Council leaders have backed a move to put plans for up to 10,000 homes to the north-east of Norwich back in a blueprint for major growth.

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

A legal challenge forced council officers to look again at the joint core strategy – a blueprint for where 37,000 homes could be built in Norwich, parts of Broadland and parts of South Norfolk – between now and 2026.

A judicial review obtained by Salhouse campaigner Stephen Heard saw Mr Justice Ouseley rule that the councils behind the blueprint 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 councils, which make up the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (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, which were presented to the GNDP board yesterday.

Option one was for the north-east growth triangle to remain the most appropriate place for the homes.

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 being built in Hethersett and Cringleford.

But council leaders on the GNDP board yesterday agreed to take the recommendation by officers for homes to the north east of Norwich to their respective authorities.

Brenda Arthur, leader of Norwich City Council, said: “I’d suggest sufficient work has been done to give us the confidence to go with option one.”

John Fuller, leader of South Norfolk Council, said: “Although we did not show our workings out previously that has been put right and the first option turned out to be the best anyway.”

But, Dan Roper, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat group at Broadland District Council, who was at the meeting, said afterwards: “For something which had been described as being finely balanced in the presentation, it was ridiculous that there was no discussion of the merits of option two.

“I hope this is not just nodded through at Broadland District Council, but that it gets full and attention and examination, rather than the 29 minutes it got at the GNDP.”

dan.grimmer@archant.co.uk

10 comments

  • i bet they are planning 50,000 for next year.Huge mistake and undemocratic.No need for these "homes". Bet NewZealand and similar countries do not allow this wholesale ruination of land.

    Report this comment

    bookworm

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • i bet they are planning 50,000 for next year.Huge mistake and undemocratic.No need for these "homes". Bet NewZealand and similar countries do not allow this wholesale ruination of land.

    Report this comment

    bookworm

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • people don't want this wholesale development of rural Norfolk.it will never end.

    Report this comment

    bookworm

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • Totally agree Billy, we don't need 10,000 new houses - we need to make better use of the houses we already have. How many thousands of houses lay empty 90% of the year because they've been bought by folk who like a weeks holiday in our beautiful rural Norfolk. Who is addressing the holiday home or second home problem?

    Report this comment

    Moley

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • In the words of SNDC leader John Fuller, "the first option turned out to be the best anyway". Priceless! Who conducted the review of the original proposals? The Greater Norwich Development Partnership. How is GNDP's board constituted? As I understand it, they are mostly elected members from Broadland, South Norfolk and Norwich City Councils. Who is the GNDP chair? Andrew Proctor, leader of Broadland District Council! This reminds me of a classic episode of the TV show Father Ted, where the priests ended up having to rig a lottery to ensure that they won it. Before announcing the result, they explained to the public that while it was unusual for the people organising a lottery to get the first prize, this DID SOMETIMES HAPPEN!

    Report this comment

    Trevor Ashwin

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • All agreed in commitee and adone deal ,soon Wroxham will become part of Greater Norwich,and the developers so much richer

    Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • people don't want this wholesale development of rural Norfolk.it will never end.

    Report this comment

    bookworm

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • Too many developers, financiers et cereta have a stake in now North Norwich, the NDR, Rackheath and so on, deals done in boom-years which the council seem to think irrevocable and, legally, or in terms of the cost of the undoing process, probably are. If 37,000 homes have to be built, it's just a shame less imagination is being employed in the process. This is Norfolk, afterall.

    Report this comment

    Rogers of Norwich

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • Sounds like a done deal before the meeting. Option 1 providing justification for the NDR. Option 2 had so much sense with dispersal rather than one large block of housing. 10,000 x 2 = additional car in one concentrated area.

    Report this comment

    Marigold

    Friday, July 20, 2012

  • i bet they are planning 50,000 for next year.Huge mistake and undemocratic.No need for these "homes". Bet NewZealand and similar countries do not allow this wholesale ruination of land.

    Report this comment

    bookworm

    Friday, July 20, 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: 24°C

min temp: 16°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT