Stephen Heard, who launched the legal challenge against the joint core strategy.

High Court judge casts huge question mark over Norwich homes blueprint

by DAN GRIMMER Friday, February 24, 2012
1:33 PM

A huge question mark has been cast over the future of a blueprint for where thousands of homes should be built in and around Norwich over the next 15 years - after a High Court judge upheld a legal challenge against it.

The lawfulness of the so-called joint core strategy (JCS), which is a framework for where 37,000 new homes in Norwich, Broadland and South Norfolk will be built, had been challenged in the High Court.

And today, Mr Justice Ouseley handed down his judgement in the Royal Courts of Justice in London - a judgement which casts doubt on the future of the strategy.

The judicial review had been sought by Salhouse campaigner Stephen Heard, from Snub (Stop Norwich Urbanisation), against Broadland District Council – one of the authorities which drew up the strategy - on two points.

One was that alternatives to the plan for growth to the north-east of Norwich, in areas such as Rackheath, were not properly explored or explained.

The second was that the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) – a “fundamental” part of the plan – or alternatives to it had not been environmentally assessed.

At one point during the two-day judicial review in December, Mr Justice Ouseley had likened the council’s case to “wading through treacle” and asked if the options had “sprung fully formed from the brow of Zeus”.

And the judge today ruled the document had not complied with legal directives, in that it had not properly demonstrated which alternatives to development to the north east of Norwich had been considered and had not shown they had been examined to the same degree as the options which did form part of the blueprint.

He did not find any issue with the second point over the NDR, which, subsequently to the judicial review, has been awarded government funding.

The judge has not stated what should happen to the joint core strategy as a result of today’s judgement, with another hearing due to take place next Wednesday.

The strategy, which has been in the making since 2007 and was adopted in March, was drawn up by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP) made up of Norwich City, Broadland District, South Norfolk Council and Norfolk County Councils and the Broads Authority.

Mr Heard said: “Whist we are pleased that the judge upheld our legal challenge on our first point we should never have had to be placed in a situation whereby a group of local residents had to put their lives on hold for a number of years to fight this through the courts.

“We will now take further legal advice on the next steps, which could include the quashing of the JCS.

“The campaign continues until the GNDP and the four local authorities see sense and present suitable alternatives for the public to have a view on.”

In response to Mr Justice Ouseley’s ruling this morning, Greater Norwich Development Partnership chairman Andrew Proctor, chairman of the GNDP and leader of Broadland District Council, said: “The judge has given a ruling that we need to study in detail, but it is clear that he does not challenge the scale of growth required in the Greater Norwich area and considers that the preferred growth option was properly assessed.

“He does agree that way the Joint Core Strategy was arrived at “could not be stigmatised as unreasonable” and was subject to “frequent public consultation.

“However, he did conclude that the Strategic Environmental Assessment we carried out did not properly explain the alternatives to the North East Growth Triangle, which became our favoured option, or examine those alternatives in the same depth.

“The judge has made it clear he is still to be persuaded on what final action to take, and we are working hard to address the issue at a second hearing to be held shortly when we will be making further submissions.”

See tomorrow’s papers for more details.

Latest News

44 comments

Fred -- we appreciate your attempt at replying to andy and others, but what you are saying is still not stacking up. Why THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND houses? And why such an emphasis on greenfield, as opposed to infillbrownfield, development? With regard to the latter point, Andrew Proctor and his colleagues will of course tell us that all brownfield options have been 'considered', but in many Broadland localities we know they have not been taken seriously, probably at least in part because BDC will find it easier and cheaper to manage the construction of large, environmentally harmful estates. And with regard to the 'proper planning' -- readers should take a look at SNUB's website (do an internet search on 'SNUB campaign Norwich) and read some of their detailed analysis of BDC's transport strategy for the Growth Triangle area. They might be surprised -- or even amused! -- by some of what they read.

Report this comment

Trevor Ashwin

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Well Andy if a vested interest is wanting to make sure that people who need houses and jobs can get them and providing them is properly planned, then yes I have a vested interest. I am not sure where your evidence for not needing the houses comes from but I am willing to bet it is not as good as that considered by 4 different councils and 2 independent inspectors. SNUB have said that houses should be spread around - if you believe that is the easy way just look at the EDP which reports opposition to nearly every development ever proposed!

Report this comment

Fred

Sunday, February 26, 2012
Fred, the use of the word evidence is just plain wrong. The plan to build 37,000 houses is POLICY, nothing to do with evidence at all. One can only presume that yourself and Abraham have a vested interest on this matter? We need sustainable housing to meet needs, not massive over development which is irreversible and we will all live to regret.

Report this comment

andy

Sunday, February 26, 2012
Abraham is probably more correct than others. A judge is only looking at the process that was gone through not whether it is the right plan. So all the evidence that we need a lot more houses and jobs is still there and landowners and developers will want to fulfil that need. SNUB have actually done us all a great disservice and I suspect we will live to regret their actions.

Report this comment

Fred

Sunday, February 26, 2012
Abraham, are you a Councillor, by any chance?

Report this comment

Admetus

Sunday, February 26, 2012
Abraham, are you a Councillor, by any chance?

Report this comment

Admetus

Sunday, February 26, 2012
kingsize , by his post has lost the moral high ground and the argument. These houses will be built, simply because of demand. Its about where they will be built. SNUB if they win ( and they havent yet) will condemn us to unfettered sprawl. The very thing they claim to be against.

Report this comment

Abraham

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Adamb's comment regarding Snub changing nit;'s name to Snob is nearly as cridible as him cnanging his pathetic 'nom de plume' to ADAMBLOODYIDIOT..

Report this comment

kingsize

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Warmest congratulations to Stephen Heard and his associates for their hard work and very considerable bravery in taking this case on. I think it is fascinating to see how deeply this VERY IMPORTANT Norfolk news story is buried on the EDP website this evening. I have had to search around to find it. No surprises there -- this is not the kind of news that Norfolk's landownerpoliticalestate agent vested interests wish to hear! The cat is now out of the bag. Soon more people will start to realise that the JCS's 37,000 homes package is more about maximising profit for a very few people than a scheme that is truly intended for the benefit of Norfolk people.

Report this comment

Trevor Ashwin

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Warmest congratulations to Stephen Heard and his associates for their hard work and very considerable bravery in taking this case on. I think it is fascinating to see how deeply this VERY IMPORTANT Norfolk news story is buried on the EDP website this evening. I have had to search around to find it. No surprises there -- this is not the kind of news that Norfolk's landownerpoliticalestate agent vested interests wish to hear! The cat is now out of the bag. Soon more people will start to realise that the JCS's 37,000 homes package is more about maximising profit for a very few people than a scheme that is truly intended for the benefit of Norfolk people.

Report this comment

Trevor Ashwin

Saturday, February 25, 2012
I think the cat is coming out of the bag! All this money from the levy will mean that they don't have to budget for other infrastructure allowing them to plug holes in their pension schemes. I would also put my trust in the developers rather than this group of con men.

Report this comment

Marigold

Saturday, February 25, 2012
One further point, this mass development was supposed to raise, via a levy, huge sums to pay for all sorts of development including the NDR and the so called rapid transport scheme. Oh dear, what are they going to do now? I can hear the mounting panic already!

Report this comment

andy

Saturday, February 25, 2012
There is no case for building 37,000 new houses - with the hoped provision of only 27,000 new jobs - other than that the plan was conceived by John Prescott on the back of unlimited immigration. This has never been overturned by the current government. Broadland Council stated that this was the case during one of their so called 'consultation' events. We need sustainable housing to meet the needs of Norfolk, not this vast urban sprawl which only caters for the next 15 years. What is supposed to happen after that?

Report this comment

andy

Saturday, February 25, 2012
As I understand it, the full Council delegated authority to just a few people and this whole charade is no longer debated nor voted upon in a full Council meeting. If that is the case, those delegated powers need to be taken back and this whole thing must have a full Council debate. Democracy must prevail!

Report this comment

andy

Saturday, February 25, 2012
yes mounter gate is a good place to build--especially if they knock down BALTIC HOUSE and force these civil servants to merge with another office.Thus saving tax pounds.

Report this comment

bookworm

Saturday, February 25, 2012
Glad to see two posters agree with me about the neglected resource of the Norwich to GY corridor ,GY has a town centre waiting for customers, a sixth form college and FE, a hospital and the corridor has several large villages suitable for expansion. It has always felt as if there was a bit of dicky dealing with the Broadland scheme designed to meet government targets but using an area with high eye appeal to the purchaser and maximum damage to the local environment. One thing that strikes me-what if these schemes go ahead and the population of owner occupiers does not rise? Will be be like GY where new builds at Bradwell and other villages have attracted buyers whilst the town centre becomes increasingly burdened by rental properties? Is Norwich happy to see its thriving heart land of nice owner occupied redbrick terraces become similarly run down in the hands of landlords and occupied by the jobless and transient ?

Report this comment

Daisy Roots

Saturday, February 25, 2012
I think this will backfire on SNUB. The houses will still get built because the demand is there and the government want it. What could happen now is that houses will get built all over without any structure, and the sprawl these objectors seem to be against will be even more unsightly.

Report this comment

Abraham

Saturday, February 25, 2012
By the way, you could easily get 400 dwellings on brownfield sites just down King St and Mountergate.

Report this comment

oldowl

Friday, February 24, 2012
What a waste of tax payers money. These Councils should get their act together and prove that they have explored all options. I would be interested to know who owns the land for the NDR and new housing schemes, how long they have owned it, and exactly how much it has increased in value. (I've seen Boardwalk Empire you know)

Report this comment

oldowl

Friday, February 24, 2012
Well done Stephen Heard and co

Report this comment

Henrietta Lamb

Friday, February 24, 2012
The judgement is wecome,it reflects our Parish Council(Gt & Lt Plumstead) concerns and shows we were correct in our submissions to BDC.The JCS should now be scrapped and proper consultations commenced.This also should include the NDR and Postwick Hub.

Report this comment

Alfred Townly

Friday, February 24, 2012
all i know is there is not democracy and no public vote.who decided we need these millions of houses?the very idea is out of date already.

Report this comment

bookworm

Friday, February 24, 2012
yes lord horn i am thick.ok?

Report this comment

bookworm

Friday, February 24, 2012
After giving themselves the go ahead for the NDR, discrading environmental concerns, just as in the case of the Saddlebow incinerator, justice Ouselyes comments "Mr Justice Ouseley had likened the council’s case to “wading through treacle” has clearly manifested the quality of planners and their legal back up here in Norfolk. What a farce.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Friday, February 24, 2012
Sorry Christophe 'Naieve'....the same 'powers to be' sold the 2 huge Chines cranes which could have unloaded cargo ships...but hang on!...the same powers to be proposed Norwich as a 'growth-point'?....the really sensible thing to do would be to install the cranes, dual the Acle Straight and most critically, build a brand-new ring road between the port and the dualled Acle straight which would naturally create hundreds of jobs and the NEED for hundreds of houses in the area ( but hang-on! that would not create 'false' and over-inflated housing prices for houses built on the fringes of rural Norwich ?...seen the price of houses in and around Yarmouth recently? 1 2 bedroom terrraced house for £35,000)....here we go again folks...common sense flies out of the window again??????

Report this comment

kingsize

Friday, February 24, 2012
Fantastic news. These idiots who work on the Council should appreciate and respect the area they live in a bit more. There aren't the jobs to sustain growth such as this.

Report this comment

Jane Bradley

Friday, February 24, 2012
If the 30,000 properties were to be built where would we find all the water required? Where would the people work. Why not invest in the dualling of the A47 Acle to Great Yarmouth as this would definately help increase trade for Great Yarmouth which could become GREAT again. Ferry port, shipping terminal, there would be so many opportunities.

Report this comment

Christopher Neave

Friday, February 24, 2012
The real 'Big society at work? I was interested in the fact that the Broads Authority was in favour of commercialurban development close to such a sensitive area. I also find it astonishing that the NDR appears to have leapfrogged over many other far more deserving and long awaited local road improvements which will doubtless still remain on the drawing board for years ahead. It is good to see Norwich have planning strategy but it must always remember that it is a part of Norfolk, NOT a separate entity. There is plenty of room for development within existing areas of Norfolk , without the need for desecration of a national park area such as the Broads. For example Norwich should work in much closer harmony with Great Yarmouth. These two towns have historically been a part of the commercial hub of the county and for far to long have, in recent years, ignored each other. Better rail and road links between the two would provide a huge opportunity for housing development on brown field land in Great Yarmouth with an already existing rail link into the centre of Norwich. In a similar way as modern industry expands in Norwich so there is a great chance to export direct into the Continent form the new harbour facilities at Great Yarmouth.

Report this comment

Nick

Friday, February 24, 2012
OK lets get this into perspective. A group of concerned local residents took on FOUR (if you include County who are culpable as well) councils with all of their professional planning expertise and WON. The Judge made it quite clear that the JCS is UNLAWFUL. He has the powers to quash this next week and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves. Their are officers in these local councils who know that SNUB are right but can't do anything as they need to protect their jobs.

Report this comment

BDC INSIDER

Friday, February 24, 2012
FORGOT TO MENTION; WELL DONE STEPHEN HEARD AND ALL MEMBERS OF SNUB AND THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WHO STOOD-BY WHAT THEY BELIEVED IN.

