impact of their decision, Mr Mitchell, who was unable to attend the meeting following a hospital operation, said: “I am not against the replacement of the skatepark and if, after proper consultation with the Reepham community, it was proven to be the highest priority, I would have supported it.

“However, I feel that, as a large undertaking by the town council/trustee requiring grants to the sum of £150,000 or more, plus £25,000 of council tax payers’ money, insufficient steps have been taken to decide on priorities for any grant application and to assess and mitigate the significant risks, financial or otherwise.”

Two other councillors – Jenny Harding and Mark Lester – also resigned following the meeting; others are understood to be considering their position on the council.

In a Letter to the Editor, Mr Mitchell said the town council, as the trustee of Stimpson’s Piece, could consider bidding for a grant to make improvements to the recreation ground that would benefit far more people, such as improvements to the land drainage and modernisation of the children’s play area, as well as improving accessibility in the town generally for people with disabilities.

Mr Mitchell also said the skatepark lobbyists have been “loud and, at times, offensive to councillors”, seeking to achieve their aims by “bullying tactics to get others to do the work”.

He added that the decision was “poorly researched” and “naïve” and reported “unacceptable behaviour and offensive comments shown by many of those who attended the meeting last Wednesday evening and, prior to that, on social media”.

Mr Mitchell, who has been chair of Reepham Town Council since 2020 following the “Plantergate” affair, joined the council in 2018, initially to lobby against the developments on Stony Lane and the old station yard. He is a former headteacher, having worked in senior positions in the Norfolk education system.

Reepham Town Council has been contacted for comment.

See our previous stories:

• Recreation ground set for new outdoor skatepark
• Market Place planters finally removed
• Town council elects new chair and vice chair

The post Town councillors resign over skatepark decision appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

These have been staked and banded, and a notice for people with an interest in the graves to come forward has been put on the memorials, without success.

Where possible, Reepham Town Council would like to work with the families to make these memorials permanently safe.

Action to make the graves safe will commence in January 2025.

If you have an interest in any of the graves that have been secured temporarily or have any concerns, please contact the town clerk, Kirsty Cotgrove on 01603 873355 or email as soon as possible.

The post Testing reveals unsafe memorials in Whitwell Road cemetery appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

Reepham Town Council and the Stimpson’s Piece Charity trustees are eager to make improvements and want local input to steer this process in the right direction.

To achieve this, a survey has been created by the young people of Reepham, in conjunction with Broadland Youth Advisory Board and Resilient Pathways.

They want to hear about what changes would improve the ground and share your experiences, ideas and suggestions.

Whether it is to support the skatepark replacement or not, or to share other ideas, such as adding new benches, outdoor gym equipment or improving the playground, every insight is valuable – and your participation could make a real difference.

The survey can be accessed in two ways: printed versions can be completed at Reepham Library, Market Place, or an online version is available.

In addition, a community drop-in event is planned for Saturday 27 April from 11 am – 1 pm at the Dial House, Market Place, Reepham, where residents can speak with local volunteers and representatives from the town council about the skatepark project or share views and ideas for the local recreation ground.

The post Local survey seeks residents’ input on Stimpson’s Piece appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

In place of the originally proposed 20 assisted-living flats and a 60-bed care home, the developers now want to build 22 assisted-living bungalows on a 1.04-hectare site, in addition to the 15 two-bedroom bungalows that have already been built adjacent to the west of the undeveloped site.

The revised plans include the erection of management offices and a clubhouse/café.

The original plans, which were presented to the community and granted planning approval in January 2019, were the subject of several design changes in 2022, including alteration to the height of the proposed care home building adjacent to Marriott’s Way.

These plans have now been revised, apparently owing to current market conditions.

Public comments on the revised plans have been mixed. A resident of the existing care village believes the proposed care-assisted bungalows will fit into the surroundings more sympathetically than an apartment block.

“It is a care village, not a care home, which enhances our sense of well-being,” they said, adding that the current residents need the main social centre/management offices built “without undue delay”.

Another comment on the planning application expressed disappointment with the revised plans as the original development of the site would have provided a type of retirement/care village that enabled a progression in care provision as residents care needs changed.

“The new proposal for more bungalows does not achieve anything more than accommodation for low-level care needs and residents will have to leave the site when their needs can no longer be met,” they said.

Reepham Town Council did not object to the latest planning application, but has expressed several concerns including over-development, with the proposed bungalows being “crammed-in” and very close to each other and in close proximity to physical borders and barriers.

In addition, car parking access to some of the bungalows has been provided directly from Stony Lane in order to increase the number of dwellings on the development site, while some plots have little or no garden space.

See our earlier stories:

• Concerns raised over design changes to care village
• Launch of first bungalows in care village
• Care village/Co-op plans approved

The post Altered plans for care village submitted to district council appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

The device is located on the front wall of the pavilion, next to the main entrance, and has been registered with The Circuit, the national defibrillator network that maps defibrillators across the UK, connecting them to each ambulance service.

The town council thanks Reepham Runners, Reepham Town Football Club and Reepham Tennis Club, who have pledged donations towards the installation cost, and to ASL Electrical for installing the defibrillator so quickly.

The post Defibrillator installed at Stimpson’s Piece appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

The proposals suggest an increase in the number of new houses in Reepham from the current 155 to 203 residential dwellings by 2038.

While 15 two-bedroom bungalows have recently been built at the new Ash Tree Care Village development off Stony Lane, the current plan to build 141 new houses on land off Broomhill Lane has stalled owing to Natural England’s requirement to ensure “nutrient neutrality” for the River Wensum catchment area.

Speaking at November’s meeting of Reepham Town Council, forming planning officer and Whitwell resident Hugh Ivins pointed out that the current allocation for the Broomhill Lane site is for “approximately 100 homes”. “Approximately means plus or minus 2%,” he said.

“However, no planning permission for this site exists,” Mr Ivins asserted. “The application to build 141 homes by Lovell Homes is currently undetermined; it could be resubmitted or withdrawn at any time.”

Meanwhile, plans to build a news sports hall for the high school have been removed from the site to accommodate the additional 40 houses – despite “significant” local objections, said Mr Ivins, particularly concerning increased traffic, vehicle access and pedestrian safety.

The town council said it was under the impression that planning permission had been given to build the 141 homes, subject to resolving the nutrient neutrality issues, but would check to see if this has been legally granted.

District councillor Stuart Beadle said planning permission has been given for the sports hall, which is now proposed on existing high school land, but agreed that Broadland District Council should have updated the “approximately 100 new homes” wording in its local planning policy documents. The situation is “a complete mess”, he admitted.

The town council felt the GNLP contained several inconsistencies and did not match the Broadland District Council plan. It also expressed concern about the proposal to increase the number of new homes in Reepham by 25% in addition to the existing 141 houses planned, but without any allocation of land on which to build them.

The GNLP is being produced by Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council.

The plan provides the basis for planning decisions for the foreseeable future, providing around 45,000 new homes to meet housing needs in both urban and rural areas between 2018 and 2038. Around 9,000 of those homes have already been built in the Greater Norwich area.

The next meeting of Reepham Town Council will take place on Wednesday 13 December at 7.30 pm at Stimpson’s Piece Pavilion, Bartle Court, Reepham.

See our earlier stories:

• Major housing development decision postponed
• More delays to Broomhill Lane housing development

The post Concerns over 25% increase in new housing appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.

Earlier this year, the town council gave notification to the PCC that it could no longer afford to pay for the maintenance of the churchyard, which is believed to have closed for burials around 1897, and the wall, which requires major and expensive repair works.

It was pointed out at the town council meeting on Wednesday 11 October that local taxpayers could be faced with a £70,000 bill to fully repair the church-owned wall, which in recent years has been frequently hit and damaged by HGVs and other large vehicles, particularly on the corner of Church Hill and Ollands Road.

Earlier this year, the town council gave 12 months’ notice to the PCC that it would return the responsibility for maintenance of the churchyard and churchyard wall to the diocese; the PCC then requested the town council to reconsider.

However, Reepham Town Council was unwilling to overturn its decision, saying that despite efforts to discuss options, such as a contribution to the maintenance, the PCC had been “unwilling to engage”.

The town council said it could no longer afford the insurance premiums on the wall, which is Grade I and Grade II listed, and also felt that local taxpayers would not welcome a large increase in the precept (the tax charged on each property in the civil parish, paid through council tax) to fund the necessary repairs.

The town council noted that if the diocese declines to take back responsibility for the churchyard and churchyard wall, their maintenance would then be taken over by Broadland District Council, which could mean the grass being cut twice a year, instead of every two weeks under the existing regime.

The PCC has declined to comment.

See our earlier story:

• Responsibility for churchyard wall to return to the diocese

The post Town council up against a brick wall over churchyard appeared first on REEPHAM LIFE.