£13m vision for a hundred new homes at Norwich’s scandal-hit Greyhound Opening site

An artist's impression of the £13m housing development which could be built on the former Greyhound Opening site in Norwich. Pic: Norwich City Council. An artist's impression of the £13m housing development which could be built on the former Greyhound Opening site in Norwich. Pic: Norwich City Council.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014
10:58 AM

A £13m vision for more than a hundred new homes at one of the most controversial patches of land in Norwich is unveiled today - nearly six years after the site became mired in scandal.

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

An artist's impression of the £13m housing development which could be built on the former Greyhound Opening site in Norwich. Pic: Norwich City Council.An artist's impression of the £13m housing development which could be built on the former Greyhound Opening site in Norwich. Pic: Norwich City Council.

Norwich City Council has started consultation over plans to build 109 homes on the 1.2 hectare site, off Greyhound Opening and Goldsmith Street, off Dereham Road.

The site made national headlines in 2008, after it emerged city council officers had moved into homes made vacant after elderly council tenants were moved elsewhere.

It led to the sacking of Kristine Reeves, the council’s head of neighbourhood and strategic housing, who was among those who moved into the homes.

The homes were knocked down in 2009, but the site has since stood empty and boarded up.

An artist's impression of the £13m housing development which could be built on the former Greyhound Opening site in Norwich. Pic: Norwich City Council.An artist's impression of the £13m housing development which could be built on the former Greyhound Opening site in Norwich. Pic: Norwich City Council.

A deal for a social housing organisation to buy the land and build new homes fell through, but council leaders hope the authority is finally on the brink of building the new homes itself.

The council has come up with a scheme which City Hall officers say will recreate the terraced streets of Norwich. It is designed as a mixture of 55, one-bedroom flats, 10 two-bedroom flats, 33 two-bedroom houses, six three-bedroom houses and five four-bedroom houses.

Flats would have terraces, while the houses would have their own gardens, backing onto a more communal area.

The council aims to build them to the highest standards of energy efficiency possible, with what are known as Passivhaus features such as extra thick insulation and triple glazed windows and doors.

The Greyhound Opening saga

Greyhound Opening made national headlines in 2008 after it emerged that, contrary to city council policy, council staff had moved into sheltered housing on the site, after elderly people who lived there moved out.

The pensioners who lived there and in nearby Goldsmith Street were being re-homed to make way for new houses.

While the council had agreed officers relocating to Norwich could go into the homes, so elderly people who had yet to move out would not feel isolated, it was against policy for other staff to move in.

It sparked a scandal at City Hall, with calls for an independent inquiry, and led to the sacking of Kristine Reeves, the council’s head of neighbourhood and strategic housing, who was among those who moved into the properties.

The homes were demolished in 2009.

Brenda Arthur, leader of Norwich City Council, acknowledged that, six years after the former tenants moved out, she would have liked to see new homes built much sooner.

She said: “Yes, it is frustrating. I wish we could have started building straight away. However, reduced funding from central government made it more difficult to finance the building of new homes at a time when we need them more than ever.

“We needed to work in partnership to make the site viable at a time when registered housing providers were reliant on cross-subsidy from private sales and the economic downturn meant there was too much risk.

“We are delighted that changes to self-financing regulation mean we are now able to develop sites ourselves. This means we will not only be delivering vital new homes, but looking for opportunities to provide market sale and market rent dwellings to meet demand and to protect frontline council services - all of which is great news for the city.”

At least 60pc of the new development will be council housing, let through the Norwich Home Options scheme. But officers are still considering whether to make the rest available for private sale.

As part of the scheme, the nearby public space which faces homes in Midland Walk will be “enhanced”. Council officers say they want to turn that into more of a pocket park.

Consultation was launched today, with letters sent to about 400 homes in and around the site. A public consultation event will be held at the Russell Street Community Centre from 3pm until 7pm on Thursday, September 11.

Council officers say the plans could change depending on what comes from the consultation. But the aim is to submit a planning application in October. If permission is granted, work, which would take between a year-and-a-half and two years, could start in spring next year.

• What do you think? Write, giving full contact details, to Letters Editor, Prospect House, Rouen Road, Norwich NR1 1RE.

51 comments

  • I have already said in a previous post that Alderman Clarke House (HFE) was formerly a home for the elderly and was administered by Norfolk County Council and it represents about the third if not more of the space of the present Goldsmith Street regeneration site. It should really be made known that the home was emptied of its residents (about 20 or so - I do not know the exact number) by Norfolk County Council who then used a company called Camelot to secure the premises by finding "guardians" from the general population to live in the premises. They lived in the bedsits and the common room-lounge areas for several months...... Furthermore, included in the area of the Goldsmith Street regeneration site is the premises of 14 demolished lock up garages, the entrance of which was from the present day Greyhound Opening. These garages were rented out to the general public for many years by Norwich City Council and were never part of the Alderman Clarke House (HFE) premises; the sheltered housing of Greyhound Opening and Goldsmith Street or the workshops at Haslips Close. I would also like to add that there are also two trees on the Goldsmith Street regeneration site which might have preservation orders on them as they frequently appear in the artists impressions of the various plans of the area....these trees were part of the Greyhound Opening Gardens, Midland Street site, and never an actual part of the sheltered housing or Alderman Clarke House sites. The two catalpa trees are still standing. There was also a very tall eucalyptus tree to the south of Alderman Clarke House which was felled before the entire area was viewed as a place of redevelopment.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Sunday, August 31, 2014

  • @alecto. With regard to your comment about a "very attractive rent", do you know how much rent was actually charged and what they got for their so called rent? The people who moved into some of the empty properties of the former sheltered housing of Goldsmith Street and Greyhound Opening, and the bedsits and the lounge rooms of the Alderman Clarke House HFE (formerly a Norfolk County Council home for the elderly) were acting as "guardians" for the empty properties before the redevelopment of the entire area which, of course, is correctly called the Goldsmith Street redevelopment area. There was no security of tenure for these "guardians" as we know it for private or social rented tenancies....... Because not all the residents of the sheltered housing had been transferred, the "guardians" moved in to give the area a lived in look so as to avoid the empty properties becoming targets for squats, vandalism, and bringing undue distress to the remaining elderly residents before their eventual transfer. It was only sensible to find a scheme to help in this time of transition. While the council had agreed officers to act as "guardians" relocating to Norwich could go into the homes, we all now know that it was against policy for other staff to move in. So Alecto, who are these councillors who moved in?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • @alecto. Please get your facts right. Like so many people, you are getting confused which is why I have to write all these posts. The inhabitants of Greyhound Opening did not leave for councillors to move in. I mentioned in my previous posts that there are six homes in Greyhound Opening still standing - that are facing a small park with well managed lawns, shrubs and trees. Some of the owners of these houses have been resident on the street for well over 30 years. They never moved. Why should they? And who are these councillors (please name names) who moved in? You really need to be more specific and accurate with your statements because you will be pulled up on mistakes.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • where is my message?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • @alecto. Please get your facts right. Like so many people, you are getting confused which is why I have to write all these posts. The inhabitants of Greyhound Opening did not leave for councillors to move in. I mentioned in my previous posts that there are six homes in Greyhound Opening still standing - that are facing a small park with well managed lawns, shrubs and trees. Some of the owners of these houses have been resident on the street for well over 30 years. They never moved. Why should they? And who are these councillors (please name names) who moved in? You really need to be more specific and accurate with your statements because you will be pulled up on mistakes. With regard to your comment about a "very attractive rent", do you know how much rent was actually charged and what they got for their so called rent? The people who moved into some of the empty properties of the former sheltered housing of Goldsmith Street and Greyhound Opening, and the bedsits and the lounge rooms of the Alderman Clarke House HFE (formerly a Norfolk County Council home for the elderly) were acting as "guardians" for the empty properties before the redevelopment of the entire area which, of course, is correctly called the Goldsmith Street redevelopment area. A little bit about "guardians". There are several companies in the country running "guardian" schemes - the concept originated in the Netherlands. "Guardians" look after empty houses, buildings, and commercial premises on behalf of owners. There isn't security of tenure as we know it for private or social rented tenancies – there are not many days notice set in "guardian" contracts. It is usual stated in "guardian" contracts that they cannot bring dependants or pets and severe restrictions relating about parties and activities apply. Applicants are strictly screened. It has been known for castles in the Belgian Ardennes and an amusement park in the Netherlands to be looked after "guardians" for very low rent. Anyway, in this particular case, not all the residents of the sheltered housing had been transferred to their new homes. So to avoid the empty properties becoming targets for squats, vandalism, and bringing undue distress to the remaining elderly residents before their eventual transfer it was only sensible to find a scheme to help in this time of transition. While the council had agreed officers to act as "guardians" relocating to Norwich could go into the homes, we all now know that it was against policy for other staff to move in. So Alecto, who are these councillors who moved in?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • I would agree that the inhabitants of Greyhound Opening were not chucked out in order to provide accommodation for Councillors but they did leave and councillors did move in thereafter and the question at the time was why was it necessary to move people out if it was OK for others to move in. The fact that it was also at a very attractive rent was also something that caused great anger at the time. This was an unpleasant episode that could have been handled so much better. Perhaps the new building site when finished could be opened by ex Cllr Collishaw, ex Lord Mayor. All concerned know why.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    alecto

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • Newman,give us all a break.Please. You have PR 'd enough for the powers that be.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    stormy

    Friday, August 29, 2014

  • @ingo wagenknecht. You have made a sweeping generalisation about Greyhound Opening. First of all there was no scandal of Greyhound Opening (we can debate a definition of the word "scandal" in this context if you like) - Archant have also got it wrong. I would like to remind everybody that the residents of Greyhound Opening were not "turfed out for council employees". People need to be more specific and precise and say which of the buildings and bungalows in the street they are referring to. You might be surprised to learn that there are actually people living in Greyhound Opening today and as I understand it some have been living there for over 30 years. There certainly was some controversy about the occupancy of some of the bungalows of the former sheltered housing in Goldsmith Street and Greyhound Opening, and the houses and the bedsits of the former home of the elderly which was called Alderman Clarke House (HFE) but it is wrong for anyone to refer to the whole area as just Greyhound Opening. Peoplereportersjournalists are implying that the entire street was a scandal which is wrong, ignoring what had happened in Goldsmith Street and the former home for the elderly Alderman Clarke House which was administered by Norfolk County Council who had moved residents out and then gave the empty buildings to Norwich City council. When people are talking about Greyhound Opening, which homes are people referring to? .... Furthermore, what do you (Ingo) mean by "I see City Hall has dispatched the damage limitation scheme"? Where? Gives us more information, please. Do you not like the truth said by an ordinary person like me who has no agenda and who lives in Norwich and pays council tax to Norwich City Council and knows a great deal about the Goldsmith Street redevelopment area and knows the facts? Reporters and journalists, and the many people who write here have their own twisted agenda. I am challenging the neswpapers and the people who make comments here and anywhere else about the Goldsmith Street redevelopment area who are not in possession of the correct facts and who are making false assumptions. If you really want to know exactly what has been going on in the Goldsmith Street redevelopment area since 2007 which includes your beloved Greyhound Opening speak to the actual people involved and the people who know about the subject or read my posts. You might actually learn a great deal more and the truth and the correct facts. Like many people you have been duped and taken in by the many untruths and the distortion of the actual facts regarding the Goldsmith Street redevelopment area. Newspapers are in business to make money and sell their papers and they will do anything to talk up and sensationalise a story. I understand there is now a "Goldsmith Street Consultation" period. Instead of writing your question twice here, why don't you send an emailletter to City Hall and ask if the new homes will get solar panels and if they will be passively heated? Or better still visit City Hall to let them know your comments orand feedback. I do not think you will get an answer on this comments page. Certainly, not from me as I don't know.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • I see City Hall has dispatched the damage limitation scheme. Just as with Norwich Union being remembered, the scandal of Greyhound opening will stick for some time. I believe that some who presided over this sordid affair are still sitting pretty, hence this farce here. Will these houses get solar panels as part of the build, if not why not? and will they be passively heated?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Thursday, August 28, 2014

  • @JonastheLith. You might overlook, from a flat high up, a patch of wasteland which you now euphemistically describe as a "wildlife reserve" but the current residents of Greyhound Opening do not, they live by a small park with lots of mature trees with a nicely grassed area and well tendered shrubs. The "Goldsmith Street area redevelopment" is a big space of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) and not everyone has the same view as you. It is you who should revisit the plans because you will not see a new home being built for your darling foxes! This plot of land is for people to live on. Anyway, the correct historical address for the majority of your "wildlife reserve" is Midland Street. The Alderman Clarke House (a home for the elderly) which was demolished and once owned by the Norfolk County Council (not the City Council) was situated smack bang in the middle of the current site, it occupied at least a third of the site and had an official address of Midland Street NR2 4QL and never Greyhound Opening, the majority of the sheltered housing bungalows and the warden's home were in Goldsmith Street and not Greyhound Opening, there were several light industrial units which now take up a lot of the space with an address of Haslips Close NR2 4PX and not Greyhound Opening. There were only a few bungalows that had just a Greyhound Opening address on the site which were the nicest and probably the reason why they were snapped up by the Norwich City staff. Furthermore, originally in the 1800's "Greyhound Opening" was officially described as "Greyhound Opening, Midland Street". So you could say that a more appropriate name to describe the whole development is the "Midland Street area redevelopment". But it is more accurate these days to call it the Goldsmith Street area redevelopment because that is where the main access points for the building works will be (Goldsmith Street). The current plans will show only one block of flats that might eventually have a new Greyhound Opening address none of the other homes on the plans will.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • Mr Newman. Exactly what position do you hold within the City council?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    stormy

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • Could it be any uglier?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    stormy

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • "Ray Newman", I too have seen the plans and suggest you revisit them. What was the Greyhound Opening area has been a wasteland for the last 6 years, and has developed into an excellent "wildlife reserve" with its own family of foxes. It is not 6 luxury properties with well managed lawns as you write. How do I know this? I live in a 2nd floor flat overlooking the area. If one looks at the plans, and what Greyhound Opening was originally like, it is clear that between 50% and 75% of the proposed new properties could best be described as being in Greyhound Opening - the majority. As for the Council describing the project as "Goldsmith Street" I suggest that this is to avoid using the more controversial yet more accurate Greyhound Opening; nothing more. Finally, comments about the design of the buildings are not "silly", and it is immature to say they are. Good building design is critical in developing good neighbourhoods. If the buildings are ugly history shows that one can end up with ugly neighbourhoods.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    JonastheLith

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • I am only telling people like "milecross" some of the facts about the Goldsmith Street area redevelopment because I know a great deal about the subject. I do not have a twisted agenda. There are some people who make comments on this site that are so predictable and not appropriate. Why do the same people use this site to constantly voice their same untruths. Is it because they think that if they say an untruth often enough it becomes true and everyone else will think it is true as well. I have focused on the subject of the redevelopment of the Goldsmith Street area and nothing else and by the way who or what is a ukip and what has that got to do with the Goldsmith Street area redevelopment? Never heard of this ukip word. What is it ... a game, a foreign currency, a type of sleeping disorder? I did an internet search, apparently a local politician has said "Norwich is a ukip free zone". Shame. I thought I might buy one or a couple from poundsaver or poundstretcher or poundland. It sounds cheap.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Wednesday, August 27, 2014

  • @Milecross - erm... because pig-ignorant racism has been given a pseudo-respectable face in the form of dog-whistling Farago?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    GoneAway

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • @ray newman .if there are silly comments on immigrants can you explain why there is a huge rise in ukip support .Do you actually believe that rubbish you have now posted . Because nobody else does

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    milecross

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Ray thanks for the information. It does not really matter to me exactly where they will be situated. You might think they are acceptable but, to me, and most other comment makers, they are damned ugly.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Steely Dan