Report this comment

kingsize

Friday, February 24, 2012
Lord Horn ( or Lord HawHaw as we used to call the Nazi propagandist in 1940's ) you may referr to 'babies and bathwater' but in the 'real' world, we prefer to focus on terms such as 'innapropriate land grabbing','top-down- over- inflated developement numbers' and the mere fact that the JCS was always 'unlawfull' and you and your 'buddies' got it WRONG ( in the old days when you were caught-out, you put your hands up and said it's a fair-cop gov'! but of course, not now....would you care for some 'fullers earth' to fix that nappy rash 'Horn'? ( thought I'd just set that bait out and see what worms are a 'bitin').

Report this comment

kingsize

Friday, February 24, 2012
Whipping of Councillors at local authority level should be banned. Party Councillors don't always go with national policy, so why whip? Unless they just like being subservient!

Report this comment

bedoomed

Friday, February 24, 2012
Can I draw everyone's attention to the voting record of councillors on this issue. The Tories have "whipped" this through council, with only the Lib Dems offering opposition. Tories local to the area of Rackheath have in some cases missed council meetings when this has been discussed whilst offering platitudes and kind words about their "concern", with no evidence of this shown in council votes. Well done to SNuB, but also to Cllrs McGilvray and Buckle, both Lib Dem councillors for Rackheath, who never miss an opportunity to raise this issue at council and have raised many concerns about the Rackheath area over and over again, despite the Tories seeking to simply rubber stamp it and brand all opposition as NIMBYism or political opportunism.

Report this comment

Nich

Friday, February 24, 2012
Can I draw everyone's attention to the voting record of councillors on this issue. The Tories have "whipped" this through council, with only the Lib Dems offering opposition. Tories local to the area of Rackheath have in some cases missed council meetings when this has been discussed whilst offering platitudes and kind words about their "concern", with no evidence of this shown in council votes. Well done to SNuB, but also to Cllrs McGilvray and Buckle, both Lib Dem councillors for Rackheath, who never miss an opportunity to raise this issue at council and have raised many concerns about the Rackheath area over and over again, despite the Tories seeking to simply rubber stamp it and brand all opposition as NIMBYism or political opportunism.

Report this comment

Nich

Friday, February 24, 2012
As for bookworms comment 'scary to think that a few Councillors can decide major issues like this and rubber stamp it with no public vote'. Obviously has no idea how local democracy works or didn't heshe bother to vote in the last local elections???

Report this comment

Lord Horn

Friday, February 24, 2012
Great bit of distorted reporting. The judge only upheld one element of the challenge which might require some more work from the GNDP. From the reaction on here, you've made it sound like the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater which gives those opposed to the idea false hope!

Report this comment

Lord Horn

Friday, February 24, 2012
'Bookworm' been eating radishes again?

Report this comment

Stop Press

Friday, February 24, 2012
Great news for 'local' people...why should 2 or 3 headstrong individuals looking for plaudits have the right to try and 'hood-wink' the rest of our county and then Mr.proctor and the PR machine grind into action, let's face it Mr.P, you got a real good 'bloody-nosing' and a 'red-necking'..if he and the other planners do not do the 'decent' thing and resign, after wasting years of valuable rescources and millions of pounds of our money then I don't know.

Report this comment

kingsize

Friday, February 24, 2012
Cant see anything in the report to say that the JCS wont still go ahead. Judge just says alternatives were not investigated to the same degree. Also there is no doubt that new houses are needed and will be built , its just a question of where.

Report this comment

Abraham

Friday, February 24, 2012
Great news and it clearly demonstrates what a ridiculous ill-thought out plan it was from start to finish. Of course it’s not all over yet but my feeling is that the water situation in the east will have the final say.

Report this comment

John L Norton

Friday, February 24, 2012
scary to think a few councillors can decide major issues like this and rubber stamp it with no public vote.

Report this comment

bookworm

Friday, February 24, 2012
A good result To anyone else a sensible growth plan for the region-Norwich and Eastern Norfolk as a whole would be expansion at in northern GY and Acle to justify funding a much needed Bure Bridge,dualling of the Acle straight and improvements to the rail connection. There is good public transport from both places, potential for a halt at Postwick serving the Broadland business park and a short journey into Norwich. This would also revitalise GY. Expansion to the West of the city,in the Easton direction, again justifying the dualling of the A47 and improving the route into Norwich would also seem more sensible. Norwich does not need more urban sprawl, spreading towards Wroxham always looked illogical, as did spending on the NDR.

Report this comment

Daisy Roots

Friday, February 24, 2012
stupid idea and a waste of money debating it for years. no area should have all these houses imposed upon it.

Report this comment

bookworm

Friday, February 24, 2012
stupid idea and a waste of money debating it for years. no area should have all these houses imposed upon it.

Report this comment

bookworm

Friday, February 24, 2012