Search

Hundreds of sites where new homes could be built in Norwich, Broadland and South Norfolk revealed

PUBLISHED: 12:47 05 November 2016 | UPDATED: 10:52 06 November 2016

(Picture: PA)

(Picture: PA)

Archant

The locations where thousands of new homes could be built in Norwich, South Norfolk and Broadland over the next two decades have been revealed.

The field off Farmland Road at Costessey, where a planning application for 83 homes has previously been rejected. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY The field off Farmland Road at Costessey, where a planning application for 83 homes has previously been rejected. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY

More than 9,500 acres of land, which would accommodate some 70,000 houses, has been put forward by landowners after they approached by council bosses to suggest potential development sites.

And places like Wymondham, Costessey, Easton, Honingham, Hethersett, Cringleford and Little Melton are among the towns and villages where landowners have put forward the largest amount of land for possible housing development.

About 500 sites have been put forward after Norwich City Council, Broadland District Council and South Norfolk Council invited landowners, developers and agents to suggest land which could be used for housing, as well as employment and community uses, as part of a major blueprint known as the Greater Norwich Local Plan.

Council bosses say sites need to be identified because the area will need to cope with future growth by 2036 - of about 12,000 homes.

Shaun Vincent. Shaun Vincent.

But council leaders stress far more sites have been submitted than will be needed for housing and each site will need to be carefully assessed for suitability. Planning applications will also have to be approved before homes are built.

Very few sites came forward in the Norwich City Council area - just 126 acres, which includes the proposals for more than a thousand homes at Anglia Square.

In South Norfolk, more than 5,200 acres of land have been forward and more than 4,100 in Broadland. The pattern of sites shows a much greater number of small sites in more rural locations within South Norfolk, which has about double the number of sites submitted in Broadland.

Wymondham, including Spooner Row, was the place where the largest amount of land, by area, was put forward,. About 1,300 acres offered up, while there was a similar figure to the west of Norwich in Costessey, Easton and Honingham.

Other areas where significant amounts of land were put forward include Cringelford, Hethersett and Little Melton (1,000 acres), the north east growth triangle, which includes Salhouse and Rackheath (642 acres) and Hellesdon, Horsford and St Faiths (617 acres).

John Fuller, leader of South Norfolk Council, said: “We shouldn’t be surprised that when you ask landowners have they got land, they put land forward for building.

“It’s the role of councils to listen, but not necessarily agree to their requests. A preliminary analysis has shown about seven times more land has been forward for building than is necessary.

“People can be reassured that, just because land is promoted, doesn’t mean the councils will agree it should be developed.”

Andrew Boswell, leader of the Green group at Norfolk County Council, said housing needed to be sustainable and much more emphasis needed to be put on that during analysis of sites.

39 comments

  • There is not a shortage of houses in Norwich. It's all lies.

    Report this comment

    Parsnip

    Sunday, November 6, 2016

  • There is no such thing as the 'property ladder' because of the perpetual greed of some which has made a house unaffordable for the average man. Worst thing ever was offering multiples above 3x salary which just meant everyone rushing to buy the properties 'before they go up again' creating the spiral upwards and crash. If teh interest rate goes up the prices will come crashing down again. The buy-to-let just fuelled it even more, and was yet another way for the banks to lend more money for more profit. A sad state of affairs, where the average man is convinced that a rise in house prices helps him, but the reverse is true in the LONG RUN.

    Report this comment

    Considered View

    Sunday, November 6, 2016

  • RC3 the office of national statistics have a very good breakdown of average gross earnings by council area and Broadland is less than 26.5k pa. taking your Aylsham example, a £913 per month mortgage, may be doable but isnt necessarily affordable, particularly when you factor in other living expenses such as food and travel to get to work. Travel costs in a rural area such as Norfolk are not cheap so it doesn't take much of a price rise in fuel, food or mortgage to significantly impact household income. I personally find the idea of a mortgage of nearly £1000 per month for a modest sized home quite shocking and really feel for people struggling to get on the housing ladder. The fact that the average age of a first time buyer is now 38 tells you everything you need to know about what has happened to the housing market. I have a brother in his early 40s who is single, earns a decent wage above the average but cannot afford to buy his own property, and he's not looking for anything special or flashy , just a decent home. The other aspect of the market which has affected first time time buyers ability to get on the ladder is the rise of buy to let and developers who are buying up what would traditionally have been FTB stock, i.e., small terraces or semis which need doing up but which could be done up over time. However buy to let or developers buy up the stock do it up and charge extortionate rents or an inflated sale price for profit; property programmes like homes under the hammer demonstrate the issue perfectly. As for your comment that if developers are building big houses there must be a market for them, it means nothing of the sort. Look at the number of 4 bed houses in Brundall and Blofield on Rightmove, there' are lots and many have been for sale for quite a while, yet these are deemed desirable areas!

    Report this comment

    NW16

    Saturday, November 5, 2016

  • And a whacking great profit all round

    Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Saturday, November 5, 2016

  • @smh and nw16- all fair points, but my answer is people need to buy he house they can afford. Developers only build houses they can sell, if they build large houses there must be a market for them. I appreciate your example smh, but the theoretical family you are talking about will simply have to buy in a 'cheaper' area. So it might be a three bed terrace in a bowthorpe 1970's estate that suits their budget. That's ok, if they want something else they'll need to find a way to increase their earnings. It's unreasonable to expect the market to meet certain people's unrealistic expectations.

    Report this comment

    Rushallchap3

    Saturday, November 5, 2016

  • RC3 - avarage household income, where both partners are working, is more like £40,000 last year. Not £53k. Often one partner will be on reduced income to look after children. Four times salary mortgage means £160k, so a large deposit is needed to secure a 3-bed house. I'm on a better than average salary, but my partner is on almost nothing, so the household income is much lower than your ideal. I couldn't afford to buy my house now, at market prices. To me, "affordable" means that you can buy on average household income, even if the interest rate rises to 10%. Could your example afford that?

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Saturday, November 5, 2016

  • I would rather hear about plans to improve housing in the inner city then all theses new housing surrounding the Northern Bypass.The slum areas of Esdelle Street ,Magpie Road,Magdelan Street ,Marlborough Road,Beaconsfield Road ,Knowsley Road.Woodhouse Street .all of the Spencer Street Areas Bulll Close and all the other Slum housing to the left and right of leading out of the city,are all a disgrace and the back ways and Alleys was are awful for our children to pass everyday. No get the bulldozers out and bring the area into the 21 st 22nd centuries.I am talking about the housing and not the lovely people who live in these slum areas.

    Report this comment

    L-F-G

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • perhaps our open floodgates have caused a lot of these problems. yes houses are way overpriced for the younger persons wanting to buy. an usustainable market with greed pushing it higher, if houses prices were lower there would be more spending money so people could enjoy better living standards. when i got my first mortage it was 3 x wage over 25 years not 6x over 30 +. the bankers who gain extreme wealth from this also created gfc, they got off scott free.

    Report this comment

    Margaret Bailey

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Tar Mac The World and cover it with Motor Vehicles

    Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • rus will be busy drawing up the plans for all these houses.

    Report this comment

    ted

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • This is all froth Of course farmers and others with a bit if land want it designated for building on. The value goes up and they, potentially, make shed loads of money. But none of this actually matters until they get planning permission which goes through the usual process But at least we get some measure of landowners' level of avarice.

    Report this comment

    Alchemist

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • all there proposed developments wouldn't stick in the craw if the developers were held to the promises they make as sweeteners to get approval. i live in horsford, and the various builders have promised road improvements, junction upgrades, landscaping projects and lord knows what else down the years, but not one of these things has actually appeared.in fact they got one area of land on the condition that a pond was left undisturbed, guess what?, they "accidentally" filled it in!.on that occasion english nature stepped in and made them re excavate it. so it can be done.

    Report this comment

    blueboy

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • What's that whining I can hear ? oh yes it's the nimbys getting worked up into lather.these homes are so badly needed .

    Report this comment

    stoneman

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Yes the uk average wage is £26.500 but what is it Norfolk?AGreat deal less for sure!Anyway we don't need our countryside turned to concrete!

    Report this comment

    tonyb

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • @nw16 - That's a fair point, but the development you are talking about must be affordable to some people. As has been said, developers are in the house building game to make money. If no one buys the houses then the developers would stand to lose cash. Having dealings with quite a few developers I can assure you they are mostly pretty shrewd operators who win a lot more often that they lose. I guess the people buying these houses have good, well paid jobs and decent savings (or money made from selling other properties); good for them I say. The smaller houses they move out will be available for others to buy and so on down the chain to the smallest studio flat. @steely - also a fair point, but I think it'll be better to cross that bridge if we come to it.

    Report this comment

    Rushallchap3

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • How many Real jobs, not virtual or hypothetical jobs, will there be? Get the work, the industry guarantees first .. not the NfN 'cart before the horse' method.

    Report this comment

    Patrik

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Rushallchap3, you just have to look at current new developments to know that affordability is a myth. Take the multiple developments currently under construction in and around Blofield and Brundall with even more being proposed. The vast majority are 4-5 bed executive style houses costing a minimum of £400k, which I would not consider 'affordable' for most families earning average wage. Even a 5% deposit on a property that price is a huge amount of money which most people simply don't have and then coupled with the mortgage payments on the balance It's simply not affordable for the majority.

    Report this comment

    NW16

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • This is slightly higher than the amount of new housing we would need to cater for our share of the increase in national population if the medium term trend continues so is not unreasonable but sadly there is always a lag in delivery of infrastructure and also people follow jobs not the other way round. Please do not build housing in this area for my children or grandchildren I expect them to follow their cousins out of the area as soon as they can, I have instilled an ethic of earning it rather than sitting around waiting for someone to build a house for them so they can live near mummy and daddy.

    Report this comment

    JohnnyH

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Rushall - good stuff. The downside would come if interest rates were to rise to 15 percent. This happened to me in the early 80's when I bought my first house.

    Report this comment

    Steely Dan

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • @smh - All housing is affordable to someone, it's a matter of relative to a persons income. But to answer your question, yes I think most of the housing built will be affordable. I don't be housing association affordable (i.e. subsidised), I mean affordable to ordinary working people. Lets take an example. Average UK salary is £26,500. So let's take a couple both earning the average, they have a combined income of £53K. They could have a brand new 3 bed semi in Aylsham (that was the most average place I could think of, apologies to any aylsham-ites) for £192,540 at willow park. a 25 year mortgage for them at 3pc interest rate would cost £913 per month. This is easily within range of our average couple. Some people will earn less, some people will earn more. There are different size properties to suit their wallets. If those prices are still a bit steep then there is the used property market. What is important is that people buy a house they can afford. If you earn an average salary, you should buy an average house. If you don't earn very much you should buy a small house. The problem arises when people aspirations don't align with their means.

    Report this comment

    Rushallchap3

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Agreed, Andy. There have been no comments objecting to the building of the houses, just the lack of foresight in imposing infrastructure improvements to support the new builds. Look how long it's taken Queens Hills to get any of the promised infrastructure. All we're asking is that the new schools, doctors, dentists, hospitals, etc, are pre-planned and something started before the developers can start reneging on their agreements.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Rushallchap3 - do you really believe that? The houses will be affordable? Look at what's been built over the last few years that you're constantly complaining about - do you really think that will change without a lot of pressure? I have no faith that developers will bring down prices, as they're in it to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. And when councils try to impose percentages, there's always some reason why they'll be the last ones built ... and then there's a reason why it can't be done at the last minute.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • @ Diss Man. It is not that Parishes dont care, but they do receive a share of income generated by housing development via CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) which the Parish can reinvest to benefit their community residents,

    Report this comment

    Dee

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Who cares?

    Report this comment

    rancidiser

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Will wait and see but I hope that this will not be agricultural land. We all still need to be fed as as our population grows we need more. We mustn't forget milk doesn't just come from a bottle it comes from a cow feed on pasture and grain. Never mind there is plenty of golf courses that can be ploughed up. At least owners of new houses will not have to dig up their gardens - they are not big enough! I hope hospitals , schools etc will all be covered. Not against new homes if they are in right place with all the associated utilities required.

    Report this comment

    jennifer jane

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Only Me, most peoples children & grandchildren can no longer afford to get on the housing ladder and given that the majority of the properties being built are what could be termed as up market, these will properties will not be for them.

    Report this comment

    John L Norton

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • How naive some people are. Parish Council and residents opposition, generally make no difference to the outcome of applications and there are numerous examples to support this.

    Report this comment

    Diss man

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Well said 100%. The pant wetting nimbys need to calm down and realise that most of the people these houses are for are already here - they are their children & grandchildren. And jobs follow people, won't be any if everyone is wearing incontinance pads that's for sure.

    Report this comment

    Only Me

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • 100% Norfolk - the problem is, the submitted sites are not contiguous spaces, they're scattered all over so they can say they don't need to put in the facilities, even if the local ones are already at capacity. When you look at the list of submitted sites, there are some large numbers such as Wymondham - 525ha, Costessey - 500ha, Cringleford - 440ha, Hellesdon (leading to Drayton) - 250ha. I have long asked the council to include infrastructure requirements in the planning for the growth areas, but often they allow developments to proceed without putting these in place first. Then the councils spend the development funds on pet projects rather than the facilities the area needs.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Calm down pant wetters! This is nothing new, local authorities are required to plan for the future and have constantly been undertaking such processes. This stage is simply the call for sites, the sites being for all uses, NOT JUST HOUSING. If you don't like the sound of something then get involved, check your Council's website, read leaflets, go to the village hall when an exhibition is on etc. Don't rely on information being spoon fed to you on your sofa's or rely on reporting in the EDP as you will end up unhappy!

    Report this comment

    100% Norfolk

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Greyhound Opening in Norwich was cleared of residents back in 2008 (with all the associated corruption and controvesy) and then demolished in 2009. Plans have been made, adjusted, dropped, restarted, etc for over 100 properties to be built on the site. Still not one trench has been dug, not one brick laid. How's about finishing what's been started before looking for other places to build as that seems a sensible thing to do?

    Report this comment

    IDSLikesDandyMick

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • This, along with a great deal more where population movements are involved, is not just a local issue, it is the bleeding edge of the implimentation of agenda item 21 from the UN Rio 1992 conference on the environment and development. Such GLOBAL matters take time to trickle down and have fairly recently started to have noticeable local impact but there is no point in trying to avoid the inevitable because inevitable it is. Not only inevitable but natural justice. Nimby is unacceptable because it is right and proper that it SHOULD be in your back yard. Live with it.

    Report this comment

    koenig

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • There is no doubt very serious problems loom in the not to distant future, these people don't care about that when there are serious financial incentives at stake.

    Report this comment

    John L Norton

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Susie and SMH have hit the nail on the head. importantly we do not have the basic infrastructure to service the homes or businesses that the existing plans require let alone any more. By basic I mean electricity, water and the like. This will cost us all billions to meet demand but politicians are either unaware of the problem or do not want to talk about it but how can the developments go ahead without these basic needs? Even when these needs are met, there will be billions more required for hospitals, schools, etc as well the people to staff them. Time to get real and start stating how much this will cost.

    Report this comment

    andy

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Great news. This will allow housing to be built that will be affordable for our children and people who want to live here. You can't build housing without access to the services infrastructure (water, energy, etc..) so upgrading where required will happen. The country council education department constantly models area population, including new housing, growth and extends and builds new school where required. Building these homes for families means jobs whilst they are being built. As for jobs, if you search for jobs on the edp website alone in Norfolk today there are 1,392 vacancies. We were told that brexit would mean a return to a golden age of milk and honey with jobs for all and unbounded growth. This region voted unequivocally for that vision so let's have done faith in it. Build the houses and the people and jobs will come.

    Report this comment

    Rushallchap3

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Great news. This will allow housing to be built that will be affordable for our children and people who want to live here. You can't build housing without access to the services infrastructure (water, energy, etc..) so upgrading where required will happen. The country council education department constantly models area population, including new housing, growth and extends and builds new school where required. Building these homes for families means jobs whilst they are being built. As for jobs, if you search for jobs on the edp website alone in Norfolk today there are 1,392 vacancies. We were told that brexit would mean a return to a golden age of milk and honey with jobs for all and unbounded growth. This region voted unequivocally for that vision so let's have done faith in it. Build the houses and the people and jobs will come.

    Report this comment

    Rushallchap3

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Quite right Susie and such is the inadequacy of our councils these issues will not be addressed in pursuit of "growth" as required by developers and land owners; and we will all suffer the consequences in more traffic,poorer services etc etc

    Report this comment

    Diss man

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • Plus, will they detail the plans for a new hospital, given that the existing ones have already passed their limits? Asking this sort of question is not NIMBYism, as some will be quick to point the finger, but just wanting to make sure that housing growth is accompanied by appropriate infrastructure improvements so cope with the increased population and demand. Gas, water, sewerage, electricity, doctors, dentists, hospitals, primary and secondary schools, cycle routes, roads ... all of these should be considered in the same priority as the housing to ensure the new communities are properly served.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Friday, November 4, 2016

  • So even more homes, Will there be extra schools built and Drs etc to cope with the demand. Plus the extra demand on water and gas. We have enough new houses being built, and where are the jobs?

    Report this comment

    susiewong

    Friday, November 4, 2016

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

Most Read

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up to the following newsletters:

Sign up to receive our regular email newsletter

Latest from the EDP

Show Job Lists

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 18°C

min temp: 12°C

Listen to the latest weather forecast