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • I have seen the documents relating to this redevelopment site and most of the people posting comments here are as usual talking a load of nonsense and rubbish trying to make political points and making silly comments about immigrants and the designs of the buildings. I would like to inform everyone the correct name for this redevelopment is in fact "the Goldsmith Street area" and Archant and everyone else should refer to this redevelopment by its correct title and nothing else. As I have said I have seen some documents relating to this redevelopment and I quote .. "The site encompasses an area of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) and is located east of Goldsmith Street, North of Midland Street and South of Devonshire Street, Norwich". Nowhere in the literature that I have seen refers to the development as Greyhound Opening or mentions the name Greyhound Opening. These new buildings and the layout looks very similar and probably based on the original submissions made not very long ago by award winning RIBA architects. Some of the new buildings proposed are actually on Exeter and Midland Streets and some on Haslips Close. The actual Greyhound Opening location, which so many here are moaning about, is in fact a tranquuil and quiet cul-de-sac occupied by 6 exclusive private luxury homes with gardens and garages overlooking open spaces of well managed lawns, shrubs and trees! People currently living there are enjoying a fanstactic standard of living and quality of life in a very safe environment.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Ray Newman

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Here is an idea, how about everyone in work and who earns over £350 a week is charged an extra £10 a week rent, so that money could be put towards new social housing. Oh flawed idea not many people even take home half that even in work. Thanks to work placements, zero hour contracts and apprenticeship schemes. The bigger question is why has it taken all these years for the Council to now do something, they could have sold the land years ago. I mean come on NCC you could have even housed your own workers there, for them to claim housing benefit despite them not meeting the criteria to do so.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    che bramley

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • you only have to go back a few years norwich city labour council with 10.000 people desperately waiting for housing decided to house hundreds of refugees instead . Combine this with the greyhound opening scandel and you have a council not fit to run social housing fairly

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    milecross

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Immigration is a failure in this country. The pension argument worked on getting 20-30 year olds to come here work 10 years then go home, 80% wish to stay which will need to be funded in 40 years(Very risky as where are all the jobs going to come). For growth, If we got the quota of 50k a year, none would be wiser and would spur the main growth indicator our govt. use, housing and the knock on purchase(again too many at once causing the problems we have). Our youth are being replaced by NMW foreign workers(will cause long term socialmental problems), and if they have children to settle here, we then give them hundreds a month in tax credits, and £7k in free education etc a year PER CHILD which would alone take 16 years to pay for at £100 a week, it's a very big long term risk the way it is going.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    WTH

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Norfolk John probably sick of such ignorant comments such as yours, might be closer to the truth :)

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    che bramley

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • @ Milecross - You mean via his stint with the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration? He appears to agree with me - those who work hard, contribute most and whinge least should be accelerated up the queue for LA Housing. In my experience, that includes many immigrants, and excludes many locals. I merely speak as I find.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    GoneAway

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Oh dear, someone has a very big chip on their shoulder!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk John

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Norfolk John clearly you sound very bitter and have the mentality of a Tory Numpty, this is not Ireland years ago you know. If you dislike people having private and council homes together, there is a solution. Leave for a deserted Island, where you will not ever see a human being that fits in with what seems to be your Upper Social Class attitude.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    che bramley

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • More than anything else we need to build council houses.It's the only way to burst the bubble in house prices created by the government's Help To Buy Votes scheme.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Peter Watson

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Give it time, the walls will appear as the social divide gets bigger. It may take a few years but it will happen.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk John

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Norfolk John by your locic every council should build a huge wall to divide private homes from council homes. It is your kind of attitude that breeds hate within people . Ironically John it is those people well off enough to purchase Council properties then rent them to people within the Private Sector pushing those who even work and low incomes out of ever renting a private home, with welfare caps this will happen more and more. Clearly you have had a very lucky and sheltered life it seems. People can get on regardless of race or social status, maybe you'll learn that one day. But from your comments that day is a long way off

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    che bramley

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • @goneaway maybe you should read what labour mp frank field has exposed . The figures show 10 cent of social housing goes to immigrants . , Many areas like london the figures reach nearly 50 percent . The figures depend on the area . And also councils releasing figures . But we have yet to see any figures from norwich city labour council . Wonder why

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    milecross

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • @21 - No, just a different country. But I did live in Norfolk for more than 45 years, and the only thing I noticed about immigrants was that they worked a whole lot harder than many of the locals, and whinged a whole lot less.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    GoneAway

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Just local at Bowthorpe - social and private housing do not mix.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk John

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Norfolk John- What is wrong with buying a private house on a council estate if the people are nice?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    21

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • I am sure Norwich City Council will receive a nice Brown Envelope from the lowest bidder, even though the Council will know the work will not be to standard or the company collapses within 6-8 months after building work starts. Not to sure if that has happened before with awarded contracts before :p

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    che bramley

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Norfolk John your comment about private house on a council estate just says one thing about you. Ignorant Snob !!!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    che bramley

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • This has to be one of the most depressing, featureless building projects proposed by planners since Anglia SQ!! It lacks Imagination,sympathy with its Victorian counterparts and is more akin to Army barrack blocks, Its a hideous development that should not even be considered!!. This city is filling up with tasteless ugly buildings that do nothing for the history and heritage of Norwich!!. Before these eyesores are built , hopefully never, planners need to go back to the Drawing board and create something that this city can be proud of, unlike this proposed monstrosity .

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wickobi

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Likely find the reason in the future for the funding etc., is to take on the a few of those in London being forced to move on. In return, if we are good and do as we are told, they then might upgrade the train line...Cynical I know, but that's the way this country has made me now.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    WTH

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • GoneAway- You must be in a different world then!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    21

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • when norwich city council used to operate a housing list where you had to wait your turn local people got housed first . Not any more . This is a labour council who refuses to tell you who it houses and where they come from

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    milecross

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • local housing for local people . Sadly this doesnt happen with norwich city labour council

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    milecross

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • It hasn't even been built yet but there's a cyclist weaving all over it already, cyclists can even ruin an artists impression.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    mr mayhem

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • These look a bit like the new houses and flats on Magpie Road, which are well into the process of becoming a ghetto. Perhaps the council should start by looking after the buildings and tenants they already have.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    mr mayhem

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Personally I think the roof part of the proposals look ugly, better make them gable roofs and that would look less cheesy. I hope that these will be affordable and british people that need them will get them first. The amount of times I have seen immigrants that have come here since the turn of the century and get priority over a british tennant that has been waiting longer than most. Without a gable roof it will look a "dump" and I doubt the public area's and the buildings themeselves will be kept clean and will grow dirty and unloved just like backend parts of the chapelfield flats.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    21

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Totally agree with all the other comments. Surely people living in the area will not fall for this. They look like they are ready for demolition before they have been built. After such a shameful episode you would think the Council might want to do some good in the area.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Steely Dan

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Agree with most comments on these ugly thing. What are the things stuck on the roof in the first picture(If a bedroom, why not go the full hog and be 3 storey) Agree solar panels should be installed as standard along with solar heating, but the perfect roof would be 35 degrees, but not any on these. Passive design, although good has draw backs if not breathable walls, with showers and tumble dryers etc.,

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    WTH

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Hideous design. Looks like 1960s grotesque. What is wrong with the people who design this rubbish.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Disgusted of Norwich South

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • How many will be wheelchair friendly as I have been waiting for one and been told that there are not any available this is discrimination and illegal the council must provide housing for everyone not just able bodied

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Susan Capps-Jenner

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • It looks slum-like already and they are just artists impressions, gawd, help us.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Catton Man

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • First the scandal of turfing out elderly residents in favour of council employees, now this monstrosity. Why are there no solar panels on all new housing? Instead we get hurray henries earning themselves a golden tax subsidy nose, by having their agricultural land downgraded and solar farms installed, outrageous!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Just when you thought that the design of houses on many estates were different and interesting and consisting of many pleasant designs ,up comes this 1960s rubbish. I'm pleased I shan't live near them.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    watchdog

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Just hope the artist's impressions are not accurate, what a dump.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Rob_H

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

  • Why would anyone want to buy a 'private' house on an estate of council houses?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk John

    Tuesday, August 26, 2014

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: 8°C

min temp: 6°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT