Don’t be so fast to dismiss the alternatives to putting 10,000 new homes to the north-east of Norwich – that’s the message from opposition councillors at Broadland District Council.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

An extraordinary meeting of Broadland District Council will take place tomorrow night, where councillors will decide on the future of a blueprint for where thousands of homes should be built in and around Norwich over the next 15 years.

A legal challenge has forced the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) – made up of Norwich, Broadland amd South Norfolk Councils – to rethink the joint core strategy for where 37,000 homes and 27,000 jobs could be created by 2026.

A High Court judge told the councils they had not demonstrated why an area to the north-east of Norwich was picked for up to 10,000 homes, ahead of alternative locations.

He told the GNDP to reassess the north-east growth triangle – which includes Rackheath, Old Catton, Spixworth and Thorpe St Andrew.

That reassessment saw three options for growth drawn up. Option one was for the north-east growth triangle to remain the most appropriate place.

Option two was to limit development to inside the route of the planned northern distributor road around Norwich, while option three would disperse 2,400 of the new homes around the north-west and north-east of Broadland, with a further 4,600 in Hethersett and Cringleford.

The GNDP board recommended that the councils agree to consult the public on option one. Norwich City Council and South Norfolk Council have already agreed that should be the way forward.

Broadland District Council will decide whether to follow suit tomorrow, but the opposition Liberal Democrat group have called for option two not to be dismissed so rapidly.

Dan Roper, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said: “Broadland Liberal Democrats will oppose any move to put the joint core strategy out to consultation unless option two is considered on an equal basis.

“The option two proposal must be put to the public and we would question the motives of anyone who wants to prevent this from happening.”

Andrew Proctor. leader of Broadland District Council and chairman of the GNDP, has previously said: “The recommendation that the north-east growth triangle is the most appropriate has been thoroughly tested and checked at every turn in the spirit of the court’s ruling.”

If the recommendation is approved by all three councils, consultation on the plan will take place from Friday, August 10 until Monday, October 8.

9 comments

  • I'm frustrated that my attempts at commenting on this article are not being published. I wonder why? Five other peoples' have been published since I first submitted mine.

    Report this comment

    Trevor Ashwin

    Thursday, August 2, 2012

  • Gladstone; We have always made our position clear. We, along with other community groups and CPRE, believe that the 37,000 houses called for in the Joint Core Strategy is far too many. We would like to see a bottom up target generated by local residents and Parish Councils rather than a goverment top down target. Once we have a smaller number then lets have a fully inclsive debate around the dispersal of these around existing villages and towns some of who are crying out for the inward investment. We haven't changed our position sine we began this camapaign in 2008.

    Report this comment

    SNUB

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • If they don't want the homes, stick a travellers site there...that'll give em somet to moan about...

    Report this comment

    Rons

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • What evidence is there that "27,000 jobs could be created by 2026" if 37,000 new homes are built?

    Report this comment

    Judy Holland

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • “The recommendation that the north-east growth triangle is the most appropriate has been thoroughly tested and checked at every turn in the spirit of the court’s ruling.” But who has done the "checking and testing"? The Greater Norwich Development Partnership -- whose board members are almost all councillors, and which is chaired by Mr Proctor himself! It is not surprising that they have chosen to pursue their original plan -- partly because Broadland Council don't want to lose face, partly because their GNDP partners in South Norfolk will not want the "Growth Triangle" homes spreading into their patch. I can imagine SNDC leader John Fuller having nightmares about this. There is no truly independent oversight at all here.

    Report this comment

    Trevor Ashwin

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • stop all immigration to ease the housing crisis

    Report this comment

    milecross

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • just stop this madness.undemocratic descisions made.we keep paying our council tax.

    Report this comment

    bookworm

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • The Judge was very clear in declaring that what the GNDP did was UNLAWFUL and the work has to be redone. They haven’t done this but merely window dressed and regurgitated the previous results without a full and transparent process. This is treating the judgement with contempt and taking local residents for fools particularly as the so-called independent inquiry that BDC is meant to be carrying out has not yet been completed. We continue to receive support from national backers who see the significance of this judgement as the case illustrates the potential future pitfalls as local planning authorities tackle their duty to co-operate as defined in the new Localism Act, and National Planning Policy Framework. They are attempting, by rushing through with a consultation in the holiday month of August and refusing legitimate requests to extend the time period, to minimise the impact of the judgment. Lets face it; can Broadland's housing strategy be reconsidered without affecting the rest of the JCS? The answer surely must be no. It is hard to see how proper consideration of the alternatives to growth can exclude the possibility of some or all of that growth being reallocated to where the jobs are. Perhaps the reason for the rush is the abolishment of the East of England regional strategy opening the way for all Norfolk community groups to collaborate, with the help of CPRE, and successfully argue that a lower level of growth overall is more appropriate, potentially affecting the whole JCS area. Or is it because they need these houses as income generators and not to satisfy housing need at all. After all Broadland is facing bankruptcy if its financial reserves are not replenished. Even now we could still see the dual prospect of huge council tax increases and large estates of empty and unsold new homes. A future that none of us would like to see. Are they perhpas rushing to get this through before county council elections next year fearing the backlash from the clear lack of democracy in the county and the loss of twin hatter seats? Our campaign continues and we will take whatever actions, direct and indirect, to ensure that GNDP understand that local people do not want or see a real need for this level of development. There is plenty of evidence that confirm this view but for some reason GNDP and the local authorities do not seem to get it. Please do not treat as idiots or underestimate us. Let’s see some reality and candour rather than arrogance and untruths.

    Report this comment

    SNUB

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  • SNUB - so do you agree with this Lib Dem position or not? It is all verywell opposing everything but what do you support?

    Report this comment

    Gladstone

    Wednesday, August 1, 2012

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Partly Cloudy

Partly Cloudy

max temp: 20°C

min temp: 15°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT