Part of a blueprint for where homes should be built in and around Norwich over the next 15 years is set to be re-submitted to the secretary of state.

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

But campaigners are disappointed homes are proposed in the same areas as in a previous version of the joint core strategy - a document which a High Court judge had ruled was flawed.

The strategy outlines where 37,000 homes could be built in Norwich, parts of Broadland and parts of South Norfolk up to 2026.

But, following a legal challenge by Salhouse Stop Norwich Urbanisation (SNUB) campaigner Stephen Heard, Mr Justice Ouseley told the councils behind the strategy they had not properly demonstrated why an area to the north east of Norwich had been chosen for up to 10,000 homes ahead of alternative locations.

He ordered the councils, which together make up the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP), to do more work to show what alternatives they had looked at and why they had been rejected.

The conclusion officers reached was the same as in the original blueprint - that the homes should be to the north east of Norwich.

At a meeting of the GNDP yesterday, members agreed to recommend to the councils which make up the GNDP - Norwich City Council, South Norfolk Council, Broadland District Council and Norfolk County Council - that the document should be lodged with the secretary of state.

The meeting heard how public consultation over the revised part of the blueprint led to 478 organisations and individuals making 99 different representations, including alternative proposals.

But officers said nothing had been said to persuade them to change their proposals and each council will now be asked to agree to submit the document.

After the meeting, Denise Carlo, from the Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group, which had proposed fewer homes and a split between them being to the north east and south west of the city, said she was not surprised at the GNDP’s recommendation.

She said: “The GNDP has shown a complete lack of willingness to listen.”

10 comments

  • The GNDP has shown some staggering incompetence, it was unable to present a plan B showing how intransigent and out of touch their planners are, not just with determining and seeing through a supermarket development brief.

    Report this comment

    ingo wagenknecht

    Friday, December 14, 2012

  • It seems that the GNDP are taking the same approach as Tesco and Asda. If at first you don't succeed, submit exactly the same plan, if necessary again and again, until you get your way! Local democracy? I don't think so.

    Report this comment

    DrJB

    Thursday, December 20, 2012

  • Net immigration quadrupled to nearly 200,000 a year between 1997 and 2009. In 2010 it was 252,000. Over 3 million immigrants have arrived since 1997. Migrants arrive almost every minute; they leave at just over half that rate. We must build a new home every seven minutes for new migrants. Migration Watch UK. 35,000 homes = 100,000 plus rise in the population, the future ain't looking rosy!!!

    Report this comment

    nrg

    Friday, December 14, 2012

  • Everyone with one iota of sense can see it's flawed, but did anyone expect the GNDP to come up with an alternative, when £millions of the taxpayers money have already been wasted on this hair- brained scheme.

    Report this comment

    Old Long Balls

    Friday, December 14, 2012

  • Its all brought up again,and again,and again until the vote goes the way they want it to go !

    Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Friday, December 14, 2012

  • I seem to have the assumptions made on births, deaths, migration, employment opportunities and number of existing homes that will require demolition to arrive at this figure. Are they online somewhere for all to read.

    Report this comment

    jennifer jane

    Tuesday, December 18, 2012

  • Houses around Norwich? Hmm let me think. How about Stevenage or Tunbridge Wells or Docklands in London? They're around Norwich - just a tad further away and in places where they could possibly be useful. When is it going to get through the immensely thick skulls of the Councillors that Norfolk does not have the commercial infrastructure to provide jobs for the thousands of people who will come into Norfolk for the cheap housing. They dont have enough jobs for those already here. I have many new graduate friends who all receive the same advice from me. Clear off down to London - still not easy but at least there are some jobs. Not enough housing though! Joined up thinking would ensure that housing and available jobs go together but I dont think anyone involved in politics in Norfolk is bright enough to work that out.

    Report this comment

    Electra

    Monday, December 17, 2012

  • I don't mind all those houses being built, but I am surprised that a mass burn waste incinerator isn't included in the plan. Great Plumstead would make a great site.

    Report this comment

    Fly Tipper

    Sunday, December 16, 2012

  • TARMAC !! lets do it !!!

    Report this comment

    Albert Cooper

    Saturday, December 15, 2012

  • If they'd changed the plans then it would have made the original plans look rather suspect. It's like asking the same person to do the same mathematical calculation twice - they'll come up with the same answer. It should have been put to a proper independent enquiry. I'm not sure that any project this large can be stopped by anyone as they have the weight of Government behind them. They are only carrying out their legal obligation to meet the house building targets.

    Report this comment

    JanieH

    Friday, December 14, 2012

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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 11°C

min temp: 9°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT